Submitted by Jim Dudley (not verified) on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 10:56pm.
ECOS Analysis Reports Comments
Shelburne Comment
I will offer a few general comments as others from our local Shelburne ECOS committee are providing more detailed comments:
1. Overall the three Economic Reports were helpful and form a reasonable foundation to help choose the final four or five target segments. Those reports, whenever available, will finalize the Economic Analysis reports. Also I have never viewed “non-profits” as an industry sector, but rather a form of corporate organization. Would “social services” be more appropriate term that “non-profits”?
2. The Energy Report had an unanticipated absence of economic information. It will be impossible to make the necessary analysis and trade-offs regarding our energy future without such information. For example what are the rate forecasts, what investments are required (e.g. gas-fired electricity plants to supplement wind and solar), break-even projections with and without subsidies, etc. What, if any, will be the impact on both our residential and business customers? What will be the economic impact on our region? After reading the “Conclusions” section, I sensed that the only one was that “a lot of factors affect energy”. More work seems appropriate.
3. The Education Report’s first 10 pages of excerpted material are not much of an asset to the Education Analysis Report, and seem to bog it down. The balance of the report, much excerpted also, seemed to be a potpourri of various studies and facts on education. Regional information and statistics are in short supply. At the end of the report, I really didn’t know what to conclude. I would like to see a clear, concise and pithy comparison of the statistics of our region, compared to the state and fed, and not to exclude cost which is an issue with some. Following that I would like to see the key issues and conclusions based on the statistics, and finally a few key recommendations.
4. Housing. While there are valid discrimination cases where race, disability or other factors are involved, it seems that income more than anything, drives access to housing. Discussion and conclusions on this point might be appropriate.
5. The Natural Resources section seems to be organized and cohesive and IMO the recommendations are reasonably appropriate to the facts,
ECOS Analysis Reports
ECOS Analysis Reports Comments
Shelburne Comment
I will offer a few general comments as others from our local Shelburne ECOS committee are providing more detailed comments:
1. Overall the three Economic Reports were helpful and form a reasonable foundation to help choose the final four or five target segments. Those reports, whenever available, will finalize the Economic Analysis reports. Also I have never viewed “non-profits” as an industry sector, but rather a form of corporate organization. Would “social services” be more appropriate term that “non-profits”?
2. The Energy Report had an unanticipated absence of economic information. It will be impossible to make the necessary analysis and trade-offs regarding our energy future without such information. For example what are the rate forecasts, what investments are required (e.g. gas-fired electricity plants to supplement wind and solar), break-even projections with and without subsidies, etc. What, if any, will be the impact on both our residential and business customers? What will be the economic impact on our region? After reading the “Conclusions” section, I sensed that the only one was that “a lot of factors affect energy”. More work seems appropriate.
3. The Education Report’s first 10 pages of excerpted material are not much of an asset to the Education Analysis Report, and seem to bog it down. The balance of the report, much excerpted also, seemed to be a potpourri of various studies and facts on education. Regional information and statistics are in short supply. At the end of the report, I really didn’t know what to conclude. I would like to see a clear, concise and pithy comparison of the statistics of our region, compared to the state and fed, and not to exclude cost which is an issue with some. Following that I would like to see the key issues and conclusions based on the statistics, and finally a few key recommendations.
4. Housing. While there are valid discrimination cases where race, disability or other factors are involved, it seems that income more than anything, drives access to housing. Discussion and conclusions on this point might be appropriate.
5. The Natural Resources section seems to be organized and cohesive and IMO the recommendations are reasonably appropriate to the facts,