Rutland region marshaling support for new development

Vermont Business Magazine, Jun 01, 2002 by Barna, Ed

At a time when Rutland County has been sharing in the uncertainties of a war on terrorism and a complicated transition out of recession, the Rutland Economic Development Corporation has been looking to the long-term.

This spring, it put together a baseline for gauging future economic developments by issuing its first quarterly Economic Report Card. The findings weren't reassuring. They put a quantitative edge on the malaise created by the 2000 Census, which found that Rutland City had slipped below Essex to become only the third largest municipality in the state.

Skipping to the last part of the report, federal Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates of 2001 family income put Rutland County last in a group that included the non-metropolitan part of Chittenden County (at the top with $59,200), Colchester ($57,400), Burlington ($57,400) and in order among those in the 40s, Addison County, Windsor County, Windham County, Bennington County, and Lamoille County.

But if this was a tough pill to swallow, nevertheless it was medicinal, from the standpoint of David O'Brien, REDC's executive director. He said the statistics point to a need for the entire business community to be aware of all the elements that constitute a business climate, and to be actively concerned about issues that go beyond any one company's concerns.

Though in one sense a new starting point for a new century, the Economic Report Card was also a continuation of Rutland County's pro-active approach to meeting changes and challenges.

Like the "On the Right Track" report that helped guide Rutland's downtown revitalization, or the collaborative work done by the area's school superintendents, or the strategic planning that Pittsford and Brandon have done to speed up Route 7 improvements - and more - the document was meant more as a call to collaboration than as a criticism of particular groups.

In any case, the data did not indicate a region in steep decline or stagnation. Better in some respects than for the hardest-hit Vermont counties, they may have reflected a number of very positive recent developments.

The initiatives range from work on expanding downtown Rutland by moving rail yards, to a major addition-renovation project at the Rutland Regional Medical Center, to the Rutland Region Chamber of Commerce's highly successful Web site, to Brandon's unique efforts to transform key parts of its downtown business district.

To use a less-cited indicator, Rutland won't be in a deep recession until it starts losing rather than adding pizza parlors. From that perspective, even though there are major issues to be confronted, the county still appears to have some pie to divide.

As O'Brien pointed out, the biggest concerns may be beyond, local or regional control. Rutland County does not set international trade patterns or write federal laws, he noted - and much may depend on the unkindness of strangers.

Running the Numbers Gauntlet

Employment being the basis of purchasing power and its multiplier effects, several of the REDC findings concerned the job market. In 2001, mid-March through April, unemployment claims for 2001, week by week, were 741, 746, 667, and 652. By 2002, those had risen to 921, 1000, 998, and 968. The pattern "indicates a softening of the economy over the past year," the report said.

The unemployment rate for Vermont as a whole in February of 2001 was 4.3 percent, which by February of 2002 had increased to 4.6 percent. The latter figure meant 15,950 people were unemployed and 328,800 were employed.

In Rutland, the 2001 numbers were worse than for Vermont as a whole, with unemployment at 4.5 percent. By the same time in 2002, that situation had equalized, with 1,550 Rutland County unemployed and 31,650 employed coming to 4.6 percent.

But the kinds of jobs make a difference, REDC pointed out. Looking at the breakdown for March employment, they found Rutland County had seen a net increase in service jobs in the previous year: transportation up 50, miscellaneous services up 250, wholesale and retail trade each down 100, and finance-insurancereal estate down 50.

This was somewhat better than the state as a whole, where "service producing" jobs went down 400, with wholesale and retail trade down 450 and miscellaneous services down 1,250.

Unlike the situation in Rutland County, where governmental jobs declined by 100, the state as a whole saw another 1,050 governmental jobs (at all levels).

But the big hit was in "goods producing" jobs, both for Rutland County and the state as a whole.

Of the 4,000 jobs lost in Vermont manufacturing, Rutland County had 250 of them. Construction and mining were up for Vermont (250) and Rutland County (50).

The average Vermont service job paid $24,753, while manufacturing jobs paid an average of $37,245, the report found.

It observed that, "The diversity of industry activities is important to a sustainable economy because a downturn in any one area of the economy may affect production capabilities in another. A diverse economy reflects the region's ability to maintain a healthy economy."