CO, MN, NM, OK state budgets reduce innovation funding


Some states have to defund innovation to manage budgets.
Colorado: Governor John Hickenlooper
  • The Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade budget will be reduced $8M to a $51M budget.
  • $1.8M for the Institute of Cannabis Research.
  • $2.8M for the Higher Education Competitive Research Authority.
Minnesota: Governor Mark Dayton
  • Killed the $15M Angel Investment Tax Credit program.
  • The state also reduced its R&D tax credit, which was at 10% and now set at 4%.
  • $145M FY18/ $119 FY19 to the Department of Employment and Economic Development.
  • $20.3M for the Office of Broadband Development.
  • $1.4M for Minnesota High Tech Association STEM program.
  • $4.2M for the Minnesota Job Skills Partnership Program.
  • $1.2M to the Metropolitan Economic Development Association.
  • $500Kfor the Minnesota emerging entrepreneur loan program.
  • $750Kfor the Neighborhood Development Center to support small businesses and entrepreneurship.
  • $875K for the state’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership center.
  • $8M for the University of MN and Mayo Foundation partnership
  • $8M for the MnDrive Cancer Clinical Trials Network.
  • $3M for the Spinal Cord Injury and Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • $2.5M for the Biomedicine and Bioethics Innovation.
New Mexico: Governor Susana Martinez
  • $1.0M to the University of New Mexico Southwest Research Center and $500K for the manufacturing engineering program.
  • $500M to the New Mexico State University minority STEM programs.
  • $3M for the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
  • $100K for the North New Mexico College STEM program.
  • $4M for the Santa Fe Community College small business development center.
Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin
  • $13.4M for the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology.


source: SSTI

DE, LA, ME, MO, NH, VT, and WA innovation funding

United-States-Map-2More states take measures to build an innovation plan for their region.  This on the heels of concerns of cuts in Federal funding from the Trump administrations.  Proactive Governors are on the front lines looking out for their state’s future well being.  While other states are confronted with cuts to the budget.


Delaware: Governor Jay Carney
  • $2.0M for the Delaware Prosperity Partnership focused on innovation economy, marketing, and workforce.
  • $1M for a board with public and private sector representatives will govern the partnership.
  • $2.8M for a new division of the Secretary of State’s office will be responsible for supporting small businesses incentive programs.
  • $2.5M for the National Institute Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals.
  • $1.5M for the Fraunhofer Center for Vaccine Development.
  • $1.0M for the Center for Clinical and Translational Research (5 yrs).
  • $1.0M in state match for the IDeA Network of Biomedical Research (5 yrs).
  • $1.0M for the Bioscience Center for Advanced Technology.
  • $800K for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
Louisiana: Governor John Bel Edwards
  • $209.4M for a program of state scholarships for Louisiana residents who attend any of the Louisiana public colleges and universities or the Louisiana Community and Technical College system.
  • $34.7M to support statewide economic development in areas of small business loans and mentoring;  entrepreneurial incubators.
Maine: Governor: Paul LePage
  • $17.4M for university researchers with capital to leverage federal and private sector research grants and contracts.
  • $7.1 million to promotes research and development in the state and funding technology transfer activities and inter-institutional research efforts.
Missouri: Governor Eric Greitens
  • Forced to cut $250M from the budget deal
New Hampshire: Governor Chris Sununu
  • Removed more than $1 million in matching funds for STEM program.
  • $375K for new robotics education fund.
  • $275K for the New Hampshire Innovation Research Center.
Vermont: Governor Phil Scott
  • $428K to the Vermont Manufacturing Extension Center.
  • $200K for the University of Vermont center for emerging technology.
  • $150K for the Vermont Small Business Development Center.
Washington: Governor Jay Inslee
  • $700K for regional organizations working with tourism, agriculture or wood products or clean tech and energy and must be 100 percent matched by the grantee.
  • $3M for aerospace innovation.


source: SSTI

White House Budget Threatens Research & Innovation

WhitehousePresident Trump positions drastic cuts to Federal budgets that support innovation and research.  This has raised concern nationwide as government, university, and private sector voice objections to cuts.   Most critics are saying that innovation is central to the health and continued prosperity of the American economy.   While this story is just breaking,  federal budget announcements are now under critical scrutiny as many of today’s leading companies, programs, and regions rely on federal dollars to spur innovation.

NE, AZ, MT Increase State Innovation Budgets

United-States-Map-2State legislatures take proactive steps to spur innovation in their regions.   Governors lead the way in signing budgets that support a future vision of their state’s goals and building a foundation of assets for prosperity.

Nebraska: Governor Pete Ricketts

  • $2M for a small business investment microloans for small company growth and entrepreneurship.
  • The University of Nebraska budget of near $12K research.
  • $4M per year for grants up to $500,000 each to small businesses to drive the commercialization of new processes or products.

Arizona:  Governor Doug Ducey

  • $3M in new investments for high-speed internet to rural schools.
  • $200K for state-wide computer programing training.
  • $21.5M for the Arizona Commerce Authority

Montana: Steve Bullock

  •  $375K states matching funds program.
  • $200K to the Manufacturing Extension Center
  • $200K to Montana State University’s Northern Advanced Biofuel Center.
  • $56.1M to the Commissioner of Higher Education R&D agencies.
source: SSTI



2014 Rail-volution Conference

Railvolution 1I attended the 2014 Rail-volution conference   looking at trends in economic development and transportation oriented development.  This past year we worked with some large scale TOD projects that included high speed rail projects in North America.  It was interesting to see the different approaches programs in a variety of states where pursuing.  One key difference revolves around have the core of the funding be public or private backed.   Both options have their advantages and complications.   Public funding is very politically complicated, involving more effort in securing support, but possibly providing stronger alignment going forward.   Private funding tends to have deeper pockets and makes more ambitious projects possible.  The complications on the private side involves alignment to public interest vs. corporate and ultimately long term ownership and maintenance of the solutions.   Both have their advantages and can be combined into Public + Private ventures.

Another major variable involves the inclusion of foreign investment capital.   I’ve been involved in a number of regional investment conversations with foreign nations.   In today’s world climate,  north america represents one of the few stable regions in the world today for investing,  especially in infrastructure.   Many countries have strong capital reserves they desperately need to invest, but the idea of global markets is a risky proposition and north america is very attractive.  Have countries invest in America, its infrastructure, and its future is a great way to increase relationship with foreign powers.  In most cases,  foreign investors are very flexible no the ownership issues,  preferring regional ownership long term, and looking more at security of capital and returns.

These investments get more interesting and regional impact increases when multiple stakeholder groups come together.   When you combine transportation investments built around new innovation centers,  education centers,  industry parks,  research parks, conference centers, etc – then a multiply effect comes into effect where you are creating new capabilities for the region and career / lifestyle options that attract and retain the next generation of talent.  Again,  it also pays to look past ones primary project into parallel efforts.  For example:  Transportation projects also change adjacent real estate value and possibilities.  Combining efforts through joint ventures  with other real estate development groups can be a great multiplier for support and financing.

This event was a great showcase of projects and approaches.  Networking with economic development firms and state agencies was fantastic and factors into ongoing networking.  Looking forward to attending the next event.