1. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

2. PLAY WORK LIVE

3. Metro Milwaukee 4 County Region

4. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1 New York 2Chicago 3Los Angeles 4Boston 5Philadelphia 6Detroit 7Washington 8Pittsburgh 9Nassau-Suffolk 10St. Louis 11Cleveland 12Baltimore 13Minneapolis 14Newark 15Houston 16Atlanta 17Dallas 18Oakland 19New haven 20San Francisco 21Seattle 22Cincinnati 23Orange County 24 Milwaukee 25Kansas City 26San Diego 27Bergen-Passaic 28Buffalo 29Miami 30Indianapolis 31New Orleans 32Riverside 33Columbus 34Tampa 35Denver 36Norfolk 37Portland 38San Jose 39Phoenix 40Harford 41Rochester 42Dayton 43San Antonio 44Louisville 45Memphis 46Providence 47Middlesex 48Charlotte 49Greensburo 50Albany 1New York 2Los Angeles 3Chicago 4Boston 5Philadelphia 6Detroit 7Washington 8Houston 9Nassau-Suffolk 10Pittsburgh 11St. Louis 12Cleveland 13Atlanta 14Minneapolis 15Baltimore 16Dallas 17Newark 18Orange county 19San Diego 20Oakland 21Seattle 22Miami 23Tampa 24Phoenix 25Riverside 26New Haven 27San Francisco 28Cincinnati 29Kansas City 30Denver 31Milwaukee 32Portland 33New Orleans 34Indianapolis 35San Jose 36Bergen-Passaic 37Buffalo 38Columbus 39Norfolk 40San Antonio 41Harford 42Rochester 43Fort Lauderdale 44Fort Worth 45Sacramento 46Charlotte 47Louisville 48Greensboro 49Dayton 50Memphis 1Los Angeles 2New York 3Chicago 4Boston 5Philadelphia 6Detroit 7Washington 8Houston 9Atlanta 10Dallas 11Riverside 12Nassau-Suffolk 13Minneapolis 14San Diego 15St. Louis 16Orange County 17Pittsburgh 18Baltimore 19Phoenix 20Cleveland 21Oakland 22Tampa 23Seattle 24Miami 25Newark 26New Haven 27Denver 28San Francisco 29Kansas City 30Cincinnati 31Spring? 32San Jose 33Norfolk 34Milwaukee 35Indianapolis 36Sacramento 37Fort Worth 38Columbus 39San Antonio 40Bergen-Passaic 41New Orleans 42Fort Lauderdale 43Orlando 44Buffalo 45Charlotte 46Harland 47Salt Lake City 48Rochester 49Greensboro 50Middlesex 1Los Angeles 2New York 3Chicago 4Boston 5Philadelphia 6Washington 7Detroit 8Houston 9Atlanta 10Dallas 11Riverside 12Phoenix 13Minneapolis 14Orange County 15San Diego 16Nassau-Suffolk 17St. Louis 18Baltimore 19Seattle 20Tampa 21Oakland 22Pittsburgh 23Miami 24Cleveland 25Denver 26Newark 27Portland 28Kansas City 29San Francisco 30Fort Worth 31New Haven 32San Jose 33Orlando 34Cincinnati 35Sacramento 36Fort Lauderdale 37Indianapolis 38San Antonio 39Las Vegas 40Norfolk 41Columbus 42Charlotte 43Milwaukee 44Bergen-Passaic 45Salt Lake City 46New Orleans 47Austin 48Greensboro 49Nashville 50Raleigh 1970 1980 1990 2000 Top 50 Metro Markets By population

5. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Comparable metro areas MMAC Benchmarking Data 2004 Comparable Metros Population 2003 Business Establishments 2002 Total Personal Income (000) 2002 Buffalo-Niagara Falls1,159,44327,248$33,076,270 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill1,613,46543,49350,843,902 Cincinnati1,672,86640,50453,979,513 Columbus1,597,27138,34551,144,895 Indianapolis1,674,49342,59453,937,962 Kansas City1,843,55049,11759,813,244 Milwaukee1,514,31339,73151,798,479 Minneapolis-St. Paul3,083,63787,843115,502,490 Nashville1,288,05133,70341,557,201 Orlando1,802,98647,22948,431,436 Pittsburgh2,338,67159,37076,452,229 Portland-Vancouver2,029,96657,26264,526,301 Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill1,294,69134,58641,650,936 Sacramento1,791,76839,20854,948,318 Salt Lake City-Odgen1,385,67136,24237,604,161 San Antonio1,691,77434,47945,906,140 Milwaukee 1,514,313 39,731 51,798,479

6. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Metro Job Trends: 1990-2004 1990 1990 % total 2004 2004 % total Change 1990-2004 % Change 1990-2004 Total Nonfarm757,500832,30074,8009.9% Educational & health services 91,50012.1%131,40015.8%39,90043.6% Professional & business services 77,10010.2%106,70012.8%29,60038.4% Manufacturing161,50021.3%134,10016.1%-27,400-17.0% Leisure & hospitality58,9007.8%65,1007.8%6,20010.5% Financial activities52,5006.9%57,3006.9%4,8009.1% Other misc. sectors86,70011.4%93,20011.2%6,5007.5% Government85,90011.3%91,40011.0%5,5006.4% Trade, transportation & utilities 143,50018.9%152,50018.3%9,0006.3%

7. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Per capita personal income MMAC Benchmarking Data 2004 Comparable Metros19972002% Change Sacramento$25,380$31,47724.0% Pittsburgh26,29332,60924.0% Nashville26,44832,72623.7% Indianapolis26,35132,58823.7% Columbus26,34232,37022.9% Minneapolis-St. Paul30,76037,78722.8% San Antonio22,51927,65522.8% Milwaukee28,00934,30822.5% Kansas City26,76532,76222.4% Salt Lake City-Ogden22,59727,44021.4% Cincinnati26,75332,40521.1% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill26,56832,17421.1% Orlando22,94827,58720.2% Buffalo-Niagara Falls23,77828,48919.8% Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill27,78132,92118.5% Portland-Vancouver27,71132,21416.2% Milwaukee 28,009 34,308 22.5%

8. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Fortune 500 Headquarters per 100,000 people MMAC Benchmarking Data 2004 Comparable Metros Fortune 500 HeadquartersPopulation Fortune 500 HQ’s per 100,000 people Minneapolis-St. Paul183,083,637.58 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill91,613,465.56 Cincinnati91,672,866.54 Milwaukee81,514,313.53 Columbus51,514,313.31 Pittsburgh72,338,671.30 San Antonio51,691,774.30 Indianapolis41,674,493.24 Nashville31,288,051.23 Kansas City41,843,550.22 Orlando21,802,986.11 Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill11,294,691.08 Salt Lake City-Ogden11,385,671.07 Portland-Vancouver12,029,966.05 Buffalo-Niagara Falls01,159,443.00 Sacramento01,791,768.00 Milwaukee 8 1,514,313.53

9. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Performing Arts Groups per 100,000 Pop. MMAC Benchmarking Data 2004 Comparable Metros# of Performing Arts Groups Metro PopulationsPerforming Arts Groups per 100,000 Population Nashville3181,269,84625.04 Orlando921,755,5725.24 Minneapolis-St. Paul1573,056,6525.14 Milwaukee641,509,8184.24 Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill411,265,1743.24 Pittsburgh752,344,5073.20 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill451,580,2912.85 Portland-Vancouver552,003,0432.75 Indianapolis431,655,1642.60 Kansas City451,825,6942.46 Buffalo-Niagara Falls281,161,0242.41 Salt Lake City-Ogden331,370,4232.41 Columbus361,580,0112.28 Cincinnati371,665,7552.22 San Antonia351,659,9652.11 Sacramento361,745,6552.06 Milwaukee 64 1,509,818 4.24

10. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Minority Owned Businesses with Employees - 1997 Comparable MetrosNumber of Minority Owned Businesses Minority Population Minority Owned Businesses per 100,000 Minority Pop. San Antonio9,320965,207965.6 Portland-Vancouver3,013353,324852.8 Orlando4,297574,101784.5 Nashville1,850271,193682.2 Pittsburgh1,693258,194655.7 Kansas City2,451384,570637.3 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill2,540431,699588.4 Cincinnati1,521271,128561.0 Buffalo-Niagara Falls1,133204,878553.0 Columbus1,663301,861550.9 Minneapolis-St. Paul2,485454,312547.0 Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill2,052394,227520.5 Sacramento2,941581,581505.7 Indianapolis1,547308,175502.0 Salt Lake City-Ogden1,146229,447499.5 Milwaukee1,572384,591408.7 Milwaukee 1,572 384,591 408.7

11. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Region Milwaukee 7 County Region

17. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT What’s The Benefit? Standing alone Waukesha competes with the likes of Rockford and the Quad Cities Together, the 7 compete with anyone

18. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Best Practices Review of 20 peer regions Written reports on best practices Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati - MMAC/GMC/City of Milwaukee on-site visits Buffalo-Niagara Falls Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill Cincinnati Columbus Indianapolis Kansas City MILWAUKEE Minneapolis-St. Paul Nashville Orlando Pittsburgh Portland-Vancouver Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Sacramento Salt Lake City-Odgen San Antonio Baltimore Cleveland Boston Oakland Detroit

19. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Lessons Learned Regional approach in all cases A success regional strategy must include a focus on the central city Entities are private sector, often chambers with affiliate organizations Business retention, expansion, and attraction are core of ED programs Web-based systems are standard and expected tools Economic development programs with dedicated funded at $2 to $4 million

20. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Retention/Attraction/Expansion of New Regional Income Metro Milwaukee Region Providers of Goods Providers of Services New Regional Income

21. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Regional Economic Development Advisory Council Thirty Two member advisory council made up of business, economic development and government and community leaders from the region Co-chaired by the Mayor of Milwaukee, MMAC and GMC chairs Full Council meets 4 times per year to assess progress and identify results Executive Partners Business Milwaukee Launch Initiatives: Regional call program to identify specific company issues and broad trends One stop business attraction and expansion Link the region’s inner cities to regional growth opportunities. Execute a regional branding and marketing effort to coordinate and unify a regional message

22. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Regional Economic Development Advisory Council Seven member executive team, made up of co-chairs and other key economic development campaign leaders Meet quarterly to address implementation of business plan for economic development Build agenda for full Economic Advisory Council Business Milwaukee Co - branded team staffed by MMAC/MDC, GMC and Spirit of Milwaukee to execute on the business plan supporting the retention, expansion and attraction of business in greater Milwaukee Goal: A world-class business environment to support the retention, expansion and attraction of companies in the greater Milwaukee region.

23. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Economic Development 2005-2006 Objectives Key Initiatives Regional Identity Business Call Program Business Attraction and Expansion Website Attraction & Retention of Diverse Talent Regional Economic Development Advisory Council Develop infrastructure and policies for Regional Resource Center. Campaign Fundraising

24. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Deliverables One regional strategy Partnership between business and local government Fact-based policy improvements Business attraction and marketing tool with a common regional brand Central city initiative linked to regional growth A competitive, world-class business location to live, work and play.

25. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT All for One, One for All

26. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT May 24-25, 2005, Lake Geneva 36 Influencers Six counties Over 15 various industries Hosted by Mayor of Milwaukee, GMC & MMAC

27. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Current Regional Marketing Efforts

28. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Ozaukee Arts /Culture Milwaukee Convention/ Tourism Walworth Government Washington Business Media Kenosha Realtors Waukesha Economic Development Talent Recruitment Racine Higher Education Future Ideal Promotional Model

30. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Connectivity Key Words, Publicity, Joint Promotion drive traffic to website Website pitches a global story, yet drives qualified leads or curious parties to specific locations – e.g. Port Washington’s website

31. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Regional Vision “To compete as a world-class metropolis by 2010, Milwaukee and its surrounding communities must present one face to the world and ourselves – free from the borders of geography, politics and industry – dedicated to mutual support and collaboration.”

32. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT A Regional Identity – 2005-2006 Objectives 1. Assemble team of regional leaders to develop and implement guerrilla marketing initiatives 2.Develop an intra-regional identity campaign 3.Conduct a follow-up study on the 2002 benchmark research on local and national perceptions of the region.

33. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 $7.1 million $8.9 million $12.2 million CAMPAIGN FUNDING

34. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOUNDING CONTRIBUTORS (to date) PRIVATE SECTOR Robert W. Baird The Bradley Foundation Journal Communications Northwestern Mutual M&I Marshall & IIsley Bank SBC Ameritech We Energies PUBLIC SECTOR City of Milwaukee Kenosha/Milwaukee/ Racine/Waukesha Counties State of Wisconsin

35. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT