a step in the right direction

A Footprint Expansion Plan for the Greater Richmond Partnership

A plan prepared by Grace Festa for the

Greater Richmond Partnership

Virginia Commonwealth University’s

L. Douglas Wilder School of Government

and Public Affairs, Master of Urban and

Regional Planning Program

A Step in the Right Direction

Studio II

Spring 2010

A Footprint Expansion Plan for the

Greater Richmond Partnership:

A Step in the Right Direction

Prepared by Grace Festa for the Greater Richmond Partnership

Virginia Commonwealth University’s L. Douglas Wilder School of

Government and Public Affairs

Master of Urban and Regional Planning Program

Studio II

Spring 2010

Panel Members:

Dr. Morton B. Gulak, Associate Professor, Master of Urban and Regional Planning Program

Dr. John Accordino, Associate Professor, Master of Urban and Regional Planning Program

Greg H. Wingfield, President and CEO of the Greater Richmond Partnership

Acknowledgements

The creation of this plan would not have been possible without the time, support, and

guidance of many individuals who I would like to recognize.

I would like to thank Greg Wingfield and the staff at the Greater Richmond Partnership

for their support and guidance in this planning process, as well as for the time they

dedicated to providing interviews, contact information, and resources.

I would also like to thank the many individuals from both public- and private- sector

organizations who took time from their busy days to share with me their opinions and

ideas, as well as those who generously shared information about their own

organizations with me.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the time and commitment dedicated by my

professors, John Accordino and Morton Gulak, and would like to thank them for their

guidance.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... i

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Section I: Expanding the Footprint of Economic Development in Greater Richmond ........... 4

The Greater Richmond Region ............................................................................................................................... 4

The Greater Richmond Partnership ..................................................................................................................... 5

Expanding the Footprint .............................................................................................................................................. 6

Roadblocks to Footprint Expansion ..................................................................................................................15

Section II: The Prospective Partners – An Analysis of their Economic-Development

Needs and Capabilities ..................................................................................................................................................31

Economic-Development Needs ..............................................................................................................................31

Analysis of the Economic-Development Capacity of Prospective Partners ............................34

Summary .............................................................................................................................................................................51

Section III: Funding Structures ..................................................................................................................................52

The Public-Private Funding Balance ..................................................................................................................52

Funding Structures for the Public Sector .....................................................................................................54

Equal Contribution Structure .............................................................................................................................55

Five-Partner Structure ............................................................................................................................................57

Two-Tiered Structure ..............................................................................................................................................59

Private-Sector Funding Structure....................................................................................................................61

Pay-Per-Service Structure ....................................................................................................................................62

Headcount Structure ..............................................................................................................................................64

Section IV: The Plan ........................................................................................................................................................70

Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................................................70

Implementation ................................................................................................................................................................85

Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................................................................87

Sources .....................................................................................................................................................................................89

Tables

Table 1: Available Properties in Charles City County ...............................................................................42

Table 2: Available Properties in Goochland County...................................................................................43

Table 3: Available Properties in New Kent County .....................................................................................43

Table 4: Available Properties in Powhatan County .....................................................................................44

Table 5: The Report Card ............................................................................................................................................48

Table 6: Equal Contribution Example ...................................................................................................................56

Table 7: Five-Partner Example ...................................................................................................................................58

Table 8: Two-Tiered Example ....................................................................................................................................60

Table 9: Simple Headcount Example ....................................................................................................................65

Table 10: Headcount with Maximum Contribution Example ..................................................................67

Table 11: Pay-to-Play Headcount Example .......................................................................................................68

Table 12: Implementation Timetable .....................................................................................................................85

Charts

Chart 1: Representation of Virginia Cities and Counties in Regional Economic

Development Organizations .........................................................................................................................................10

Chart 2: 2009 Population .............................................................................................................................................17

Chart 3: County Revenue for 2009-2010 Fiscal Year ...............................................................................18

Figures

Figure 1: The Richmond-Petersburg MSA ............................................................................................................ 4

Figure 2: GRP's Current Footprint ............................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 3: Virginia's Regional Economic Development Organizations ................................................. 9

Figure 4: The Richmond MSA and the Recommended GRP Footprint ...........................................11

Figure 5: Residency of Workers Employed in Goochland County ....................................................27

A Step in the Right Direction A Footprint Expansion Plan for the Greater Richmond Partnership

i

Executive Summary

The Greater Richmond Partnership (GRP) is the Richmond region’s economic-

development organization. Its primary responsibilities are the coordination and

implementation of regional business-attraction and business-retention and expansion

efforts. GRP represents the City of Richmond and the counties of Chesterfield, Hanover,

and Henrico, which make up the organization’s footprint. This footprint was originated

in 1978 by GRP’s predecessor organization and has remained unchanged since that

time, despite strong regional growth over the past 30 years.

Because development patterns in the Richmond region have expanded beyond GRP’s

current footprint, this plan recommends that the counties of Charles City, Goochland,

New Kent, and Powhatan be included as public-sector partners of GRP. Expanding to

match this prospective footprint would have many benefits, including the investment of

increased resources in regional economic development, an increase in the number and

variety of real-estate products available to prospects, the opportunity for GRP to take

a stronger leadership role in the creation and implementation of a comprehensive

regional economic-development strategy, and the possibility of further collaboration with

several other regional organizations that share the same footprint.

Despite the advantages of expanding GRP’s footprint, there are also many issues

hindering footprint expansion. GRP’s funding structure represents a major hurdle to new

members, as it requires equal payment by each of its public-sector partners; smaller

jurisdictions are simply unable to afford the high annual contributions currently made

by the region’s larger localities. However, many of the current public-sector partners

oppose changes to the funding structure. Also, a lack of regional cooperation and

regional identity supports the current fragmented regional economic-development

system, and tensions between local governments further discourage collaboration

between the current and prospective partners.


ii

In addition to the issues mentioned above, there are also concerns about whether the

economic-development needs of the prospective partners align with those of the

current partners, and whether their economic-development capabilities will allow them

to fully participate in the regional economic-development process. The economic-

development needs of the prospective partners are determined to be compatible with

GRP’s economic-development strategy based on the fact that they are members of the

Richmond MSA and share the same labor force and economic base as the current

partners. Also, interviews with staff from other regional economic-development

organizations throughout Virginia confirm that there are very few problems in combining

urban and rural localities into a single organization; in all cases, the rural localities are

considered assets to their respective organization. The economic-development

capabilities of the prospective partners are analyzed on the following criteria: location,

organizational capacity, real-estate product, and planning and land use. Based on this

analysis, some prospective partners are ready to join GRP, while others have some

work to do before their inclusion would be a mutually beneficial arrangement.

It will not be possible for smaller localities to join GRP under its current funding

structure, so several different types of changes to the current model are considered.

First, the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce and the Kansas City Area Development

Council provide examples of regional economic-development organizations that are able

to raise at least 80% of their budgetary needs from the private sector. With some

changes to GRP’s fundraising strategies, it may be possible to move from a 50-50

public-private funding balance to a 40-60 balance in order to lessen the funding

burden on the public sector and make it easier for smaller localities to afford annual

contributions. Second, there exist a wide variety of different funding structures that

could be adopted by a regional organization. The following seven are presented and

their strengths and weaknesses are analyzed: the equal contribution structure, the five-

partner structure, the two-tiered structure, the private-sector funding structure, the pay-

per-service structure, and the headcount structure. Most of these structures are found


iii

to have critical weaknesses which make them inappropriate for GRP. However, a

modified headcount structure with a maximum-contribution cap provides an acceptable

balance between lowering the annual contributions of the current partners, while

providing the prospective partners with affordable payments. The pay-per-service

structure is determined to be a poor match as a stand-alone system, but potentially

useful as an addition to the headcount method.

Because of the current political environment, as well as the current economic-

development capabilities of some of the prospective partners, it is unlikely that GRP will

find it possible to extend membership to the prospective partners immediately.

Therefore, in addition to a new funding structure, incremental changes are being

recommended to aid in the development of the prospective partners and to soften

views against footprint expansion. The following goals and objectives provide a path

toward footprint expansion:

Goal 1: Include the prospective partners in the regional economic-development

process.

Open lines of communication.

Continue to invite prospective partners to social and informational functions.

Include prospective partners in strategy-planning meetings.

Goal 2: Support the development of the prospective partners as they build their

economic-development capabilities.

Adopt a set of economic-development capability standards.

Provide basic guidance, research support, and expertise to prospective partners.

Encourage joint real-estate development.

Goal 3: Improve attitudes toward regionalism.

Contract a university study on the subject.

Create a regional economic-development guide for local elected officials and

policy makers in Greater Richmond.


iv

Goal 4: Provide board members with information supporting the expansion of the

footprint.

Provide bard members with studies or commentary related to the footprint or

regional cooperation.

Poll private sector investors regarding their opinions on footprint expansion and

provide board members with the results.

Goal 5: Raise a higher percentage of funding from the private sector.

Modify the bylaws to allow an increase in the percentage of funding raised from

the private sector.

Manage the capital fundraising campaign in-house.

Hire an Investment Manager.

Partner with appropriate organizations to influence the development of a Greater

Richmond brand.

Goal 6: Allow prospective partners to participate in the Business First Greater

Richmond program.

Continue efforts to adopt a regional strategy within the Business First Greater

Richmond program.

Assess the interest of prospective partners in participating in Business First.

Partner with the Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce to offer Business First

services to the prospective partners through a contract.

Goal 7: Modify policies and funding structure to allow the prospective partners to

join GRP as full members.

Adopt a headcount funding system which employs a maximum-contribution cap.

Adopt a pay-per-service system designed to overlap with the main headcount

structure.

The biggest challenge to footprint expansion is not finding an appropriate funding

structure. Rather, it is the lack of regional cohesion that exists in Greater Richmond.


v

However, with some effort, it should be possible to shift attitudes toward a more

regional-oriented outlook, making the necessary expansion of the Greater Richmond

Partnership footprint possible.


1

Introduction

This plan, which fulfils graduation requirements for Virginia Commonwealth University’s

Masters in Urban and Regional Planning degree, was completed at the request of the

Greater Richmond Partnership.

The Greater Richmond Partnership (GRP) is a public-private, not-for-profit organization

charged with growing Greater Richmond’s regional economy. Its services include

business-attraction, talent-retention, and business-retention and expansion services,

which are administered by GRP staff. Small-business development, entrepreneurship

assistance, and talent and workforce development efforts are also supported. In

addition to about 120 private-sector investors, GRP represents four public-sector

partners: the City of Richmond and the counties of Chesterfield, Hanover, and Henrico.

The Greater Richmond Partnership’s four public-sector partners make up the

organization’s footprint, which originated in 1978 from the Metropolitan Economic

Development Council (MEDC, GRP’s predecessor organization). When GRP was formed in

1994, it adopted the same footprint as MEDC and has not changed that footprint

since. Thus, the footprint of regional economic development in Greater Richmond has

not been altered since 1978.

What has changed, however, is the size and make-up of the Richmond region. Many

Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern metropolitan areas have experienced tremendous growth

over the past 30 years, and Greater Richmond is no exception. Cows have been

replaced with subdivisions and areas that were once farmland or forest are now

bustling business and shopping destinations. Development, which has spread across

Greater Richmond without regard for political boundaries, has long ago superseded

GRP’s current footprint. With only four public partners, it is now inaccurate to describe

the Greater Richmond Partnership as a regional economic-development organization

representing Greater Richmond.


2

Along with changes in development patterns, there have been several recent events

that make the discussion of GRP’s footprint particularly timely. The current challenging

economic conditions have created budgetary constraints for many local governments,

making them more receptive to changes that result in a more efficient use of

resources, including projects involving regional resource sharing. Many organizations are

becoming more regionally focused as well. The Greater Richmond Chamber of

Commerce recently announced an expansion of its official service area. A restructuring

of both the regional and City of Richmond Workforce Investment Boards have created

a single regional workforce organization which is now developing a region-wide

workforce plan. In addition, new leadership within the City of Richmond’s Department of

Community Development as well as the Richmond Regional Planning District

Commission has the potential to make these organizations more effective at carrying

out their respective missions and more active within the region. Staff at the Greater

Richmond Partnership is open to changes as well, and has recently begun a process of

self-evaluation with the contracting of a university-conducted study focusing on

economic-development best practices. With the combination of all of these events, a

reevaluation of GRP’s footprint is an excellent next step.

Considering regional growth and recent organizational developments, the purpose of

this plan is to provide the Greater Richmond Partnership with a strategy to expand its

footprint to include a larger percentage of the Greater Richmond metropolitan area. In

particular, the plan recommends incorporating the counties of Charles City, Goochland,

New Kent, and Powhatan. Economic development is a cutthroat activity and the

Richmond region must compete on a daily basis with other metropolitan areas such as

Charlotte, Nashville, Louisville, and Raleigh/Durham to attract and retain important

employers. By expanding the footprint to represent a larger percentage of Greater

Richmond, GRP will be able to leverage a greater percentage of the region’s resources

in order to meet and exceed regional economic-development goals. Though the

proposed expansion would still not incorporate the entire Richmond-Petersburg MSA


3

(Metropolitan Statistical Area) into GRP’s footprint, it would represent a major step

toward improving regional cooperation.

The path toward footprint expansion that is outlined in this plan is broken into four

Sections. Section I includes a background discussion about the Richmond region and

the Greater Richmond Partnership, a detailed argument for footprint expansion, an

outline of expansion benefits, and a discussion of issues blocking footprint expansion.

Section II focuses on GRP’s prospective public-sector partners – Charles City,

Goochland, New Kent, and Powhatan – and their economic-development needs and

capabilities. Section III explores a variety of funding structures that could be used by

GRP to facilitate the inclusion of partners with smaller populations and less resource

than the current members. Finally, Section IV provides GRP with goals and objectives,

as well as an implementation timetable, in order to guide its actions toward footprint

expansion.

In order to succeed in the attraction and retention of important regional employers,

the Richmond region must learn to curb intraregional competition and work together

toward common regional economic-development goals. The expansion of GRP’s footprint

is a necessary step to improve the effectiveness of regional economic-development

efforts and to keep the Richmond region competitive with other regions seeking similar

jobs and investment.


4

Section I: Expanding the Footprint of Economic Development in Greater Richmond

The Greater Richmond Region

Greater Richmond is located in Central Virginia, in the Mid-Atlantic area of the United

States. With low labor costs, reasonable real-estate prices, low taxes, and a high

quality-of-life, Greater Richmond boasts a business-friendly climate and is an attractive

place for both business-

expansion and

relocation projects. The

region has experienced

high rates of growth in

the last 30 years, and

in response to this

growth, the official

boundaries of the

Richmond-Petersburg

Metropolitan Statistical

Area (MSA) were

expanded in the 2000

U.S. Census. The current MSA, shown above in Figure 1, is made up of 20 independent

counties and cities, including the counties of Amelia, Caroline, Charles City,

Chesterfield, Cumberland, Dinwiddie, Goochland, Hanover, Henrico, King and Queen,

King William, Louisa, New Kent, Powhatan, Prince George, and Sussex, and the cities

Figure 1: The Richmond-Petersburg MSA


5

of Colonial Heights, Hopewell, Petersburg, and Richmond.1 The MSA has a population of

over 1.2 million2 and a labor force of over 600,000 individuals.3

The Greater Richmond Partnership

The Greater Richmond Partnership is the public-private partnership charged with the

coordination and execution of metro Richmond’s regional economic-development efforts.

GRP’s mission is “to help grow the Greater Richmond economy through the attraction

of high quality jobs and new capital investment, the retention of existing businesses,

and the continued improvement of the region’s business climate.”4 This mission is

carried out through marketing and business-attraction efforts, an existing business-

retention and expansion program, and talent-retention activities – all of which are

administered by GRP staff. GRP also supports regional small-business and workforce-

development programs in conjunction with the Greater Richmond Chamber of

Commerce and the Greater Richmond Small Business Development Center. GRP is

supported by four public-sector partners – the City of Richmond and the counties of

Chesterfield, Hanover, and Henrico – as well as about 120 private-sector partners.

The two main functions of GRP are business recruitment and business retention. The

Greater Richmond Partnership’s business-recruitment efforts are conducted on both

national and international levels, with staff from GRP and the public-sector partners

attending marketing missions throughout the year. The Greater Richmond Partnership

maintains two tiers of target industries to focus its marketing work. The first tier is

made up of advanced manufacturing; green, clean, and energy technologies; life

sciences; information and communication technologies; creative and knowledge-based

services; and food processing. Two additional industries – finance securities and

1 U.S. Census Bureau, “Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas,” August 19, 2009. 2 Virginia Economic Development Partnership, “Richmond MSA,”

http://virginiascan.yesvirginia.org/communityprofiles/MapSearch.aspx?type=MSA. 3Virginia Economic Development Partnership, “Community Profile: Richmond MSA, Virginia,” 4. 4 Greater Richmond Partnership, “Greater Richmond Partnership, Inc. Globally Focused, Regionally

Competitive,” http://www.grpva.com/.


6

insurance, and logistics and supply chains – are considered to be second-tier target

industries which are supported but not actively pursued.

Greater Richmond’s regional business-retention and expansion efforts are carried out

through the Business First Greater Richmond program. The Business First program is

run on both the regional and local levels. Each local-government partner has a group

of trained volunteers, usually made up of the Greater Richmond businesses community,

who conduct a visitation program with existing businesses. Each local-government

partner currently has its own business visitation strategy, but the Business First Greater

Richmond program provides a common structure that is followed by all participants.

This structure allows information gathered during business visitations to be analyzed at

the regional level. Information is entered into a region-wide database, allowing for the

identification of regional business trends including hiring patterns, business issues, and

expansion opportunities. In addition to data analysis, the program also provides training

and support services to local-government partners and their volunteers.

Expanding the Footprint

Why Should GRP Expand its Current Footprint?

The Greater Richmond Partnership currently represents four public partners: the City of

Richmond and the counties of Chesterfield, Hanover, and Henrico. The origins of this

footprint, shown in Figure 2 below, can be traced back to GRP’s predecessor, the

Metropolitan Economic Development Council (MEDC). MEDC was active from 1978 until

1994 as a public partnership between the City of Richmond and the counties of

Chesterfield, Hanover, and Henrico. This organization was tasked with coordinating and

executing regional business-attraction and marketing functions for its four local-

government partners. As regional identity grew in Greater Richmond, it became possible

and desirable to expand the role of the regional economic-development organization

beyond marketing and recruitment functions and to include private-sector partners in

regional economic-development efforts. Thus, in 1994, the Greater Richmond


7

Partnership was founded with the purpose of combining the resources of the public

and private sectors to form a

more powerful economic-

development force.

However, when GRP began

operations, it maintained the

same four public partners as

MEDC began with in 1978.

Though the region had

grown, the footprint of the

regional economic-

development organization

remained the same. In 1978,

Greater Richmond’s outlying

counties were indeed very

rural and not ready to

participate in regional

economic development.

However, since this date, the

Richmond region has seen

tremendous growth and

development; areas that were once considered rural are now fully developed. Now, 32

years since the formation of MEDC and 16 years since the birth of GRP, the Richmond

MSA has grown so far beyond the organization’s footprint that it is difficult to

accurately describe GRP as a regional economic-development organization representing

Greater Richmond.

Figure 2: GRP's Current Footprint


8

Regional Economic-Development Organization Representation in Virginia

As evidence that GRP has allowed the Richmond region to grow around it, one need

only look at the boundaries of other regional economic-development organizations in

Virginia, especially those that contain cities and counties within the Richmond-

Petersburg MSA. As with all MSAs, the cities and counties that make up Greater

Richmond share a labor force and an economic base. However, the Richmond MSA’s

regional economic-development coverage, provided primarily by the Greater Richmond

Partnership and Virginia’s Gateway Region, is fragmented and incomplete. The Greater

Richmond Partnership has four public-sector partners (the City of Richmond and the

counties of Chesterfield, Hanover, and Henrico) and Virginia’s Gateway Region has eight

public-sector partners (the cities of Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and Petersburg and the

counties of Chesterfield, Dinwiddie, Prince George, Surry, and Sussex). In addition, the

Thomas Jefferson Partnership in Charlottesville, the Commonwealth Regional Council in

Farmville, and the Fredericksburg Regional Alliance in Fredericksburg represent four

other counties in the Richmond MSA (Louisa; Amelia and Cumberland; and Caroline,

respectively). Keeping in mind that Chesterfield is a member of both GRP and Virginia’s

Gateway Region, and that Surry is not a member of the Richmond MSA, this means

that only 10 out of Richmond’s 20 cities and counties are represented by a regional

economic-development organization that primarily serves the Richmond MSA.

Furthermore, six counties in the Richmond MSA are not represented by any regional

economic-development organization.

Figure 3 below shows the boundaries of each regional economic-development

organization in Virginia.


9

Source: Virginia Economic Development Partnership

Figure 3: Virginia's Regional Economic Development Organizations


10

While it is certainly true that not every city or county would be well-served by

contributing taxpayer monies to a regional economic-development organization, the lack

of representation of counties found within the Richmond MSA is not characteristic of

the rest of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as Chart 1 demonstrates. Virginia is made

up of 134 independent cities and counties, and 14 regional economic-development

organizations represent a large majority of them. Of the 134 independent jurisdictions

in Virginia, only 28 are not represented in some way by a regional organization. Of

these 28 non-represented jurisdictions, six are within the Richmond MSA. Considering

that there are only seven other cities and counties in the entire state that are part of

an MSA, yet not represented by a regional economic-development organization, it

becomes apparent that representation by regional organizations is disproportionately

low within the Richmond MSA.

Chart 1: Representation of Virginia Cities and Counties in Regional Economic

Development Organizations


Represented79%

Not Represented:

Non-MSA11%

Not Represented:

Richmond MSA5%

Not Represented: Other MSA's

5%


11

Expansion Recommendations

Given the fact that a single MSA shares the same labor force and economic base, it

could be reasonably argued that the boundaries of several of Virginia’s regional

economic-development groups

should be redrawn, and that

the Richmond MSA should have

only one regional economic-

development organization which

would encompass all 20 cities

and counties. However, this

type of reorganization would

involve the shuffling of five

different regional economic-

development organizations, as

well as the willingness and

cooperation of the 20 cities

and counties within the

Richmond MSA.

A single regional economic-

development organization

representing the entire Richmond MSA may very well be in the best interest of the

region. However, recognizing that this would require major adjustments from several

organizations, this plan focuses on the addition of just four counties to GRP: Charles

City, Goochland, New Kent, and Powhatan. This is a more reasonable and attainable

target for the near future. Figure 4 shows the recommended footprint of the Greater

Richmond Partnership in yellow, with the remaining Richmond MSA displayed in light

green.

Figure 4: The Richmond MSA and the Recommended GRP

Footprint


12

The counties of Charles City, Goochland, New Kent, and Powhatan have been targeted

for GRP membership for two major reasons. First, these counties are all part of the

Richmond MSA, but are not currently represented by another regional economic-

development organization. Second, the addition of these counties to GRP would result

in GRP’s footprint matching the boundaries of the Richmond Regional Planning District

Commission, the newly formed Capital Region Workforce Investment Board, and the

recently expanded Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce, allowing synergies among

these important regional organizations.

Benefits of Expanding the Footprint

There are a number of benefits to expanding GRP’s current footprint to include the

counties of Charles City, Goochland, New Kent, and Powhatan. The most notable are

described below:

Increased resources for regional economic development: With more dues-

paying public-sector members, the burden of funding regional economic

development could be distributed among a greater number of partners, lessening

the requirement from each individual jurisdiction. Also, with more members, GRP

could take advantage of economies of scale and provide an increased level of

service to all members. Most importantly, by reducing intraregional rivalries and

leveraging all the region’s available resources toward economic-development

efforts, the Greater Richmond region will become more competitive location for

business.

Increase in marketable product: Though the proposed partner counties do not

have as large a supply of shovel-ready commercial and industrial real estate as

the current members of GRP, their inclusion in the Greater Richmond Partnership

would increase the total number of properties available to prospects inquiring

about locating within GRP’s territory. According to GRP staff, about half of GRP’s

prospects are driven by their need for a specific type of property, and their

final location decision hinges on where they are able to find acceptable real


13

estate. Having more properties available to show prospects increases the

possibility of locating a real-estate-driven prospect in the Greater Richmond

area, and prevents that prospect from settling in competing locations such as

Charlotte or Nashville. Furthermore, each proposed county can provide unique

locational advantages, giving prospects more choices within the region and

further increasing the likelihood that a prospect will locate in Greater Richmond.

Synergies with RRPDC: Were GRP to expand its boundaries to include the

counties recommended in this plan, its footprint would match that of the

Richmond Regional Planning District Commission (RRPDC). The RRPDC serves as

a regional planning body, addressing topics of regional significance, such as

transportation planning and environmental planning. These issues are typically

linked closely to the work done by regional economic-development organizations,

so there would be ample opportunities for both GRP and RRPDC to cooperate

on regional development initiatives, as well as to share information and

resources. As an example of this type of collaboration, the RRPDC has recently

approved funding to hire a consultant to create a comprehensive economic-

development strategy (CEDS) for the RRPDC region, an activity that directly

relates to GRP’s activities.

Synergies with CRWIB: Greater Richmond’s Capital Regional Workforce

Investment Board, which offers regional workforce services by administering

funds provided by the federal Workforce Investment Act, is currently going

through a reorganization. Its boundaries now correspond with those of the

RRPDC and those being proposed for the Greater Richmond Partnership. With an

identical footprint, GRP and CRWIB could more easily align strategies, creating a

cohesive approach to workforce development that meets the needs of the

region’s workforce as well as those of the region’s basic employers.

Synergies with the Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce: The Greater

Richmond Chamber of Commerce recently recognized the expansion of the

Richmond region by voting in March 2010 to expand its reach to include


14

Charles City County, Goochland County, New Kent County, and Powhatan County

into its coverage area, formalizing the Chamber’s practice of accepting

businesses from these communities as Chamber members.5 This move aligns the

Greater Richmond Chamber’s service area with that of the RRPDC and the

CRWIB. GRP is closely connected to the Greater Richmond Chamber of

Commerce and cooperates on many initiatives, including joint fundraising and

small-business and entrepreneurial programs. Adopting a common footprint

would allow GRP and the Chamber to continue to work together closely, and

would give both organizations the chance to apply more comprehensive regional

strategies to those programs which are jointly funded.

Development of a comprehensive regional strategy: Because GRP only

represents four independent jurisdictions, it is difficult to carry out a

comprehensive regional economic-development strategy. As noted above, GRP

does not fully represent the Greater Richmond region with its current

boundaries, which precludes it from taking a stronger leadership role in the

economic development of the region. However, were the partnership to expand

its footprint to include a greater percentage of the Greater Richmond region, it

would facilitate both the development and the implementation of a regional

economic-development strategy. For instance, GRP should be heavily involved

with the creation and implementation of the regional CEDS, which is being

organized by RRPDC. Yet, since GRP only represents half of RRPDC’s members

and cannot use resources or staff to provide services to non-partners, the

scope of tasks it will be able to carry out will be limited. The expansion of

GRP’s footprint would help the Richmond region develop a well-thought-out and

well-executed regional economic-development strategy, which could prove to be

a powerful tool for Greater Richmond. It could significantly strengthen Greater

Richmond’s ability to attract prospects, retain and expand existing businesses,

5 John Reid Blackwell, “Greater Richmond Chamber Expands Geographic Reach,” The Richmond Times

Dispatch, March 26, 2010.


15

and encourage the creation and growth of small businesses. These outcomes

would be a boon for the regional economy, benefiting both the current and

prospective partners.

Roadblocks to Footprint Expansion

Despite the above-mentioned benefits of expanding the Greater Richmond Partnership’s

footprint to include the counties of Charles City, Goochland, New Kent, and Powhatan,

there are several organizational and political issues to be addressed before these

localities can be included. Some of these issues are discussed below.

Issue #1: GRP’s Organization and Funding Structure

The Greater Richmond Partnership’s current funding structure is one of the biggest

barriers to new membership because it keeps annual dues at an unaffordable level for

smaller jurisdictions. With no change in the funding structure, smaller jurisdictions –

including the prospective partners – will not be able to join GRP.

The Current Organization and Funding Structure

The Greater Richmond Partnership is a 501(c)(6) not-for-profit corporation that is

funded by its four public-sector partners as well as approximately 120 private-sector

partners. The organization and funding structure of GRP can be traced back to its

predecessor, MEDC, and is outlined in the “Bylaws of Public-Private Partnership for

Economic Development, Inc.” The Greater Richmond Partnership’s structure is based on

a foundation of equality between the public and private sectors and between the

public-sector partners. Representation on the board of directors is divided equally, with

a public-sector representative for each of the four partner localities and four private-

sector representatives. Each of the eight board members is able to cast a single,

equally weighted vote.

Funding is also divided equally. As required in the bylaws, the public and private

sectors each fund 50% of the organization, though a weak economy has recently


16

made it more difficult to raise money from the private sector. The Greater Richmond

Partnership’s budget is about $3 million annually and private-sector investors must

provide 50% of GRP’s budget, while the four public-sector partners each provide 12.5%

of the budget, making up the remaining 50%. Furthermore, regardless of size, each of

the four public-sector local-government members provides equal financial contributions

each year. In recent history, the four public-sector partners have each contributed

$390,000 annually to GRP, but due to difficult economic conditions and tight local

budgets, annual funding was reduced to $370,000 per year per jurisdiction in 2009.

Public-sector funding will remain at this level at least through 2011.

Why does the Current Structure Create a Barrier for New Members?

GRP’s funding structure, which requires each public-sector partner to pay an equal

annual contribution, is a major barrier keeping new members from joining GRP. While a

system that demands equal contributions may work when the localities in question are

relatively similar in size and tax base, the requirement of such a large annual

contribution effectively prevents smaller localities with less population and lower tax

revenues from being able to join the Greater Richmond Partnership. Greater Richmond’s

smaller, less-populated jurisdictions simply cannot afford to pay $370,000 annually

toward GRP membership dues.

Charles City, Goochland, New Kent, and Powhatan do not necessarily have a smaller

land mass than GRP’s current public-sector partners. However, there is a significant

difference in the population of these localities. Chart 2 below shows the populations of

the eight current- and prospective-partner localities. Hanover, GRP’s smallest partner (by

population) still has well over three times the number or residents of Powhatan, the

largest of the prospective-partner localities. Chesterfield and Henrico have over 10

times the number of residents of any of the prospective public-sector partners.


17

Chart 2: 2009 Population


Population is an important consideration when determining a locality’s financial capacity

because cities and counties in Virginia receive at least half of their revenue from

property and sales taxes paid by residents. Therefore, the population of a Virginia

locality will be very closely linked to its annual revenue. Chart 3 below depicts the

annual revenues of the eight localities focused on in this plan. It appears very similar

to Chart 2, which shows population, demonstrating the link between these two factors.

Chart 3 shows the overwhelming difference between the revenue collected annually by

the current and prospective GRP public-sector partners. All current public-sector

partners collect annual revenues of at least $400 million, with Chesterfield and Henrico

collecting over $1 billion each. In contrast, the annual revenue of the prospective

partners is much smaller, with the largest (Powhatan) collecting $73 million and the

smallest (Charles City) collecting only $14 million per year.

204,451

306,670

99,933

296,415

7,217 21,311 18,112 27,964

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Po

pu

lati

on

Locality


18

Chart 3: County Revenue for 2009-2010 Fiscal Year

Sources: County budgets (see Sources section for details)

Note: Revenue is from the most recent approved budget in each locality, but not every

locality has the same fiscal cycle. Powhatan does not calculate revenues and expenditures

separately. The amount shown on the chart is listed as an expenditure in the county budget.

However, in most counties, budgets are balanced and revenues and expenditures are either

identical or very similar, so this is considered a fair comparison.

Despite the differences in population and revenue, it has been argued that if the

prospective public-sector partners truly wish to participate in regional economic

development, then they have the option to raise taxes in order to afford the $370,000

annual contribution. For example, Goochland County could raise its current real-estate

property-tax rate by one cent, which would net the County approximately $470,000 in

additional revenue.6 Furthermore, according to the most recent stress report published

by Virginia’s Commission on Local Government, Goochland County ranks 131 out of the

Commonwealth’s 134 localities in “Revenue Effort” with one of the lowest corresponding

stress scores in Virginia, suggesting that its residents could easily bear the increased

6 Goochland County, “County of Goochland FY2009-2010 Approved Budget.”

$630

$1,227

$402

$1,059

$14 $63 $30 $73

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

Do

llars

in M

illio

ns

Locality


19

tax rate.7 This argument, however, does not take into account the reasonableness of

such an action at the local level. Were Goochland to raise taxes in order to pay a

$370,000 annual contribution to GRP, this contribution would represent a full half-

percent of the County’s budget, which is about ten times the percentage of the budget

dedicated to GRP dues by larger counties like Henrico or Chesterfield. Furthermore, a

$370,000 contribution would divide out to an unusually high $17 per capita, based on

Goochland’s 2009 population of 21,311 residents. The current GRP partners pay under

$4 per capita, with most partners paying less than $2. The current public-sector

partners contribute to GRP because they receive an acceptable return on their

investment. Were Goochland to contribute to GRP under the current funding structure,

it would be unlikely to receive such a return, and so it would perhaps be fiscally

irresponsible of the County to pay such a high rate to participate in regional economic

development.

The prospective public-sector partners do have lower populations and annual revenues,

but these characteristics should not be confused with economic-development

capabilities; just because a jurisdiction has fewer residents and a smaller budget does

not mean that the locality does not have any value to add to the Greater Richmond

Partnership. In fact, according to staff at the Hampton Roads Economic Development

Alliance, some of their more rural public partners are more sophisticated than their

more populated counterparts. However, with such a pronounced difference in the

population and annual revenues between GRP’s current public-sector partners and

Greater Richmond’s less populated localities, it is simply not realistic to expect all

counties and cities to afford the same annual contributions. GRP does not expect its

private-sector companies to contribute on an equal basis, recognizing that large

companies have more capacity to invest than smaller ones. The same standard should

be applied to the public-sector contributions.

7 Commission on Local Government, Department of Housing and Community Development, Commonwealth

of Virginia, “Report on the Comparative Revenue Capacity, Revenue Effort, and Fiscal Stress of Virginia’s

Counties and Cities 2007/2008,” March 2010.


20

In addition, the Greater Richmond Partnership’s equal funding model suggests that

development and services should be divided equally between partners. This has been a

relatively appropriate and fair way to organize GRP while all public-sector partners have

been fairly similar in population, revenue, and location from the central business

district. However, if GRP is to welcome new members, the current system of equality

will not be appropriate with such a demonstrated difference in population, annual

revenue, and distance from the center. Simply stated, the current and prospective

partners are not equal. As with any metropolitan area, development will generally be

more concentrated closer to the city center. Therefore, the larger localities can expect

to receive significantly more prospect action and a larger return on investment. It is

therefore fair that they contribute more to GRP. In order to move forward with a

footprint expansion, GRP will have to modify this funding model to allow Greater

Richmond’s smaller localities to pay a more reasonable annual contribution.

Issue #2: Stakeholder Views

There are many stakeholders involved in the possible expansion of the Greater

Richmond Partnership’s footprint, and in the course of constructing this plan, several

were consulted. Many of these stakeholders have conflicting points-of-view and do not

agree on the importance of expanding the GRP footprint, or on the funding and service

structure that would be acceptable.

GRP’s Current Public-Sector Partners

The Greater Richmond Partnership’s current public-sector partners are the City of

Richmond and the counties of Chesterfield, Hanover, and Henrico. This group’s opinion

is of great importance because, in order for a new locality to join GRP, all four public-

sector partners must vote in its favor. This group also represents half of GRP’s Board

of Directors, so has the power to block changes to GRP’s funding structure. In general,

this group is in favor of the inclusion of additional localities into GRP’s footprint and

recognizes the benefit of spreading the burden of financing GRP among more localities.


21

Were new localities to join, the current partners would expect their annual contribution

to GRP to decline accordingly.

A majority of the current public-sector partners are not, however, in favor of changing

the funding structure to allow smaller localities to pay a reduced annual fee. In fact,

many public-sector partners specifically cited a “headcount” funding structure, which

would be based on population, as an unacceptable funding method for GRP. Much of

this sentiment is attributed to the fact that the current partners have been contributing

to GRP since 1994, and to MEDC since 1978. The Greater Richmond Partnership is now

a very successful national and international marketing organization and the current

partners feel that they have equity built up in the organization. Most of the public-

sector partners do not think it would be fair to allow smaller jurisdictions into GRP for

a reduced rate after their contributions over the last 16 years have built GRP into a

successful economic-development organization. Most of the public-sector partners made

it very clear that they would be willing to work with new localities, but that those

localities would have to “pay to play,” meaning that they would have to contribute

equal annual dues to GRP. This view represents a major hurdle in the expansion of

GRP’s footprint because, as noted earlier, it would be nearly impossible for Greater

Richmond’s smaller jurisdictions to pay an equal share of the public-sector funding.

One of the Greater Richmond Partnership’s public-sector members expressed

significantly more openness to the idea of changing GRP’s funding structure to allow

new members to contribute to the partnership. This locality sees the benefit of adding

new public-sector partners for the overall good of the region, and is particularly

interested in the cost savings that could be achieved by adding new members.

Several of the public-sector partners commented that they would not be against

changing the 50-50 balance of public and private contributions to the partnership in

order to reduce the funding burden on the public sector. However, the partners were


22

not particularly confident that the private sector could be relied upon to contribute at

a higher level on a consistent basis.

Prospective Public-Sector Partners

The recommended prospective public-sector partners in this plan are the counties of

Charles City, Goochland, New Kent, and Powhatan. In interviews conducted for this

plan, staff from these counties all expressed keen interest in joining GRP, and in many

cases, these counties have inquired about becoming Greater Richmond Partnership

members. However, in all cases, impossibly high annual dues were cited as the reason

why they have not been able to join Greater Richmond’s regional economic-

development organization to date. Some staff members expressed frustration at the

fact that GRP seems unwilling to consider other funding structures to allow them to

participate in the regional organization. When asked what type of funding structure

would be fair, many of the prospective partners suggested a headcount system based

on population, but most were not particular about the structure, so long as it offered

them an affordable annual payment. Several prospective partners also mentioned that

they would not expect to be given the same level of service or number of prospects

that the current public-sector partners receive, but they recognized that, with their own

limited marketing resources, the exposure that GRP could bring to their counties could

be very helpful.

GRP’s Private-Sector Investors

The Greater Richmond Partnership’s private-sector investors are a large group and only

a handful were consulted in the creation of this plan. However, those that were

interviewed are unanimously in favor of expanding GRP’s footprint to include a larger

percentage of Greater Richmond’s localities. They recognize that incoming businesses

are typically blind to county lines, so the footprint of GRP should reflect this by being

more inclusive of the other areas in Greater Richmond. One private-sector investor

noted that development has already spread into the more rural areas where county


23

lines are becoming very fuzzy and stated, “You can’t continue to do things the same

way you did them 15 years ago.”

Issue #3: Lack of Regional Cooperation and Identity

The fact that Greater Richmond has had a regional economic-development organization

since 1978 attests to the region’s ability to work together to achieve a common goal.

However, too often the spirit of regional cooperation is lost amid local competition.

Intraregional competition is not an uncommon problem in metropolitan areas that

include several independent localities. This issue is further exacerbated by Virginia’s

fiscal structure, which pits neighboring cities and counties against each other in

competition for businesses that pay high sales and property taxes without requiring

expensive public services in return. However, mistrust and an “out for yourself” attitude

can result in failure when regional economic development is the goal.

During many of the interviews conducted for this plan, an individualist attitude toward

regional economic development was noticed. It is, of course, natural that a locality

would be primarily concerned with its own well-being. However, it was noted that many

of the larger counties do not seem to recognize much value in cooperating with

Greater Richmond’s smaller localities, perhaps because it is believed that their limited

resources would prevent them from making a significant contribution. A recent study

conducted for the Greater Richmond Partnership by Virginia Commonwealth University

found that many other American metropolitan areas have organized effective regional

economic-development systems.8 Therefore, this should also be possible in the

Richmond region.

A factor preventing more cooperation among Greater Richmond’s independent localities

is that rural localities, which generally have an abundant supply of inexpensive,

undeveloped land, are viewed as competition by more developed counties whose real-

estate prices are higher. There is likely concern among GRP’s current public-sector

8 John Accordino et al, “A Regional Reset: Building upon GRP’s Strengths to Enhance Economic

Development in the Richmond Region,” Richmond, May 2010.


24

partners that rural localities could lure prospects from locating in their own

jurisdictions, were they to become members of GRP. Though it may be true that some

businesses would choose to locate where they can find the most inexpensive land,

natural development patterns prove that most businesses consider other factors when

choosing a location. Furthermore, Greater Richmond offers a good value to businesses,

but many other regions offer lower land prices; the Richmond region is by no means

the least-expensive place to operate a business in the United States. Because Greater

Richmond shares a workforce and a basic economy, any prospect that locates within

Greater Richmond represents a win for the region by creating jobs for workers in

multiple jurisdictions and supporting service and retail functions in the localities where

those workers reside. Greater Richmond’s economic-development competition is located

outside the region in other metropolitan areas, not within the region’s own borders.

Greater Richmond’s current lack of regional cohesion is not an uncommon problem

among large metropolitan areas, and there have been some efforts made to address

the issue within the region. In November 2008, Richard Vinroot, then mayor of

Charlotte, North Carolina, visited Richmond to speak at an event focused on building

trust among local leaders. He noted that Greater Richmond is a region that will “sink

or swim together,” and stated that if the area is unable to find ways to build trust and

work together, Greater Richmond “will continue to lose the battle for jobs, investment –

even college sporting events – to competitors such as Charlotte.” He continued, “We

are competing with you for things that are good for our community."9 He stated in no

unclear terms that Greater Richmond’s competition is Charlotte and other metropolitan

areas, not localities within its own region. The Charlotte Regional Partnership,

Charlotte’s equivalent to the Greater Richmond Partnership, echoes the same thoughts,

9 Richmond Times Dispatch, “Charlotte Mayor Offers Civics Lessons, He tells Richmond group that cities,

nearby regions ‘will sink or swim together,’” November 21, 2008.


25

stating that, “Without a doubt, regionalism is the most effective strategy for global

“city-regions” like ours to grow and prosper in the 21st century world economy.”10

In addition to a lack of regional cooperation, Greater Richmond also suffers from a

lack of regional identity. The VCU study mentioned above noted several examples of

intraregional marketing being done by economic-development organizations in places

such as Kansas City and Austin to inspire a sense of place and regional pride in both

the citizens and the business community. There have been several different attempts to

brand the Richmond region, with most focusing on Greater Richmond’s rich historic

assets. However, none of the campaigns has succeeded in creating a true identity for

Greater Richmond, and more importantly for the purposes of economic development,

none has spoken directly to businesses or citizens. These campaigns have been

outwardly focused, and as of yet, no attempt at regional branding has succeeded in

instilling a sense of place and belonging among Greater Richmond’s citizenry or

businesses community.

The lack of regional cohesion and identity in Greater Richmond has a heavy influence

on the Greater Richmond Partnership and can, in part, explain why many of the current

public-sector partners are disinterested in working with some of the region’s smaller

localities. Perception is king, and while larger localities feel the need to maintain the

upper hand over their smaller neighbors, there will be little incentive for GRP’s current

public-sector partners to change policies and bear a larger portion of costs to invite

Greater Richmond’s smaller localities into the Greater Richmond Partnership. However,

many sources suggest that the region’s economic-development efforts could be

significantly more successful if they were carried out in a more regionally-

comprehensive manner. This would of course benefit the smaller, rural counties, but

the largest benefactors of a more successful regional economic-development program

10 Charlotte Regional Partnership, “About Us, Overview,”

http://www.charlotteusa.com/About/about_overview.asp.


26

would undoubtedly be GRP’s current public-sector partners, who will receive the largest

portion of any new regional development.

Issue #4: Tensions between Current and Prospective Partners

The lack of regional cooperation within Greater Richmond is exacerbated by some

marked tensions between GRP’s current and prospective public-sector partners. Most

notably, there are several issues that cause tension between the counties of Henrico

and Goochland. Disagreements have arisen over public utilities and the placement of

Route 288. However, the most relevant issue to the current discussion is the large

number of workers employed in Goochland, but living in Henrico County.

Goochland County is fortunate to be located within close proximity to Henrico’s

heavily-developed West End. An easy commute to regional shopping and employment

opportunities, combined with Goochland’s low taxes and preserved rural character, keep

real-estate prices in the county high. With a minimum amount of affordable housing

located in Goochland, many workers employed within the county must live in other

localities throughout Greater Richmond.

Figure 5 shows where those who work in Goochland live. The larger the dots and the

darker the shade of blue, the higher the concentration of residents working in

Goochland is. It is clear from the graphic that a large number of Goochland workers

live just east of the county line in Henrico. Indeed, according to 2008 data, a full 25%

of Goochland workers reside in Henrico County. In fact, Henrico is home to a higher

percentage of Goochland workers than any other county or city throughout Greater

Richmond – including Goochland, which houses only 14% of those who are employed

within its borders. In contrast, Goochland houses fewer than 2%11 of those working in

Henrico.12

11 It should be noted that these percentages can be misleading when compared due to the fact that the

number of workers employed in Henrico is so much larger than the number in Goochland. There are 3,088

persons working in Goochland but living in Henrico (25%) and there are 3,138 persons working in Henrico,

but living in Goochland (1.6%). It should be remembered, however, that those living in Goochland but


27

Figure 5: Residency of Workers Employed in Goochland County

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED OnTheMap Origin-Destination Database

Goochland does not set property values – the free market does – and so blame

cannot be placed on the County for the high land prices which result in high housing

prices. However, the County does enforce relatively strict land-use and housing policies,

which limit the density of development. Goochland residents strongly value the rural

working in Henrico are more likely to own high-priced homes, while those working in Goochland and living

in Henrico are more likely to live in more moderately-priced homes and have children in the Henrico

school system. 12 US Census Bureau, “LED OnTheMap Origin-Destination Database,” Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd

Quarter 2008.


28

atmosphere of the county and these policies are designed to protect that character.

Yet, in a county with high land prices, large minimum lot sizes and tight design

controls that discourage the development of apartments, condos, townhouses, and

even high-density single-family residences only results in a further increase in housing

prices. Even in areas slated for high-density development, the maximum density for

single-family housing units remains low at 2.5 units per acre.13 Though the County does

not have the power to set real-estate prices, these policies play a role in keeping the

average home price in Goochland well above the regional average.

These conservative land-use policies not only protect the county from overdevelopment,

but also from the burden of having to provide lower-income residents with public

services such as education. Because housing prices are so high, an above-average

number of residents are able to cover the costs of public services through their

property taxes. Many low- and middle-income residents that would have used more

public services than their property taxes would have covered move to adjacent

counties such as Henrico. These adjacent counties must then take over the

responsibility of providing public services. Goochland County’s lack of affordable

housing particularly affects Henrico County, which, as mentioned above, absorbs much

of Goochland’s middle-income workers as residents. While Goochland enjoys the tax

benefits of commercial and industrial development, Henrico must house and educate

the families that work in Goochland County, but who cannot afford to live there.

Goochland has a strong desire to attract new commercial and industrial uses, which is

why the County wishes to become a member of the Greater Richmond Partnership. As

a predominantly rural county, Goochland has the right, and arguably the responsibility,

to protect open and agricultural spaces and is free to regulate development using any

legal method that suits the County and its residents. However, if the County wishes to

share in the benefits of regional economic development efforts, it should also be

13 Goochland County, “Goochland 2028: The Comprehensive Plan for Goochland County, Virginia,” February

3, 2009, 50-51.


29

willing to share the burden of housing and servicing the increased population that

comes along with such growth. At a minimum, Goochland should be highly sensitive to

the effects its housing and land-use policies have on neighboring localities.

At the same time, Henrico should note that Goochland’s 21,311 residents are some of

the biggest supporters of the retailers located in the West End area, and the sales tax

earned from their spending is a major boost to Henrico’s budget. New employment

located in Goochland County would directly benefit Henrico residents in particular,

since they are within an easy driving distance of such jobs. Also, by preserving its rural

character, Goochland offers highly desirable non-neighborhood residential living, which

is particularly valuable as a talent attraction tool for Henrico’s businesses.

This discussion does not attempt to argue that all people who work in a particular

county should live in that county. Nor does it make an ethical argument that all

localities must take extreme measures to provide affordable housing options within

their borders. However, the fact that so many Goochland workers live in Henrico is

perceived as an undue burden by Henrico. Whether this perception has been fairly

formed or not, it creates tension between Henrico and Goochland, and limits the

potential for the two Counties to work together toward regional economic-development

goals. As long as Henrico associates an increase in employment in Goochland to an

increase in moderate-income Henrico residents requiring education and other expensive

public services, it is unlikely to welcome Goochland into the Greater Richmond

Partnership.

Issue #5: Economic-Development Capabilities of Prospective Partners

Both the current public-sector partners and GRP staff are concerned with the

economic-development capabilities of any prospective GRP member. The Greater

Richmond Partnership has limited resources, which should be spent on regional

activities. The staff does not have time to act as a local economic-development

administration for a public-sector partner that does not have the capability to manage


30

prospects independently. In addition, the current public-sector partners all maintain

their own local economic-development offices so they are uninterested in funding GRP

staff to serve the function of local staff for another jurisdiction. There is concern

among the current public-sector partners that new members would unfairly monopolize

GRP’s resources.

In addition to a sufficient organizational structure, concerns remain that prospective

public-sector partners may not have enough product, or real estate, to market to

incoming businesses. Most relocating businesses desire a quick, easy move and are

often unwilling to consider properties which require major undertakings such as road

construction, rezoning, or public-utility installation. Thus, in order to add value to GRP

and receive value in return, it is important that any public-sector partner have a

sufficient supply of move-in-ready real estate for businesses.

There is currently a perception held by many of the existing public-sector partners that

the majority of the smaller localities in Greater Richmond do not have a sufficient

organizational capacity or the available real-estate product to offer value to the

Greater Richmond Partnership. Also, it is perceived that these localities have vastly

different economic-development needs from the current public-sector partners and

therefore would not fit well in GRP. These perceptions add to the barriers keeping

Greater Richmond’s smaller localities from participating in regional economic-

development activities. The realities of the economic-development needs and

capabilities of the prospective partners recommended in this plan will be discussed in

the next section.


31

Section II: The Prospective Partners – An Analysis of their Economic-Development Needs and Capabilities

Both the Greater Richmond Partnership’s staff and current public-sector partners hold

concerns about the economic-development needs and capabilities of the prospective

public-sector partners. It is important that the economic-development needs of any new

public-sector partner align with those of the existing partners. Also, new public partners

must have sufficient economic-development capabilities to fully participate in the

regional economic-development process. This section provides an analysis of the

economic-development needs and capabilities of the four prospective public-sector

partners.

Economic-Development Needs

It is true that the overall economic-development needs of less-populated counties may

differ from those of an urban core or suburban area. For instance, GRP’s suburban

partners are concerned with locating major employers on large tracts of greenfield

land, controlling sprawl, and managing traffic congestion, while an urban core like the

City of Richmond struggles with limited availability of vacant land, the reuse of

brownfields, and neighborhood-revitalization projects. In contrast, rural localities like the

four prospective public-sector partners must focus on developing user-ready real

estate, installing public utilities where appropriate, and employing good land-planning

techniques to channel development toward desired areas. All of these are important

issues and the way a locality handles them can determine its success or failure with

regard to business recruitment, expansion, and retention. These issues, however, fall

under the realm of community development, which is not the appropriate role of the

Greater Richmond Partnership. GRP should instead focus on regional economic


32

development, which is defined by economic base-building activities.14 Therefore, even

though the prospective public-sector partners may be in a different developmental

stage than the current partners, this does not mean that GRP would have to change

its focus in order for them to participate in regional economic development.

The prospective public-sector partners belong to the Richmond MSA, just like GRP’s

current public-sector partners. This means that all eight localities share a labor force

and a common economic base. Workers will consider any job within a reasonable

commuting distance from their residences. Likewise, the locality a worker lives in is

unimportant to employers, so long as they can find skilled and qualified labor. In this

way, the basic economy is blind to jurisdictional boundaries. As a regional economic-

development organization, the Greater Richmond Partnership’s primary task is to build

and support the economic base. This means that, even if the smaller localities have

fewer businesses or a slightly different industry makeup than the current public-sector

partners, their base-development needs will remain similar and, therefore, their regional

economic-development needs are compatible with more developed cities and counties

in the same MSA.

In order to balance the previous theoretical argument and to gain a real-life

perspective of the dynamics between rural and urban economic-development partners,

staff at four of Virginia’s regional economic-development organizations were interviewed:

Fredericksburg Regional Alliance (FRA), Hampton Roads Economic Development Alliance

(HREDA), Lynchburg’s Region 2000 Partnership, and Charlottesville’s Thomas Jefferson

Partnership for Economic Development. Each one of the economic-development

organizations made similar comments about the relationship between their rural and

urban partners, and the following lessons were learned:

14 The term “economic base” refers to the segment of a region’s economy which exports its goods and

services outside of the region, and as a result, brings outside money into the region. Basic industries are

important to the overall health of an economy because they support non-basic employment such as retail

and service jobs.


33

Different types of businesses will locate in different jurisdictions based on the

types of available real estate. According to HREDA staff, the diversity of real

estate provided by rural partners is generally considered to be beneficial. For

example, staff can locate distribution centers in areas with an abundance of

land, but if a prospect is looking for high-rise office space they will likely locate

in Norfolk. FRA staff reiterated this view, stating that each partner has strengths

and different businesses will work well for different localities. In general, to take

advantage of a diverse supply of real-estate, attraction strategies should focus

on a diverse range of basic industries so that each partner can benefit from

regional marketing. Each regional organization interviewed recognize that there

are differences between the economic-development needs of rural and urban

partners, but the difficulty in balancing these needs is unanimously considered

to be low. GRP would likely find this to be true as well, as its current targets

already include a variety of industries such as logistics, advanced manufacturing,

or food processing that could easily be located in prospective-partner counties.

Development is not spread evenly throughout the region. Staff at FRA point

out that the playing field is never level, as smaller localities are unable to

compete with the incentives that are offered by larger partners. This is a factor

in the unequal distribution of development throughout the Fredericksburg region.

In general, urban centers and the immediate surrounding areas will gain a

disproportionately large percentage of a region’s new development.

Rural partners do not necessarily require more services or attention than

their more urban counterparts. Hampton Roads staff clearly stated that its

rural partners do not use more HREDA resources than other partners, and

mentioned that some of its rural partners were actually more responsive to

prospects than its more urban partners, depending on the individual in charge

of a locality’s economic-development program. Staff at FRA confirmed this,

stating that the level of attention each partner requires has more to do with the

individual charged with economic-development responsibilities than the


34

population or resources of the partner. The staff of the Thomas Jefferson

Partnership reported that the urban core in Charlottesville actually demands a

greater percentage of the organization’s resources than any other partner.

It is apparent from both economic-development theory and the opinions of staff

working at various regional economic-development organizations throughout Virginia

that the regional economic-development needs of the prospective partners can be

compatible with GRP’s current partners. Furthermore, having a wide variety of user-

ready real estate available does not mean that regional recruitment efforts will lose

focus – the focus of these efforts should always remain on strengthening the base

economy. It is, instead likely to put the Greater Richmond region at an advantage

when competing with other regions for businesses.

Analysis of the Economic-Development Capacity of Prospective Partners

As mentioned previously, the Greater Richmond Partnership and the current public-

sector partners are concerned with the economic development capabilities of the

prospective partners. GRP and its current partners do not have the resources to take

on tasks typically performed by local economic development offices and they are

uninterested in adding members that are unable to fully participate in regional

economic-development activities or who would unfairly monopolize GRP’s resources.

Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that any new members have a sufficiently

developed local economic-development program that can professionally manage the

economic-development needs of the jurisdiction. For this reason, this section of the

plan provides an analysis of the economic-development capacities of Charles City,

Goochland, New Kent, and Powhatan, divided into the following categories: location,

organizational capacity, product, and planning and land use.

This section of the plan also provides some suggested criteria for new membership.

The Greater Richmond Partnership does already have a set of guidelines which pertain

to the process of accepting a new member. However, in contrast to GRP’s existing


35

procedural guidelines, the criteria provided in this plan focus on the economic-

development capabilities of potential new partners. These criteria were developed with

the aid of the Virginia Community Certification Program guide, a now dated, but still

relevant document intended to help Virginia communities become more attractive for

the location of industry and related economic development.

Location

Companies seeking relocation or expansion typically consider new locations on a state

or regional scale before deciding on a specific locality or site. Because of this fact, in

order to attract prospects, GRP markets the locational assets of the entire Richmond

region. As such, while each locality has unique advantages, its overall economic-

development interests and locational assets should align with those of the other

members of the region. It is therefore important that any GRP member is a member of

the Richmond MSA in order to ensure that its membership will be mutually beneficial,

both for the locality and for the region.

Recommended Location Criterion:

Any member of GRP must be a member of the Richmond-Petersburg

Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Charles City, Goochland, New Kent, and Powhatan

All of the prospective GRP members presented in this plan are located within the

Richmond-Petersburg MSA. Furthermore, all share boundary lines with GRP’s current

public partners, which would keep the organization’s footprint contiguous.

Organizational Capacity

The organizational capacity of GRP’s prospective partners is very important because, as

a regional organization, GRP does not have the resources to take on economic

development tasks that should be handled locally. These tasks include negotiations

with prospects over local issues such as zoning or incentives, as well as the

production of local marketing materials. The Greater Richmond Partnership works very


36

hard to bring viable prospects to the region, so it is also of the utmost importance

that any members of GRP have the capacity to handle prospects in a professional and

productive way.

Recommended Organizational Capacity Criteria:

Any prospective member must have sufficient, qualified staff, preferably within a

dedicated economic-development office, who are able to accomplish the

following: interact with GRP and participate fully in partner meetings and other

communication and strategy-building events; handle local economic-development

issues, such as zoning or policy problems, in a timely fashion as they arise; and

professionally and productively manage prospects when they are supplied by

GRP.

Prospective members must have local marketing materials including, at minimum,

an updated website which highlights the locality’s assets and provides contact

information for the individual responsible for economic-development functions.

Charles City

The economic-development functions in Charles City County are housed in the

Department of Planning. The County previously employed a full-time Director of

Development who handled the County’s economic-development needs, but this

individual retired in 2008. The Director of Planning is now the official head of

economic-development efforts in Charles City, and is able to competently handle

internal issues such as zoning and land use. However, due to the inexperience of the

current Director of Planning in the economic-development field, the retired Director of

Development works part-time on a contract basis to provide additional economic-

development services to the County. These services include making recommendations

to the Director of Planning, acting on prospect leads, and serving as a liaison between

prospects and the County to ensure that companies are put in contact with the

correct individuals.


37

With the help of the Director of Planning and the former Director of Development,

Charles City County has been able to carry out a surprising amount of economic-

development work with very limited resources. Despite lacking an independent

economic-development office, the County is able to work with partners such as the

Virginia Economic Development Partnership to identify prospects, and has the expertise

to guide them through the process of locating in Charles City. The County also

recognizes the importance of existing business and conducts some limited business-

retention work. For example, the former Director of Development plans to conduct

several visitations to companies located in the county over the summer of 2010.

Charles City’s economic-development marketing efforts are very limited, and the County

relies heavily on the support provided by other organizations such as the Planning

District Commission or the Virginia Economic Development Partnership. According to

staff, a limited amount of advertising is placed in phone books, but most marketing

initiatives are lead by the regional and state organizations. For instance, information

about Charles City is available through VEDP’s website, but the County does not

maintain its own economic-development website, and there is no mention of any

economic-development functions on the County’s main website.

Goochland

Goochland County has recently undergone some changes to its economic-development

organization. Previously, the County had a Department of Economic Development with a

full-time director. However, Goochland has been managing some serious budget

shortfalls and was forced to lay off its Director of Economic Development. According to

Goochland’s website, economic duties are now being handled by the Deputy County

Administrator. At the time of this writing, it is unclear whether this arrangement is

meant to be permanent, or if the County intends to re-hire a Director of Economic

Development once economic conditions improve and the County budget is not as

restrictive. The level of understanding of economic-development concepts held by the

current Deputy County Administrator is also unclear. In either case, the County does


38

have a designated individual who is responsible for economic-development issues,

including interfacing with partners and working with prospects, though this individual is

not dedicated full-time to economic-development tasks.

The role of Goochland’s economic-development efforts is limited, especially now that

the County no longer employs a full-time economic-development professional.

According to staff, the operation is “bare-bones.” The County does not have the

resources to be proactive, but does attempt to be reactive when provided with a lead

from VEDP or other partners such as real-estate agents. The former economic-

development office was also able to maintain a properties database and keep

information on the website updated. The extent of the economic-development functions

that will be carried out by the Deputy County Administrator is currently unclear.

Goochland has never had a marketing budget for its economic-development

department, and relies on VEDP to bring prospects to the county. Goochland does,

however, maintain a very basic webpage dedicated to economic development as part

of the County of Goochland website. Included on the webpage is contact information

for the Deputy County Administrator, his assistant, and members of the Economic

Development Authority; a link to the Discover Goochland website which provides

quality-of-life information; access to Goochland’s interactive property database, and a

downloadable brochure highlighting the county’s locational assets. Staff mentioned that

the County would like to upgrade this website, but does not yet have the resources.

The County’s current web presence is very basic, but does include the necessary

components of a local economic-development organization’s website.

New Kent

The New Kent County Economic Development Department is staffed by a full-time

director, a full-time assistant, and a part-time consultant. The office works very closely

with VEDP, but also conducts its own recruitment work. In addition to business

attraction, the office is tasked with tourism and hospitality functions and business-

retention and expansion functions. Business retention and expansion is carried out by


39

conducting existing-business visitations, as well as by administering a small-business

retention survey. In all, New Kent is able to connect with 150 to 200 companies each

year through the visitation and survey programs. The County also holds group

meetings, which give New Kent’s economic-development office the opportunity to speak

with an additional 50 to 60 businesses each year.

New Kent actively markets the county as an advantageous business location, and in

particular maintains a fairly detailed economic-development website with information

about the county, the labor market, infrastructure, quality of life, and available

properties. The site does an excellent job of highlighting the specific locational

advantages of New Kent County, and also highlights some positive aspects of the

Commonwealth of Virginia. In addition to the general information mentioned above, the

site also links to specific information about incentives, community demographics,

zoning, and future land use. New Kent has also prepared a video for prospects with a

personal greeting from the former Director of Economic Development, who highlights

the county’s business advantages and invites prospective businesses to contact the

economic-development department if they would like assistance.

Powhatan

The Powhatan Office of Economic Development employs a full-time director and a

three-quarters-time assistant. The office is tasked with the recruitment of new

businesses and the retention of existing businesses, as well as some tourism functions.

The County manages to visit approximately 35 companies each year as part of its

retention functions. The office also helps small businesses and encourages start-ups by

referring these groups to available resources such as the Business Information Center

of the Virginia Department of Business Assistance, or online resources such as the

Virginia Business Portal.

Powhatan conducts its own marketing, and it is estimated that the County spends

about $30,000 each year for this activity. The County also maintains a website

dedicated to economic development with information about demographics, utilities,


40

employers, government, quality of life, and available properties. The Office of Economic

Development’s contact information is easy to find.

Real-Estate Product

“Product” is a commonly-used economic-development term that refers to real estate

and includes both developable land and pre-existing construction that is available for

commercial and industrial uses. Relocating companies are typically interested in swift,

easy moves, so often will not consider properties that require extensive changes such

as rezoning or the addition of utilities. This requires jurisdictions to have what is

generally termed as “shovel-ready” properties available to prospective businesses.

Because of this, it is critical that prospective-partner counties have enough product to

attract businesses. If there is not enough product within a prospective partner’s county,

GRP would have nothing to market and the attraction of businesses would be unlikely.

In such a circumstance, there would be little mutual benefit to a jurisdiction’s

membership.

Recommended Product Criteria:

Prospective GRP members should have a sufficient number of user-ready real-

estate properties available for prospects, including vacant land as well as

improved commercial and industrial sites. Properties should be zoned for

commercial or industrial uses.

Public utilities, including water and sewer services, should be available at a

sufficient number of sites.

The above criteria suggest that a “sufficient” number of properties should be available

and should have public services. This vague, qualitative term was used in favor of a

more specific, quantitative benchmark in order to allow for individual differences

between counties, as well as to avoid disqualification of localities that could possibly

otherwise be positive contributors to the Greater Richmond Partnership. In order to

provide some guideline as to the definition of the term “sufficient,” the quantity and


41

quality of the product in the prospective counties was compared to that of other rural

counties. Specifically, the counties of Southampton and Isle of Wight, which are

productive members of the Hampton Roads Economic Development Alliance, were used

as benchmarks. These counties were chosen because they are rural counties, but were

described by HREDA staff as having enough product to play a meaningful role in

regional business attraction.

The following real-estate information in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 is from the Virginia

Economic Development Partnership’s online site selection database, which lists the

commercial and industrial properties available throughout the Commonwealth. While no

real-estate listing is truly comprehensive, VEDP strives to include every available

property on its website in order to ensure that the Commonwealth’s business prospects

are able to find real estate that matches their specific requirements. Each city and

county is responsible for updating its property listings on the site and, because

localities are generally highly motivated to attract new business, encouraging

participation is not generally a problem. Therefore, VEDP’s property listings are

considered a reliable source to comprehensively analyze available properties.

It should be noted that the “Number of Listings” columns in the tables below cannot

be totaled, as a single property could appear multiple times under different categories.

A measurement of building square footage is used for improved properties in the

“Industrial,” “Office,” and “Flex Space” categories, and acreage is used to measure the

size of unimproved properties under the “Sites and Land” category. The value

appearing under the “Properties with Water/Sewer Service” column does not represent

a ratio, but instead each property that has water and/or sewer services. For instance,

a value of “2/2” means that out of the total number of properties within the given

category, two have water service and two have sewer service. There are likely only two

total properties with public services, but this system of representation is used to

differentiate between sites that may have water service, but not sewer service.


42

Charles City

Charles City County has very few user-ready properties available to prospects. With an

abundance of undeveloped land, the County has been working to increase the number

of commercial and industrial sites served by water and sewer by using economic-

development bonds. The few sites that are available within the county have water and

sewer services and are zoned for commercial or industrial uses.

Table 1: Available Properties in Charles City County

Number of

Listings Sq. Ft. of

Building/Acres Properties with

Water/Sewer Service

% Zoned Industrial or Commercial

Industrial 2 67,400 2/2 100%

Office 0 0 n/a n/a

Flex Space 0 0 n/a n/a

Sites and Land 2 625 acres 2/2 100%


Goochland

Goochland County has a reasonable number of properties available to prospects, most

notable among them being the West Creek Business Park which has the potential to

attract regionally-important employers. Several properties lack basic services such as

water and sewer. The lack of public utilities limits the types of businesses that would

be likely to locate on these properties. However, Goochland’s Tuckahoe Creek Service

District, a sewer and water service district, is located at the eastern-most end of the

county where development pressures are strongest and is intended to absorb much of

the commercial and industrial growth in the county for the foreseeable future.15 The

vast majority of real estate advertised to prospects is zoned for commercial or

industrial uses, but one property in the site and land category is zoned A2-Agricultural.

15 Goochland County, “Goochland 2028: The Comprehensive Plan for Goochland County, Virginia,” February

3, 2009, 18.


43

Table 2: Available Properties in Goochland County

Number of

Listings Sq. Ft. of Building

/Acres Properties with

Water/Sewer Service


Industrial 11 179,852 6/6 100%

Office 4 89,948 2/2 100%

Flex Space 3 48,750 2/2 100%

Sites and Land 7 3,901 acres 4/4 86%


New Kent

New Kent County has a variety of available properties, including a large number of

vacant sites. All listed sites are serviced by public water and sewer. Most of the

county’s properties are zoned for commercial or industrial uses, but four out of eleven

properties in the site and land category were zoned A-1-Agricultural.

Table 3: Available Properties in New Kent County

Number of



Water/Sewer Service


Industrial 4 47,000 4/4 100%

Office 5 54,000 5/5 100%

Flex Space 4 47,000 4/4 100%

Sites and Land 15 5,874 acres 15/15 73%


Powhatan

Powhatan County has very few properties available for development in comparison to

the amount of developable land existing in the county. In general, it has struggled with

property development and is aware that this is an issue. Last year, the Economic

Development Authority attempted to purchase land with the intent of developing it for

industrial uses, but the economic downturn and citizens’ resistance to further

development in the county derailed the project. The limited availability of public water

and sewer services holds back property development, but the County is currently

working on utility extensions which should open more land for commercial and

industrial development. Improved economic conditions should inspire more development


44

by private investors, as well as facilitate any future land development done by the

County.

The properties that are listed on VEDP’s property database have water and sewer

service available, and are zoned for commercial or industrial uses.

Table 4: Available Properties in Powhatan County

Number of



Water/Sewer Service


Industrial 1 37,432 1/1 100%

Office 1 9,000 1/0 n/a

Flex Space 0 0 n/a n/a

Sites and Land 4 340 acres 2/2 100%


Planning and Land Use

As well as having properties available for current business prospects, it is important for

communities to plan for future development. These planning steps are not just

important for a well-organized community; they are pertinent to GRP’s activities as well.

Economic development is often a long-range process, and if local partners do not plan

for future economic-development needs and set aside land for this purpose, then there

will be no product for GRP to market to future prospective businesses.

Industrial and commercial uses often require large, contiguous tracts of land. If

leapfrog residential development is allowed to occur in areas suited for non-residential

development, it may later be impossible to assemble usable tracts of land for other

uses. Once land is developed, especially if it is developed with residential housing, it is

very difficult to reclaim this land for commercial or industrial uses. Also, in areas

where water and sewer service are not available everywhere, it is logical to group

commercial and industrial uses so that these properties can be provided with

necessary public services in the most efficient way possible.


45

Recommended Planning and Land Use Criteria:

Prospective partners should have an updated comprehensive plan with

reasonable amounts of land reserved for commercial and industrial use.

A plan for economic development should exist, either as a stand-alone

document, or as part of the comprehensive plan.

Charles City

The Charles City County comprehensive plan was adopted in 1998, and is thus quite

dated. In fact, most data in the plan comes from the 1990 census, which is now 20

years old. This older plan does, however, address economic-development issues and

express the importance of creating jobs within the county. The future land-use map

designates a large area on the western edge of the county along Route 106 as an

Industrial Reserve, and also designates several areas as Regional Development Centers

where large-scale commercial development would be allowed. These land-use

designations ensure that sufficient space is reserved for industrial and commercial

uses. Such designations also make it easy for the County to decide where to expand

limited public-utility services.

The County is currently working on an updated comprehensive plan and a 2009 draft

is available online to the public. In this not-yet-adopted plan, future land-use maps

reserve even larger amounts of land for commercial and industrial uses than in the

1998 comprehensive plan. The plan also sets economic-development-related goals such

as attracting and retaining more businesses, creating an Industrial Reserve area, and

developing an industrial park.

Goochland

Goochland County’s comprehensive plan was adopted very recently, in February 2009.

The plan carefully balances the County’s desire to preserve open spaces and rural

character with the need to develop land for economic-development purposes.

Development pressures on the eastern-most edge of the county along the Route 288


46

and I-64 corridors are strong and the Goochland comprehensive plan acknowledges

this by channeling industrial and commercial development towards this area. The

Tuckahoe Creek Service District provides public water and sewer services to this area,

and a more dense development pattern will be encouraged to ensure that the area

continues to serve as an economic engine for the county. The Centerville, Goochland

Courthouse, and Oilville areas are also labeled as Designated Growth Areas, and water

and sewer service is either already available, or planned.

In addition to detailed land-use planning, Goochland’s comprehensive plan also sets

general goals for economic development, such as supporting and actively pursuing

industrial development and continuing to improve the marketing capabilities of the

Office of Economic Development. However, due to recent economic challenges, the

County was forced to lay off its Director of Economic Development, which certainly

does not fall in line with its goal of supporting the County’s marketing capabilities.

New Kent

The New Kent County comprehensive plan was adopted in August 2003 and addresses

both land-use and economic-development issues. Because the plan is somewhat dated,

the County has already been able to achieve some of the economic goals set forth in

it. New Kent’s biggest economic-development asset is I-64, which runs east and west

across the county with four major interchanges. The County recognizes the need for

fully developed real estate along this corridor. An Economic Opportunity land

designation has been applied to areas around the county’s four I-64 interchanges –

Route 33, Route 155, Route 106, and Bottoms Bridge – in order to preserve these

areas for commercial and industrial uses, as well as encourage clustering of growth in

areas where public utilities can be provided. These areas allow flexible commercial and

industrial uses including retail, hotels, restaurants, offices, light assembly, warehouse

and distribution, and laboratories and research and development facilities.

New Kent’s comprehensive plan has several goals related specifically to economic

development, including the promotion of recruiting clean commerce and industry and


47

the exploration of economic incentives that provide a high return on investment and

promote quality projects. Objectives include the use of flexible zoning, the extension of

public utilities, the support of entrepreneurial activity, and the enactment of economic-

development strategies to attract high-technology employment opportunities.

Powhatan

Powhatan County’s comprehensive plan was adopted in January 1998 and amended in

July 2003, so it is fairly outdated. A draft version of the new comprehensive plan,

dated January 2010, is available on the County’s website. The 1998 adopted

comprehensive plan touches on economic development, but there is an increased focus

in the new draft plan, which dedicates a chapter to the subject.

The new plan focuses heavily on the development of land for economic-development

purposes. The County’s current land-use map allots very little area to commercial and

industrial uses. However, the future land-use plan clusters development in key areas

along Route 60 and Route 288. A corresponding utility plan will expand water and

sewer services in these development nodes.

The new chapter dedicated to economic development specifies eight different

economic-development goals for Powhatan County, including the establishment of

targeted geographic areas for economic development, the use of retention and

attraction to increase the number and variety of jobs within the county, the targeting

of economic sectors, and the promotion of environmentally-sensitive tourism. These

goals alone amount to more economic-development planning than most other rural

counties in the region. However, according to the comprehensive plan draft, Powhatan

County also intends to develop a comprehensive-economic development plan.

The Report Card: Are the Prospective Partners Ready?

Table 5 below is an economic-development capabilities report card based on the

criteria developed in this plan. Each prospective partner is given a rating for each of

the seven criteria: “fully meets criteria,” “meets criteria, but needs improvement,” or


48

“does not meet criteria.” Each rating is represented by a symbol, and a key can be

found at the bottom of the table. Taking into consideration all of the criteria, an

overall rating is given to indicate the general readiness of the prospective partner to

participate in regional economic development.

Table 5: The Report Card

Charles

City

Goochland New Kent Powhatan

Location: Member of MSA?

Organizational

Capacity:

Qualified staff?

Marketing?

Product: User-ready properties?

Utilities?

Planning and

Land Use:

Comprehensive plan?

Econ development plan?

OVERALL:

= Fully meets criteria = Meets criteria, but needs improvement = Does not meet criteria

Charles City

Charles City County is a very small, rural location with very limited economic-

development resources. The County does a sufficient job with land-use planning.

Though its current adopted plan is quite old, there is a new draft available which

appropriately handles land-use issues. The plan addresses economic-development

issues, but the County would benefit from a more comprehensive economic-

development plan. The County lacks a dedicated economic-development office, but

retains the services of its retired Director of Development, who is an experienced

economic-development professional. With the help of this contract position, the County

should be able to handle prospects well. However, the long-term involvement of the


49

retired Director of Development is in question, and it would be advisable for the

County to hire a full-time economic-development staff member.

Charles City County has very limited marketing capabilities and no economic-

development web presence. The construction of a website dedicated to County

economic development would go a long way towards improving this issue. The lack of

user-ready real estate is also an issue, along with a very limited availability of public-

utility services. The County’s new draft plan sets as a goal the construction of an

industrial park, which would be a recommended action.

Overall, Charles City County will need to make some improvements before it is ready

to join the Greater Richmond Partnership as a full-fledged public-sector partner.

However, the necessary improvements are not beyond the capabilities of the County,

even taking into consideration its limited resources.

Goochland

Overall, Goochland County is doing a lot of the right things to attract and retain

businesses. The County has a good supply of user-ready product and the majority of it

is serviced by public utilities. Successful land-use planning has defined certain areas of

the county as high growth nodes, where land development and utility expansions are

planned.

Goochland’s economic-development planning is sufficient, but could be improved. The

county has a significant amount of developed real estate and the comprehensive plan

does set some economic-development goals, but the lack of a more comprehensive

economic-development strategy seems to be hindering the County’s progress.

Goochland’s lack of marketing, including its bare-bones website, also contributes to

difficulties in locating companies on existing user-ready properties. Goochland certainly

has the resources to address these shortcomings, but after losing its Director of

Economic Development, the County lacks leadership on this subject. Overall, Goochland


50

could be a valuable GRP partner, but it would be recommended that the County hire a

new Economic Development Director and create an economic development website.

New Kent

In general, New Kent County is running a fairly successful economic-development

program for a smaller locality. The County has a dedicated economic-development

office with full-time staff and a well-formed website. There are several user-ready

properties available, and the vast majority are connected to public water and sewer

services.

The County’s comprehensive plan, however, could use some improvements. The plan is

dated and there is no draft version of a new plan available to the public. New Kent

could also benefit from a comprehensive economic-development plan. These changes

are fully within the County’s ability. Despite some shortcomings in the planning

category, New Kent is in general ready to participate in regional economic

development.

Powhatan

Powhatan County has a dedicated economic-development office with full-time staff, a

dedicated website, and a new draft plan with a heavy focus on economic development

and land use. The county has public utilities available in some locations, and is about

to begin construction on utility extensions.

Powhatan’s biggest struggle is with product development. The county has very few

user-ready sites available, and has recently failed at an effort to develop new sites.

However, with the development of the economic-development plan that is promised by

the County’s draft comprehensive plan, new utility extensions, and a recovering

economy, it should be within the County’s power to improve the availability of user-

ready real estate for commercial and industrial uses. Once more product is available

to prospects, Powhatan will be ready to participate in regional economic development.


51

Summary

Overall, the prospective public-sector partners have more sophisticated economic-

development programs than they may be given credit for. Each locality has strengths

and weaknesses, and some could use improvement in particular areas. Charles City, for

example, will need to improve on both product development and marketing before

partnering with GRP. Goochland has several organizational issues to sort out, but

currently has enough product available to be a valuable member of GRP. New Kent

lacks only in economic-development planning and is currently ready to become a

Greater Richmond Partnership member. Powhatan is doing everything right, but needs

to develop more user-ready real estate before it will benefit fully from regional

marketing.


52

Section III: Funding Structures

The Greater Richmond Partnership’s funding structure is based on a rigid 50-50

balance between public and private investment. Partner jurisdictions contribute on an

equal basis, regardless of population or tax revenue. Currently, public-sector partners

contribute $370,000 annually. This funding structure has been a major roadblock to

GRP membership for Greater Richmond’s smaller localities and must be changed in

order for GRP to incorporate a larger portion of the Greater Richmond region into the

partnership. The following section presents several different funding structure options

and weighs their strengths and weaknesses.

The Public-Private Funding Balance

According to the bylaws, GRP funding is divided 50-50 between the public and private

partners. Among public-private regional economic-development organizations, this is not

an uncommon split. For instance, the Fredericksburg Regional Alliance, Virginia’s Region

2000 Partnership, and the Hampton Roads Economic Development Alliance all strive

towards a similar balance between public and private funding, though the recent

economic downturn has made it challenging for all of these partnerships, including

GRP, to meet 50% of their funding needs from the private sector.

The Greater Richmond Partnership differs from many of these other partnerships,

however, in the amount of funding it requires to carry out its operations. The Greater

Richmond Partnership excels at economic development and has a strong reputation,

both nationally and internationally, for its successful business recruitment practices. The

large amount of international marketing conducted by GRP is one of the reasons that

it is so successful at bringing new businesses to its four partner localities. However,

successful international marketing can be quite expensive, which is one of the reasons

not all regional economic-development groups pursue international prospects. GRP

brings great value to the Greater Richmond region by doing so, but in order to fund


53

this type of marketing activity, GRP requires a larger operating budget than many other

regional entities. A study conducted by graduate students at the College of William

and Mary in 2008 confirms that GRP’s budget is above average. Through a survey of

14 different regional economic-development groups throughout Virginia, Maryland, and

North Carolina, the students determined that the average budget for a regional

economic-development group is $1.5 million annually, and the median budget was only

$550,000.16 In contrast, the Greater Richmond Partnership’s budget is approximately $3

million annually.

Contributing 50% of such a large budget places a heavy funding burden on GRP’s

public-sector partners. Charlottesville’s Thomas Jefferson Partnership was the only other

economic development partnership that was found to use an equal contribution funding

system similar to GRP’s, but the equal contribution each partner is expected to pay

totals only $12,700, a sum even Greater Richmond’s smallest locality could afford.

GRP’s large budget is one of the reasons that it is so difficult to incorporate Greater

Richmond’s smaller jurisdictions into GRP; even contributing a small portion of the

budget could add up to a large sum for localities with limited tax revenue.

Despite difficult economic conditions which are currently creating a fundraising

challenge within the private sector, there exist regional organizations that are able to

fund themselves almost entirely from private-sector investors. For example, the Greater

Austin Chamber of Commerce and the Kansas City Area Development Council both

have large budgets ($3.6 million and $4.5 million respectively), of which at least 80% is

raised from the private sector. Both of these organizations employ staff to manage

investor relations and keep investors engaged in the economic-development process.

Fundraising campaigns are conducted in-house, as opposed to contracting them out to

a service provider. These two organizations also use intraregional marketing to inspire

16 Mehs Ess and Brett Levanto, “Regional Economic Development: An Analysis of Practices, Resources and

Outcomes,” The Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy, The College of William and Mary, December

16, 2008, 37.


54

a sense of pride and belonging within the region. Greater Austin frequently uses

slogans such as, “Helping Austin Helps You.” Kansas City has taken intraregional

marketing a step further by developing a regional brand, OneKC, complete with a logo

which is now used by over 250 local companies. These branding activities not only

make businesses more aware of the regional economic development organization; they

inspire a sense of belonging to the region and make it more likely for businesses to

invest in regional economic development.

The Richmond region is not so different from Austin or Kansas City, so there is no

reason why Greater Richmond businesses would be less inclined to invest in economic

development than their counterparts in these other regions. This suggests that there

may be an opportunity for the Greater Richmond Partnership to fund a greater portion

of its budget from the private sector.

In the past, GRP has used a contractor to accomplish fundraising goals. Other than the

President, there is no staff responsible for maintaining contact with investors.

Additionally, the bylaws rigidly specify the current 50-50 funding balance, forbidding

GRP from increasing the private-sector contribution level without also increasing the

public-sector funding. As mentioned previously, Greater Richmond also suffers from a

lack of regional identity and no branding campaign has yet proven to be successful.

With some adjustments, however, it could be possible to increase the private-sector

contributions to the partnership, relieving some of the funding burden from the public-

sector.

Funding Structures for the Public Sector

This section of the plan pertains to the method by which the public-sector

contributions are divided. There are a wide variety of funding formulas used by

regional economic-development organizations throughout Virginia and the United States.

During the creation of this plan, many regional economic-development organizations

were contacted for information about their funding system. Structures ranged from


55

public-private partnerships charging based on population, to private organizations

funded entirely by area businesses, to organizations funded largely through service

contracts. Some of these funding options are described below, along with a strengths

and weaknesses analysis for each system. Not all funding structures described below

are considered practical options for GRP and some prove to be a poor fit indeed, but

are presented here, if for no other reason, then to show that they are poor options

for the Greater Richmond Partnership.

In most cases, the funding structure descriptions include tables which provide a general

idea of how each system would look when applied to GRP’s partners. These tables are

based on an eight-partner organization, but are typically based on GRP’s current

budget without taking into consideration any new resources GRP may need to serve an

additional four partners. The payments displayed on each table are intended only as

estimates, and do not reflect the fact that GRP’s annual contributions may change

year-to-year as budgetary needs change. Because an increase to GRP’s total operating

budget is not considered here, actual payments may be slightly higher than these

estimates.

Equal Contribution Structure

What is it?

An equal contribution funding structure requires each partner to pay an equal share of

the organization’s total budget, regardless of factors such as size or wealth.

Who uses it?

Greater Richmond Partnership: Each of the four public-sector partners pays

$370,000 annually, which provides 50% of the organization’s funding.

Charlottesville’s Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development:

Currently, each of the nine member localities pays $12,500 annually, though

staff reports that the organization is moving away from this payment structure


56

in favor of a headcount method. The headcount method is being favored

because the urban center demands more of the organization’s services and has

a higher budget, so it is deemed fair that it should pay a larger portion of the

organization’s operating costs. Thus far, Thomas Jefferson Partnership staff

reports that there has not been any push back from the urban center on this

issue.

What does it look like?

The equal contribution payment structure is a very simple system. Essentially, the total

budget is divided by the number of participating partners. Table 6 gives an example of

what the equal contribution structure might look like at the Greater Richmond

Partnership, were GRP to expand its footprint to include the prospective public-sector

partners. In order for GRP to raise $1.48 million dollars, each member would contribute

$185,000 annually.

Table 6: Equal Contribution Example

Partner Annual Contribution

City of Richmond $185,000

Chesterfield County $185,000

Hanover County $185,000

Henrico County $185,000

Charles City County $185,000

Goochland County $185,000

New Kent County $185,000

Powhatan County $185,000

Total $1,480,000

Will it work for GRP?

Strengths:

GRP currently uses this system, so there would be no need to change the

funding structure or the bylaws.

This system is very simple.


57

With the addition of more public-sector partners, the current partners would

enjoy a significant decrease in their annual contributions.

Weaknesses:

This funding system does not take into account the population and revenue

differences between localities, so even if Greater Richmond’s smaller localities

did not require the same level of service as the larger partners (as in

Charlottesville and other Virginia regions), they would have to pay the same

annual contribution.

The required payment is entirely unaffordable for the prospective partners, which

prevents them from being able to join GRP.

Five-Partner Structure

What is it?

The five-partner funding structure is a variation on the equal payment structure, in

which the four prospective partners act as a single partner for funding purposes. Based

on 2009 population figures, these four localities have a combined population of only

74,604 residents, which is less than GRP’s next smallest partner, Hanover. While the

population of the counties still remains significantly lower than that of the other

partners, the system will remain fair. However, as the prospective partners grow, it may

be necessary to readjust the structure, for instance by creating a six-partner structure

where the four localities form two funding entities. A cap should be placed on the

total allowable population of any combined localities for this reason. Because the four

prospective partners would be acting as a single member for funding purposes, they

would each receive a seat on the board of directors, but their votes would only count

for one-quarter of a vote cast by a partner paying annual contributions alone.

Who uses it?

The five-partner structure is currently an untested model.


58


Table 7 below shows an example of how the five-partner funding structure might look

as applied to GRP. An equal contribution level (in this case, $300,000) would be

chosen in order to meet budget requirements. Then, the “five” partners would each pay

this amount equally, with the four smallest partners splitting the $300,000 annual

contribution based on population.

Table 7: Five-Partner Example

Partner 2009 Population Annual Contribution

City of Richmond 204,451 $300,000

Chesterfield County 306,670 $300,000

Hanover County 99,933 $300,000

Henrico County 296,415 $300,000

Charles City County 7,217 $29,021

Goochland County 21,311 $85,696

New Kent County 18,112 $72,833

Powhatan County 27,964 $112,450

Total

$1,500,000


Strengths:

The five-partner structure preserves some of the characteristics of the equal

payment system that is so popular among the majority of the current public-

sector partners.

The system recognizes the vast difference in population between the prospective

and current partners.

The system significantly reduces the annual contributions for all of the current

public-sector partners.

Weaknesses:

Even by acting as a single funding entity, the payments required by this system

may be too high for many of the prospective partners to afford.


59

As the distribution of population shifts in the region and as the potential

partners grow, the system would continuously require readjustments.

This system is potentially unfair to Hanover County, because it is not

unforeseeable that the combined population of the prospective partners could

eventually grow to overtake Hanover’s by a significant amount. If this happens,

the four prospective partners could be divided into two funding entities, but it is

entirely possible that their population would not be high enough for the

localities to afford half or full memberships.

This system connects the four prospective partners, allowing either all four, or

none, to join GRP.

Two-Tiered Structure

What is it?

The two-tiered funding structure would create two payment levels based on population.

Smaller partners pay at a lower rate, and larger partners pay at a higher rate. A

population cap is set for the lower tier to fairly determine what each locality must pay.

The services offered to the public-sector partners could remain equal in this system,

recognizing the different financial capabilities of small and large partners and the

different levels of service they are likely to require. Another option would be to offer

fewer services in the lower tier membership. However, this type of arrangement could

be difficult to set up within GRP because the organization’s marketing services are so

highly sought after that it would be difficult to create a split package of services that

included enough value at the lower tier while creating enough added value at the

upper tier. Also, because GRP is concerned with growing the base economy in the

Greater Richmond region, it should be free to take action where action is needed.

Limiting GRP’s services in certain localities may not be healthy for the overall growth of

the region.


60


Table 8 shows how the two-tier system might divide contributions among GRP’s current

and prospective partners. The payment difference between the tiers can be more or

less progressive, but $50,000 was chosen as the lower-tier contribution here because it

was determined to be close to the maximum amount that the prospective partners

could afford, while still offering a cost savings to the current partners. A maximum

population of 75,000 is used in this example as the line dividing the upper and lower

tiers, but any appropriate cap could be set.

Table 8: Two-Tiered Example

Partner 2009 Population Annual Contribution

Tier 1, Population

Over 75,000





Tier 2, Population 75,000 or

Under





Total $1,480,000


Strengths:

The two-tier system recognizes the large population difference between the

prospective and current partners.

The annual contribution rate of the lower tier is affordable for most localities,

while the upper tier rate offers a discount to current partners.

The system is simple and there is little room for controversy once a population

cap is agreed upon.


61

It is not necessary for all of the prospective partners to join at once in order

for this funding structure to work. As more lower-tier partners join, the discount

given to upper-tier partners can increase.

Weaknesses:

It is likely that the lower-tier rate may still be unaffordable for Charles City

County. However, this system ties the prospective-partner contributions together.

By reducing the payment requirements for the lower tier so that the smallest

member can afford annual dues, the larger and wealthier second-tier partners

would not be contributing as much as they are able.

Private-Sector Funding Structure

What is it?

A private-sector funding structure is used in many private regional organizations. An

organization using this structure would be funded almost solely by private-sector

investors. Should localities wish to use public funds to support the organization, they

generally become investors and contribute under the same guidelines as the private

sector.

Who uses it?

The Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce: Greater Austin’s regional economic-

development entity is a private organization that relies almost entirely on

contributions from the private sector. Though Greater Austin’s organization is a

chamber of commerce, membership dues are not used for economic-

development functions such as marketing and business retention. Instead, a

separate capital campaign is held once every five years to raise the $3.6 million

needed annually to fund the economic-development operations. Localities that

wish to contribute to the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce are able to do

so, but are not granted any special privileges over private-sector investors.


62

Kansas City Area Development Council: This is a private, not-for-profit

organization that receives most of its $4.5 million dollar budget from private-

sector investors. Local government partners contribute about $500,000 each

year, and the amount paid by each partner is negotiated based on capacity and

direct involvement. The organization has set a minimum investment mark at

$7,500.


Strengths:

This system is simple, and would allow GRP to represent the entire Richmond

region while collecting funding from any jurisdiction that wished to support the

organization.

This system would allow GRP to follow a regional economic-development

strategy without being beholden to any particular jurisdiction.

Weaknesses:

Like many regional economic-development organizations, GRP has recently had

trouble raising 50% of its budget from the private sector due to the current

challenging economic environment. It is therefore doubtful that GRP would be

successful in raising a much larger percentage of their budget from the private

sector on a consistent basis.

This system could disengage Greater Richmond’s localities from the economic-

development process.

Pay-Per-Service Structure

What is it?

A pay-per-service funding structure would charge localities a-la-carte for the GRP

services they use. There are many different ways to divide funding under this system.

For instance, partners could pay a low, flat rate membership fee, then pay separately


63

for services such as marketing missions or lead generation. This structure could also

be used in combination with another funding structure, allowing GRP to offer extra

services not normally provided to its partners.


Strengths:

This system links contributions to value-added services, making it easy for

public-sector partners to justify their payments to GRP.

This system links services provided to payment, allowing partner localities to

choose how much they would like to pay for and participate in regional

economic-development activities.

Smaller localities could pay less annual contributions by soliciting fewer services

from GRP.

If combined with a different funding structure, a pay-per-service arrangement

could allow GRP to offer extra services to its partners while putting more money

towards its general budget.

Weaknesses:

Because of the pay-as-you-go nature of this system, it would be difficult for

both GRP and the public-sector partners to determine their budgets ahead of

time.

It is in the best interests of Greater Richmond for GRP to market the entire

region each time it goes on a marketing trip. The pay-per-service system could

create ill-will between partners if a prospect locates in a jurisdiction that did not

pay or participate in the marketing mission.

Adopting a pay-per-service structure could encourage GRP to only take action

on items being paid for off an a-la-carte menu, instead of offering services

proactively based on the economic-development needs of the region.


64

Headcount Structure

What is it?

Under a headcount funding structure, public-sector partners pay a designated amount

per resident living in the locality. Because this system is based on population, larger

localities with more dense populations (and therefore higher tax revenues) make a

higher total annual contribution to regional economic development than smaller

localities with less people. This system is generally considered fair because larger

localities can usually afford to make a larger annual payment. Furthermore, they

typically have the highest direct benefit from participation in regional economic

development.

Who uses it?

Out of the regional economic-development programs studied during the creation of this

plan, the headcount method is by far the most popular funding structure.

Virginia’s Region 2000 Partnership: Lynchburg’s regional economic-

development organization has 10 local-government partners and uses a simple

headcount system in which partners pay $1.25 per capita. According to staff,

larger localities pay more, but because payment is based indirectly on a

locality’s resources, the system is considered fair.

Hampton Roads Economic Development Alliance: This public-private

organization is made up of 15 public-sector partners who each pay $1 per

capita. Larger localities that pay more are given special privileges “off the

books.” For instance, they are given the opportunity to select marketing trips

first, and special events have been held for certain localities.

Fredericksburg Regional Alliance: This public-private economic-development

organization previously collected $1.50 per capita from its five local-government

partners. Efficiencies allowed the rate to drop to $1.38. As a result of the

challenging economic conditions, public-sector partners now pay $1.00 per


65

capita and the Fredericksburg Regional Alliance is using reserves to make up

the budget shortfall.

Virginia’s Gateway Region: This public-private partnership represents eight

jurisdictions located in the southeastern section of the Richmond-Petersburg MSA

and uses a headcount method to collect funding.


There are a variety of ways in which a headcount structure could be applied to the

Greater Richmond Partnership. Below are three variations which use population as the

primary means of calculating annual contributions.

Simple Headcount Structure

Table 9 shows what annual contributions under a simple headcount structure might

look like for GRP’s public-sector partners. One column estimates payments at the

current funding level and the current 50-50 public-private funding balance. The

rightmost column estimates payments at the current funding level, but assumes a 40-

60 public-private balance.

Table 9: Simple Headcount Example

Partner 2009 Population Annual Contribution @ $1.51 per person

Annual Contribution @ $1.21 per Person with 40-60 Split

City of Richmond 204,451 $308,111 $246,489

Chesterfield County 306,670 $462,157 $369,725

Hanover County 99,933 $150,601 $120,481

Henrico County 296,415 $446,702 $357,362

Charles City County 7,217 $10,876 $8,701

Goochland County 21,311 $32,116 $25,693

New Kent County 18,112 $27,295 $21,836

Powhatan County 27,964 $42,142 $33,714

Total 982,073 $1,480,000 $1,184,000


66


Strengths:

This system links payments directly to population, so correctly reflects the

difference in resources between the larger and smaller localities.

Hanover County and the City of Richmond have significantly smaller populations

and tax revenue than Chesterfield and Henrico counties, and this is reflected in

the payments.

Payments for the prospective public-sector partners are low enough to be

affordable, given their small populations and limited tax revenue.

Membership of the prospective partners is not linked

Weaknesses:

This system is unpopular among most current public-sector partners.

Under the current 50-50 public-private funding balance, the simple headcount

method increases the payments made by Chesterfield and Henrico counties.

Payments under the 40-60 funding balance are attractive, but it is uncertain that

GRP could consistently raise a higher percentage of its annual budget from the

private sector.

Headcount Structure with Maximum-Contribution Cap

In order to avoid the increased annual contributions of Chesterfield and Henrico that

result under the simple headcount structure, a modified headcount structure is

presented in Table 10. This structure employs a maximum-contribution cap of

$350,000, which applies to the City of Richmond17 and Chesterfield and Henrico

counties. This maximum cap was chosen because it offers cost savings to all four

17 The maximum contribution cap is applied to the City of Richmond because, even though its contribution

did not exceed $350,000 in the simple headcount method, once Chesterfield and Henrico contributions are

reduced and the headcount method is applied to the remaining localities, the City’s contribution exceeds

the maximum cap.


67

current partners while maintaining an affordable contribution rate for the prospective

partners. It could, however, be set at any agreed-upon rate.

Table 10: Headcount with Maximum Contribution Example

Partner 2009 Population Annual Contribution @ $2.46 per

Person or $350,000 Maximum









Total

$1,480,000

Will it Work for GRP?

This funding structure has many of the same strengths and weaknesses as the simple

headcount system, but the addition of the maximum cap does change some of the key

strengths and weaknesses.

Strength:

The maximum cap reduces all the current partners’ annual contribution while still

providing lower rates for the prospective partners.

Weakness:

By lowering Chesterfield and Henrico contributions, the prospective partners must

pay a higher percentage of GRP’s total budget. These rates may require a

higher-than-ideal payment for the prospective partners.


68

Pay-to-Play Headcount Structure

The pay-to-play headcount structure is also based on the headcount funding system,

but instead of employing a maximum payment cap, this structure places a minimum

payment requirement on partners with 75,000 residents or less. Partners with larger

populations pay for each resident over 75,000 on a headcount system. Table 11 shows

two sets of payment calculations, one with a $50,000 minimum contribution and

another with a $100,000 minimum contribution.

Table 11: Pay-to-Play Headcount Example

Partner 2009

Population

Annual Contribution with $50,000 Minimum plus $1.78 per Person Over

75,000

Annual Contribution with $100,000 Minimum plus $1.12 per Person Over

75,000

Minimum Additional Total Annual Contribution

Minimum Additional Total Annual Contribution

City of Richmond

204,451

$50,000 $230,147 $280,147

$100,000 $144,907 $244,907

Chesterfield County

306,670

$50,000 $411,879 $461,879

$100,000 $259,331 $359,331

Hanover County

99,933

$50,000 $44,328 $94,328

$100,000 $27,910 $127,910

Henrico County

296,415

$50,000 $393,647 $443,647

$100,000 $247,852 $347,852

Charles City County

7,217

$50,000 $0 $50,000

$100,000 $0 $100,000

Goochland County

21,311

$50,000 $0 $50,000

$100,000 $0 $100,000

New Kent County

18,112

$50,000 $0 $50,000

$100,000 $0 $100,000

Powhatan County

27,964

$50,000 $0 $50,000

$100,000 $0 $100,000

Total

400,000 1,080,000 $1,480,000 $800,000 $680,000 $1,480,000


69


Strengths:

The system requires a minimum payment from smaller localities.

The minimum payment at the $50,000 level would be affordable for most


Weaknesses:

The system overemphasizes the population differences between the current

partners, increasing the annual contributions of Chesterfield and Henrico

significantly and decreasing those of Richmond and Hanover significantly.

The $50,000 minimum payment is likely unaffordable for Charles City County. In

order to lower the payments of the current partners, a $100,000 minimum

payment was calculated, but this rate is likely to be unaffordable for any of the

prospective counties.


70

Section IV: The Plan

The overarching purpose of this plan is to create a realistic path towards footprint

expansion for the Greater Richmond Partnership. This topic touches upon many

different issues, which have been discussed in Sections I, II, and III. Because of the

current political environment, as well as the current economic-development capabilities

of some of the prospective partners, it is unlikely that GRP will find it possible to

extend membership to the prospective partners immediately. Therefore, in addition to a

new funding structure, incremental changes are being recommended to aid in the

development of the prospective partners and to soften views that are opposed to

footprint expansion. Below the reader will find goals and objectives which GRP can

follow to move towards the inclusion of Charles City, Goochland, New Kent, and

Powhatan counties. The implementation section provides a timeline with which to follow

the goals and objectives.

Goals and Objectives

GOAL 1: Include Charles City, Goochland, New Kent, and Powhatan counties in the

Greater Richmond regional economic-development process.

OBJECTIVE 1.1: Open lines of communication between GRP staff and the prospective

public partners’ staff.

WHO: GRP President and other staff.

WHAT: GRP does maintain some contact with the prospective public-sector

partners already, but lines of communication should be opened further. The

prospective public partners should be informed that GRP would like to further

involve them in the regional economic-development process. To start, GRP’s

President could phone the lead staff members responsible for economic

development in each prospective partner county.


71

WHY: Until now, Greater Richmond’s smaller localities have been treated as if

they were not part of the Richmond region. Some of the prospective partners

are not yet ready to become full members of GRP, but by opening the lines of

communication, GRP will be taking the first step toward including the prospective

partners at the regional economic-development table.

WHEN: This step can, and should, be taken immediately.

OBJECTIVE 1.2: Continue to invite prospective public partners to participate in social

and informational functions.

WHO: GRP staff.

WHAT: GRP should continue to invite the prospective public-sector partners to

social and informational events, especially those with a networking function. To

start, it may not be possible to include prospective partners in events funded

directly by GRP because of sensitivities on the part of the current partners, but

prospective partners should be encouraged to attend other regional events

which include GRP and the current partners.

WHY: Personal relationships are the foundation of regional cooperation. By

including the economic-development staff of the prospective partners in events

with a networking component, GRP can encourage relationship building between

the prospective and current public-sector partners. It is hoped that this step may

soften the position of many of the current public-sector partners on the

inclusion of new public partners under a different payment structure.

WHEN: GRP should extend invitations to the prospective public partners for the

next appropriate event.

OBJECTIVE 1.3: Invite the prospective public partners to strategy-planning meetings.

WHO: GRP staff and current public-sector partners.

WHAT: Extend a standing invitation to the lead staff managing the economic-

development functions in Charles City, Goochland, New Kent, and Powhatan to

attend strategy-planning meetings held by GRP staff and the current prospective


72

partners, perhaps even including LEDO (Local Economic Development Official)

meetings if the planned topics of discussion are appropriate. Should GRP take

steps toward updating its overall regional economic-development strategy, it will

be especially important to include prospective partners.

WHY: The inclusion of the prospective partners in GRP’s regional economic-

development-strategy meetings will serve to 1) improve regional economic-

development strategy by gaining a broader regional perspective, 2) allow the

prospective partners to become familiar with the regional economic-development

process and strategy, and to improve their ability to become fully-participating

members of GRP in the future, and 3) allow the current public partners to work

with and become more familiar with the prospective public partners, reinforcing

the perception that the prospective partners are part of the Greater Richmond

region and have value to contribute toward economic-development efforts.

WHEN: An invitation should be extended to the prospective partners for the next

appropriate meeting.

GOAL 2: Support the development of the prospective public-sector partners as they

build their economic-development capabilities.

OBJECTIVE 2.1: Adopt a set of economic-development capability standards, such as the

ones presented in this plan, to guide the GRP board in the acceptance or rejection of

new GRP members.

WHO: GRP staff and the GRP Board of Directors.

WHAT: In addition to the existing procedural guidelines which govern the

process of adding a new member to the Greater Richmond Partnership, a set of

guidelines should be adopted which specify the minimum economic-development

standards localities must meet in order to qualify for GRP membership.


73

WHY: These standards will serve two purposes: 1) To protect the high quality

standards of GRP and to ensure that they are not compromised by a partner

who is unable to fully and professionally participate in regional economic-

development activities, and 2) To provide prospective members with a set of

guidelines to help them focus efforts toward improving their economic-

development capabilities.

WHEN: Standards should be adopted as soon as possible so that prospective

members can begin working on improvements to their local economic-

development programs.

OBJECTIVE 2.2: Be available to provide basic guidance, research support, and expertise

to the prospective public partners in their efforts to expand their economic-

development capabilities.

WHO: GRP staff.

WHAT: The staff of GRP should be available to provide some basic support and

guidance to the prospective public-sector partners, should their input be

requested. It is important that prospective public partners are aware that GRP

staff can offer these services. The services GRP can offer to prospective

partners, however, must be very limited in nature – for instance giving advice –

in order to avoid using resources paid for by the current partners to help the


WHY: The prospective public partners are small localities with a small number of

staff available to work on economic-development issues. Many times, staff roles

will be combined and planners or county administrators with limited economic-

development experience may be charged with handling the locality’s economic-

development functions. GRP staff is comprised of skilled economic-development

professionals, so general advice and guidance could easily be given.

WHEN: This service should be available immediately.


74

OBJECTIVE 2.3: Encourage the prospective public partners to work together to jointly

develop real-estate product.

WHO: GRP staff.

WHAT: GRP staff should encourage the prospective public partners to jointly

develop shovel-ready real estate for the purposes of business attraction.

Prospective localities would share in the costs and revenues of such sites.

WHY: The prospective partners all have an abundant supply of land with which

to work with, but developing shovel-ready real estate property can present many

challenging costs to localities with small populations and small tax bases. By

working together, the prospective partners will be able to share expenses and

develop marketable real estate more quickly.

WHEN: GRP should encourage this activity immediately.

GOAL 3: Improve attitudes towards regionalism among local governments and

businesses.

OBJECTIVE 3.1: Contract for a university study focused on improving attitudes towards

regionalism in the Greater Richmond area.

WHO: The GRP Board of Directors and GRP staff.

WHAT: A study or plan focused on improving attitudes towards regionalism in

the Greater Richmond area should be contracted by the Greater Richmond

Partnership. The study should be conducted by one of the area universities such

as Virginia Commonwealth University or the University of Richmond and should

be carried out by a study team including at least one PhD-level faculty member.

The study should offer specific strategies that can be implemented by GRP to

improve regional sentiment throughout Greater Richmond. GRP should use in-kind

funding for this purpose, so that the cost of the study does not have to be

subtracted from other funding sources.

WHY: The Greater Richmond region, and especially the local governments in the

region, do not typically gravitate towards regional cooperation initiatives. If a


75

project can be done without regional support, it generally will be. In many cases,

GRP’s current public-sector partner staff did not seem to consider the

prospective partners as part of the Richmond region, even though they are

members of the MSA, GRCC, RRPDC, and CRWIB. Furthermore, instead of working

together to beat competition from outside the region, localities in the Richmond

MSA consider each other competition. Improved attitudes towards regionalism

should ease opposition to expanding GRP’s footprint, as well as help GRP more

fully take advantage of possible synergies with other regional entities.

WHEN: The study should be conducted once GRP has replenished in-kind

funding from area universities, perhaps in Spring 2011. A study of this

magnitude may require more than a single semester of work.

OBJECTIVE 3.2: Create a regional economic-development guide which can be used as a

tool by local elected officials and policy makers to help them better understand the

relationship between local policy and regional economic development.

WHO: GRP staff.

WHAT: The guide should include information about basic regional economic-

development concepts, an outline of the current regional economic-development

strategy, and insights into how local policies affect both regional economic-

development outcomes and neighboring localities. The guide should be written in

a concise, easy-to-understand style to encourage reading and comprehension. In

order to balance the needs of both public- and private-sector partners, GRP

must remain neutral on specific policy issues and this should be kept in mind

as the guide is being created. The Virginia Economic Development Partnership

produces a similar guide for local elected officials, which can be used as a

model in the creation of a guide that is more tailored to the needs of Greater

Richmond localities.

WHY: Local land-use, housing, taxation, and economic-development policies can

have a strong effect on the region as a whole, and adjoining localities in


76

particular. It is important for both current- and prospective-partner localities to

understand basic regional economic-development concepts and to consider the

effects that their local policy decisions have on economic-development strategy

and neighboring localities. Ultimately, it is up to individual localities to make

their own policy decisions based on what is best for their residents. However,

being aware of the outward effects of such policies and incorporating this

awareness into the decision-making process could help ease current tensions

between Greater Richmond localities, as well as prevent new tensions from

arising. Being more familiar with regional economic development concepts could

encourage policy makers to be more open to increased regional cooperation.

WHEN: This guide should be produced and distributed by December 2011.

GOAL 4: Provide board members with information supporting the expansion of GRP’s

footprint.

OBJECTIVE 4.1: Provide board members with studies or commentary related to either

the GRP footprint or to regional cooperation in general.

WHO: GRP staff.

WHAT: Regional cooperation material may focus on the Greater Richmond

region, or may just provide powerful examples of successful regional cooperation

from other metropolitan areas. Such information should be provided in the

board member packets that are prepared prior to each board meeting. The

limited free-time of board members should be respected; any literature provided

should be short, or should include a synopsis.

WHY: This information should be provided so that all board members – and

public-sector board members in particular – are aware of increasing pressure

from the private-sector and from other regional organizations to improve

regional cooperation and to expand the GRP footprint. Providing case studies of


77

successful regional cooperation could increase the board members’ willingness

to expand regional cooperation efforts in the Richmond region. Also, by

periodically including relevant commentary on this subject in board member

packets, the subject will remain in board members’ thoughts.

WHEN: Beginning immediately, this extra material should be provided in board

member packets whenever appropriate information is discovered.

OBJECTIVE 4.2: Poll private-sector investors regarding their opinions on the issue of

footprint expansion.

WHO: GRP staff.

WHAT: GRP should conduct a survey of private-sector investors to measure their

opinions regarding the footprint-expansion issue. It would be particularly

appropriate to include such questions on a survey or communication which has

a different, but related purpose so that the survey does not reflect any ulterior

motives of the GRP staff. The results of such a survey should be reported to

board members.

WHY: The private-sector investors interviewed during the creation of this plan

were unanimously in favor of footprint expansion. However, it was only possible

to consult with a very small fraction of GRP’s 120 private investors during the

creation of this plan. A more comprehensive survey should be conducted and

the results shared with the GRP Board of Directors.

WHEN: This objective should be carried out within the next year.

GOAL 5: Raise a higher percentage of GRP’s funding from the private sector.

OBJECTIVE 5.1: Modify the bylaws to allow a shift from the currently mandated 50-50

public-private contributions balance to a 40-60 balance.

WHO: The GRP Board of Directors


78

WHAT: GRP’s current bylaws rigidly mandate a 50-50 ratio between public and

private funding. This language should be adjusted to allow for a higher ratio of

private-sector funding, while still giving GRP the flexibility to maintain the 50-50

split if fundraising efforts within the private-sector do not reach 60% of GRP’s

budgetary needs.

WHY: Because GRP requires a larger-than-average budget to continue to

conduct world-class business attraction activities, the funding burden placed on

the public sector is larger than in other communities. Greater Richmond’s

enthusiastic and engaged business community has the resources to contribute

more towards the region’s economic-development efforts, and movement towards

a 40-60 funding balance would lessen the funding burden on the public sector.

A smaller public-sector contribution would make it easier for the prospective

partners to afford membership.

WHEN: This adjustment should be made prior to the next capital campaign,

which will take place before the 2014-2019 five-year funding cycle.

OBJECTIVE 5.2: Move the management of capital fundraising campaigns in-house.

WHO: GRP President and GRCC President.

WHAT: The management of the capital campaign, which is jointly organized

every five years by GRP and GRCC, has to date always been contracted out to

a professional fundraising group. These functions should be moved back in-

house, and should be managed by GRP staff.

WHY: Most fundraising must be facilitated by either the GRP President or the

GRCC President because they have connections and contacts within the Greater

Richmond business community. By moving the management of the capital

campaign in-house, a cost savings can be realized. More importantly, GRP staff

will be more motivated than an outside contractor and will be able to add a

personal touch to the fundraising process, which is likely to be more appealing

to investors and produce better results.


79

WHEN: This adjustment should be made prior to the next capital campaign,

which will take place before the 2014-2019 five-year funding cycle.

OBJECTIVE 5.3: Hire an Investment Manager.

WHO: GRP President.

WHAT: The tasks of the Investment Manager will be dedicated towards

increasing private-sector revenue. They will include 1) management of in-house

fundraising campaigns, 2) event organization and communication with current

investors to keep them engaged in the regional economic-development process,

and 3) participation in the creation and ongoing proliferation of an intraregional

and extraregional branding campaign.

WHY: These job tasks are considered vital to the goal of increasing private-

sector investment in GRP. Facilitating increased communication levels with

investors can be time consuming, but it is important to keep investors engaged

in the economic-development process to encourage increased private-sector

support. Currently, completion of these duties falls to the GRP President and the

GRCC President, who both have other job responsibilities. Other duties, namely

those related to an intraregional branding campaign, are not currently

performed.

WHEN: Hiring for this position should begin as soon as resources are available,

and prior to the next capital campaign which will take place before the 2014-

2019 five-year funding cycle.

OBJECTIVE 5.4: Partner with the appropriate organizations to influence the development

of a meaningful, successful brand for the Greater Richmond area.

WHO: GRP staff, especially the new Investment Manager.

WHAT: There are several different organizations throughout the Richmond region,

most notably the Martin Agency and Venture Richmond, which are currently

working on the creation of a regional brand. GRP should partner with these

organizations and participate in the brand creation.


80

WHY: It is universally recognized that the Greater Richmond region lacks a

cohesive identity. This lack of identity encourages fragmentation among local

governments, residents, and the business community alike. Developing a

recognizable brand for the region will 1) help create a more regionally-focused

attitude throughout Greater Richmond, 2) increase regional awareness of the

Greater Richmond Partnership, and 3) facilitate in private-sector fundraising

efforts. However, the organizations responsible for developing a regional brand

are not necessarily focused on the marketing needs of regional economic

development. GRP should participate in the branding process to ensure that the

new branding campaign accomplishes the following: 1) intraregional marketing, to

inspire a greater sense of regional pride in the Greater Richmond business

community, and 2) extraregional marketing, including a logo that will be

recognizable nationally and internationally as belonging to Greater Richmond.

The OneKC branding campaign in Kansas City should be used as a model.

WHEN: Branding efforts are ongoing, so GRP should increase involvement

immediately.

GOAL 6: Allow the prospective partners to participate in the Business First Greater

Richmond program before becoming full partners of GRP.

OBJECTIVE 6.1: Continue efforts to adopt a regional strategy within the Business First

Greater Richmond program.

WHO: GRP staff (especially Business First staff) and current public-sector partners.

WHAT: The Business First Greater Richmond program currently provides regional

business retention and expansion services. Program participants share a common

administrative process involving business visitation and data recording, but there

is no common regional strategy used to determine which types of businesses

should be visited. Efforts toward developing a region-wide business retention and

expansion strategy should continue. Such a strategy should take into account

the business-attraction, workforce-development, and small-business-development


81

strategies currently being used in the region. The development of such a

strategy will require the full participation of both GRP staff and current program

participants.

WHY: A common regional strategy would add significant value to the Business

First Greater Richmond program for both program participants and the Richmond

region as a whole. Furthermore, the existence of an overarching regional

strategy could create enough incentive to convince prospective public-sector

partners to dedicate resources – especially monetary resources – toward

participation in the regional business-retention and expansion program.

WHEN: Because of the potential value of a regional business-retention and

expansion strategy, discussions should begin immediately with current public-

sector partners. A regional strategy should be ready for implementation within

one year.

OBJECTIVE 6.2: Assess the interest of prospective partners in participating in the

Business First Greater Richmond program.

WHO: GRP staff.

WHAT: Before taking further action toward including the prospective partners in

the Business First program, their level of interest in participating should be

determined. It will be important to determine how many prospective partners will

be interested in participating, which – if any – extra services they may require,

and what they are willing and able to pay towards program costs.

WHY: GRP should not dedicate resources towards expanding the Business First

program if the prospective partners are uninterested in participating, or are

unwilling or unable to contribute towards program costs.

WHEN: This step should be taken after a regional strategy has been adopted by

the Business First program so that GRP staff can clearly articulate the benefits

of the program to the prospective public partners.


82

OBJECTIVE 6.3: Partner with the Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce to offer

regional business-retention and expansion services to the prospective partners through

a contract.

WHO: The Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce and GRP staff.

WHAT: The Greater Richmond Partnership should partner with the Greater

Richmond Chamber of Commerce to offer Business First services through a

contract, which would be unrelated to general GRP membership. Prospective

partners will pay an annual fee to the Greater Richmond Chamber for regional

business-retention and expansion services. The Chamber will then sub-contract

these services to the Greater Richmond Partnership, who will fulfill the contract

obligations by providing the services offered in the Business First program. This

contract system will make it possible for prospective partners to participate in

GRP’s regional business-retention and expansion program without becoming full

partners of GRP. Localities receiving Business First services through a contract

will not receive business recruitment services.

WHY: Business retention and expansion activities have the biggest effect on a

locality for the smallest financial investment. It is easier to retain businesses

than it is to attract them, and many studies attest to the fact that these

activities retain and create more jobs than do business-attraction activities.

Business-retention and expansion activities are a perfect match to help localities

such as the prospective partners develop, since they are looking to expand their

tax bases and eventually have the resources to become full GRP partners.

Furthermore, many of the prospective partners already have a local business

retention program, so their participation in Greater Richmond’s Business First

program would allow them to further align their retention and expansion

strategies with those of the region, including receiving the same support and

training that other Business First members receive. The Greater Richmond

Chamber of Commerce will organize the contracts for service, allowing GRP to


83

provide Business First services to members outside of its current footprint

through an income-producing contract.

WHEN: Because the current Business First staff is already overburdened, a

contract system should only be created if/when GRP is able to add more staff

to support GRP’s Business First program or workforce and talent-development

program. Also, as specified in OBJECTIVE 2.1, the current Business First Greater

Richmond program should adopt a regional strategy before a contract system is

created, in order to provide the prospective partners with more value.

GOAL 7: Modify policies and funding structure to allow Charles City, Goochland, New

Kent, and Powhatan counties to join as full partners.

OBJECTIVE 7.1: Adopt a headcount funding system which employs a maximum-

contribution cap.

WHO: The GRP Board of Directors.

WHAT: GRP should adopt a headcount system with a maximum-contribution cap.

The maximum-contribution cap and per-capita rate should be set so that 1)

current partners are not paying more under the new funding system than they

are paying under the present funding system and 2) prospective partners are

able to afford the annual contribution. As more partners join, the maximum-

contribution cap and per-capita rate should be adjusted as needed. The bylaws

will need to be changed to reflect the new funding structure.

WHY: GRP should adopt this funding structure so that prospective partners can

afford annual contributions and current partners can take advantage of lower

annual payments resulting from the increased dispersal of the public-sector

funding burden. Of all the funding structures studied, the headcount system is

the most equitable; by tying contributions to population, they will be indirectly

linked to a locality’s resources and likely demand on GRP’s services. The use of


84

a maximum-contribution cap should work especially well for GRP due to the

large population differences between localities.

WHEN: This funding structure change should happen when one or more

prospective partners wishes to join GRP as a full partner.

OBJECTIVE 7.2: Adopt a pay-per-service system designed to overlap with the main

headcount funding structure.

WHO: GRP staff and GRP Board of Directors.

WHAT: Adopt a pay-per-service system to allow partners to obtain services such

as marketing material creation or basic website design help, which are not

normally included with regular membership fees. A list of suggested services

should be created, but the system should be flexible enough to allow for any

reasonable needed service to be provided.

WHY: The prospective public partners have very few staff members dedicated to

economic development, and could, from time to time, use assistance in carrying

out certain functions normally handled by a local economic-development office.

These services should be offered by GRP, who has the staff and expertise to

provide help to its partners. However, these types of activities would not

necessarily be regional in nature, so should not be paid for out of GRP’s main

budget. A pay-per-service system would allow these services to be paid for by

the partner requesting the service.

WHEN: This system should be developed and adopted in conjunction with the

headcount system.


85

Implementation

The timetable below provides a guideline for implementation of the goals and

objectives contained in the plan. The table begins in July 2010 and the first year-and-

a-half are broken down into six-month segments. For simplicity, beginning from 2012,

the remaining segments represent one calendar year. Blue lines indicate when a

particular objective should be carried out, and for how long this activity should last. It

should be noted that many of the recommendations in this plan are dependent on the

development of regional sentiment within Greater Richmond. Should this take longer

than allotted for in the plan, then the implementation of certain objectives may have

to be delayed.

Table 12: Implementation Timetable

Date


2010 July-Dec

2011 Jan-June

2011 July-Dec 2012 2013 2014 2015

Include prospective partners in regional economic development

Open lines of communication

Invite to social events

Invite to strategy planning meetings

Support development of prospective partners

Adopt ED capability standards

Provide guidance and support

Encourage joint real estate development

Improve regional attitude

Contract university study

Create a regional ED guide


86

Table 12: Implementation Timetable, continued

Date


2010 July-Dec

2011 Jan-June

2011 July-Dec 2012 2013 2014 2015

Provide board members with pro-regional materials

Include extra material in board packets

Survey private-sector investors

Raise more funding from private sector

Modify bylaws

Move capital campaign in-house

Hire an Investment Manager

Participate in regional branding

Allow prospective partners to participate in Business First Greater Richmond

Adopt a regional Business First strategy

Assess interest in participation

Partner with Chamber to create contract

Modify funding structure and bylaws

Adopt a headcount funding structure

Adopt a pay-per-service system


87

Conclusion

The footprint of the Greater Richmond Partnership has not changed since 1978,

despite strong regional growth over the past 30 years. The current footprint no longer

accurately represents the Richmond region, and it is time for GRP to make adjustments

to allow more localities to participate in the regional economic-development process.

However, prospective partners do not have the same resources as current partners and

cannot afford to pay current membership dues. Therefore, the funding structure of GRP

must change in order to accommodate new members.

Despite the benefits that could be gained by footprint expansion, GRP’s footprint has

yet to change – not because of a lack of appropriate funding structures that would

divide public-sector contributions in a fair and equitable way, but because many

members of the Greater Richmond community have not yet let go of intraregional

tensions. Many local governments still view neighboring localities as competition, and

not as allies. To date, the City of Richmond and its immediate surrounding counties

have been able to fund GRP on their own and successfully attract new businesses to

their localities. In order to continue with the same fragmented regional economic-

development strategy, they don’t need to invite other localities to participate, and don’t

need to make accommodations for these localities. However, as members of a region

that will “sink or swim together,” they should do this. There are too many other

regions that are already working together much more effectively to compete for jobs

and investment. By leveraging only a portion of the resources within the region, Greater

Richmond is less competitive than it could be – and the weaknesses that are created

by poor regional coordination will be exploited by other regions. Greater Richmond

must stop focusing on intraregional competition and leverage all of the region’s assets

to become a more attractive location for business and investment.

The real challenge in expanding GRP’s footprint will be to alter the perceptions of local

governments, regional organizations, and the private sector in order to foster a more


88

cooperative and collaborative regional environment. Without a shift in attitude toward

regional cooperation, footprint expansion is not likely to occur. For this reason, the

goals presented in this plan focus on not only altering GRP’s funding structure and

strengthening the economic-development capabilities of the prospective partners, but

also on incremental changes and small actions that are intended to soften perceptions

toward regional cooperation.

In order to give the region as much of a competitive edge as possible, it is logical to

take advantage of all the economic-development resources available in the region. In

doing so, Greater Richmond will become a more cohesive region and, more

importantly, a more competitive location for business. Footprint expansion benefits us

all.


89

Sources

Accordino, John et al. “A Regional Reset: Building upon GRP’s Strengths to Enhance

Economic Development in the Richmond Region.” Richmond, May 2010.

Blackwell, John Reid. “Greater Richmond Chamber Expands Geographic Reach.” The

Richmond Times Dispatch, March 26, 2010.

Charles City County. Charles City County official website. http://co.charles-city.va.us/

(accessed April 18, 2010).

Charles City County. “Charles City County, Virginia: Comprehensive Land Use Plan.” May

12, 1998. http:/co.charles-city.va.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={1E6FCF79-

E733-4454-B45E-BEC0BA2D922D}&DE={8E6E9ACF-D3A5-4EA6-AF10-AFFBB3540E83}

Charles City County, “County of Charles City, VA Annual Fiscal Report for Fiscal Year

Ended June 30, 2009.” http://co.charles-city.va.us/vertical/Sites/%7B5140D83F-

6014-4EC8-875E-081F6AF51220%7D/uploads/%7BC8D70AA8-F977-434E-89FE-

6362718B9E30%7D.PDF (accessed March 31, 2010).

Charles City County. “Draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan.” August 13, 2009.

http://co.charles-city.va.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={1E6FCF79-E733-4454-

B45E-BEC0BA2D922D}&DE={C57B2B4E-2853-4A2A-B6E2-4EB336406A88}

Charlotte Regional Partnership. “About Us, Overview.”

http://www.charlotteusa.com/About/about_overview.asp (accessed April 24, 2010).

Chesterfield County. “Chesterfield County, Virginia Biennial Financial Plan, FY2009 and

FY 2010.” http://www.chesterfield.gov/Budget.aspx?id=3261 (accessed March 31,

2010).

City of Richmond. “City of Richmond, Virginia Adopted Biennial Fiscal Plan, Fiscal Years

2010 and 2011.”


90

http://www.richmondgov.com/Budget/documents/BiennialPlans/2010-

2011_AdoptedBiennialFiscalPlan.pdf (accessed March 31, 2010).

Commission on Local Government, Department of Housing and Community

Development, Commonwealth of Virginia. “Report on the Comparative Revenue

Capacity, Revenue Effort, and Fiscal Stress of Virginia’s Counties and Cities

2007/2008.” March 2010. http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov.

Ess, Mehs and Brett Levanto. “Regional Economic Development: An Analysis of

Practices, Resources and Outcomes.” The Thomas Jefferson Program in Public

Policy, The College of William and Mary. December 16, 2008.

Goochland County. “County of Goochland FY2009-2010 Approved Budget.”

http://www.co.goochland.va.us/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=wgQezgXPhEI%3d&tabid=76

&mid=593 (accessed March 31, 2010).

Goochland County, “Discover Goochland.” http://www.discovergoochland.com/ (accessed

April 18, 2010).

Goochland County. “Goochland 2028: The Comprehensive Plan for Goochland County,

Virginia.” February 3, 2009.

http://www.co.goochland.va.us/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=GEc0L13r1nw%3d&tabid=18

4&mid=970

Goochland County. “Goochland County Economic Development.”

http://www.co.goochland.va.us/Departments/DepartmentsAF/EconomicDevelopment

/tabid/73/Default.aspx#develop (accessed April 18, 2010).

Goochland County. “Goochland County, VA: Great Location, Great Lifestyle.” http://is-

apps07.co.goochland.va.us/Portals/0/Goochland%20County%20Open%20For%20B

usiness%20Rev2010.pdf (accessed April 18, 2010).


91

Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce. “Austin Chamber of Commerce.”

http://www.austinchamber.com/index.html (accessed February 21, 2010).

Greater Richmond Partnership. “Bylaws of Public-Private Partnership for Economic

Development, Inc.”

Greater Richmond Partnership. “Greater Richmond Partnership, Inc. Globally Focused,

Regionally Competitive.” http://www.grpva.com/ (accessed April 22, 2010).

Hanover County. “Hanover County, VA Fiscal Year 2010 Adopted Budget.”

http://www.co.hanover.va.us/finance/adopted-10/FY10AdoptedBudget.pdf

(accessed March 31, 2010).

Henrico County. “Approved Annual Fiscal Plan 2009-2010.”

http://www.co.henrico.va.us/departments/finance/approved-annual-fp-09-10/

(accessed March 31, 2010).

Kansas City Area Development Council. “ThinkKC.” http://www.thinkkc.com/ (accessed

March 4, 2010).

New Kent County. “New Kent County FY2009-FY2010 Adopted Budget.”

http://www.co.new-kent.va.us/accounting/fy2010budget/adopted.php (accessed

March 31, 2010).

New Kent County. “New Kent County Virginia, A Great Place for Business to Grow.”

http://www.yesnewkent.biz/ (accessed April 18, 2010).

New Kent County. “New Kent County, Virginia Comprehensive Plan Vision 2020.” August

4, 2003. http://www.co.new-

kent.va.us/planningcomm/revcompplan/00COMPPLANF.pdf

Powhatan County. “2010 Adopted Annual Fiscal Plan Community Development.”

http://www.powhatanva.gov/vertical/Sites/%7B12C8808F-C3AA-4B38-AACE-


92

82C7ED6CDACF%7D/uploads/%7B2A9DBFC6-29B8-4244-8F9B-

E979FDA0AD8E%7D.PDF (accessed March 31, 2010).

Powhatan County. “FY2010 Adopted Budget.”

http://www.powhatanva.gov/vertical/Sites/%7B12C8808F-C3AA-4B38-AACE-

82C7ED6CDACF%7D/uploads/%7BC0FB6ACC-5129-4096-B470-

F274C96AE301%7D.PDF (accessed March 31, 2010).

Powhatan County. “Powhatan County Comprehensive Plan: 2010 Long-Range

Comprehensive Plan.” Public Draft, January 2010.

http://www.powhatanplan.com/wp-

content/filez/2010/03/PowhatanCompPlanAdoptionDraft4-17-10forprinting.pdf

Powhatan County. “Powhatan County, Virginia Comprehensive Plan 1998-2018.” January

12, 1998. http://www.powhatanplan.com/wp-content/filez/2008/10/1998-

powhatan-comprehensive-plan-update.pdf

Powhatan County. “Powhatan Office of Economic Development.” 2008.

http://powhatanva.info/ (accessed April 18, 2010).

Richmond Regional Planning District Commission. “Richmond Regional Planning District

Commission, Planning District 15.” http://www.richmondregional.org/ (accessed

April 22, 2010).

Richmond Times Dispatch. “Charlotte Mayor Offers Civics Lessons, He tells Richmond

group that cities, nearby regions ‘will sink or swim together.” November 21,

2008.

US Census Bureau. “LED OnTheMap Origin-Destination Database.” Beginning of Quarter

Employment, 2nd Quarter 2008. http://lehdmap4.did.census.gov/themap4/

U.S. Census Bureau. “Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas.” August 19, 2009.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/metroareas/lists/2008/List1.txt


93

Virginia Department of Economic Development. Virginia Community Certificate Program

Handbook. August 1, 1989.

Virginia Economic Development Partnership. “Community Profile: Richmond MSA,

Virginia.” PDF (accessed April 22, 2010).

Virginia Economic Development Partnership. “Planning District Commission Regions.”

2009.

Virginia Economic Development Partnership. “Regional Economic Development Marketing

Organizations.” 2009.

Virginia Economic Development Partnership. “Richmond MSA.”

http://virginiascan.yesvirginia.org/communityprofiles/MapSearch.aspx?type=MSA

(accessed April 22 and 23, 2010).

Virginia Economic Development Partnership. “Search Properties.”

http://virginiascan.yesvirginia.org/site_selection/PropertySearch.aspx (accessed

April 18, 2010).

Virginia Gateway Region. “About Us.” http://www.gatewayregion.com/about/about.html

(accessed April 22, 2010).

In addition to the use of the printed material above, several confidential interviews with

various organizations were conducted.

a step in the right direction

Documents

greater richmond region

footprint expansion

regional planning program

public affairs master

planning process

economicdevelopment

grace festa

associate professor