greater san marcos vision 2020 appendices: … · appendices: competitive assessment page 1 –...

GREATER SAN MARCOS VISION 2020

APPENDICES: COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT Submitted by Market Street Services, Inc. www.marketstreetservices.com September 29, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix I: Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter One: Population Growth Dynamics ............................................................................................................... 1

Chapter two: Diversity, Age, and Education ................................................................................................................ 1

Chapter Three: Regional Reality: Opportunity and Issues ..................................................................................... 3

Chapter Four: The Changing Employment Base ....................................................................................................... 5

Chapter Five: Positioning for a Positive Future .......................................................................................................... 6

Appendix II: Complementary Data ................................................................................................................................................... 8

Williamson County, Texas ................................................................................................................................................... 8

City of San Marcos ................................................................................................................................................................. 9

Appendix III: Online Survey REsults ............................................................................................................................................... 11

Survey Results: City of San Marcos versus Remainder of Region ............................................................................ 29

Appendix IV: Methodology............................................................................................................................................................... 40

Data Sources .................................................................................................................................................................................. 41

Key Terms ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 45

Appendices: Competitive Assessment

Page 1 – September 2014

APPENDIX I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTER ONE: POPULATION GROWTH DYNAMICS The City of San Marcos, the anchor of the Greater San Marcos region, was the fastest growing city

in the nation in 2012 and 2013. Because of Hays County, which is the tenth fastest growing county in the nation and the third fastest growing county in Texas, the region has grown at a significantly faster pace than both the Austin and San Antonio metro areas.

The rapid growth in Greater San Marcos is fueled by net domestic in-migration, which accounts for three quarters of the two-county region’s growth. Hays County has the highest percentage of population growth attributed to domestic migration than all comparison counties examined.

An overwhelming majority of new residents moving into Greater San Marcos are leaving Travis County. The migrants leaving Travis and moving to Hays have a higher average household income than those leaving Hays and moving to Travis. The top two destinations of residents moving away from the region are Comal and Bexar counties, both in the San Antonio MSA.

While Texas State University impressive enrollment growth is not a major source of the region’s rapid growth, continuing to retain the university’s graduates will be key to enhancing the region’s attractiveness for higher-paying knowledge-driven jobs.

In-migrants are less diverse than the existing population. They are also slightly older than existing residents.

In-migrant dynamics are having a negative impact on overall regional dynamics. In-migrants have lower levels of educational attainment, lower average household incomes, and higher incidences of poverty than existing residents.

CHAPTER TWO: DIVERSITY, AGE, AND EDUCATION Although the two-county region has a greater proportion of residents between 25 and 44 than of

residents between 45 and 64, it is less prepared for workforce sustainability issues than its comparison communities and the wider Austin MSA, which have significantly greater proportions of young professionals than experienced workers nearing retirement.

Consistent with national trends, both counties are becoming more diverse, gaining residents over a five-year period in every racial and ethnic group except blacks. Caldwell County is more diverse than Hays County, with higher percentages of Hispanic and black residents. Between 2008 and 2013, the region lost 11 percent of its black residents, while all other comparison geographies gained black residents.



While72.5 percent of survey respondents feel the region is a welcoming place, only 49.3 percent consider opportunities, communities, and networks open and accessible to diverse groups.

Per capita income in Greater San Marcos ($32,784) is lower than all comparison geographies except Brazos County. Though the region’s PCI is approximately $10,000 less than state and national figures, the region has experienced strong income growth between 2002 and 2012.

Total poverty in Greater San Marcos (17.0 percent) is higher or equivalent than all comparison geographies except Brazos County and Texas. Youth poverty is less concerning, with a rate (19.8 percent) lower than in Brazos, Texas, and the nation.

Nearly 18 percent of Hays County residents are poverty-stricken, compared to 28.5 percent of Caldwell County residents. In-migrant dynamics contribute to this gap—over 30 percent of Hays in-migrants live in poverty, compared to over 56 percent of Caldwell in-migrants.

Higher than all comparison geographies except Brazos County (38.3 percent), the regional percentage of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree (33.3 percent). In terms of race and ethnicity, the San Marcos region has a higher proportion of its whites (43.4 percent), Hispanics (14.2 percent), and blacks (24.3 percent) with college and graduate degrees than their national counterparts.

There is a stark difference in educational attainment between the counties: 37.5 percent of Hays County adults hold a bachelor’s or graduate degree compared to only 16.6 percent of Caldwell County adults.

On the other end of the spectrum, 10.4 percent of Hays County adults are without a high school diploma, compared to nearly a quarter of all Caldwell County adults over the age of 25. Combined with adults who have only attained a high school diploma, nearly 60 percent of Caldwell adults are underprepared for many of the highest-value jobs which require technical or college training.

Ensuring that there are adult education, retraining, and upskilling opportunities that are well-publicized and accessible to area adults in both counties and connecting these workers with quality jobs will be important for the well-being of the entire region.

Public input points to Gary Job Corps and Austin Community College as important underutilized assets. Stakeholders feel that there needs to be greater awareness of Gary Job Corps’ service and that the Austin Community College Tax District needs to be extended to include much more of the region, which would allow students access to greater programs and services at a lower cost.

Although Texas is competitive when compared with South Carolina and Tennessee in terms of access to early childhood education, recent legislation may have negative long-term effects.



Locally, however, strides are being made, as San Marcos CISD enters its second academic year with full day pre-K for eligible students.

When compared to other central city school districts, the San Marcos CISD has slow enrollment trends, a student body not representative of the region’s racial and ethnic dynamics, a high percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and a competitive number of students per teacher. Despite a high level of economically disadvantaged students, second only to Brazos County, the San Marcos CISD had the highest graduation rate of districts examined as well one of the lower dropout rates.

When compared to the other five districts in the region, San Marcos CISD has the highest level of disadvantaged students, the highest proportion of Hispanic students, the greatest level of spending per student, and the fewest number of students per teacher. In terms of performance, although the district has the lowest graduation rate and highest dropout rate of the regional districts, the San Marcos CISD has favorable ACT and SAT scores as well as competitive State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) statistics.

Texas State University is a significant higher educational asset in the region. Setting a new enrollment record each year, the university is now attracting higher performing students and more out-of-state students. Texas State is a Hispanic Serving Institution and ranks 14th in the nation for the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded to Hispanic students and 30th in the nation for the number of master’s degrees awarded to Hispanics, vital to a region with a high percentage of Hispanic residents.

Public input revealed that there is a chasm between perspectives that Texas State is one of the most important assets in the region, because of its economic impact, inflow of young people pursuing higher education, added name recognition for the region, and many other benefits, and perspectives that Texas State is a major challenge to the growth of the region, because of the perception that it comprises too high a percentage of the regional economy, negatively impacts tax rolls, and demands student-focused development not desired by other residents.

CHAPTER THREE: REGIONAL REALITY: OPPORTUNITY AND ISSUES It costs more to live in Hays County than in comparison counties, but less than elsewhere in the

Austin MSA or the average community nationally. The cost of living in Caldwell County is considerably lower than in Hays County, stemming from differences in housing and health care costs.

Public safety is a competitive asset in Greater San Marcos. Violent crime in the City of San Marcos is lower on average than that of the central city of all comparison counties but is slightly higher than violent crime per 10,000 residents in the Austin MSA. Property crime is lower than in all but two comparison geographies: City of Bryan, TX and the national average.



Quite probably the single most prominent growth-related community issue in Greater San Marcos is the lack of diversity in housing choices. Residents indicated that they would like to see more mid-priced and executive level single-family homes as well as mixed-use developments, townhomes, and condos. Some feel that alternatives like New Braunfels, TX in the San Antonio MSA are more competitive than the region to newcomers because of their readily available housing options.

Housing in Hays County While the median single-family home price in Hays County ($185,600) is higher than comparison geographies, it is lower than that of the Austin MSA ($219,500).

Owner-occupied homes in Caldwell County are more affordable to its residents than those in all comparison geographies, including Hays County. Hays County homes are more affordable than in Brazos County and the nation.

Rent is unaffordable in the Greater San Marcos region—64.4 percent of renters spend 30 percent or more of their income on rent, surpassing all geographies except Brazos County.

One growing concern as it relates to the region’s growth is increased traffic congestion. Since 2000, traffic patterns are becoming more problematic as both the percentage of commuters traveling 30 minutes or more and the percentage of commuters driving alone have increased.

Potentially transformative transportation projects include the 2012 conversion of a key portion of State Highway 130 to a limited access toll road and the FM 100 which will raun along the eastern edge of San Marcos and Hays County and connect to I-35 in south San Marcos.

Other infrastructure concerns include ensuring centralized planning in the larger Central Texas region and potential future water and wastewater capacity for the region.

Greater San Marcos is in close proximity to two major international airports: Austin-Bergstrom International and San Antonio International. Only 80 miles apart, it is this access that Austin and San Antonio both trail Charlotte (US Airways’ principal hub) and Nashville in departing passengers. San Antonio leads the pack in freight cargo tonnage, and Austin trails all comparison airports except Nashville International.

The San Marcos Municipal Airport is the primary diversion airport for both international airports. On site at San Marcos Municipal is a unique facility branded the Redbird Skyport, a self-proclaimed “aviation laboratory” that takes the form of a working fixed-base operator (FBO), events center, and flight-training operation.

The San Marcos River is one of the region’s most beloved assets and is a popular year-round recreational destination as well as the site for Texas State’s Meadows Center for Water and the research facility. Downtown San Marcos, adjacent to the river and Texas State University, is the region’s principal activity center, and stakeholders feel that this area is ready for additional investment, including residential, retail, higher-end restaurant, and government facility development.



CHAPTER FOUR: THE CHANGING EMPLOYMENT BASE Many stakeholders agree that sustainable growth in Greater San Marcos has to be driven by

better, high paying, diverse job opportunities at various skill levels.

The Greater San Marcos region was shielded by its strong base in university, retail, and accommodation and food service jobs from the Great Recession. The region actually gained employment between 2007 and 2009, while most communities nationwide shed jobs. Since the recession, the region’s employment gains have outpaced comparison counties, the Austin MSA, state, and nation.

Unemployment rates in Greater San Marcos have been more favorable than all comparison geographies except Brazos County before, through, and since the recession, consistent with the fact that the region was buffered from the severe effects of the recession on the nation.

The region’s average annual wage ($34,869) lags all comparison geographies and the Austin MSA. Ten-year wage growth, while faster than Rutherford County and York County which have significantly higher average annual wages, lagged that of Brazos County, the state, and the nation.

The region’s largest and most concentrated business sectors are government, retail trade, accommodation and food services, and health care and social assistance. These are in line with the region’s largest employers, which include Texas State University, San Marcos Consolidated School District, San Marcos Premium Outlets and Tanger Outlets, and Central Texas Medical Center.

With the exception of government, these sectors added jobs during the recession. Since the end of the recession, all four of these sectors have contributed to the region’s competitive employment growth.

Government and health care offer average annual wages above the regional average of $32,990, while retail trade and accommodation and food services offer wages significantly below.

Continued growth in higher-wage knowledge-driven and skills-focused business sectors is needed to increase the region’s average annual wage. Becoming more competitive for these jobs will depend on the region’s ability to improve its educational attainment statistics at both ends of the spectrum, increasing college degree attainment and decreasing the number of adults who have not obtained a high school diploma.

Greater San Marcos has a shortage of higher-wage knowledge-driven business sectors, especially when compared to the Austin MSA. Although management of companies and enterprises, information, finance and insurance, and professional, scientific, and technical services have seen gains over time, they comprise only 7.6 percent of jobs in the region.

Wholesale trade, manufacturing, and transportation and warehousing, which make up 11.5 percent of jobs in Greater San Marcos, play an important role in providing higher-wage jobs



and upward mobility to residents who may have not attended or completed college. These sectors have all added jobs since the end of the recession.

In terms of high-wage strengths, Greater San Marcos is the leader in construction and manufacturing jobs, the Austin MSA leads in wholesale trade, information, and professional, scientific, and technical services sectors, and the San Antonio MSA leads in finance and insurance and management of companies and enterprises jobs.

CHAPTER FIVE: POSITIONING FOR A POSITIVE FUTURE The most pervasive topic in public input gathering was the region’s business climate. Many feel

that the City of San Marcos has historically been a difficult place to develop, but ongoing efforts are underway to improve the regulatory process and permit processing times. One issue cited as a barrier is the “walking quorum” rule, which has inhibited communications between public and private stakeholders. Another major issue is the availability of sites and buildings for targeted job growth, particularly a lack of Class-A office space.

Small business and entrepreneurship continues to be an important path for economy growth for the Greater San Marcos region, particularly with major assets such as Texas State’s STAR Park and other small business resources. Over 73 percent of businesses in the Greater San Marcos region have ten or less employees—on par with the nation, and a higher percentage than all other comparison geographies.

The Great Recession has definitely had a huge impact on the availability of capital—the number of loans extended decreased significantly and have not yet returned to pre-recession levels. The average loan amount, however, is still increasing. The amount of capital loaned to small businesses is lower in Greater San Marcos—in both Hays and Caldwell counties—than its counterparts, but has seen the most rapid ten-year increase. Availability of seed loans, angel investment, and venture funding were all identified as weaknesses in the region by survey respondents.

Texas State, which focuses on “blue collar” science and research with applied R&D and industrial applications, is a central puzzle piece to the region’s entrepreneurial community as the university strives to be entrepreneurial and business friendly, with economic development, commercialization, and student entrepreneurship integrated directly into its institutional model.

The Science, Technology, and Advanced Research (STAR) Park is an important asset for the region. A business incubator and collaboration space, STAR One has five tenants, and the research park plans to significantly expand its presence soon.

The university has several academic programs and research opportunities that support innovation and technical transfer at the university and in the region. Just two of several examples include the Materials Science, Engineering, and Commercialization (MSEC) Program and the Meadows Center for Water and the Environment.



Of the four universities representing Greater San Marcos and its comparison communities, Texas State is second to only Texas A&M University in terms of research and development expenditures. Over the last five years, Texas State has had the most rapid growth in R&D expenditures of the four universities, moving up 79 positions to become ranked 218th nationwide.

The university’s innovative academic programs and partnerships with industry leaders such as Texas Instruments and Dell will be vital in increasing the region’s attractiveness for jobs.

In 2011, the Austin MSA ranked 12th in the number of patents produced in a metro area. Nearly 27 percent of patents produced in the metro area are produced in Hays County, particularly in the cities of Buda and Dripping Springs, with connections to major Austin firms including IBM and GlobalFoundries.



APPENDIX II: COMPLEMENTARY DATA

WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS Because Williamson County, TX is an intraregional peer county, the following table provides comparison in key data indicators.

Note: Owner-occupied affordability is not available for the two-county region because the calculation is based on median figures, which are not available for the combined geography.

These data show that Williamson is, on average, home to a higher income, better educated, older population than Greater San Marcos. Far fewer Williamson residents are below the poverty line, while only 42 percent of residents pay over 30 percent of their total income on rental housing compared to nearly two-thirds of Greater San Marcos residents. While more Williamson commuters drive alone to work, 8 percent fewer county commuters drive over 30 minutes to get to work compared to Greater San Marcos commuters.

% of Population

25-44, 2013

Per Capita Income,

2012

Poverty Rate, 2012

Youth Poverty

Rate, 2012

% No HS Diploma,

2010-2012

% Bachelor's

+, 2010-2012

Owner-Occupied

Afford- ability,

2010-2012

% Paying 30%+ on

Rent, 2010-2012

% 30 Minutes+ to Work,

2008-2012

% Commuters

Driving Alone,

2008-2012Greater San Marcos, TX 26.2% $32,784 17.0% 19.8% 13.2% 33.4% - 64.4% 47.3% 76.6%

Hays County, TX 26.4% $33,975 16.3% 17.7% 10.4% 37.6% 3.0 66.8% 46.9% 77.1%Caldwell County, TX 25.2% $27,587 20.0% 28.5% 24.3% 16.7% 2.4 52.4% 49.7% 74.3%

Williamson County, TX 30.6% $41,526 7.7% 10.6% 7.6% 38.0% 2.5 42.4% 39.3% 80.1%Austin MSA 32.7% $42,902 15.1% 20.2% 12.1% 40.2% 3.2 51.5% 36.6% 75.0%Texas 28.0% $42,638 17.9% 25.8% 18.9% 26.4% 2.5 49.5% 35.7% 79.5%United States 26.3% $43,735 15.9% 22.6% 14.1% 28.6% 3.4 52.8% 35.6% 76.1%



CITY OF SAN MARCOS To provide more context into how the City of San Marcos affects the region as its core city, the following tables highlight the city’s position in key data demographic indicators.

^ Census Bureau Population Estimates do not include detailed population estimates at the city level. Age and race/ethnicity data for this table are 3-year and 5-year ACS estimates, which differ from the 1-year estimates in the report. Note: Components of population change are not available at the city level.

5-Year Change in

Population, 2008-2013

10-Year Change in

Population, 2003-2013

% of Population

25-44, 2010-2012^

% of Population White, Not

Hispanic, 2008-2012^

Poverty Rate,

2010-2012*

Youth Poverty

Rate, 2010-2012*

% No HS Diploma,

2010-2012

% Bachelor's

+, 2010-2012

City of San Marcos, TX 24.2% 41.4% 24.3% 51.1% 34.4% 25.8% 14.3% 30.8%Greater San Marcos, TX 14.9% 41.6% 26.2% 55.6% 17.3% 18.7% 13.2% 33.4%

Hays County, TX 17.5% 50.6% 26.4% 58.4% 16.4% 16.2% 10.4% 37.6%Caldwell County, TX 4.7% 11.5% 25.1% 44.0% 21.3% 28.8% 24.3% 16.7%

Austin MSA 13.8% 36.2% 32.3% 54.6% 15.4% 20.1% 12.1% 40.2%

Cost of Living Index,

Overall

Cost of Living Index,

Housing

Owner-Occupied

Affordability, 2010-2012

% Paying 30%+ on

Rent, 2010-2012

City of San Marcos, TX 92 85 4.8 74.4%Greater San Marcos, TX - - - 64.4%

Hays County, TX 98 104 3.0 66.8%Caldwell County, TX 84 61 2.4 52.4%

Austin MSA 102 117 3.2 51.5%



* The report provides one-year estimates for the included geographies from Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates. SAIPE data is not available at the city level, so this table provides three-year poverty estimates from the American Community Survey that differ from the figures in the report for the purpose of comparing the City of San Marcos to the rest of the region.

Poverty is higher in the city than in both regional counties, while the city’s educational attainment is higher than Caldwell, but trails Hays County as a whole.

Cost of living is lower in the city than elsewhere in Hays County, though Caldwell is a much lower cost location.



APPENDIX III: ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS The Greater San Marcos Vision 2020 community survey was available for responses from July 7 through August 11, 2014. A total of 610 respondents participated in the survey, which was posted on the Vision 2020 website. The survey was also promoted through dissemination of a survey link to Greater San Marcos Partnership members and partners and multiple other distribution channels. For certain questions, “logic” was programmed into the survey to filter out respondents to those who can best speak to particular issues and questions.

While every effort was made to secure the participation of a representative sample of Greater San Marcos residents and businesses in this survey, the actual response rates of certain constituencies and cohorts differ from their reported percentages in the community’s total population and economic data. Therefore, a margin of error should be assumed for certain questions and response totals based on the characteristics of the respondents.

Q1: What is the five-digit ZIP code of your residence?



Q2: Which city or unincorporated area do you most identify with?

Q3: How long have you lived in the Greater San Marcos region? (NOTE: The Greater San Marcos area includes all the communities within Hays and Caldwell counties.)



Q4: From what you know about the Greater San Marcos region, what is its GREATEST STRENGTH? The following word cloud determines the number of times survey a particular word was used by all survey respondents. The larger the size, the more frequently the word was used.

Q5: From what you know about the Greater San Marcos region, what is its GREATEST THREAT or CHALLENGE to overcome? The following word cloud determines the number of times survey a particular word was used by all survey respondents. The larger the size, the more frequently the word was used.



Q6: Name ONE THING you would do to most improve the Greater San Marcos region:

TOP 10 RESPONSES New transportation modes - bike/walking path, light rail, bus options Job growth/diversity Better infrastructure Preserve natural surroundings - don't build over water resources/preserve wildlife No more large apartment buildings Don't overdevelop/make it harder to develop Smart growth Efficient construction Improve schools/school district Clean water supply/conservation

Q7: Which of the following best describes your current employment status?



Q8: Which of the following best describes your role at your business or organization?

Q9: Please rate the following components of the Greater San Marcos region's entrepreneurial climate (respondents filtered by those who self-identified as entrepreneurs):

Q10: What could be done to enhance the Greater San Marcos area’s entrepreneurial capacity or "ecosystem?" (respondents filtered by those who self-identified as entrepreneurs) Select responses only.

Incubator access for more businesses

Reduce government involvement

Advertise to let small businesses know what is available



Improve connections between lenders and entrepreneurs

Promote and market support of locally grown ventures

Q11: In your opinion, what is the biggest CHALLENGE or CHALLENGES facing the Greater San Marcos region's economy? (respondents filtered by those who self-identified as managerial level or above in their companies)

TOP 10 RESPONSES Lack of job diversity Managing growth Infrastructure The leadership/lack of trust Water supply/management Not business friendly Lack of quality housing Poor marketing of region Brain drain/people leaving Traffic congestion

Q12: What, in your opinion, is the TOP ACTION or ACTIONS that the Greater San Marcos region could initiate to improve the economy and drive job creation? (respondents filtered by those who self-identified as managerial level or above in their companies)

TOP 10 RESPONSES

Attract diverse businesses Smart construction/growth Foster small business growth Branding/promote the region Increase transportation options Infrastructure Diverse housing options Work with the community No tax incentives Lower taxes



Q13: What industry or industries do you feel hold the most promise for quality job growth in the Greater San Marcos area (i.e., healthcare, manufacturing, etc.)? (respondents filtered by those who self-identified as managerial level or above in their companies)

#1: Tech-related industries, including IT support and software development #2: Manufacturing, including advanced, clean, and small #3: Healthcare #4: Logistics

Q14: Please evaluate the following aspects of the Greater San Marcos region's business climate (respondents filtered by those who self-identified as managerial level or above in their companies):



Q15: Please rate the following statements according to the degree to which you agree. (respondents filtered by those who self-identified as managerial level or above in their companies)

Q16: What do you feel is the GREATEST STRENGTH of the local workforce? (respondents filtered by those who self-identified as managerial level or above in their companies)

TOP 10 RESPONSES Educated/talented Quantity Commitment Dedicated/hard working Young/student base Diversity Low labor costs Flexibility Energy Good people



Q17: What do you think is the GREATEST WEAKNESS of the local workforce? (respondents filtered by those who self-identified as managerial level or above in their companies)

TOP 10 RESPONSES Education/skills There are no jobs/opportunities Jobs pay too little Too young Work ethic Transient Quality Quantity No housing near employment Cost of living

Q18: What is your race/ethnicity?



Q19: What is your age?

Q20: Please indicate if you disagree or agree with the following statement about young professionals (workers ages 25-39). (respondents filtered by those who self-identified as young professionals)



Q21: If you feel that it's a challenge, what needs to be done in the Greater San Marcos area to more effectively retain and attract young professionals? (respondents filtered by those who self-identified as young professionals)



Q22: Please rate the following aspects the Greater San Marcos region's quality of life. Results are cross tabulated by age, age 25-34, 35-44, 45-64 and 65+ only. (5 = Excellent, 1 = Poor)



Q23: Please rate the following aspects of the Greater San Marcos area's amenities and services as they relate to quality of life. Results are cross tabulated by age, age 25-34, 35-44, 45-64 and 65+ only. (5 = Excellent, 1 = Poor)



Q24: What do you think most differentiates the Greater San Marcos area from the city of Austin and Travis County?

Q25: Please rate the following statements on the community's diversity and openness.



Q26: If you feel that it is not inclusive and/or welcoming, what could be done to make the Greater San Marcos region a more inclusive and/or welcoming community? Select responses only.

Public transportation Better wages, especially raising the minimum wage Make the highway drive look nicer, and preserve downtown Still need more outreach to minorities and student populations Support cultural diversity events. Incentivize businesses to recruit and attract diversity

Q27: Please rate the following statements.

Q28: If you will not continue to live in the community, and/or feel your children will not choose to live in the community, why do you feel this way? Select responses only.

Lack of middle-class homes and jobs. The city is becoming increasingly transient. Not enough affordable housing. I don’t feel like it’s a family community. I feel like it’s college students or poverty. Lack of high quality jobs in the county and poor schools. It will be because the city grew too much and became too much like Austin, and lost the essence

of what it once was.



Q29: Have you or your children attended a pre-K to 12 school in the Greater San Marcos region at any point in the past 10 years?

Q30: What type of school do/did you or your children attend?



Q31: With which school district are you most familiar?

Q32: Please respond to the following statements about public school quality in the district with which you are most familiar.



Q33: Please rate the quality of higher education institutions in the Greater San Marcos region:

Q34: Do you have any final comments you'd like to make about the Greater San Marcos region or the Economic Development Strategy process? Select responses only.

We love San Marcos and hope it grows in a sustainable and thoughtful manner rather than responding/reacting to boom.

Potential growth is excellent if the San Marcos area addresses the public transportation issues. Please work to attract developers who truly understand the unique qualities of our city, and those

that will work to preserve the environment. We need to stop standing in our own way. With young professional getting involved, San Marcos can thrive.



Survey Results: City of San Marcos versus Remainder of Region In response to discussion at the September 3 meeting of the Vision 2020 Steering Committee on the tenor of online survey responses as differentiated between residents of the City of San Marcos and other Hays and Caldwell County residents, Market Street disaggregated survey responses by city and non-city respondents. Key observations are as follows. Observations:

- City of San Marcos residents consider the San Marcos River and Texas State University as key strengths in much higher percentages than residents in other parts of the region. Residents outside of the city value the location of the region as its principal strength.

- Growth is a key challenge for all residents, irrespective of subregion. Water, traffic, and infrastructure were identified as challenges in higher percentages outside the City of San Marcos.

- Housing diversity and affordability are issues across the board for regional stakeholders. However, a larger percentage of City of San Marcos residents (58 percent) rated housing diversity poor than their subregional counterparts. Likewise, a larger percentage of city residents (34 percent) rated housing affordability poor than residents in other subregions.

- A lower percentage of residents outside of the City of San Marcos rated their amenities and services above average or excellent. While expected for shopping opportunities because of the presence of outlet malls in the city, large disparities exist in ratings for recreational opportunities and nightlife opportunities.

- Residents of the City of San Marcos are more likely to move away from the region than those who identify with other subregions.

- City of San Marcos residents were less likely to rate statements about public schools favorably than stakeholders representing other subregions.

The full breadth of survey responses disaggregated by City of San Marcos and non-city respondents shows the degree to which regional perceptions vary according to place of residence.



Q4: From what you know about the Greater San Marcos region, what is its GREATEST STRENGTH?

CITY OF SAN MARCOS ONLY

ALL OTHER SUBREGIONS



Q5: From what you know about the Greater San Marcos region, what is its GREATEST THREAT or CHALLENGE to overcome?

CITY OF SAN MARCOS ONLY

ALL OTHER SUBREGIONS



Q6: Name ONE THING you would do to most improve the Greater San Marcos region:

TOP RESPONSES

City of San Marcos All Other Subregions Affordable, higher-end family housing/no more apartments

New transportation modes

Better infrastructure Business recruitment New transportation modes Better infrastructure Job growth and diversity/business recruitment

Higher end housing

Improve land development codes Improved schools Preserve natural surroundings More cultural offerings Improve schools/school district Small business growth Efficient construction Smart growth More amenities Regionalism

Leadership and transparency Community College

Q11: In your opinion, what is the biggest CHALLENGE or CHALLENGES facing the Greater San Marcos region's economy? (respondents filtered by those who self-identified as managerial level or above in their companies)

TOP RESPONSES

City of San Marcos All Other Subregions Lack of job diversity Infrastructure

Managing growth Lack of quality housing Water supply/management Taxes and regulations

Not business friendly Managing growth Leadership/lack of trust Leadership/lack of trust Lack of quality housing Poor marketing of the region Infrastructure Lack of quality jobs Brain drain/people leaving Traffic congestion Poor marketing of region



Q12: What, in your opinion, is the TOP ACTION or ACTIONS that the Greater San Marcos region could initiate to improve the economy and drive job creation? (respondents filtered by those who self-identified as managerial level or above in their companies)

TOP RESPONSES

City of San Marcos All Other Subregions Attract diverse businesses Attract diverse businesses

Smart construction/growth Foster small business growth Foster small business growth Branding/promote the region

Increase transportation options Infrastructure Diverse housing options No tax incentives Branding/promote the region Lower taxes



Q22: Please rate the following aspects the Greater San Marcos region's quality of life.

78.3%

75.2%

47.2%

48.3%

33.9%

29.8%

31.1%

34.4%

19.8%

20.4%

11.5%

17.2%

19.6%

35.2%

34.0%

58.0%

15.4%

15.7%

14.1%

18.3%

28.3%

32.6%

54.8%

56.4%

50.8%

50.3%

58.3%

63.2%

51.0%

52.2%

44.9%

40.7%

41.7%

25.5%

44.2%

44.9%

7.6%

6.5%

24.5%

19.1%

11.3%

13.8%

18.0%

15.3%

21.9%

16.4%

37.5%

30.6%

35.5%

24.1%

24.3%

16.5%

40.4%

39.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

Pub

lic t

rans

itca

paci

tyTr

affic

cong

esti

onA

ffor

dab

ility

of

child

car

eA

vaila

bilit

y of

child

car

eA

ffor

dab

ility

of

heal

thca

reA

vaila

bilit

y of

heal

thca

reH

ousi

ngaf

ford

abili

tyD

iver

sity

of

hous

ing

opt

ions

Com

petit

iven

ess

of c

ost

of li

ving

Poor or Below Average Average Above Average or Excellent



Q23: Please rate the following aspects of the Greater San Marcos area's amenities and services as they relate to quality of life.

27.1%

24.1%

22.2%

18.5%

7.8%

12.3%

21.6%

30.4%

33.3%

22.8%

31.1%

36.9%

10.5%

7.0%

30.7%

32.1%

20.6%

11.9%

46.9%

41.7%

54.3%

53.3%

43.7%

35.5%

50.0%

39.2%

40.6%

31.6%

43.4%

35.5%

32.4%

16.9%

43.6%

30.0%

25.2%

24.0%

26.0%

34.3%

23.5%

28.2%

48.5%

52.1%

28.4%

30.4%

26.0%

45.6%

25.5%

27.6%

57.1%

76.1%

25.7%

37.9%

54.2%

64.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

Leve

ls o

f civ

icen

gage

men

t

Prov

isio

n of

soci

al a

ndhu

man

ser

vice

s

Sens

e of

pers

onal

and

prop

erty

saf

ety

Phila

nthr

opic

and

char

itabl

eca

paci

tyN

ight

life

oppo

rtun

ities

Din

ing

oppo

rtun

ities

Shop

ping

oppo

rtun

ities

Cul

tura

l and

art

sfa

cilit

ies

and

prog

ram

sRe

crea

tion

amen

ities

Poor or Below Average Average Above Average or Excellent



Q25: Please rate the following statements on the community's diversity and openness.

11.2%

17.9%

13.2%

21.6%

6.5%

8.3%

14.4%

13.5%

20.6%

19.4%

34.0%

30.2%

23.4%

18.2%

35.6%

33.3%

68.2%

62.7%

52.8%

48.3%

70.1%

73.5%

50.0%

53.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

The

Gre

ater

San

Mar

cos

regi

on h

as a

goo

d di

vers

ityof

peo

ple

and

cultu

res.

Opp

ortu

nitie

s,co

mm

uniti

es, a

nd n

etw

orks

in th

e G

reat

er S

an M

arco

sre

gion

are

acc

essi

ble

and

open

to a

div

erse

rang

e of

peop

le.

The

Gre

ater

San

Mar

cos

regi

on is

a w

elco

min

gpl

ace.

The

Gre

ater

San

Mar

cos

regi

on is

an

incl

usiv

e pl

ace.

Disagree or Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree or Strongly Agree



Q27: Please rate the following statements.

1.9%

8.9%

14.7%

25.8%

18.3%

31.1%

36.9%

45.9%

13.6%

23.5%

21.1%

30.7%

15.9%

21.7%

29.2%

33.8%

84.5%

67.6%

64.2%

43.5%

65.9%

47.2%

33.8%

20.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

Like

lihoo

d yo

u w

illco

ntin

ue to

live

inth

e G

reat

er S

anM

arco

s ar

ea

Like

lihoo

d yo

u w

illre

tire

(or r

emai

nre

tired

) in

the

area

Like

lihoo

d yo

u w

illra

ise

(or c

ontin

ueto

rais

e) c

hild

ren

in th

e ar

ea

Like

lihoo

d yo

urch

ildre

n (o

nce

grow

n) w

ill w

ant

to li

ve in

the

Gre

ater

San

Mar

cos

area

Not Likely Somewhat Likely Very Likely



Q32: Please respond to the following statements about public school quality in the district with which you are most familiar.

18.2%

38.3%

24.1%

36.5%

12.5%

30.2%

20.5%

43.5%

11.4%

16.7%

7.0%

12.1%

11.8%

28.7%

11.4%

18.3%

13.8%

24.7%

22.5%

25.5%

25.0%

25.2%

11.4%

25.4%

11.6%

20.6%

23.5%

25.3%

70.5%

43.5%

62.1%

38.8%

65.0%

44.3%

54.5%

31.3%

77.3%

57.9%

81.4%

67.3%

64.7%

46.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

I am

sat

isfie

dw

ith th

e ov

eral

lqu

ality

of t

hedi

stric

t

Pre-

K pr

ogra

ms

are

read

ilyav

aila

ble

and

affo

rdab

le

Com

mun

ity a

ndbu

sine

ss le

ader

sha

ve a

com

mitm

ent t

oqu

ality

, pub

lic K

-12

edu

catio

n

Child

ren

in o

urdi

stric

t rec

eive

ahi

gh-q

ualit

yed

ucat

ion

Teac

hers

and

adm

inis

trat

ors

are

com

mitt

edan

d en

gage

d

Ther

e ar

e am

ple

oppo

rtun

ities

for

pare

nts

tobe

com

e in

volv

edin

the

scho

olsy

stem

.

Ther

e is

suffi

cien

tat

tent

ion

paid

toth

e ne

eds

ofEn

glis

hLa

ngua

geLe

arne

rs




Q32, continued: Please respond to the following statements about public school quality in the district with which you are most familiar.

13.6%

10.1%

11.4%

22.0%

19.5%

29.4%

17.5%

25.6%

11.4%

9.7%

24.4%

29.9%

34.2%

37.1%

25.0%

23.9%

20.5%

21.1%

34.1%

25.5%

15.0%

25.6%

13.6%

26.2%

26.8%

28.9%

26.3%

23.7%

61.4%

66.1%

68.2%

56.9%

46.3%

45.1%

67.5%

48.9%

75.0%

64.1%

48.8%

41.2%

39.5%

39.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

All Others

City of San Marcos

Faci

litie

s ar

ecl

ean,

mod

ern,

and

have

the

late

stte

chno

logy

Scho

ols

in th

isdi

stric

t pro

vide

asa

fe le

arni

ngen

viro

nmen

t

Ther

e is

focu

sed

atte

ntio

n on

STEM

(sci

ence

,te

chno

logy

,en

gine

erin

g,m

athe

mat

ics)

curr

icul

a

Afte

r-sc

hool

prog

ram

s ar

ew

idel

y av

aila

ble

Scho

ol h

ours

of

oper

atio

n ar

esu

ffici

ent a

ndco

nsis

tent

with

com

mun

ityne

eds

Scho

ols

prov

ide

oppo

rtun

ities

for

lead

ersh

ip,

prof

essi

onal

, and

tech

nica

l ski

llstr

aini

ng

Scho

ols

prov

ide

care

er g

uida

nce

and

hand

s-on

wor

kex

perie

nces




APPENDIX IV: METHODOLOGY This Competitive Assessment examines the trends of the two-county Greater San Marcos region, which consists of Hays and Caldwell counties, in the context of People, Prosperity, and Place factors and the narrative stories conveyed by quantitative and qualitative analysis. The comparison counties of Brazos County, Texas; Rutherford County, Tennessee; and York County, South Carolina were selected in partnership with Greater San Marcos Partnership staff and volunteer leaders based on a matrix of economic and demographic indicators and trends. The comparison counties are in metro areas that compete with the Austin-Round Rock MSA, of which Greater San Marcos is a component. Additionally, each of the comparison counties contains a single university that is vital to the community’s economy. While they should not be taken as three communities Greater San Marcos should seek to become, there are nevertheless certain “aspirational” traits in these three counties that the region may benefit from emulating. For some indicators, Greater San Marcos is compared to the Austin-Round Rock MSA and the San Antonio-New Braunfels MSA to understand how the two-county region fits or stands out. The 2013 Office of Management and Budget Bulletin defines the Austin-Round Rock metro area as Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson counties. The San Antonio-New Braunfels metro is defined as Atascosa, Bandera, Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe, Kendall, Medina, and Wilson counties.

Market Street used the most recent data available for this Competitive Assessment. Reputable and reliable private, non-profit, local, state, and national government data sources were leveraged, with every effort made to match methodologies and units of comparison across sources to provide the most accurate and informative analysis of the Greater San Marcos region’s demographic trends, economic structure, and sense of place. Federal government sources used in this analysis include the U.S. Census Bureau; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the statistics or information divisions of several federal government department bureaus. Because of the population size of Caldwell County, U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey one-year estimates are not available, thus, three-year estimates have been used where possible. When three-year estimates are not available, five-year estimates are utilized.

Location quotients are used throughout this report to measure the relative concentration of regional employment in a given business sector or occupation. When applied to business sector employment, they measure the ratio of a business sector’s share of total regional employment to that business sector’s share of total national employment.

(Regional Employment in Sector / Total Regional Employment)

(National Employment in Sector / Total National Employment)

A business sector with an LQ equal to 1.0 possesses exactly the same share of total regional employment as that business sector’s share of national employment. When a regional business sector possesses a location quotient greater than 1.0, this signals that the business sector is more concentrated in the region than it is nationwide. Conversely, a location quotient less than 1.0 indicates that the business sector is less concentrated in the region than it is nationwide. The higher the location quotient, the more concentrated the level of regional employment as compared to its national equivalent. For example, a location quotient

LQ =



of 1.25 would indicate that a regional business sector’s share of total employment is 25 percent higher than the same business sector’s share of national employment. An LQ of 2.0 would indicate that a business sector’s share of regional employment is twice as large as the national share, while an LQ of 0.5 would indicate that the business sector’s share of regional employment is half the national equivalent.

Data Sources The Grow Smarter Competitive Assessment utilized the following data sources; each data source gives a brief description regarding the reporting agency along with its data collection methodology. These public data sources are trusted, and guide many public and private investment decisions whether it is corporate headquarters relocation, or a municipal urban planner.

ABOUT THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

The American Community Survey (ACS) is a nationwide survey designed to provide communities with a fresh look at how they are changing. It is a critical element in the Census Bureau’s decennial census program. The ACS collects information such as age, race, income, commute time to work, home value, veteran status, and other important data. The American Community Survey has replaced the decennial census long form which was discontinued in the 2010 decennial census.

In years past, the decennial census had two parts: 1) the short form, which counts the population; and 2) the long form, which obtains demographic, housing, social, and economic information from a 1-in-6 sample of households. Information from the long form is used for the administration of federal programs and the distribution of billions of federal dollars.

Since this is done only once every 10 years, long-form information becomes out of date. Planners and other data users are reluctant to rely on it for decisions that are expensive and affect the quality of life of thousands of people. The American Community Survey is a way to provide the data communities need every year instead of once in ten years.

Collecting data every year provides more up-to-date information throughout the decade about the U.S. population at the local community level. About 3.5 million housing unit addresses are selected annually, across every county in the nation.

American Community Survey Coverage

Single-Year Estimates

The ACS produces 1-year estimates annual for geographic areas with a population of 65,000 or more. This includes the nation, all states and the District of Columbia, all congressional districts, approximately 800 counties, and 500 metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, among others.



Multiyear Estimates

The ACS produces 3-year estimates annually for geographic areas with a population of 20,000 or more, including the nation, all states and the District of Columbia, all congressional districts, approximately 1,800 counties, and 900 metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, among others.

In 2010, the Census Bureau released the first 5-year estimates for small areas. These 5-year estimates are based on ACS data collected from 2005 through 2009.

ABOUT CURRENT POPULATION ESTIMATES

Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau produces and publishes estimates of the population for each state and county, as well as the nation as a whole. The Census Bureau utilizes administrative data from a number of sources to estimate 1) the change in population since the most recent decennial census and 2) the population for each year since the most recent decennial census. With each annual release of population estimates, the entire time series of estimates begging on April 1, 2010 is revised and updated.

At the national level, the resident population is affected by births, deaths, and net international migration (NIM) only as displayed in the following formula:

Population Estimate = Base Population + Births – Deaths + NIM

At the subnational level (i.e. states and counties), the resident population is affected by an additional component of population change: net internal, or domestic, migration (NDM) as shown below:

Base population is determined by the most recent decennial census count which serves as the starting point for all post-2010 population estimates. Information on births and deaths are collected from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) which collect birth and death statistical information for the entire United States. The net international migration component stems from data reported by the American Community Survey along with the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) which collects information on the Armed Forces population, demographic characteristics, and state distributions. Finally, Internal Revenue Service data are leveraged to produce net internal migration figures.

ABOUT BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

As an agency of the Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) produces economic accounts statistics the enable government and business decision-makers, researchers, and the American public to follow and understand the performance of the Nation’s economy. BEA’s economic statistics, which provide a comprehensive, up-to-date picture of the U.S. economy, are key ingredients in critical decisions affecting monetary policy, tax and budget projections, and business investment plans. The cornerstone of BEA’s statistics is the national income and product accounts (NIPAs), which feature the estimates of gross domestic product (GDP) and related measures.

BEA prepares national, regional, industry, and international accounts that present essential information on such key issues as economic growth, regional economic development, interindustry relationships, and the



Nation’s position in the world economy. Along with these figures, the Bureau of Economic Analysis also publishes figures on national, state, and local personal income.

ABOUT BUREAU OF LABOR STATSTICS

The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor is the principal Federal agency responsible for measuring labor market activity, working conditions, and price changes in the economy. Its mission is to collect, analyze, and disseminate essential economic information to support public and private decision-making. As an independent statistical agency, BLS serves its diverse user communities by providing products and services that are objective, timely, accurate, and relevant.

Quarterly Census of Earnings and Wages

The Quarterly Census of Earnings and Wages (QCEW) originated in the 1930s, and was formerly known as the ES-202 program until 2003 when the current QCEW name was adopted. The primary economic product is the tabulation of employment and wages of establishments which report to the Unemployment Insurance (UI) programs of the United States. Employment covered by these UI programs represents about 99.7 percent of all wage and salary civilian employment in the country.

The QCEW employment count is a total derived from quarterly contribution reports filed by almost every employer in the U.S., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It counts only filled jobs, whether full or part time, temporary or permanent, by place of work. The quarterly reports include the establishment’s monthly employment levels of the pay periods that include the twelfth of the month for the nation, states, metropolitan statistical areas, and counties.

Because the QCEW data is based on an establishment census which counts only filled jobs, it is likely that a multi-job holder will be counted two or more times in QCEW data.

Major exclusions from UI coverage include self-employed workers, most agricultural workers on small farms, all members of the Armed Forces, elected officials in most states, most employees of railroads, some domestic workers, most student workers at schools, and employees of certain small nonprofit organizations.

Under most state laws or regulations, wages include bonuses, stock options, severance pay, profit distributions, cash value of meals and lodging, tips and other gratuities, and, in some States, employer contributions to certain deferred compensation plans such as 401(k) plans.

Covered employers in most States report total compensation paid during the calendar quarter, regardless of when the services where performed. A few State laws, however, specify that wages be reported for or based on the period during which services are performed rather than the period during which compensation is paid.

Local Area Unemployment Statistics

The Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) is a Federal-State cooperative effort in which monthly estimates of total employment and unemployment are prepared for approximately 7,300 areas including:



Census regions and divisions

States

Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Metropolitan NECTAS (New England City and Town Areas)

Metropolitan Divisions and NECTA Divisions

Micropolitan Statistical Areas and Micropolitan NECTAs

Combined Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Combined NECTAs

Small Labor Market Areas

Counties and county equivalents

Cities of 25,000 population or more

Cities and towns in New England regardless of population

The concepts and definitions underlying LAUS data come from the Current Population Survey (CPS), the household survey that is the official measure of the labor force for the nation. Estimates for substate labor market areas are produced through a building-block approach known as the “Handbook method.” This procedure also uses data from several sources, including the CPS, the CES program, State UI systems, and the decennial census, to create estimates that are adjusted to the statewide measures of employment and unemployment

ABOUT ECONOMIC MODELING SPECIALISTS INTERNATIONAL (EMSI)

Economic Modeling Specialists Intl., recently acquired by CareerBuilder, turns labor market data into useful information that helps organizations understand the connection between economies, people, and work, Using sound economic principles and good data, EMSI builds user-friendly services that help educational institutions, workforce planners, and regional developers (such as WIBs, EDOs, chambers, utilities) build a better workforce and improve the economic conditions in their regions.

In order to report employment figures, EMSI collects data from more than 90 public sources. These data sets include, but are not limited to:

Bureau of Economic Analysis

Local Area Annual Estimates Local Personal Income Reports State Annual Estimates State Quarterly Income Estimates Industry Economic Accounts

United States Census Bureau

American Community Survey County Business Patterns Zip code Business Patterns Non-employer Statistics



Bureau of Labor Statistics

Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) Current Employment Statistics Current Population Survey (CPS) Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) National Compensation Survey National Industry-Occupation Employment Matrix (10-year, current and projected) Employment by Occupation (10-year, current and projected) Occupational Employment, Training, and Earnings

Employment and training Administration

Characteristics of the Insured Unemployed National O*NET Consortium, O*NET Production Database

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Common Core of Data (CCD) Characteristics of Private Schools in the United States

In order to develop employment by industry tables contained with this report, Market Street utilized EMSI’s QCEW, Non-QCEW, and Self-Employed data sets to better capture economic activity within a community.

QCEW employment includes an enhanced, unsuppressed version of the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. It is commonly referred to as “covered employment” because it counts all jobs covered by the federal or state unemployment insurance (UI) system.

Non-QCEW Employees includes a relatively small number of wage-and-salary employees that are exempt from UI coverage, and are not included in QCEW employment data. Major types of jobs in this category include the military, railroads, small nonprofit/religious organizations, real estate and insurance/finance agents, work-study students, and other miscellaneous employees.

Self-Employed data cover people who, when responding to the American Community or decennial census surveys, consider self-employment to be a significant part of their income and/or taking a significant part of their time. Most people normally considered “self-employed” would fall into this dataset.

Key Terms Per Capita Income: Personal income is income that is received by persons from all sources. It is calculated as the sum of wages and salaries, supplements to wages and salaries, proprietors’ income with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments, rental income from persons with capital consumption



adjustment, personal dividend income, personal interest income, and personal current transfer receipts, less contributions for government social insurance.

Per capita income is measured by calculating the personal income of the residents of a given area, inclusive of the personal income types stated above, by the resident population of the area.

Housing Affordability Index: This index is the ratio of median home price to median household income and represents how many years of the median income it would take to purchase the median priced home. The lower this ratio, the more affordable homes are in a community. The median household income is based on the distribution of the total number of households and families including those with no income. The median priced home reflect owner-occupied homes. The median divides the income distribution into two equal parts: one-half of cases falling below the median and one-half above the median.

Average Annual Earnings: EMSI reports the average earnings by business sector within a given region. Calculations are based on the total county annual earnings of a business sector divided by the county employment within the respective sector. Earnings figures include wages, salaries, supplements (additional employee benefits), and proprietor income.

Poverty Rate: The Census Bureau uses a set of dollar value thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family’s total income is less than the dollar value of the appropriate threshold, then that family and every individual in it are considered to be in poverty. Similarly, if an unrelated individual’s total income is less than the appropriate threshold, then that individual is considered to be in poverty.

The total number of people below the poverty level is the sum of people in families and the number of unrelated individuals with incomes in the last 12 months below the poverty threshold. In 2013, the most the federal poverty threshold for a family of four with two children was $23,624

greater san marcos vision 2020 appendices: … · appendices: competitive assessment page 1 –...

Documents