! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A Strategic Plan for Economic Development for the Northwest Alabama Economic Development District prepared by the Northwest Alabama Council of Local Governments (NACOLG) Northwest Alabama Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 2012
69
Embed
Northwest Alabama Comprehensive Economic Development ... · Northwest Alabama Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy ... meetings were held in July and August 2012 in the five
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
A Strategic Plan for Economic Development for the Northwest
Alabama Economic Development District
prepared by the Northwest Alabama Council of Local
Governments (NACOLG)
Northwest Alabama Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
2012
Sect
ion
1.0:
Intr
oduc
tion:
Pur
pose
, Pro
cess
and
Org
aniz
atio
n
1
1.0 Introduction: Purpose, Process and Organization
1.1. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy & Purpose
The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) is a five‐year strategy for economic
development in northwest Alabama. It brings together private and public interests to create a guide to
economic development for the five‐county region of northwest Alabama that includes Lauderdale,
Colbert, Franklin, Marion, and Winston Counties. The CEDS is designed as a regional comprehensive
plan. It involves development district partners, including local government representatives, workforce
training providers, non‐profit Chambers of Commerce, local economic development authorities; it
encompasses a broad range of important initiatives in order to define the economic development
landscape of northwest Alabama and direct the Northwest Alabama Council of Local Governments
(NACOLG), which is the regional Planning Organization designated by the Economic Development
Administration of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Through analysis of the region’s unique characteristics, the CEDS provides an opportunity to
analyze the human and physical capital of the region and establish priorities for investment and funding
leading to job creation and retention. The CEDS is the outcome of an on‐going, diverse and inclusive
planning process involving both private and public partners. This process allows the formation of a
strategy representing the widest possible constituency and presenting the viewpoints of laypeople and
professionals as to the direction and character of economic growth in the region. This understanding of
economic development priorities allows for targeted investment into economic development initiatives
with the broadest support and greatest likelihood of success.
In addition to the broad‐based planning components of the CEDS, the document is required to
qualify for federal investments under the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. EDA
investments are intended to promote and complement private sector investment in economic
development in areas suffering from economic dislocation due to changes in global competitiveness,
acute historic economic hardship, or sudden and severe job loss. The document is prepared by a
Planning Organization, which is responsible for appointing a Strategy, submitting a compliant CEDS
document (see 13 CFR 303.7), updating or revising the CEDS, and reporting the CEDS to other entities.
The Planning Organization charged with managing the CEDS process for Region I in Alabama is the
Northwest Alabama Council of Local Governments.
1.2 The Planning Organization, CEDS Committee, and CEDS Content
The Northwest Alabama Council of Local Governments (NACOLG) represents the five counties
and 32 municipalities of northwest Alabama. Founded in 1967, NACOLG houses numerous planning and
governmental service functions, including Aging Services, Transit, Metropolitan and Rural Transportation
Planning, and a staff of grant‐writers and planners. Since 2002, the five‐county NACOLG region has
been an Economic Development District, the regional designation used by the Economic Development
Administration to administer public works assistance, economic adjustment planning aid, and technical
assistance. The NACOLG Board of Directors has also served as the Economic Development District
Board.
2
Regulations require that the Board name a Strategy Committee to oversee the development and
review of the CEDS. This committee is composed of representatives of public and private organizations
including major regional employers, governments, workforce development representatives, labor
groups and minority groups. The broadly representative body must be constituted by a majority of
private sector representatives chosen from the executive and managerial level employees of for‐profit
enterprises. Remaining members represent non‐profit sectors, governments, and higher education.
Regulations also mandate a portion of the content of the CEDS. An acceptable document must
include an overview of the economic geography and economic conditions of the region, to include:
economy, population, geography, workforce development and use, transportation access, resources,
environment and other pertinent data. The document provides an in‐depth analysis of the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in the economic development of the region and identifies the
topmost regional priorities for implementation.
As a Planning Organization with a number of additional functions, NACOLG encourages CEDS
participation on the part of the public, private interests and individuals as a means of identifying
priorities for investment. Although inclusion in the CEDS is a requirement for certain federal funding
opportunities, NACOLG strongly promotes the CEDS plan and planning process as an opportunity for
coordinating additional efforts, such as MPO, RPO and other implementation opportunities. The
incorporation of wide regional projects (both short and long term) into one document and into a process
of continuous review maintains awareness and increases leverage and opportunity for implementing
these projects. The multi‐jurisdictional nature of the CEDS includes in its planning process opportunities
for implementation from a comprehensive variety of sources, including local, state and federal agencies
and actors and representing private and public sources of investment and implementation resources.
1.3 The CEDS Planning Process: Planning for Partnership
A broad understanding of the direction and long‐term goals of economic development activities
is necessary for crafting the strategic building blocks of economic and community development. Under
the planning framework for the Northwest Alabama CEDS, the implementation of one or several
strategies accomplishes an objective; several related objectives realize a particular goal. From this
perspective, the CEDS takes on both short‐ and long‐range significance as the centerpiece economic
planning and as the central economic priority‐setting mechanism for the activities of the region’s
economic development district. Whether resulting from private or public sources or located within a
local, regional or statewide scale, the CEDS’ comprehensive nature is designed to coordinate investment
and implementation opportunities and direct these toward the region’s highest identified priorities to
sustain economic growth.
Foremost, the CEDS process is meant to be a private‐public partnership with the goal of creating
a viable short‐, intermediate‐ and long‐range economic development plan. To this end, the CEDS Strategy Committee met in May нлмн. A second essential eleƳent of the CEDS review process involved public participation, discussion and feedback. To accomplish this, local level public
meetings were held in July and August 2012 in the five counties of the NACOLG region.
3
1.3.1 Plan Development
The process of developing the plan, which is interactive, exploratory, and informative, is the
heart of any plan. The final document plays an important role, encapsulating the discoveries made
along the way, but never fully encompasses the significance of planning in terms of capacity‐building
and networking. To facilitate this process, NACOLG engaged the development community at four
distinct levels: the executive‐level elected officials of the region, represented on the NACOLG/EDD
Board; the Strategy Committee, made up of public‐ and private‐sector representatives; development
partners identified from the regional community; and the general public. Of these groups, the CEDS
Committee, development partners, and the highest elected officials of the various local governments
were specifically targeted to encourage the greatest input and feedback. The NACOLG/EDD Board was
involved through participation in local level public meetings, particularly in the latter discussions related
to specific strategies, and through oversight and adoption of the final CEDS document. Throughout the
process, the general public was kept informed through media coverage and Internet publications found
at the NACOLG website.
The development of the plan began in January 2012 when a strategy was adopted for producing
an economic audit, reviewing existing development efforts (strategies from previous CEDS and the
strategic plans of partners and multi‐jurisdictional agencies), and garnering feedback. Data‐gathering
began for the conduct of the economic audit portion of the plan (See Section 3) as did the development
of the Strategy Committee and partnership structures. Two phases of public meetings and discussions
were agreed upon, with the first encompassing the visioning and goal‐setting portion of the plan and the
latter to provide an opportunity to review and comment upon specific project proposals to be included
as strategies for implementing the plan. The meetings were divided between local‐level public
meetings meant to obtain input and review of the plan at the county level and meetings of the Strategy
Committee, which was represented the region as a whole and incorporated local initiatives into a
broader framework for economic development.
1.3.2 Vision, Goals, and Objectives
The final stage of establishing a framework for economic planning was synthesizing feedback
from various meetings and previous planning actions into an ongoing and adaptive framework to plan
for economic growth. This was accomplished by establishing a planning framework classifying planning
priorities in terms of priorities and time horizons for achievement. These planning activities produced a
framework stating goals, objectives, and strategies representing development priorities with different
time requirements. All planning activities outlined in the CEDS represent methods of achieving an
overall Economic Vision in the following planning framework:
Vision: Statement of the priority or highest accomplishment of the plan.
Goals: What is to be accomplished in categorical terms.
Objectives: What must be done to meet goals, expressed in more specific terms.
4
Strategic Projects, Programs and Activities: Specific work items for implementing the plan, which
are divided into suggested projects and vital projects.
To fill in the layers of this framework, both abstract, value‐oriented positions and concrete,
project‐oriented approaches were considered. The Economic Vision was established, which represented
the highest order economic values for the region, by reference to the longstanding Vision Statement of
the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, which was reviewed and very slightly revised in
the current five‐year plan. From the various feedback gained, the Economic Vision endorsed by the
Board and the CEDS Committee was the following:
Northwest Alabama will continue to be a regional community defined by a distinctive and
recognizable identity, high quality of life, strong leadership and public participation, resilience, and
unity in pursuit of a sustainable, globally and regionally competitive economy.
Next, the assets and weaknesses were examined for insight into the goals of regional
development. These goals were designed to be comprehensive‐ that is, encompassing the broadest
range of priorities for economic and community development necessary for economic growth and
prosperity. From conversations, feedback, and responses it became obvious that the goals of economic
development could not be neatly segregated away from community development objectives. In other
words, to support economic development and to provide the employment, wage and industrial
opportunities needed, the region must also consider the quality and content of its community
development agenda. This meant that regional and local actors must provide for workforce, housing,
education, neighborhood and infrastructure developments that were conducive to producing economic
opportunities.
Three related goals surfaced this process. These were discussed and endorsed by the Strategy
Committee and the EDD Board because of their broad support and repeated iteration in planning
meetings. Although prioritized differently at each of the four local levels, Infrastructure (Transportation
and Community Facilities), Support for Business and Industry (Workforce Development, Recruitment
and Retention), and Community Capacity Development (Planning and Capacity Building) were
categories of activities that seemed to capture the essence of much of the interrelated actions needed
for regional economic development. These categorical statements were expanded into broader
statements and incorporated as development priorities in the CEDS plan. They are described more fully
in Section 4.0.
Next, working from concrete proposals to fill in the gaps in the planning framework, strategic
projects and activities were examined. These were categorized as either suggested projects, which are
important but not directly related to jobs and private investment, or vital projects related directly to
economic development through the creation of jobs and private investment. Examining the ways in
which these strategic projects tended to cluster provided a framework for establishing the middle tier
objectives, or benchmarks, for the CEDS. A summary of Vision, Goals and Objectives is presented below.
A review of strategic projects is presented in Section 7.0 CEDS Plan of Action.
5
Summary
The vision, goals and objectives of the Northwest Alabama Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategy are as follows:
Northwest Alabama will continue to be a regional community defined by a distinctive and
recognizable identity, high quality of life, strong leadership and public participation, resilience, and
unity in pursuit of a sustainable, globally and regionally competitive economy.
Goal I: Infrastructure (Transportation and Community Facilities)‐ Improve the quality of infrastructure
in northwest Alabama’s counties, cities, and communities.
Objective (a): Identify and remedy dangerous transportation patterns throughout the region.
Objective (b): Improve regional and local surface transportation networks to increase access to
goods, services, markets, and employment opportunities.
Objective (c): Identify and complete improvements to the region’s multi‐modal transportation
network to improve local and regional access to goods, services, markets, and employment
opportunities.
Objective (d): Identify and complete improvements to infrastructure systems and community
facilities that allow for a continued high quality of life by municipal and county residents.
Objective (e): Foster sharing of municipal services and public infrastructure where beneficial to
area municipalities and counties.
Objective (f): Seek funding for housing initiatives and neighborhood redevelopment fostering
compact commercial and residential forms.
Goal II: Support for Business and Industry (Workforce Development, Recruitment and Retention) ‐
Establish strategies that coordinate public agencies and private entities in a cooperative effort to
attract and retain business and industry.
Objective (a): Expand access to and understanding of technology in the region, including
communications and workforce/workplace technology required for advanced manufacturing and
other business needs.
Objective (b): Identify opportunities to expand workforce development opportunities by
coordinating agencies and industries/businesses and implementing appropriate
educational/skills development and recruitment programs.
Objective (c): Promote strategies that prepare the region to attract new business and industries,
including appropriate workforce and infrastructure initiatives, as a means of attracting higher‐
skill and higher‐wage employment opportunities.
6
Objective (d): Support the retention and expansion of existing businesses through programs to
attract and enhance financial and human resources.
Goal III: Community Capacity Building (Planning and Capacity Building) ‐ Promote quality of life and
community identity necessary to leverage the economic benefits of physical and human capital.
Objective (a): Explore the application of asset based economic development principles to the
development programs of the region.
Objective (b): Improve resident and visitor recreational and cultural opportunities as a means of
facilitating population growth, retention, and increased economic opportunity.
Objective (c): Initiate an urban and neighborhood planning process that provides master plans
and infrastructure improvement assessments for municipalities and counties within the NACOLG
region.
Objective (d): Promote community resiliency and preparedness for disasters and severe economic
shocks, including the preparation of communities and the continuing recovery efforts of
communities affected by the April 27, 2011 tornadoes.
1.4 Implementation and Performance Measurement
The CEDS is designed to be a results‐oriented plan that guides the regional planning and
development efforts of the Planning Organization in the short term, while establishing practices,
policies, and initiatives that will lead to long‐term, transformative development in northwest Alabama.
Responsibility for implementing the CEDS rests with the Planning Organization in conjunction with
member governments and regional partners. Progress and Performance are defined and measured
separately. Progress will be measured with respect to action items included in Section 6.0 and described
more fully in Section 7.0. Performance will be measured with respect to the objective criteria found in
Section 8.0.
Another significant change to the format of the CEDS has been the separation of strategies into
Vital and Suggested Strategies and the choice to further describe these as Action or Awareness items. In
order to hold the Planning Organization accountable, the Strategy Committee and EDD Board of
Directors chose to identify strategic priorities beyond the authority or direct control of the Planning
Organization and to focus instead on accountability for actions within the scope of the agency’s
resources and authority. As mentioned above, progress will be measured with reference to the Vital
and Suggested Projects while Performance will be measured objectively with reference to the metrics
found in Section 8.0.
1.5 Document Organization
The remainder of the CEDS document describes the background for economic planning in
Northwest Alabama, including a description of the political and geographic environment (Section 2.0) as
well as an economic audit of the region (Section 3.0). Both the background information and the
7
economic audit are designed to provide relevant, timely material to economic developers throughout
the region. The broad array of information, in particular the statistical information of Section 3.0, is
meant to be a foundation for further inquiries undertaken by Planning Organization staff and other
economic developers. These statements do not represent the definitive conclusions of the Planning
Organization or its partners; instead, they are a point of reference and a beginning point for a
continuous process of inquiry designed to provide greater understanding of the economic climate, its
components, and its effects and the residents of Northwest Alabama. Then, in Section 4.0 the planning
framework of the CEDS is reviewed and the goals and objectives of the plan are described in greater
detail before presenting the specific project‐oriented strategies included in the 2012 CEDS. The
collaborative planning framework of the CEDS is described in Section 5.0, which details the agency’s
efforts to develop the CEDS through community partnerships and outreach. Section 6.0 presents the
strategic projects, priorities, and activities of the CEDS; and Section 7.0 presents a detailed plan of
action. Section 8.0 contains a review of specific, objective performance metrics that will be used to
evaluate the Planning Organization’s performance in addition to progress.
8
Sect
ion
2.0:
Bac
kgro
und
9
2.0 Background
This section of the CEDS addresses the existing physical and non‐economic conditions affecting
economic development of the NACOLG Region/Economic Development District (EDD). This section
provides an overview of the major non‐economic characteristics shaping development in Lauderdale,
Colbert, Franklin, Marion and Winston counties, including the geography, transportation and
infrastructure, and outside forces that affect prospective economic development in the region.
2.1 Geography
The NACOLG region consists of Colbert, Lauderdale, Franklin, Winston, and Marion counties and
is diverse in history, geography, and culture. The region is bounded in the north by the State of
Tennessee and to the west by the State of Mississippi. The five counties together have an area of 3,364
square miles, with 109 square miles of surface water and 3,255 square miles of land area. Altogether,
the region makes up 6.4% of the State of Alabama’s total geographic area. The region is located in the
foothills of the Appalachian Mountains and in the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) planning
area. Map 2.1 gives an overview of the geography of the region, its political boundaries, and some of
the key physical characteristics. Map 2.2 indicates the location of the region in the state, Alabama’s ARC
counties, and the counties in the Region 1 Northwest Alabama Workforce Development Council (see
Section 2.5.2).
2.1.1 Geology
One of the most readily visible geographic elements of the Northwest Alabama region is the
Appalachian foothills. The region is located at the convergence of three major geologic formations: the
Highland Rim in the north, the Cumberland Plateau in the southeast and the East Gulf Coastal Plain in
the southwest1. The geologic forces shaping these intersecting features have also created a geologically
and topographically diverse region in Northwest Alabama. Rock formations vary from Mississippian to
Precambrian and establish the topographic contours of the region. Elevations in the region range from
250 to 500 feet above mean sea elevation (MSE) at the point where the Tennessee River exits the region
to above 1000 feet above MSE in portions of Franklin County2. In general, steeper hills and higher
elevations are found in the southern part of the region, in Winston and Marion counties. Specific soil
types, which are the product of geologic forces, vary significantly but are found in three general
concentrations defined by parent material. Limestone valley and upland soils are found in much of
central and eastern Lauderdale County. Small areas of Appalachian Plateau soils are found in Colbert
County. Much of the remaining region is made up of soils from Coastal Plain materials.
1 See University of Alabama Geography Department, http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/contemporarymaps/alabama/physical/basemap6.pdf 2 See University of Alabama Geography Department, http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/contemporarymaps/alabama/physical/topo.pdf
10
Corridor V Corridor V
United States Highway 72
United States Highway 72
WaterlooH
ighway 195
Highway 13
Highway 195
Florence
Killen
Lexington
St. Florian
Rogersville
Anderson
State Route 20
Hamilton
Guin
Winfield
Hackleburg Bear Creek
Brilliant
Gu-Win
Haleyville
Lynn
Arley
Addison
Double Springs
Natural Bridge
Muscle ShoalsSheffield
Tuscumbia
Littleville
Cherokee
Leighton
Russellville
Red Bay
Vina
HodgesPhil Campbell
Twin
State Route 64
State Route 184
Highway 157
State R
oute
247
Natche
z Tra
ce
State Route 243
Military
Stat
e R
oute
241
Stat
e R
oute
233
State Route 19
State Route 17
Corridor X
Corridor X
State R
oute
33
Lakes/River
Corridor X
U.S. HighwaysRoads
State Routes
Natchez Trace
Corridor V
·0 10 205Miles
Northwest AlabamaCouncil of Local Governments
July 2012
Map 2.1 NACOLG Region andEconomic Development District
United States Highway 278
Uni
ted
Stat
es H
ighw
ay 4
3
11
Baldwin
Clarke
Mobile
Lee
Dallas
Pike
Hale
Bibb
Jackson
Wilcox
Clay
Monroe
Perry
Butler
Sumter
Dale
Jefferson
Tuscaloosa
Walker
ShelbyPickens
Barbour
Marion
Marengo
DeKalb
Choctaw
Blount
Coosa
Covington
Chilton
Coffee
Madison
Escambia
Lamar
Cullman
HenryWashington
Macon
Greene
Conecuh
Elmore
Colbert
Russell
Bullock
Fayette St. Clair
Lowndes
Franklin Morgan
Winston
Talladega
Etowah
Lawrence
Marshall
Geneva
Calhoun
Houston
Tallapoosa
Autauga
Lauderdale
Montgomery
Cherokee
Cleburne
Crenshaw
Limestone
Randolph
Chambers
·0 40 8020
Miles
Northwest AlabamaCouncil of Local Governments
July 2012Appalachian Counties
NACOLG Counties
Map 2.2: NACOLG Region, ARC Counties, Region 1 Workforce Development Council
Boundaires
Region 1 Workforce Development Council
2.1.2 Rivers
Northwest Alabama is divided by topography into two major river systems3. In the northwest,
the Tennessee River serves as the boundary between Colbert and Lauderdale Counties and is one of the
region’s most readily apparent features. Colbert, Lauderdale and most of Franklin counties are in the
Tennessee River watershed and the Tennessee River serves as source of freshwater for numerous north
Alabama communities as well as an inter‐state shipping lane for river traffic. Numerous tributaries are
the source of freshwater and recreation throughout the region. The second major river system in
Northwest Alabama, the Sypsey/Warrior basin, is located in Marion and Winston County. The Sypsey
River and its tributaries are largely contained within Winston County and drain much of the Bankhead
National Forest. The Sypsey flows southeast before converging into the Black Warrior River. The Sypsey
River and the surrounding national forest are a vital natural resource for the region.
The region is home to numerous reservoirs and lakes, providing recreation and power to the
area. Pickwick, Wilson, and Wheeler Lakes are reservoirs to power producing TVA dams and are among
the more popular recreational destinations in the region. Lewis Smith Lake, an Alabama Power
Company reservoir located partly in Winston County, is another sizeable recreational lake and source of
power. The Bear Creek Lakes in Franklin and Marion counties are likewise popular for outdoor
recreation. Marion County also is home to a public fishing lake located between Guin and Hamilton
near the future I‐22 corridor.
Much of the region’s fresh water for consumption by business, industry and residences is
supplied through wells and groundwater sources. The region’s various geologic formations, largely karst
formations, transmit precipitation to wellheads areas. The Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) has identified and mapped recharge areas for these wellheads and has begun
encouraging development patterns that are sensitive to the dangers, including health risks and extreme
infrastructure costs, associated with polluting these water sources.
The region’s natural resources and recreational tourism assets were among the greatest strengths
identified by stakeholders. Lakes and access to water for recreation, power, and public water supply
were strengths.
2.2 Climate, Severe Weather, and Environmental Features
2.2.1 Climate and Precipitation
The area has a moderate climate with long summers and mild winters. Normal average
temperatures range from 80.4 Fahrenheit in July to 41.0 Fahrenheit in January, as measured by the
National Weather Service at the Muscle Shoals Regional Airport4. Some variation in the extreme ranges,
up to a normal high of 90.9 in August and down to a normal low of 31.3 in January, are to be expected.
3 See University of Alabama Geography Department, http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/contemporarymaps/alabama/physical/basemap5.pdf 4 See NOAA. Muscle Shoals Alabama Climatology http://www.srh.noaa.gov/hun/?n=muscleshoalsnormalsandextremesdatabase
13
Monthly precipitation is consistent throughout the year, with a normal average monthly rainfall of 4.33
inches, an increase in spring and a decline in summer months. Snows are negligible and inconsistent in
the winter months. Because of the favorable climate the region has a long growing season and few lost
working days due to inclement weather, making it a favorable location for agriculture and industry. The
region’s potential for crop production is limited primarily by soil types, which vary in fertility and
suitability for agricultural production throughout the region.
2.2.2 Water Quality
Based on Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) the five county region of Northwest
Alabama has 20 impaired water bodies and streams totaling approximately 17384 acres and 59 miles,
respectively. Colbert County contains approximately 28 miles of impaired streams, or 45% of the
regional total. Franklin County contains the most impaired water bodies in the region at ~10500 acres,
over 50% of the regional total. Total, the northwest Alabama region made up 8.8% (20/227) of all water
bodies on the 2012 CWA 303(d) list of Impaired Alabama water bodies.
The total mileage of impaired streams and the total acreage of impaired water bodies shown
may be higher than the actual impaired stream mileage and the actual acreage of impaired water bodies
due to the repetition of some water bodies in two or more counties.
2.2.3 Air Quality
The northwest Alabama region has little information available concerning Air Quality. There is
currently one EPA testing site in the region in Muscle Shoals, Colbert County (located at Wilson Dam Rd And 2nd St.). The testing station gathers data for Ozone and PM2.5. According to EPA data, no NW
Alabama counties are currently on nonattainment status. Colbert and Lauderdale counties were last on
the nonattainment list in 1992. The three remaining counties in the region, (Franklin, Marion, Winston),
have never been on the list. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) shows
the Muscle Shoals stations average Ozone between 2009‐2011 to be approximately 65 ppb, and annual
PM2.5 data between 10.3 and 11.3, all of which are well below recommended standards of <75ppb and
<15ug/m3, respectively. Generally, the Northwest Alabama region has good air quality.
2.2.4 Severe Weather
The threat of severe weather is a genuine concern for the region. Severe thunderstorms are
frequent and tornadoes are not uncommon. The destructiveness of these natural hazards places them
among the most significant sources of economic disruption in the region. The April 27, 2011 tornadoes
that struck the State of Alabama had a devastating impact on communities in northwest Alabama (see
sidebar discussions of Hackleburg, Phil Campbell, Haleyville, Marion County, and Franklin County).
Though no more of a threat than in other locations, natural hazards were identified as events
with an extreme potential to disrupt the economic stability of the region. Community resilience to
natural disasters was a primary concern. Activities including mitigation, preparedness, improved
14
response and recovery; business planning; government mitigation efforts and planning were priorities
established for the region.
2.3 Demographic Overview
2.3.1 Total Population Trends
Statewide, population growth in Alabama from 2000 to 2010 was 7.5%, up by 332,636 people to
a total population of 4,779,736 in 2010. By comparison, the five‐county region grew by only 1.7% in the
same period, from 230,260 to 234,101, a total increase of 3,871 people according to Census counts (see
Table 2.1). Growth from 2000 to 2010 was less than 1990 to 200 in the State (9.5%) and region
(10.7%). These disappointing numbers reflect the economic downturn of the decade and the serious
level of distress present in the region, which makes it difficult to attract and retain population. Table 2.1
also presents population forecasts for Alabama, the NACOLG region and each of the 5 counties.
According to these forecasts, produced by the University of Alabama Center for Business and Economic
Research (CBER), the State of Alabama is expected to a 18.5% in population by 2035; meanwhile the
regional trend is predicted to be significantly less at 9.6% growth. Population trends for individual
counties vary, with Lauderdale County expected to grow by a significantly larger number in terms of
total population, while Winston County is expected to experience the largest growth in population
terms of percentage gained. Lauderdale County is predicted to fuel over half of the projected growth
out to 2035, reflecting trends toward urbanization and away from rural Alabama. Marion County is
predicted to lose slightly in terms of population in the coming decades.
Table 2.1 Population 2000‐2010 and Projections 2015‐2035
Census Census Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Change 2010‐
2035
County 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Number Percent
Note: These projections are an interim series where the 2010 total population for the state and each county is controlled to the 2010 Census total, but the age/race/sex projection breakdowns are based on trends between the 1990 and 2000 censuses, adjusted for more recent migration trends. A new series of projections based on the 2000 to 2010 censuses will be released later this spring. Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Center for Business and Economic Research, The University of Alabama, June 2011.
15
2.3.2 Age Profile and Trends
Although total population grew from 2000 to 2010, not all age groups received the same share
of growth and, in fact, some age groups experienced a decline in population. Table 2.2 illustrates the
age distribution of population in the NACOLG region in 2000 and 2010. According to these measures, the
Table 2.2 Population by Age, 2000 and 2010
Number Percent Number Percent Numeric Change
Percent Change
Total population
230230 100 234101 100 3871 1.68
Under 5 years
13979 6.1 13599 5.8 ‐380 ‐2.72
5 to 9 years
15078 6.5 14012 6.0 ‐1066 ‐7.1
10 to 14 years
15545 6.8 14931 6.4 ‐614 ‐3.9
15 to 19 years
15669 6.8 15961 6.8 292 1.9
20 to 24 years
14426 6.3 14916 6.4 490 3.4
25 to 29 years
14896 6.5 13185 5.6 ‐1711 ‐11.5
30 to 34 years
15324 6.7 12906 5.5 ‐2418 ‐15.8
35 to 39 years
17133 7.4 14538 6.2 ‐2595 ‐15.1
40 to 44 years
17121 7.4 15353 6.6 ‐1768 ‐10.3
45 to 49 years
16031 7.0 16930 7.2 899 5.6
50 to 54 years
15422 6.7 17176 7.3 1754 11.4
55 to 59 years
13199 5.7 15761 6.7 2562 19.4
60 to 64 years
11569 5.0 15014 6.4 3445 29.8
65 to 69 years
10019 4.4 12482 5.3 2463 24.6
70 to 74 years
8906 3.9 9965 4.3 1059 11.9
75 to 79 years
7130 3.1 7423 3.2 293 4.1
80 to 84 years
4787 2.1 5372 2.3 585 12.2
85 years and over
3996 1.7 4577 2.0 581 14.5
16
largest growth occurred among individuals age 60 to 64, which grew by 29.8% between 2000 and 2010.
These statistics also indicate a growth in the overall population of individuals aged 65 and older, which
will produce changes in economic climate in future years (see Table 2.2). Meanwhile, between 2000
and 2010 population declined for critical age groups between 25 and 44 years, which represented the
mid‐career worker in the regional economy.
Working age population, aged 15‐65, declined between 2000 and 2010. Table 2.3 shows the
2000 and 2010 working age population in the NACOLG region and each county. These estimates
indicate a decline in the proportion of working age population as a proportion of the total population in
the next two decades. Total working age population, i.e. the absolute number of individuals aged 15‐
64, has declined in each county except for Lauderdale in the decade from 2000 to 2010.
Table 2.3 Population 15 to 64, 2000 and 2010
2000 2010 Percent Change
Region 1 152946 150790 ‐1.41
Colbert 35670 35112 ‐1.56
Lauderdale 57981 60814 4.89
Franklin 22423 20359 ‐9.20
Marion 20441 19654 ‐3.85
Winston 16431 15801 ‐3.83
Source: U.S. Census 2000, U.S. Census 2010, American Factfinder.
An aging population and changing workforce demographics, particularly the loss of working age
population, were identified as potential threats. The declining workforce of a traditional ‘working
age’ indicates lower total earnings and potential declines in overall productivity unless productivity is
replaced through the use of higher value‐added techniques and technology. Without significant gains
in the wages of employment, fewer workers will supply fewer resources for community and economic
development and lower aggregate quality of life. Additionally, an increasing elderly population
indicates changing patterns of demand for services, particularly healthcare related services.
2.3.3 Gender and Race
The distribution of population by gender and race for each county is shown in Table 2. 4. Race
and gender are associated with gaps in income levels and median income.
Same house 1 year ago: 84.23% 84.26% 84.97% 84.56% 84.89% 87.78% 84.39% Moved within same county: 9.41% 9.38% 8.46% 10.87% 7.91% 7.43% 8.97% Moved from different county within same state: 3.32% 3.31% 4.13% 3.30% 4.17% 3.45% 5.36% Moved from different state: 2.43% 2.69% 2.36% 1.14% 2.81% 1.34% 1.29% Moved from abroad: 0.61% 0.35% 0.09% 0.13% 0.23% 0.00% 0.00%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Communities Survey, 2010
higher than the nation, state or other county estimates. Winston County experienced the highest in‐
migration from other parts of the state, likely in response to the presence of Smith Lake as a popular
location for new homes. Movement from a different state was slightly lower in Franklin and Marion
18
Counties than in other geographic areas studied. Movement from abroad was lower in Alabama and
each of the counties of the region than in the nation at large.
2.3.4 Education
A prepared workforce is a critical element for economic development. Educational attainment is
a primary characteristic of workforce readiness. Educational opportunities and workforce education
levels are among the most basic indicators of economic health. These are reviewed by potential new
businesses and provide strong indicators of the overall well‐being of the regional economy. The region
possesses a number of strong educational assets, from public school systems to community colleges and
a university.
Table 2.5 displays information on educational attainment in the United States and the study
areas. This table illustrates the overall performance gaps between the region and the nation, as well as
between different counties within the region. The distribution of population having less than a high
school education is higher across the region than in the nation; the estimate of those possessing a high
school or high school equivalency is higher, however, this figure is offset by a lower number possessing
college education. Underperformance in the arena of higher education, as indicated by estimates of
“some college” or higher, is particularly acute in Marion, Franklin, and Winston Counties.
Education and skills for workforce and to create a higher quality of life were central to the feedback
received in the course of developing the CEDS. Workforce development, in terms of matching skills to
employer needs, was a top priority. Conversations were mixed with regard to the ability of the
region, or a county within the region, to use educational offerings to shape the type of employer
locating in the region. Some observed that this type of skills‐clustering was potentially an important
tool, while others observed that local economies are shaped in large part by externalities and that
concentrating on particular skills could lead to lost opportunities.
19
Table 2.5: Educational Enrollment and Educational Attainment
United States
Alabama Colbert Franklin Lauderdale Marion Winston
Unemployment is a rough measure of the number of individuals lacking jobs in an economy.
Unemployment statistics suffer from limitations due to their collection, and an understanding of these
limitations is important to understanding the usefulness of the statistic as a measure of economic
health. First, unemployment statistics represent only individuals actively seeking employment through
government placement agencies and receiving unemployment compensation. Thus, they do not
represent individuals lacking work who are seeking employment on their own, nor do they represent
individuals who have surpassed allowable periods for unemployment compensation and are no longer
appearing in government unemployment records. Unemployment measures do not account for
discouraged workers, who are individuals who have given up the search for work but are without jobs.
Additionally, unemployment statistics are subject to fluctuations in population‐ that is, as the population
increases or decreases (often as a result of the availability of jobs), unemployment rates change. The
measure of unemployment, however, does not account for any gain or loss in population. Thus, while
an area may experience slight population loss and maintain low unemployment rates, the reason for the
low rate may be a loss of population due to a lack of employment opportunities in the region. Finally,
unemployment statistics do not account for the incidence of underemployment, whereby a worker
9 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics, various sources. Available online Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics, various sources. Available online http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm.
30
receives too few hours or too little compensation relative to skills, training or standard of living.
Therefore, unemployment is a complicated measure and must be viewed in relation to other factors
such as population growth and total employment.
In contrast to meetings held in 2007, the view of unemployment has changed significantly in the
region. In previous periods of higher job creation, unemployment was mentioned less frequently than
underemployment and population lost due to inadequate job opportunities as a source of economic
hardship. In today’s economy, unemployment and the need for quality jobs were cited as paramount.
Jobs of not only sufficient number but also sufficient wages are needed in order to rebound from the
losses of the recent recession.
Table 3.2: Analysis of Unemployment displays unemployment data for each of the geographies
of the five‐county region, the nation, and the State. The data, reported monthly from July 1990 to June
2012, encompass the past two business cycles, peak to peak, the most recent recession and the start of
the current recovery period. Figure 3A presents a monthly graph of the geographies in the study area.
From these figures, it is clear that employment trends deteriorated significantly following the ‘Great
Recession’ and have tracked the recovery since it began in 2009. Beginning at a level significantly higher
than the national average in July 1990, unemployment rates cycled downward to a low that was below
the national average in 2007, spiked in 2008 and began a slow recovery.
The early 1990s, in particular, saw a dislocation of workers in the five‐county region, which was
slow to correct. Even as national unemployment trends improved, the five‐county region continued to
experience higher rates and recovered later than much of the nation. Significant progress was made
through the decade, but the respite was short‐lived, as unemployment rates rose again, in keeping with
national trends, to spike in 2002. From 2002‐2007, rates steadily declined region‐wide. At one point,
unemployment in the local economy was not a significant negative factor; in fact, by the common “rule
of thumb” that 3% unemployment is as low as the indicator is likely to ever go, it appeared that the
region was at or near full employment. This was a significant achievement for the five‐county region
considering the double‐digit unemployment rates of 1990 and the prolonged dislocation of the region.
The Great Recession reversed these gains. Unemployment skyrocketed during the recessionary
period, again reaching double digits in each county of the region. Since 2009, the road to recovery has
been slow and painful for the region. Unemployment in the region and state have tracked with the
national trend, although at higher levels; but the improvement has not been rapid, as in prior recovery
periods. Trends indicate that the slow and arduous task of reducing unemployment will continue to be a
top priority for the foreseeable future.
31
Table 3.2: Analysis of Unemployment A. Unemployment, Selected Points
Jul-90 Mar-91 Mar-01 Nov-01 Dec-07 Jun-09 Jun-12
United States 5.5% 6.8% 4.3% 5.5% 5.0% 9.5% 8.2%Alabama 6.4% 7.1% 4.2% 5.4% 3.4% 10.8% 8.9%
Florence-Muscle Shoals MSA 6.9% 7.4% 5.0% 7.5% 4.1% 10.6% 8.6%Franklin 10.6% 10.8% 6.7% 7.2% 4.2% 12.3% 9.6%Marion 15.7% 11.3% 7.8% 8.2% 5.0% 15.2% 10.7%Winston 9.6% 14.0% 8.5% 8.3% 6.2% 16.9% 11.1%B. Percentage Point Change Unemployment by Business Cycle and Phase
Long Term Jul 1990- Jun 2012
Prior Cycle Peak to Peak (Mar 2001-Dec-2007)
Prior Cycle Recession (Mar 2001-Nov 2001)
Prior Cycle Recovery (Nov 2001-Dec 2007)
Current Cycle Recession (Dec 2007-June 2009)
Current Cycle Recovery (June 2009-Jun 2012*)
United States 2.7% -1.8% 1.2% -0.5% 4.5% -1.3% Alabama 2.5% -3.7% 1.2% -2.0% 7.4% -1.9%
Florence-Muscle Shoals 1.7% -3.3% 2.5% -3.4% 6.5% -2.0% Franklin -1.0% -6.6% 0.5% -3.0% 8.1% -2.7% Marion -5.0% -6.3% 0.4% -3.2% 10.2% -4.5% Winston 1.5% -7.8% -0.2% -2.1% 10.7% -5.8% C. Average Annual Rate of Unemployment Change by Business Cycle
Jul 1990- Jun 2012
Prior Cycle Peak to Peak (Mar 2001-Dec-2007)
Prior Cycle Recession (Mar 2001-Nov 2001)
Prior Cycle Recovery (Nov 2001-Dec 2007)
Current Cycle Recession (Dec 2007-June 2009)
Current Cycle Recovery (June 2009-Jun 2012*)
United States 2.2% -3.9% 41.9% -1.5% 60.0% -0.4% Alabama 1.8% -7.7% 42.9% -6.1% 145.1% -0.6%
Underemployment is the condition of a worker who, despite having skills that would allow him
or her success in a higher paying job, lacks the quality or quantity of work for which he or she is
qualified. Such workers tend to earn lower wages than they believe themselves qualified to earn, work
fewer hours, and have less job security and tenure. Reasons for underemployment vary considerably,
but include factors such as a lack of job opportunities, an unwillingness to commute, and an inability to
relocate from a geographic location due to family or other considerations. According to a study of
underemployment by The University of Alabama, the statewide rate of underemployment was 25.2% in
2006, up slightly from 2004. Based on survey responses, Region I of the Workforce Investment Advisory
Area, made up of the five counties of the Economic Development District (the NACOLG Region), posted
the second lowest statewide rate of underemployment‐ 22.8% or 23,560 underemployed workers, up
from 19.4% in 2004. Although county‐level estimates are much less certain statistically due to lower
response rates, Franklin County reported the lowest rate of underemployment, at 14.3%. Although
dated to a pre‐recession period, the data indicate a significant underemployment issue prior to the
recession, which would reasonably indicate a persistent problem in its aftermath.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1990
1991
1993
1994
1996
1997
1998
2000
2001
2002
2004
2005
2007
2008
2009
2011
Unemploym
ent Rate (%)
Figure 3A
Alabama
Florence‐MuscleShoals MSA
Franklin County
Marion County
Winston County
33
Underem
expressed
earnings a
ployment wa
d concern tha
and populati
as cited as a s
at employme
on loss.
significant an
ent opportuni
nd growing co
ities were lim
oncern throug
mited for skill
ghout the reg
ed workers,
gion. Individ
leading to low
duals
wer
34
3.2 Personal Income, Earnings and Benefits
Personal income and the earnings of workers is another important indicator of economic health.
The wage earned by an employee translates into a standard of living in obvious ways. Also important is
the relationship between earnings, the distribution of earnings, and such quality of life issues as
economic fragmentation and affordable cost‐of‐living. An understanding not only of average wages, but
also of wealth distributions, as well as cost of living and earnings relative to other geographic locations is
necessary in order to understand the effect of earnings on the local economy. Many decisions such as
whether to seek employment in the local economy or elsewhere (or whether to seek employment at
all), the likely skill level needed by employees (assuming higher skills demand higher wages), and the
attractiveness of jobs in the local economy (i.e. who decides to come to the region to work) are strongly
influenced by wages and earnings.
3.2.1 Median Household Income and Income Distribution
Table 3.4 provides information on the median household income and the distribution of income
in the region as reported in the American Communities Survey of the U.S. Census Bureau. Incomes in the
region lagged behind those of the nation and the state and tended to concentrate in the lower ranges.
Improvements to household income and quality of life associated with higher incomes remains a
significant challenge for the region.
Table 3.3: Household Income Household Income ($2010) United
States Alabama Colbert Franklin Lauderdale Marion Winston
Total households 114,235,996 1,821,210 22,165 12,367 37,713 12,744 9,478 Less than $10,000 7.2% 10.3% 9.9% 11.7% 11.0% 10.9% 11.1% $10,000 to $14,999 5.5% 7.2% 8.8% 9.5% 9.3% 8.6% 10.2% $15,000 to $24,999 10.8% 13.3% 13.8% 16.6% 13.7% 20.1% 17.5% $25,000 to $34,999 10.5% 11.7% 12.4% 13.7% 11.1% 13.8% 12.4% $35,000 to $49,999 14.1% 14.7% 15.6% 13.9% 14.9% 12.9% 14.5% $50,000 to $74,999 18.6% 17.7% 18.3% 18.5% 15.8% 18.0% 20.3% $75,000 to $99,999 12.3% 10.6% 11.0% 7.7% 10.8% 7.9% 5.8% $100,000 to $149,999 12.3% 9.4% 7.1% 5.6% 9.4% 5.2% 4.8% $150,000 to $199,999 4.4% 2.8% 1.7% 1.6% 1.8% 1.2% 1.1% $200,000 or more 4.2% 2.3% 1.4% 1.1% 2.1% 1.4% 2.3% Median household income (dollars)
51,914 42,081 39,610 33,942 39,345 32,769 33,685
Mean household income (dollars)
70,883 57,655 50,479 46,038 52,999 45,173 45,163
35
3.2.2 Personal Income
Table 3.4 displays total personal income for the United States, the Southeast, Alabama, the
regional study areas, and regional comparison areas for various components of wealth for 2010 and
change from 2005‐2010. The following statistics from Table 3.4 are referenced in the discussion that
follows:
Gross earnings by place of work is a measure of the total value of all incomes produced in a particular
geographic location‐ regardless of the place of residence of the worker.
Net earnings of residents is a measure of the total earnings of all residents of the geographic area after
withholding for contributions to SSI and commuting.
Commuting adjustment is the difference between earnings of residents working in different locations
and the earnings of non‐residents employed locally; thus it represents the difference in incomes
“brought home” by residents and that “sent out” with non‐resident workers.
Unearned income represents payments from sources other than working‐ either investments, savings
(including pensions) and properties (dividend interest and rent) or social security, government
retirement, unemployment or disability (transfers). This is a particularly important measure of income
since net wealth is usually tied to income producing investments of various types. Therefore, this source
of income is a measure of the approximate net value of the value of investments in various forms‐ from
property to savings.
Per capita personal income is an indicator of community earnings, equalized by total population. Note:
Per capita personal income does not measure the probable earnings or wage per worker.
36
Table 3.4: Derivation of Personal Income United States Colbert Franklin
Description 2010
Change 2005-10 2010
Change 2005-10 2010
Change 2005-10
Income by place of residence (thousands of dollars) Personal income (thousands of dollars) 12353577000 17.92% 1681337 21.95% 809172 9.13% Nonfarm personal income 1/ 12278295000 17.98% 1669089 22.63% 798416 15.92% Farm income 2/ 75282000 7.80% 12248 -30.58% 10756 -79.58%Population (persons) 3/ 309330219 4.67% 54491 0.24% 31723 2.44%Per capita personal income (dollars) 4/ 39937 12.65% 30855 21.65% 25507 6.54%Derivation of personal income Earnings by place of work 8986229000 10.67% 1275437 15.13% 438581 -5.52% Less: Contributions for government social insurance 5/ 985182000 13.08% 158823 22.06% 58833 14.90% Employee and self-employed contributions for government social insurance 512816000 15.37% 83641 22.21% 31186 11.53% Employer contributions for government social insurance 472366000 10.69% 75182 21.89% 27647 18.95% Plus: Adjustment for residence 6/ 845000 14.50% -190210 43.54% 50949 -2.59% Equals: Net earnings by place of residence 8001892000 10.38% 926404 9.61% 430697 -7.44% Plus: Dividends, interest, and rent 7/ 2070501000 20.45% 246059 30.86% 105057 21.11% Plus: Personal current transfer receipts 2281184000 51.22% 508874 47.26% 273418 44.37%Components of earnings by place of work (thousands of dollars) Wage and salary disbursements 6400786000 12.40% 931987 19.83% 329248 12.42% Supplements to wages and salaries 1551791000 14.92% 265897 23.73% 94422 24.44% Employer contributions for employee pension and insurance funds 1079425000 16.88% 190715 24.47% 66775 26.86% Employer contributions for government social insurance 472366000 10.69% 75182 21.89% 27647 18.95% Proprietors' income 8/ 1033652000 -3.82% 77553 -32.65% 14911 -84.38% Farm proprietors' income 49441000 1.35% 10236 -36.63% 8859 -82.76% Nonfarm proprietors' income 984211000 -4.06% 67317 -32.00% 6052 -86.28%Employment (number of jobs) Total employment 173767400 0.70% 29612 2.23% 14143 -5.51% Wage and salary employment 136055000 -2.51% 23618 0.25% 10964 -7.42% Proprietors employment 37712400 14.29% 5994 10.86% 3179 1.76%
37
Table 3.4: Derivation of Personal Income Lauderdale Marion Winston
Description 2010
Change 2005-10 2010
Change 2005-10 2010
Change 2005-10
Income by place of residence (thousands of dollars) Personal income (thousands of dollars) 2879338 22.00% 793972 10.97% 622377 7.48% Nonfarm personal income 1/ 2840095 22.22% 778588 11.29% 620090 13.80% Farm income 2/ 39243 8.17% 15384 -3.20% 2287 -93.31%Population (persons) 3/ 92727 3.77% 30781 0.94% 24395 -0.95%Per capita personal income (dollars) 4/ 31052 17.57% 25794 9.93% 25512 8.51%Derivation of personal income Earnings by place of work 1425984 13.35% 459026 -9.25% 291685 -23.91% Less: Contributions for government social insurance 5/ 177642 18.39% 57884 -3.49% 40856 -7.23% Employee and self-employed contributions for government social insurance 98951 20.39% 32476 1.89% 22678 -3.19% Employer contributions for government social insurance 78691 15.97% 25408 -9.60% 18178 -11.82%
Plus: Adjustment for residence 6/ 413529 26.07% 4593
-178.97% 32730 37.47%
Equals: Net earnings by place of residence 1661871 15.72% 405735 -7.79% 283559 -18.19% Plus: Dividends, interest, and rent 7/ 478231 12.83% 117493 30.17% 99504 39.75% Plus: Personal current transfer receipts 739236 47.81% 270744 46.20% 239314 48.40%Components of earnings by place of work (thousands of dollars) Wage and salary disbursements 975163 14.10% 309436 -10.11% 210103 -16.28% Supplements to wages and salaries 254146 21.03% 86621 -2.08% 60846 -2.36% Employer contributions for employee pension and insurance funds 175455 23.45% 61213 1.42% 42668 2.32% Employer contributions for government social insurance 78691 15.97% 25408 -9.60% 18178 -11.82% Proprietors' income 8/ 196675 1.68% 62969 -13.86% 20736 -70.40% Farm proprietors' income 36878 6.65% 14485 -5.08% 1088 -96.69% Nonfarm proprietors' income 159797 0.59% 48484 -16.18% 19648 -47.18%Employment (number of jobs) Total employment 43577 1.24% 13642 -17.03% 9671 -18.42% Wage and salary employment 32934 -0.61% 9959 -21.89% 7413 -23.59% Proprietors employment 10643 7.42% 3683 -0.24% 2258 4.88%
38
United States: Gross and net earnings in the United States increased by 10.67% and 10.38%, respectively
between 2005 and 2010. Income earned elsewhere and brought into the United States increased by
14.50%. Income from dividends, interest and rent increased by 20.45% and income from transfer
payments went up by 51.22%. Total personal income increased by 17.92%. Per capita income increased
12.65%.
Colbert County: Gross and net earnings in Colbert County increased by 15.13% and 9.61%, respectively
between 2005 and 2010. Income earned elsewhere and brought into Colbert County increased by
43.54%. Income from dividends, interest and rent increased by 30.86% and income from transfer
payments went up by 47.26%. Total personal income increased by 21.95%. Per capita personal income
increased 21.65%.
Franklin County: Gross and net earnings in Franklin County decreased by 5.52% and 7.44%, respectively
between 2005 and 2010. Income earned elsewhere and brought into Franklin County decreased by
2.59%. Income from dividends, interest and rent increased by 21.11% and income from transfer
payments went up by 44.37%. Total personal income increased by 9.13%. Per capita personal income
increased 6.54%.
Lauderdale County: Gross and net earnings in Lauderdale County increased by 13.35% and 15.72%,
respectively between 2005 and 2010. Income earned elsewhere and brought into Lauderdale County
increased by 26.07%. Income from dividends, interest and rent increased by 12.83% and income from
transfer payments went up by 47.81%. Total personal income increased by 22.00%. Per capita personal
income increased 17.57%.
Marion County: Gross and net earnings in Marion County decreased by 9.25% and 7.79%, respectively
between 2005 and 2010. Income earned elsewhere and brought into the United States increased by
178.97%. Income from dividends, interest and rent increased by 30.17% and income from transfer
payments went up by 46.20%. Total personal income increased by 10.97%. Per capita personal income
increased 9.93%.
Winston County: Gross and net earnings in Winston County decreased by 23.91% and 18.19%,
respectively between 2005 and 2010. Income earned elsewhere and brought into the United States
increased by 37.47%. Income from dividends, interest and rent increased by 39.75% and income from
transfer payments went up by 48.40%. Total personal income increased by 7.48%. Per capita personal
income increased 8.51%.
The decline in both gross and net earnings in Franklin, Marion, and Winston counties represents a
particularly alarming trend, signaling less economic opportunity for workers. Lackluster improvements in
personal income and per capita personal income were also experienced in these counties. Elsewhere,
earnings improved in Colbert and Lauderdale counties at a rate higher than the national average, a sign
of reasonably good performance during the recession. Throughout the region, income from interest,
dividends, and rent increased at a steady pace, with Lauderdale County trailing the rest of the region in
the rate of growth. The noteworthy rise in transfer payments national and in the regional economy likely
39
reflects, in part, an increase in payments from sources such as unemployment compensation during the
recessionary period.
3.2.3 Earnings
Table 3.5 shows information on earnings at different points in time and across different points in
the business cycle from 1990 to 2010. Table 3.6 shows the average wage per job at selected years. Table
3.7 and Table 3.8 show average annual change from point to point for earnings and average wages per
job. Information is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)10. All information is adjusted to equal
the value of a dollar in 2010 as shown by the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator11.
Net Earnings is the total of all income earned in a particular geography, reported annually.
Average wage per job are the total earnings from work in the geographic area divided by the total
number of jobs in the geographic area. As an aggregate measure that does not address the distribution
of earnings, total earnings per job does not measure the likely earnings or wage per job.
Table 3.5 Net Earnings,
Selected Years (1000s of
$2010)
1990 Net
Earnings
1991 Net
Earnings
2001 Net
Earnings
2007 Net
Earnings
2009 Net
Earnings
2010 Net
Earnings United States 5455073370 5373992000 7519456170 8.38E+09 7920652920 8001892000Alabama 71013009.2 71855969.6 90727952.5 1.03E+08 99127009.9 98503810Colbert, AL 892317.74 890460.8 881943.21 955038 923257.08 926404Franklin, AL 370502.86 386918.4 510079.77 476563.5 444504.78 430697Lauderdale, AL 1375098.04 1378198.4 1524591.15 1658256 1623311.64 1661871Marion, AL 376162.49 377430.4 412361.19 469311.2 420490.92 405735Winston, AL 289781.74 300801.6 347062.95 347007.2 296667 283559
Table 3.6 Average Wage
per job, Selected
Years ($2010)
1990 Average Wage per
Job
1991 Average Wage per
Job
2001 Average Wage per
Job
2007 Average
Wage per Job
2009 Average Wage per
Job
2010 Average
Wage per Job
United States 44365.22 44030.4 50865.42 52181.85 51096.9 51714Alabama state total 38657.16 38921.6 42503.88 43297.8 43881.42 43955Colbert, AL 44306.77 43080 40410.42 41791.05 41802.66 43072Franklin, AL 27289.47 27995.2 34736.43 31582.95 32509.44 31010Lauderdale, AL 29926.4 29966.4 32175.57 31727.85 32845.02 32723Marion, AL 30515.91 30832 31173.12 33068.7 33658.98 33648Winston, AL 27972.5 29398.4 32540.88 32103.75 31572.06 30161
Other services 0.28% ‐0.20% ‐1.96% 0.68% ‐1.33% 14.05% 1.99%
Unclassified NC NC NC NC NC NC NC
Table 3.12 presents the results of a technique known as shift‐share analysis from 2001 to
201012. This technique indicates changes in the competitiveness of a sector by comparing the rate of
change in employment in that sector, over time, between the county and the nation. By evaluating the
local employment trends in the context of both time and national trends, a clearer picture of the
competitiveness of the local sector emerges. The technique separates components of growth that are
attributable to national and sector‐based trends and presents the remaining changes as the share of
industry growth attributable to the local economy. The local share estimates are presented below. These
figures represent an estimate of the growth or decline of industries due only to local conditions, not the
total growth or decline.
12 Performed with the University of Georgia’s Shift‐share Analysis of Regional Employment, an online tool accessible at http://www.georgiastats.uga.edu/sshare1.html
46
Table 3.12: Shift‐share, competitive percentage
Industry Colbert Franklin Lauderdale Marion Winston
NAICS 81 Other services, except public administration 0.79 0.45 0.73 0.47 0.3
NAICS 99 Unclassified NC NC NC NC NC
Footnotes: (NC) Not Calculable, the data does not exist or it is zero (ND) Not Disclosable
Potential Clusters include the following for each county:
Colbert
Construction (1.81)
Manufacturing (2.38)
Wholesale trade (1.04)
Retail trade (1.24)
Franklin
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting (1.02)
Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction (1.31)
Manufacturing (4.47)
Transportation and warehousing (1.00)
Lauderdale
Construction (1.00)
Manufacturing (1.31)
Wholesale trade (1.01)
51
Retail
Admin
Healt
Accom
Marion
Manu
Winston
Manu
3.4.2 Acce
A
in four rel
and analy
3.5 Summ
Th
2009. The
gradual im
slow prog
First, whil
slow reco
between t
much gre
implicatio
l trade (1.5)
nistrative and
hcare and soc
mmodations a
ufacturing (3.7
ufacturing (4.2
elerate Alaba
labama’s stat
lated categor
ysis of the Sta
mary: Econom
he economic
e Great Reces
mprovement.
gress of the cu
le the regiona
very is espec
the nation ex
ater than in t
ons of these tw
d waste servic
cial assistance
and food serv
72)
24)
ama Targeted
te economic d
ries for target
te of Alabam
mic Developm
developmen
ssion hit the r
Sluggish grow
urrent post‐re
al economy is
ially evident i
xiting a recess
the current re
wo trends, th
ces ( 1.13)
e (1.08)
vices (1.36)
d Sectors
development
ting. The strat
a’s strengths
ment Context
t trajectory o
egional econo
wth has long
ecessionary p
s usually slow
in the regiona
sionary period
ecovery perio
he immediate
t plan, Acceler
tegy was the
and areas of
of the region i
omy hard, ho
been a hallm
period has be
wer than the n
al economy. S
d and the reg
d. While it is
e effects are c
rate Alabama
result of an e
f expertise.
is characteriz
owever, recen
mark of the reg
en remarkab
nation to reco
Second, in pa
gion experien
too soon to p
clear: forecast
a, identified 1
extensive invo
ed by slow re
nt months ha
gional econo
le for two pri
overy, the nat
ast recoveries
cing recovery
properly eval
ts show a lon
11 industry se
olvement pro
ecovery since
ve shown sig
my, however
imary reasons
tionwide tren
s, the lag time
y has usually
uate the
ng period of
ectors
ocess
ns of
r, the
s.
nd of
e
been
52
recovery in order to regain ground that was conquered, in terms of employment and unemployment
rates, prior to the recession. While the Great Recession seemingly wiped out progress that was achieved
over many decades, the current recovery is aided by longstanding efforts to prepare for growth. It is
guided by a comprehensive strategy, which is reviewed in the section that follows.
53
Sect
ion
4.0:
Eco
nom
ic D
evel
opm
ent P
riorit
ies
in N
orth
wes
t Ala
bam
a G
oals
, Obj
ectiv
es a
nd S
trat
egie
s
54
4.0 Economic Development Priorities in Northwest Alabama‐ Goals, Objectives and Strategies
The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) is a five‐year strategy for economic
development in northwest Alabama. It brings together private and public interests to create a guide to
economic development for the five‐county region of northwest Alabama that includes Lauderdale,
Colbert, Franklin, Marion, and Winston Counties. The CEDS is designed as a regional strategic plan. It
involves development district partners, including local government representatives, workforce training
providers, non‐profit Chambers of Commerce, local economic development authorities; it encompasses
a broad range of important initiatives in order to define the economic development landscape of
northwest Alabama and direct the Northwest Alabama Council of Local Governments (NACOLG), which
is the regional Planning Organization designated by the Economic Development Administration of the
U.S. Department of Commerce.
4.1 Vision, goals, and objectives
The vision, goals and objectives of the Northwest Alabama Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategy are as follows:
Northwest Alabama will continue to be a regional community defined by a distinctive and
recognizable identity, high quality of life, strong leadership and public participation, resilience, and
unity in pursuit of a sustainable, globally and regionally competitive economy.
Goal I: Infrastructure (Transportation and Community Facilities)‐ Improve the quality of infrastructure
in northwest Alabama’s counties, cities, and communities.
Objective (a): Identify and remedy dangerous transportation patterns throughout the region.
Objective (b): Improve regional and local surface transportation networks to increase access to
goods, services, markets, and employment opportunities.
Objective (c): Identify and complete improvements to the region’s multi‐modal transportation
network to improve local and regional access to goods, services, markets, and employment
opportunities.
Objective (d): Identify and complete improvements to infrastructure systems and community
facilities that allow for a continued high quality of life by municipal and county residents.
Objective (e): Foster sharing of municipal services and public infrastructure where beneficial to
area municipalities and counties.
Objective (f): Seek funding for housing initiatives and neighborhood redevelopment fostering
compact commercial and residential forms.
55
Goal II: Support for Business and Industry (Workforce Development, Recruitment and Retention) ‐
Establish strategies that coordinate public agencies and private entities in a cooperative effort to
attract and retain business and industry.
Objective (a): Expand access to and understanding of technology in the region, including
communications and workforce/workplace technology required for advanced manufacturing and
other business needs.
Objective (b): Identify opportunities to expand workforce development opportunities by
coordinating agencies and industries/businesses and implementing appropriate
educational/skills development and recruitment programs.
Objective (c): Promote strategies that prepare the region to attract new business and industries,
including appropriate workforce and infrastructure initiatives, as a means of attracting higher‐
skill and higher‐wage employment opportunities.
Objective (d): Support the retention and expansion of existing businesses through programs to
attract and enhance financial and human resources.
Goal III: Community Capacity Building (Planning and Capacity Building) ‐ Promote quality of life and
community identity necessary to leverage the economic benefits of physical and human capital.
Objective (a): Explore the application of asset based economic development principles to the
development programs of the region.
Objective (b): Improve resident and visitor recreational and cultural opportunities as a means of
facilitating population growth, retention, and increased economic opportunity.
Objective (c): Initiate an urban and neighborhood planning process that provides master plans
and infrastructure improvement assessments for municipalities and counties within the NACOLG
region.
Objective (d): Promote community resiliency and preparedness for disasters and severe economic
shocks, including the preparation of communities and the continuing recovery efforts of
communities affected by the April 27, 2011 tornadoes.
4.2 Action Plan: Goals, Strategies, Vital and Suggested Projects
The following section summarizes the action plan of the Comprehensive Economic Development
Strategy (CEDS). The Action Plan presents goals and related strategies, which are divided into vital and
suggested projects. Vital projects are defined as those leading to direct private investment and jobs,
while suggested projects are those that are needed to provide basic support to economic development
activities of the region.
56
Goal Strategy Vital Projects Suggested Projects
Goal I: Infrastructure (Transportation and Community Facilities)‐ Improve the quality of infrastructure in northwest Alabama’s counties, cities, and communities.
Improve community infrastructure
Provide infrastructure to industrial sites
Continue community development programs assisting member governments and utilities with improvement, rehabilitation, and expansion of infrastructure and community facilities
Muscle Shoals Regional Airport Master Plan Implementation
Port of Florence Infrastructure
Upgrade equipment for containerization
Acquire property for expansion
Explore cooperative agreement for regional port authority Implement the FLCPA Master Development Plan
U.S. Highway 43 Corridor Improvements
Widen from Killen to Tennessee State line
Improve State Route 133 from U.S. 157 to Avalon Avenue
Connect 157 to U.S. 43 along 3 Mile Lane Widen from Highway 13 in Phil Campbell to Hackleburg
Widen south of Hackleburg to Hamilton, replacing North Fork Creek bridge
Complete four lane section from Hamilton to future I‐22
Complete widening from future I‐22 to Guin
Corridor study for access management, streetscaping and land use
57
Interstate 22 Improvements
Complete connection to I‐65 in Birmingham
Complete Welcome Center upon entering Alabama Plan for development of interchanges
Light exits along I‐22 Update signage
Highway 13 Corridor Improvements from Phil Campbell to I‐22
Haleyville Bypass I‐22 north to Winston County Cooperative District
Alabama Highway 24 Improvements
Complete Russellville to Mississippi Line Connection
Corridor study for access management, streetscaping and land use
Future Interstate Connections
East to west connection to Interstate 65
North to south Interstate connection to I‐40 and I‐22
Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program
Center turn lane on River Road
Hermitage Drive Bridge replacement
St. Florian Industrial Access Road
Cox Boulevard Improvements
Second Street resurfacing and widening of Jackson Highway intersection
Widen Chisholm Road
Resurface Ford Road Bridge rail retrofit on U.S. 72 over Royal Avenue
Resurface Highway 157 from Crunk Road to CR‐272
Resurface US‐72 from Woodmont Drive to SR‐13
Light intersection of SR‐20 and SR‐157
58
Bridge rail retrofit on U.S. 72 East over Dry Creek
Intersection improvements at SR‐20/SR‐157
Remove bridge overpass and reconstruct lanes/city streets over Ashe Street
Widen Avalon Avenue from Montgomery Avenue to Muscle Shoals City Limits
Second Street intersection improvements from Dover Avenue to Montgomery Avenue
Improvements to Webster Street between Avalon Avenue and Second Street
Widen Avalon Avenue from Wilson Dam Road to Webster Street
Landscaping Singing River Bridge approaches
Roots of American Music Trail signage and kiosks
Transit Program investments
Safety program investments
Rural Planning Organization Work Program
Rankin‐Fite Airport Improvements
Highway 41 through Bankhead National Forest
Improve U.S. 278 from Mississippi to Cullman
59
Promote brownfields redevelopment strategies
Sheffield Brownfields Strategy
Improve industrial site infrastructure
Barton Riverfront Industrial Park
Colbert County Industrial Park
Littleville Industrial Park
Florence‐Lauderdale County Industrial Park
Rogersville Industrial Park
Franklin County Mike Green Industrial Park
Russellville Industrial Park
Phil Campbell Industrial Park
Vina Industrial Park
Red Bay Industrial Site
Hamilton Fulton Bridge Industrial Park
Guin Industrial Park
Brillaint Black Creek Industrial Park
Winfield Industrial Park
Haleyville North Industrial Park Winston County Cooperative Industrial Park
Regional branding and promotion strategy
60
Goal II: Support for Business and Industry (Workforce Development, Recruitment and Retention) ‐ Establish strategies that coordinate public agencies and private entities in a cooperative effort to attract and retain business and industry.
Provide business lending opportunities
Administer State and EDA Revolving Loan Funds Facilitate CDBG short term loans for business expansion
Support workforce development initiatives
Administer Region 1 Workforce Development Council
Develop and Implement Revitalization Plans
Sheffield Redevelopment Plan
Hamilton Downtown Revitalization Plan
Cherokee Comprehensive Plan
Killen Master Plan
Red Bay Downtown Revitalization Plan
Russellville Neighborhood Revitalization Plan
TVA Comprehensive Master Plan Hodges Equestrian Trails Plan and Hodges Economic Development Study
Implement Long Term Community Recovery Plans in Hackleburg and Phil Campbell
Hackleburg Sewer System Improvements
Phil Campbell Industrial Park Infrastructure
Goal III: Community Capacity Building (Planning and Capacity Building) ‐ Promote quality of life and community identity necessary to leverage the economic benefits of physical and human capital.
Plan and develop heritage and recreational tourism
Roots of American Music Trail signage and kiosks
Develop feasibility study for Marion County Civic Center
Explore regional tourism concepts
Develop energy and environmental initiatives to generate cost
Expand recycling programs
Conduct energy audits Explore weatherization
61
savings and improve community character
and energy efficiency programs
Develop and implement Hazard Mitigation Plans and Community Resiliency Plans
Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan for Colbert, Franklin, Marion, and Winston Counties
Florence‐Lauderdale Hazard Mitigation Plan
Resiliency plan template
62
Sect
ion
5.0:
Impl
emen
tatio
n an
d Pe
rfor
man
ce
63
5.0 Implementation and Performance
As stated in the Introduction, the CEDS is intended to be comprehensive, participatory, and
effective, which means not only should it identify elements necessary for economic development in the
region, but it should also identify the means available for implementing planned initiatives and for
measuring the success of the plan. Implementing a comprehensive plan requires a similarly
comprehensive approach, therefore, the CEDS includes information from a variety of sources‐ not simply
those available through the Economic Development Administration, although these are an important
resource. The CEDS should be closely allied with the comprehensive range of economic development
activities of the EDD Planning Organization (NACOLG) and should be introduced and distributed to
agencies as well. By promoting the CEDS in the full range of activities undertaken by the Planning
Organization and interacting with public and private partners for implementation and performance
review, NACOLG strengthens the role of the CEDS and the EDD behind a consolidated, comprehensive
system of prioritization for economic development.
Also, the CEDS includes suggestions for monitoring the success of implementation efforts by
including recommendations for follow‐up activities designed to increase regional understanding of
which projects are, or may develop as, priorities. Additionally, a key characteristic of the CEDS
implementation recommendations is increased communication between economic developers
throughout the region, including communication between stakeholders for individual projects as well as
communication regarding regional development activities and successes.
Throughout the CEDS process there was widespread recognition that community development‐ that
is, the development of sustainable policies for how communities will grow and expand in the physical
environment, are integral to economic development; and also community development proceeds
alongside and interdependently with economic development so that any attempt to artificially
separate community development programs from the economic development context, or vice versa,
would be detrimental to both.
5.1 Implementation
Implementation of the CEDS will require a variety of resources and commitments from multi‐
jurisdictional sources. The tools for implementation are disbursed widely among local, regional, state,
and federal entities, each possessing different areas of expertise, resources, and capacity for specific
projects. The following section provides an overview of the tools available for implementing the CEDS
and offers recommendations for utilizing these tools with respect to many of the objectives and
strategies contained in the plan.
5.1.1 Local Implementation Techniques
Effective implementation begins and ends in local communities. Identifying and capitalizing
upon local community capacity is therefore necessary to economic development. Positive and negative
externalities affect development opportunities—for example, changes in fiscal policy leading to greater
competition for grants or increased international labor competition damaging heretofore stable
64
industries. These events establish a framework of challenges and opportunities, however, it is local
activity that overcomes or succumbs to these challenges. Outside assistance may come; or it may not.
But with consistent commitment to a community‐driven development program, communities are more
likely to help themselves and, not coincidentally, are more likely to demonstrate the resolve and efficacy
necessary for outside recognition. To a large extent, successful economic development requires an
understanding of the tools, or assets, available for implementation, which begin locally with connections
among individuals having shared goals and priorities and then grow to encompass others in a network
that connects various capacities to an effective, motivated and mobilized local constituency.
5.1.2 Implementation Techniques Available to the Planning Organization
A number of regional planning initiatives were identified and discussed as part of the
background for the CEDS plan. These agencies and organizations possess resources and capacities that
can be utilized to effectively implement economic development projects. The Northwest Alabama
Council of Local Governments is involved in many of these activities and will continue to endorse CEDS
planning priorities in the agency’s interactions through these forums. In this way, the agencies activities
and network of contacts and partners will be leveraged to implement the goals, objectives, and
strategies produced of the comprehensive economic plan.
Agency implementation activities take on a variety of forms. Foremost, the agency possesses
expertise available to assist local governments identifying local capacity and developing networks
among and between local actors and between local and regional, state, and federal actors. NACOLG is
heavily involved in workforce development as a coordinator for the Region I Workforce Development
Council. The Government Services Department offers assistance identifying and completing grant
applications for a variety of programs, including Community Development Block Grants (CDBG),
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), Economic Development Administration (EDA), as well as
Transportation Enhancement Grants, in conjunction with the Transportation Planning Department.
Additionally, NACOLG and the Government Services Department administer and operate the Revolving
Loan Fund, which makes gap financing available to spur private investments. The Community and
Regional Planning Department offers services and technical assistance for community planning and the
development of programs for public involvement and implementation through both public and private
resources. Finally, the Transportation Planning Department offers planning services through the
Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Rural Planning Organization. Each of these activities will
carry forward the CEDS plan by endorsing and designing program elements to meet the identified needs
of the region.
5.2 Performance Measures
Performance will be measured against two distinct benchmarks. First, progress will be reported
by activity toward implementing the vital and suggested projects of the CEDS. These targeted activities
are necessary for the achievement of the goals of the CEDS and are targets to be tracked and measured
in order to judge success. Progress reporting will reflect the following format:
65
Project Title
Type Timeline Level of Progress Description
Vital or Suggested Action or awareness
0 to 5 years6 to 10 years 10 to 15 years 15 or more years
NegativeNo Satisfactory Satisfactory Complete
In addition, performance indicators will provide benchmarks for successful economic
development. As progress is made toward implementing the plan, performance will be measured
against objective measures of economic conditions in the region. The following performance indicators
will be used:
Number of jobs created through the implementation of the CEDS;
Number and types of investment undertaken in the region;
Number of jobs retained in the region;
Amount of private sector investment in the region through implementation of the CEDS;
Changes in the economic environment of the region, including the following benchmark
indicators:
o CEDS Indicators: Economy
Personal Income
Per Capita Personal Income
Total Average Compensation per Job
o CEDS Indicators: Population
Population, Historical and Projected
Population by Age
Migration
o CEDS Indicators: Geography
Total Land Area
Land Area without Natural Constraints to Development