THE PLATTSBURGH-NORTH COUNTRY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

CANADIAN CONNECTION PROJECT

Final Report

October 1999

Yellow Wood Associates, Inc.

Introduction

In 1994, the Plattsburgh-North Country Chamber of Commerce established baseline indicators of the economic impact of Canada and Canadians on the Clinton County economy.   The Chamber modified the methodologies used in 1994 and replicated the Canadian Impact Assessment for 1996. The Chamber will replicate this study on a regular basis to provide indications of the directions in which Canadian impact is developing. This report represents the third replication, and the first to develop clear trend data. Data was collected and analyzed for the 1998 calendar year, and in most cases has been compared directly to the results of the previous 1996 study.  A variety of methodologies have been used across seven different sectors and numerous sub-sectors to attempt to capture economic impact data.  The major sectors in this study are: Border-Dependent Businesses and Public Agencies, Energy, Financial and Professional Services, Culture and Education, Real Estate, Retail, and Tourism.  This report discusses findings, identifies methodological issues, and makes recommendations for replication by sub-sector.

 Certain methodological insights apply to every aspect of this study.  These include the importance of using a third party to collect data from businesses within Clinton County.

Many respondents raised concerns regarding the confidentiality of the information they were asked to provide.  As a third party located outside the County, Yellow Wood Associates (YWA) has been able to assure them their information would only be released to the Chamber in the aggregate for their sector or sub-sector and never associated specifically with their business.  This assurance was key to generating responses in many instances.  Therefore, although the original intent of this study was to provide the Chamber with a means of replication that would not require a third party, the absence of a third party may significantly lower response rates.  The first replication (calendar year 1996) evidenced a significant increase in response rate among certain sectors over the original study, possibly confirming the value of a third party. This replication however, has experienced a modest decline in the overall response rate, yet the participating firms account for the bulk of the business reported in the 1996 replication. We can assume that firms that have no business with Canadian and border-related businesses generally have not responded for this replication. It is important to continue to track the core groups of respondents in each sector, but at the same time encourage more firms to participate.

 We recommended that each participating firm receive a letter of thanks from the Chamber and a copy of the executive summary of the study.

 Survey responses were tracked for firms that responded to the previous studies, with particular attention given to those firms that participated in both the 1996 and 1998 replication. Where significant comparisons are possible between the 1996 and 1998 responses, they have been noted in the text. Lists of the surveyed population are included in the Appendix to this report.

 Wherever possible and appropriate the methodology for data collection for the replication is identical to the original study.  However, the original study taught us several lessons that allowed us to design more appropriate methodologies for certain sectors.  Although explicit comparison of the 1996 replication data and original data may not be possible, the changes in methodology for certain sectors allows accurate and feasible comparisons between the 1996 data and this replication.

 Finally, much of the methodology for this study has been based on lists of Canadian-owned businesses, International border businesses, and Public border-related agencies in Clinton County.  Businesses in many sectors have been asked to estimate the amount and value of transactions with these border-dependent businesses and agencies.  The accuracy of these lists is critical to the overall accuracy of the results.  Additional lists of tourism-related businesses, retail businesses, financial and professional service providers, etc. have been used for conducting surveys.  All these lists were supplied to YWA by the Chamber.  An effort was made to verify the accuracy and comprehensiveness of these lists with members of the Canadian Connection Committee of the Chamber.   We can only speculate on businesses that might have been excluded from the lists.  However, a couple of County businesses acknowledged having clients that were Canadian-owned businesses not included in the list. These businesses declined to disclose the names of the firms and thus the lists were not amended. Also, businesses on the lists of Canadian-owned businesses that are not Canadian-owned have been identified.  Updated lists will be provided to the Chamber for the 2000 replication.  We recommend that the Chamber continue to strive to maintain as comprehensive a list of Canadian-owned businesses in Clinton County as possible.

 We realize the lists are, by nature, highly dynamic and maintaining lists of this type is difficult and time consuming.  These lists are, however, the cornerstones of the methodology developed by YWA and approved by the Chamber.  We recommend that, prior to replication, either the Chamber or a third party make an effort to bring all lists up to date.

 All figures reported are in current dollars for the time period represented.