2. GFMEDC sales tax resolution
Laserfiche
>
Public/Website
>
County Commission
>
2008
>
02-19-2008
>
Regular agenda
>
2. GFMEDC sales tax resolution
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/19/2008 2:44:35 PM
Creation date
2/12/2008 11:00:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Part II: Growth Sectors <br /> <br />The same economic experts that projected the challenges above also predict that <br />technology-based industries will create the majority of high-paying jobs in the <br />U.S. for the foreseeable future. <br /> <br />There are a number of potential sectors to pursue, and the GFMEDC examined <br />seven potential industries by performing a flow-chart analysis that asked the <br />following questions: <br /> <br />.:. Is this target industry growing and creating new jobs in the U.S. economy? <br />.:. Does this target industry pay high wages relative to the average? <br />.:. Is Fargo Moorhead a competitive place to conduct business in this target <br />industry? If not, can we become competitive? <br /> <br />The three target industries that answered "yes" to these qualifications were <br />information technology (IT), life sciences and physical sciences. All are <br />technology industries. <br /> <br />Fargo Moorhead has a small base of companies in technology, but in general <br />has not had much success in this area. In most categories that technology <br />companies consider when selecting locations, Fargo Moorhead does not <br />compare favorably to other MSAs in the U.S. <br /> <br />Our traditional model of site selection has been focused on the primary sectors <br />mentioned above - manufacturing, agriculture, and back office, for example - <br />and is cost-driven. Site selection for technology companies in IT, life sciences <br />and physical sciences are not driven by cost. These companies are driven by <br />access to nationally-renowned core knowledge infrastructure and talent, research <br />institutions, and an entrepreneurial and innovative environment. <br /> <br />Through our research we have also learned that communities successful in <br />technology-led economic development have made focused investments in <br />specialized technologies rather than whole industry sectors. In other words, <br />rather than focusing on life sciences in general, they have focused on a particular <br />specialty within the life sciences, such as pharmaceuticals or stem cell research. <br />Within the three target industries, teams comprised of members from the Tri- <br />College University educational institutions (North Dakota State University, <br />Minnesota State University Moorhead, and Concordia College), local industry <br />leaders, and public sector individuals (for a list of participants, see Appendix A) <br />met to discuss specialized, or target, technologies. <br /> <br />Based on the capabilities and interest of the universities and local industry, the <br />teams settled on three target technologies within the broader target industries: <br />embedded systems, vaccine development and biomedical device technologies. <br /> <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.