picture - empire state development corporation report_appendices_2018-04-18.pdfoverlay map life...

PICTURE

Life Sciences Laboratory Initiative

Wadsworth Future State Report - Appendices The Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY), New York State Empire State

Development (ESD), and New York State Department of Health (DOH)

March 19, 2018

Final Report: March 19, 2018

2

Table of Contents Appendix A: Economic and Clusters Analysis..................................................... 4

Life Sciences Cluster Analysis and Geographic Boundaries ............................... 4

Overview of Key Demographic Data for the Albany EA, Capital Region, and Capital District ..................................................................................................... 5

Life Sciences Cluster Analysis ...................................................................... 7

Albany EA Life Sciences Cluster versus Peer Clusters in the United States .......... 9

Appendix B: Wadsworth Facilities Current State .............................................. 19

Wadsworth Core Functions & Capabilities .................................................... 19

Current Facility Assessment and Key Risks .................................................. 21

Appendix C: Use Case Development and Market Sounding Details ..................... 27

Market Sounding Approach ........................................................................ 27

Use Cases and Solutions Details ................................................................. 31

Appendix D: Profile of Economy and Life Sciences Sector by Geographic Unit of

Analysis .................................................................................................... 36

Appendix E: Methodology and Approach to Economic and Clusters Analysis ......... 38

Overview of Model Used ............................................................................ 38

About IMPLAN ......................................................................................... 38

Introduction to Economic Impact Analysis ................................................... 38

Data Inputs and Outputs Methodology ........................................................ 39

Overview of Industry Coding ..................................................................... 41

Appendix F: Scenario Inputs and Outputs ....................................................... 52

Scenario Input Descriptions ....................................................................... 52

Scenario Output for Additional Levels of Analysis .......................................... 53

Economic Area ......................................................................................... 53

Capital Region ......................................................................................... 54

Capital District ......................................................................................... 55

Appendix G: Approach to Potential New Site Assessment .................................. 56

Site Selection .......................................................................................... 56

Data Collection ........................................................................................ 56

Evaluation Criteria Scoring ........................................................................ 57

Detailed Evaluation Criteria Notes .............................................................. 61

Appendix H: Industry Clusters Case Studies ................................................... 74


3

Research Triangle Park ............................................................................. 74

Medical and Related Sciences (MaRS) Discovery District ................................ 81

Victoria, Australia Agribioscience Center ...................................................... 83

UConn Health Center – Clinical Care, Advanced Biomedical Research and

Academic Education ................................................................................. 85

University of Maryland .............................................................................. 88


4

Appendix A: Economic and Clusters Analysis

Life Sciences Cluster Analysis and Geographic Boundaries

In this report, an industry “cluster” is defined as a large collection of companies engaged in a similar line of business, all located in close geographic proximity.

Clusters may also contain non-commercial organizations such as government

agencies, non-profits, universities, and industry associations that provide

specialized training, information, research, and technical support. Robust industry

clusters are an integral part of economic development which, in combination with a

talented workforce, good education, strong research, strong competition, demanding customers, responsive government, and collaboration across public and

private sectors, could create a competitive business environment that fosters true

innovation.

Classic examples of industry clusters include the information technology cluster in

Silicon Valley, the automotive cluster in Detroit, the financial services cluster in New York City, and the film and video production cluster in Hollywood. Without having to

leave these locations, a company can access the best of whatever it needs—talent,

know-how, financing, supplies, services, and more—to develop hardware and

software, build cars, serve the financial needs of clients, or make a world-class

movie.1

While some companies in a cluster may be direct competitors, most companies in a

cluster complement and support each other. For example, industry clusters usually

include firms:

Making end products (e.g., computers, automobiles, movies), or services

(e.g., asset management)

Providing specialized supplies (e.g., flat panel screens, brake systems,

financial information)

Providing specialized services (e.g., programming, safety testing, transaction

processing, film editing); and

Specializing in generic services (e.g., financing or marketing for films, autos,

etc.)

Clusters are broader than just a few industries; they include producers, suppliers,

buyers, training and research institutions, and government agencies, but are

narrower than economic sectors like manufacturing, agriculture, or services.

Without some critical mass of participants, there is the possibility that the particular

interests of individual companies would mask the common interests faced by all. On the other hand, companies in the same sector may have very different needs: some

companies manufacture sophisticated satellites, while others manufacture cotton

sheets. These are entirely different types of businesses, and these companies need

different skill sets on the part of their workers, different types of financing, different

1 Deloitte Report: Activating Economic Strategies for Industry Clusters, 2013


5

regulatory environments, and so on. The intent of activating clusters is to bring

together companies with common issues and goals.2

Clusters often extend beyond political geographic boundaries as they are based on the economic and social choices made by a collection of businesses, institutions,

and individuals, with workers and residents often commuting in and across city,

county, state, and national boundaries.

Geographic definitions of an industry cluster are thus paramount. The geographic

unit of analysis should not be so wide as to preclude relatively frequent face-to-face interaction among cluster participants. Neither should it be so narrow as to exclude

important assets (e.g., companies, research, and educational entities). The optimal

geography is typically wider than city or a county, and sometimes spills over state

boundaries. As a starting point, this report uses Economic Areas (EA) as officially

defined by the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA). EAs are widely

recognized as a relevant geographic unit of measurement for a cluster given, among other factors, significant economic linkages and commuting patterns. In

addition to the EA, the economic analyses in this report have also been conducted

using the Capital Region and the Capital District geographies given the need to look

at a narrower geographic unit of analysis.3

Overview of Key Demographic Data for the Albany EA, Capital

Region, and Capital District

Table 6 below summarizes key demographic data for the different geographic

areas used in the economic analysis. The different levels of analysis provide context for the potential impact of a new Wadsworth facility on the industries both core to

and supporting the life sciences cluster in the Capital Region, discussed later in the

report.

The Albany-Schenectady-Amsterdam Economic Area is the broadest

geographic boundary considered in the analysis. The Albany EA is a 14-county area defined by the US EDA.4

Economic Areas capture broader commuting patterns and distinct labor markets5.

For example, the Albany EA is wide enough to include Hamilton County to the

northwest, which has residential populations 65 to 70 miles away from the City of

Albany, as well as Columbia County, which has residential populations to the southeast only 20 to 30 miles away. The Albany EA also includes some of the

2 Deloitte Report: Activating Economic Strategies for Industry Clusters, 2013 3 Deloitte Report: Activating Economic Strategies for Industry Clusters, 2013 4 Comprises comprising Albany, Columbia, Fulton, Greene, Hamilton, Montgomery, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Warren, and Washington Counties in NYS, as well as Bennington

County, VT, and Berkshire County, MA. See http://www.clustermapping.us/region/economic/albany_schenectady_amsterdam_ny/subregions 5 Note: The two major factors that were used in the aggregation process in creating Economic Areas

were commuting patterns and economic and geographic size. Specifically, each EA is a region of sufficient size to support regional statistical analyses and each EA is a labor market that is independent of other labor markets. Source: 2004 Redefinition of the BEA Economic Areas, By

Kenneth P. Johnson and John R. Kort, https://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2004/11November/1104Econ-

Areas.pdf


6

region’s nanotech assets to the north of the City of Albany, in Glens Falls (a 53-mile

drive). Given that the focus of this report is the impact to NYS, and the Capital

Region in particular, this analysis focuses only on the 12 NYS counties in the Albany EA.

The Capital Region is an eight-county area defined by NYS.6 A more concentrated

geographic area, the Capital Region is a relevant unit of analysis due to its inclusion

of key population and commercial centers. It does not include peripheral areas with

minimal population densities, which are unlikely to hold life sciences assets related to the Life Sciences Initiative.

The Capital District is a 4-county area defined by NYS.7 The region is also known

as the “Core Four” counties, and contains within it all of the possible sites

considered for the new life sciences facility, described in Section 5.

Table 6: Summary Data for the Albany EA, Capital Region, and Capital

District

Region Size (square

miles) Population

Median Household

Income ($)

Albany EA 10,336 1.39m $59,405

Capital Region 5,335 1.08m $61,023

Capital District 2,251 0.85m $62,808

Source: U.S. Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics Data, 20158

The geographic areas shown in the table above are represented by Figure 16 below.

6 The Capital Region is entirely contained within the Albany EA. It is comprised of Albany, Columbia, Greene, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Warren, and Washington Counties in New York State.

See https://esd.ny.gov/regionaloverviews/capital/insideregion.html 7 The Capital District is comprised of Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Schenectady Counties. See http://www.albany.com/aboutalbany/ 8 U.S. Census 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, weighted with U.S. Census

2015 population estimates by county.


7

Figure 16: Albany EA (NYS Counties only), Capital Region, Capital District

Overlay Map

Life Sciences Cluster Analysis

The Biopharmaceuticals, Medical Devices, and Education and Knowledge Creation

industry clusters comprise the core of the traded life sciences clusters, forming the

basis of the analysis used in this report. The Biopharmaceutical cluster has a number of core industries: pharmaceutical manufacturing (across the supply

chain); in-vitro diagnostics; biological/botanical product manufacturing; and

commercial, scientific research, and development services.

Core industries in the Medical Devices cluster are surgical, medical, dental, and

optical instrument and supplies manufacturing. Core industries in the Education and Knowledge Creation cluster are R&D positions in universities and other research

organizations. Figure 17 below shows examples of companies in these core

industries, as well as EDA-defined cluster linkages.


8

Figure 17: Related Clusters and Economic Diversification

Source: EDA Cluster website9

Clusters, and the industries that comprise them, exhibit natural linkages with other

traded and local clusters. Important connections between clusters are evident in the correlation of employment between industries in different clusters, locational

correlation of industry establishments, inter-industry trade, and overlap in

occupational skills necessary for industries across clusters. Hence, the strength of

one cluster supports other clusters that are often linked to it.

9 http://clustermapping.us/content/cluster-mapping-methodology


9

While cluster development can have ripple effects on related industries, the

evolution of regional economies is a slow process – organic linkages between

businesses and institutions can takes years to materialize, if at all. While inherited endowments such as natural resources or geographic location often underpin the

composition of a regional economy, the evolution process could be impacted by the

following factors:

The presence of research/training institutions, for example a university

or education-focused public health lab, like Wadsworth. Specialized research and training provide a fertile ground for cluster development.

The broad influencer of public policy. Political choices and prioritizations

have a significant impact on regional development.

The proximity to government-funded research facilities. Often these

areas have more research and development, science, and regulatory

opportunities given significant government investments in basic research which would normally not be undertaken by commercial entities.

The composition of the economy towards traded clusters. New

activities with global, not just local, markets, often emerge out of existing

traded clusters given their global, sophisticated demand requirements.

Often the evolution of a regional economy can follow its own momentum without intervention. But given the reality of path-dependency and multiple outcomes there

is also clear evidence that this process can be affected by leadership and clear

choices made in the public sector.10

Albany EA Life Sciences Cluster versus Peer Clusters in the United

States

The analysis below describes the three key traded clusters that comprise the core

life sciences-related industry clusters in the Albany EA: Biopharmaceuticals,

Education and Knowledge Creation, and Medical Devices. As described in Section

2.1, traded clusters are, on average, more innovative and productive than local clusters. Since traded clusters are those that compete outside of the region, they

can also be used to make worthwhile comparisons to life sciences activity in other

parts of the country.

Biopharmaceuticals Cluster

The Albany EA is relatively specialized in the Biopharmaceuticals cluster, ranking

the 12th highest in the nation (out of 181 Economic Areas) in employment concentration in 2015 when normalized for size of the economy.11 The map below

10 US Council on Competitiveness, Professor Michael E. Porter Harvard University, Monitor Group (now Deloitte), Clusters of Innovation National Report, 2002 11 Note that the EDA ranks specialization using what is termed a location quotient calculation. In

simple terms, the location quotient is a ratio, where a score of “1” indicates that the proportion of a region’s workforce employed in that particular cluster equals the national average, with higher scores indicating higher than average proportions of employment. See:

http://www.clustermapping.us/region-

cluster/biopharmaceuticals/economic/albany_schenectady_amsterdam_ny


10

contextualizes the region’s Biopharmaceuticals cluster performance. While the

region classifies as relatively specialized in Biopharmaceuticals, its overall

employment share is lower, ranking 21st in the nation. The EA rests in a part of the country that is particularly active in the Biopharmaceuticals cluster, with New York

City, Boston, and Philadelphia Economic Areas all exhibiting both high cluster

specialization and high employment share.

Figure 18: Specialization in Biopharmaceuticals Traded Cluster by

Economic Area, 2015


Figure 19 and Figure 20 below compares the leading economic areas in terms of

employment and specialization of industries in the Biopharmaceuticals cluster.

Based on these metrics, the Albany EA’s Biopharmaceuticals cluster appears to be

most comparable to the Kansas City, MO (employment 4,962; specialization factor of 2.15) or Tucson, AZ (employment 1,760; specialization factor of 3.27) regions.

12 http://www.clustermapping.us/region-

cluster/biopharmaceuticals/economic/albany_schenectady_amsterdam_ny


11

Figure 19: Albany EA Biopharmaceuticals Cluster, Employment and

Specialization, Compared to Other EA’s with Larger Biopharmaceutical

Clusters

Source: EDA Cluster Data

Figure 20: Albany EA Biopharmaceuticals Cluster, Employment and Specialization, Compared to Similar-sized EAs with Biopharmaceutical

Clusters


Over time, the Albany EA’s specialization and share of employment in

Biopharmaceuticals has grown significantly: in 2010, employment was 655 and

specialization was 0.66, representing a roughly four-fold increase in both metrics in


12

only five years. Figure 21 below shows Biopharmaceuticals job creation from

2010-2015 for the top 20 EAs, against expected growth given national growth in

Biopharmaceuticals. The Albany EA created 1,648 jobs in Biopharmaceuticals from 2010-2015, the 5th most of the 152 economic areas.

Figure 21: Top 20 EAs by Job Creation in Biopharmaceuticals Cluster, 2010-

2015


Table 6 below confirms that the Biopharmaceuticals cluster has grown along key

trends that suggest an emerging, competitive life sciences cluster in the region.

From 2010 to 2015, employment in Biopharmaceuticals grew at an average rate of

31.7% per year, with employment specialization closely tracking at an average

growth rate of 32.8% during the same period. About 20 to 25 new patents per year

were issued to industries in the region, and the number of establishments (or places of business) has grown by 12.2% per year from 2010 to 2015.

Table 6: Biopharmaceuticals Cluster, Key Trends 2010-2015, Albany EA

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Period Growth

(2010-2015)

Employment 655 675 875 1,250 1,269 2,303 251%

New Patents 21 21 18 26 N/A N/A 23%

Total Establishments 8 10 10 11 12 14 75%

Specialization 0.66 0.69 0.87 1.29 1.34 2.43 268%


Education and Knowledge Creation Cluster

The Albany EA is highly specialized in the Education and Knowledge Creation cluster, ranking as the 7th highest in the nation (out of 181 Economic Areas) in


13

employment concentration in 2015 when normalized for size of the economy.13 The

map below contextualizes the region’s Education and Knowledge Cluster

performance. While the region classifies as highly specialized in Education and Knowledge Cluster, its overall employment share is lower, ranking 29st in the

nation. The EA rests in a part of the country that is particularly active in the

Education and Knowledge Creation cluster, with NY City, Ithaca/Syracuse, Boston,

and Philadelphia Economic Areas all classifying as having both high cluster

specialization and high employment share.

Figure 22: Specialization in Education and Knowledge Creation Traded

Cluster by Economic Area, 2015


13 Note that the EDA ranks specialization using what is termed a location quotient calculation. In simple terms, the location quotient is a ratio, where a score of “1” indicates that the proportion of a

region’s workforce employed in that particular cluster equals the national average, with higher scores indicating higher than average proportions of employment. See: http://www.clustermapping.us/content/glossary-terms 14 http://www.clustermapping.us/region-

cluster/education_and_knowledge_creation/economic/albany_schenectady_amsterdam_ny


14

Figure 23 below compares the economic areas in terms of employment and

specialization of industries in the Education and Knowledge Cluster. Based on these

metrics, the Albany EA’s Education and Knowledge cluster is most comparable to the Burlington, VT (employment 9,993; specialization factor of 2.13) or Roanoke,

VA (employment 16,613; specialization factor of 1.90) regions.

Figure 23: Albany EA Education and Knowledge Creation Cluster,

Employment and Specialization, Compared to Smaller and Larger EAs with

Education and Knowledge Creation Clusters


Over time, the Albany EA’s specialization and share of employment in Education

and Knowledge Creation has grown, but only marginally: in 2010, employment was

25,524 and specialization was 2.08. Figure 24 below shows Education and

Knowledge Creation job creation from 2010-2015 for EAs experiencing significant

change in that period, against expected growth given national growth in the Education and Knowledge Creation cluster. The Albany EA created only 1,209 jobs

in the Education and Knowledge Creation from 2010-2015.


15

Figure 24: EAs with Significant Job Creation (Loss) in Education and

Knowledge Creation Traded Cluster, 2010-2015


Table 8 below presents key trends for the Education and Knowledge Creation traded cluster. Overall, this cluster has seen slight growth in total employment and

employment specialization, but the growth has been confined to a decreasing

number of establishments. From 2010 to 2015, employment in Education and

Knowledge Creation grew at an average rate of 1.0% per year, while specialization

increased 1.1% per year. Only 3 to 4 patents were issued to industries in the area per year, and the number of establishments (or places of business) dropped about

0.8% per year from 2010 to 2015.

Table 8: Education and Knowledge Creation Traded Cluster, Key Trends

2010-2015, Albany EA

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Period Growth (2010-2015

Employment 25,524 25,886 25,691 27,057 26,996 26,733 4%

New Patents 4 3 3 3 N/A N/A -25%

Total Establishments 343 336 342 337 326 329 -4%

Specialization 2.08 2.02 2.01 2.17 2.21 2.19 5%



16

Medical Devices Cluster

The Albany EA is also relatively specialized in Medical Devices, with the 17th highest

employment concentration in the nation (out of 181 Economic Areas) in 2015.15 The map below contextualizes the region’s Medical Devices Cluster performance. While

the region classifies as highly specialized in Medical Devices, its overall employment

share is lower, ranking 33rd in the nation. Of particular note is that all economic

areas in NYS classify as having either high employment share or specialization in

the Medical Devices cluster.

Figure 25: Specialization in Medical Devices Traded Cluster by Economic

Area, 2015


Figure 26 below compares the economic areas in terms of employment and

specialization of industries in the Medical Devices cluster. Based on these metrics, the Albany EA’s Medical Devices cluster is most comparable to the Omaha, NE

(employment 2,795; specialization 2.60) or nearby Indianapolis, IN (employment

7,556; specialization 2.56) regions.

15 http://www.clustermapping.us/region-cluster/biopharmaceuticals/economic/albany_schenectady_amsterdam_ny 16 http://www.clustermapping.us/region-

cluster/medical_devices/economic/albany_schenectady_amsterdam_ny


17

Figure 26: Medical Devices Cluster, Employment and Specialization by EA


Over time, the Albany EA’s specialization and share of employment in Medical

Devices has been slightly negative, as some of the strongest clusters in the nation,

four of which are near to the Capital Region, have also declined. In 2010,

employment in the Medical Devices sector was 2,777 and specialization was 2.52.

Figure 27 below shows how the Albany EA lost 357 jobs in Medical Devices from 2010 to 2015, compared to the loss of 4,701 jobs in Boston, 2,704 jobs in NY City,

1,996 jobs in Syracuse, and 1,369 jobs in Scranton during that period.


18

Figure 27: Top EAs by Significant Job Creation (Loss) in Medical Devices

Traded Cluster, 2010-2015


Table 9 below presents key trends for the Medical Devices traded cluster. Overall, the trends analysis confirms that the Albany EA’s Medical Devices cluster has

dropped slightly in terms of employment and specialization, while patents and total

establishments has roughly stayed the same. From 2010 to 2015, employment in

Education and Knowledge Creation decreased at an average rate of 2.5% per year,

while specialization decreased a total of 2.4% during the total period. Patent issuances stayed roughly constant, ranging between 17 and 21, and the number of

establishments (or places of business) dropped about 0.3% per year.

Table 9: Medical Devices Traded Cluster, Key Trends 2010-2015, Albany EA

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Period Growth

(2010-2015)

Employment 2,777 2,887 2,454 2,389 2,480 2,420 -12%

New Patents 21 19 17 21 N/A N/A 0%

Total Establishments 31 30 32 36 34 30 -3%

Specialization 2.52 2.59 2.15 2.20 2.43 2.46 -2%



19

Appendix B: Wadsworth Facilities Current State

HERA laboratory planners, in conjunction with Deloitte, completed a review of the existing Wadsworth laboratory facilities in July 2017. The process included two on-

site tours of some, but not all, of the labs located at the existing four sites housing

laboratory facilities. These are listed below. (An additional, fifth, administrative site

will be covered elsewhere.)

1. Biggs Laboratory (Biggs) 2. Center for Medical Sciences (CMS)

3. David Axelrod Institute (DAI)

4. Griffin Laboratory (Griffin)

A visual review of major scientific and analytical equipment, a review of equipment

lists, a review of floor plans of laboratory areas and a review of several previously completed reports and publications was completed. These are shown below.

Conditions Assessment and Survey of Biggs Laboratory (Cannon Design,

2008)

New York State Consolidated Laboratory Basis of Design (Jacobs Engineering,

August 2013)

Wadsworth Center Summary of Objectives, Priorities, and Project

History (Wadsworth)

Wadsworth Center Capability Assessment (Wadsworth)

Wadsworth Center Organization Chart (Wadsworth, May 2017)

Equipment List (Wadsworth, Nov. 2016)

Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research – Functional Analysis 2012

Additionally, HERA met with Wadsworth staff representatives to review

organizational aspects of the DOH and Wadsworth. This included but was not

limited to current laboratory departments and disciplines, specialty lab divisions,

research and clinical activities, shared facilities and unique major equipment.

As lab planners, HERA often see physical facilities that attempt testing and research activities in environments where regulatory, compliance and quality needs are

either unmet or met through complex protocols. This review of current state of the

Wadsworth Laboratories is intended to give a qualitative overview of existing

laboratory facilities in terms of general physical condition. Key conclusions from

previous facilities assessment reports is also incorporated into this activity.

This study is also intended to identify unique scientific activities, including exclusive

challenges and solutions found in Public Health facilities. This review of the current

state facilities in conjunction with scientific mission and activities was intended to

illustrate strengths and opportunities of the organization. Existing assets and

capabilities that could be leveraged as valued resources to outside organizations and companies have also been identified.

Wadsworth Core Functions & Capabilities

Wadsworth is divided into five lab focused divisions and two support divisions:


20

Lab Focused:

Division of Environmental Health Sciences

Division of Genetics Division of Infectious Diseases

Division of Translational Medicine

Division of Laboratory Quality Certification

Lab Support:

Laboratory Operations Administration

While these divisions are helpful in the operations and management of staff,

Wadsworth has developed “core functions” which are the main missions of the

Center. To support these core functions, twelve “special program areas” were

established as well as core facilities that are available to and shared among all program areas. While some of the special program areas align with the divisions,

others span across multiple divisions. The twelve special program areas include:

Laboratory Based Special Program Areas:

Primary Laboratory Programs:

Newborn Screening Preparedness for Emerging Infectious Disease

a. Biodefense Lab

b. Bacteriology Lab

c. Virology Lab

d. Bloodborne Viruses Lab e. Arbovirus Surveillance

f. Rabies Laboratory

g. Parasitology Lab

h. Mycology Lab

i. Diagnostic Lab

j. Mycobacteriology Lab Environmental Health

a. Environmental Organic Chemical Analysis

b. Human Biomarkers of Environmental Organic Chemical Exposure

c. Inorganic Chemistry

d. Nuclear Chemistry e. Inhalable Fibers Section

f. Environmental Microbiology Section

g. Medical Marijuana Lab

Supporting Laboratory Programs:

Translational Medicine & Scientific Research Laboratory Safety, Compliance and Support Services

Quality Control/ Assessment Special Program Areas:

The Clinical Laboratory Reference System (CLRS)

Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP)

Physician’s Office Evaluation Program Blood and Tissue Resource Program


21

Extramural Funding Special Program Areas:

Empire State Stem Cell Board – NYS Stem Cell Science Program

Breast Cancer Research and Education and Health Research Science Board Spinal Cord Injury Research Board

In addition, Wadsworth has shared laboratory facilities to support the special

program areas. Existing assets not captured in the special program areas, which

include:

Imaging (advanced light microscopy, electron microscopy) Structural Biology (biochemistry instrumentation, mass spectrometry)

Genomics / Informatics (sequencers)

Current Facility Assessment and Key Risks

Wadsworth operations are spread across five facilities (see Figure 28) of

approximately 910,000 total SF: Biggs Laboratory, Center for Medical Sciences, the David Axelrod Institute, Griffin Laboratories and an administrative building (not

visited), all within a 30-minute drive in or near the City of Albany. The following are

observations made on a recent tour in July 2017 of each of the four laboratory

facilities and key risks that were identified (note that only a sub-set of laboratories

were visited at each facility).

Figure 28: Location of Wadsworth Facilities

Biggs Laboratory

When built in the 1970’s, the laboratory was a unique, state of the art building. At

over 500,000 SF, it offered expansive space for Wadsworth. The laboratory was

initially fitted out with specialty laboratories and core facilities, such as a vivarium


22

and environmental radiation background chamber, but age and lack of ability to

modernize the laboratory have made it underutilized and obsolete. A full facility

assessment was completed in 2007 by Cannon Design for the Office of General Services and our observations corroborate the findings in this study.

General Evaluation

The building appears to be structurally sound. Material finishes are sturdy

and durable, such as epoxy floors and latex walls with built-up curbs and

corner guards. The walls and ceilings appear to be modular and adjustable. Although the labs have windows and clerestories, there appears to be

minimal natural light as the laboratory floors are underneath the plaza.

Casework is a collection of different eras and styles, ranging from traditional

fixed wood casework, to modular/ mobile metal casework.

Lab module is based on a 10’x10’ grid which appears to be undersized for

modern day equipment and processes. The shallow depth of the labs plus the occasional diagonal walls, restrict the overall size of the individual labs.

Fire and water infiltration in recent years have resulted in the loss of usable

space and the loss of reliable space for critical public health programs. An

ability to adequately mitigate these risks due to obsolescent facilities poses

additional risk to public safety and NY’s public health mission.

Key Risks

The building is not sprinklered. Upgrading to a sprinklered system would be

prohibitively expensive.

Until 4 years ago, the building did not have a centralized alarm system.

These two deficiencies became evident several years ago when an office area caught fire and caused irreparable damage to that zone. In addition, it was

realized that not everyone had been evacuated from the building.

Fortunately, there was no loss of human life.

The upper floors suffer from consistent water infiltration from the plaza

above. This has led to the abandonment of several laboratory areas, and the

move of Newborn screening to the DAI.

There appears to be no MEP redundancy. Lack of redundancy puts research

and testing at risk to lose data and samples if systems go down and inability

to be guarantee ability to provide testing during public health emergencies.

Fresh air intakes are below the plaza level and are at risk from debris being

thrown in. Similarly, the exhaust stack runs through to the top of the 44-story tower and could pose a potential risk of exposure to tenants if there

were ever a leak in the ductwork systems.

While cooling is generally observed to be alright, several labs were observed

having supplemental cooling.

Maintenance is co-performed by the Office of General Services (OGS) and Wadsworth personnel due to complexity of upkeep.

Air quality appears to be below the tolerance level for some lab functions.

Many biological sciences have moved to other campuses or have made use of

modular clean room enclosures to achieve proper cleanliness levels.


23

Center for Medical Sciences Building

The Center for Medical Sciences Building (CMS) is a developer-built facility

constructed next door to the David Axelrod Institute. Wadsworth currently leases the whole 5th floor, 1/3rd of the 4th floor, half the second floor and a portion of the

first. Wadsworth leases only a portion of the building because it does not meet

some of their more robust lab needs and additional space is not available to lease

from the owner. The Genomics core lab is currently housed here.

General Evaluation

The building appears to be in good condition. The layout uses an 11x11

planning module which allows for appropriate aisle clearances for personnel

workflow as well as sufficient space for modern instrumentation. However,

the narrow floor plate does not offer the flexibility needed to meet a variety

of lab needs, nor do service corridors (widths) accommodate the variety of

support and utility operational needs of a modern, comprehensive lab.

The main labs are on the perimeter of the building allowing for natural light,

with support functions located towards the center. Write-up areas are located

at the ends of the building and not in the labs.

Lab benches are serviced from above via a chase and provide power and

data, however minimal gas utilities (such as compressed air, vacuum, etc.) and limited exhaust systems are available.

Its location adjacent to the DAI allows for more collaboration than that of the

other facilities, but not having a direct connection appears to be a detriment

to more synergies.

Finishes are standard vinyl composition tile, latex paint and acoustical ceiling tile. While the vinyl composition tile has held up well, it generally is not

recommended in laboratories.

Casework appears to be standard grade metal casework with a fixed spine

including shelving and adjustable height counter tops. The casework appears

to be in good / adequate condition and has many years of life left.

Key Risks

HVAC is not sufficiently robust enough to handle the “heavier” science needs

at Wadsworth, such as a chemistry lab. Previous evaluations have been

conducted to understand the amount of work needed to bring the building up

to desired level and have been found to be prohibitively expensive.

The building is not owned by Wadsworth. Maintenance is done by third party.

Several lab functions are done in the adjacent DAI, and it is inconvenient for

users to travel between the buildings.

David Axelrod Institute

Built in the early 1990’s to handle the infectious material that was not possible to process and study in the Biggs Facility, it was the last capital project for

Wadsworth. The David Axelrod Institute (DAI) is approximately 240,000 SF, located

on the site of the original Wadsworth laboratory and is adjacent to the Center for


24

Medical Sciences Building. Its location is centrally located to universities and local

hospitals. The building has a vivarium, high-containment facilities, media prep and

core functions to support biological sciences. Recent issues at the Biggs laboratory forced the Newborn screening division to move into the entire 5th floor of the

facility, further increasing the overutilization of laboratories.

General Evaluation

Generally, the building appears to be in good condition and meets the needs

of specific lab types, but does not appear to meet a comprehensive set of lab needs. MEP systems are redundant and are proactively being upgraded and

replaced as they near the end of their life.

The structural grid was designed and built to provide an 11x11 laboratory

module which allows clearances for modern instrumentation and laboratory

technicians. However, the labs are only 22’ deep by 22’ wide (500 SF). The

shallow depth of the labs, coupled with the small overall size, creates several issues, but mainly the possibility of overwhelming the HVAC with too many

instruments per lab.

Overall, finishes are standard laboratory rolled sheet vinyl flooring, latex

paint and acoustical ceiling tile. Door knobs do not currently meet ADA. The

BSL3 laboratories also have rolled sheet vinyl flooring, but the ceiling appears to be upgraded gasketed ceiling tile. The vivarium was not observed.

Casework appears to be standard grade metal casework with a fixed spine

including shelving and adjustable height counter tops. The casework is in

good shape and has many years of life left. Fixtures are hand free at most

locations.

The building is outfitted with over 80 environmental chambers through-out

the facility

The ratio of lab to office space is very high with not enough offices to

accommodate the building staff resulting in some of the labs being used as

offices.

Laboratories are located in-board and have little or no natural light.

The DAI produces the Media Prep for the Wadsworth organization.

The building is maintained by the Wadsworth facility personnel.

Key Risks

Clean steam appears to be at the point of replacement and is currently being

overhauled

The autoclaves on the main floor are in the process of being replaced.

The whole house DI water system appears to be at the point of replacement.

Current work is being evaluated to go with a point of use system within the

labs

The small size of the individual laboratories, coupled with the intensity of heat-producing instrumentation, causes conditions where labs could run hot.

UPS power appears to be insufficient for the whole building


25

The building is beyond capacity and corridor space is used for staging and

storage.

Griffin Laboratory

Composed of many early 20th century buildings, the Griffin Campus is home to

approximately 87,000 SF of laboratory facilities and contains the largest

concentration of high containment labs at Wadsworth. With the exception of the

Rabies Building which was built in 1984, the buildings are well maintained and up to

date despite their age. The buildings were originally designed as horse / animal stalls for some of the early years at Wadsworth, and have been since converted into

labs. The campus is home to the ACL-2, ACL-3, Rabies and other high containment

laboratories. The particular strength of the campus is with biological sciences, in

particular emerging diseases. The location of the lab is in a rural setting on the

outskirts of the City of Albany, with the significant distance from the other facilities

making it difficult to collaborate.

General Evaluation

As mentioned above, with the exception of the Rabies Laboratory, the

general quality of the laboratories appears to be good. The exterior building

shells maintain the historical façade, but inside, most labs contain advanced

spaces that have been updated and converted in the last 20 years. The majority of the labs are composed of bricks with the notable exception of the

Rabies Building which is constructed of concrete asbestos panels and should

be demolished with care when the building is eventually demolished.

Most labs evaluated seemed cramped due to the constraints of the original

buildings. Load bearing walls further cause flow restrictions within each laboratory. The labs and personnel would definitely benefit from a more open

plan.

The BSL-3/ ACL-3 laboratories were in better condition than those in the DAI

with better attention to detail and flow. Epoxy floors, hard ceilings, built up

base coving, gasketed ceiling panels, lights and fixtures are examples of the

differences.

ACL lab finishes could benefit from white countertops and flooring in order to

better see the insects.

Rabies Lab was functional and also maintained a small separate writing area

from the laboratory space, but it was clear that it was cramped and over

utilized. Refrigerators, freezers, and other instrumentation were placed in the center of the labs due to space constraints which blocks views and makes the

space feel more cramped.

The campus also houses a large incinerator that is used often. It should be

noted that an incinerator in a new facility may not be possible due to State

restrictions and this incinerator may want to be kept in operation.

Key Risks

Buildings are spread across the site forcing users to have to walk outside to

get from lab to lab.


26

Buildings are small and over 100 years old in some cases. Although they are

generally well kept, and renovations make these some of the nicer labs

observed, the age and size of these buildings make them inefficient.

Remote from the CMS, DAI and Biggs laboratories. Inconvenient to scientists

needing to travel between labs. Not conducive to translational research.

Labs are cramped.

The Rabies Building was originally designed for 3,000 samples per year and

is now too small to accommodate the 7,000 annual samples. Renovation is difficult due to the exterior asbestos cladding. The lobby is shared between

staff, deliveries to the cold room and general waiting. Separate personnel

and sample entries should be considered.

There did not seem to be a central accessioning area to handle material to

each individual lab.


27

Appendix C: Use Case Development and Market Sounding

Details

Market Sounding Approach

In order to engage with industry in a focused way, use cases and solutions were

created to define clear partnership opportunities. The use cases and solutions were

iteratively developed and tested with industry through a defined market sounding process. As depicted in Figure 29, market sounding used the Wadsworth

laboratory review as a starting point, and followed a multistep approach to advance

from discussions around potential use cases, to design potential partnership

solutions, and define partners’ value proposition.

Figure 29: Use Case Development and Market Sounding Approach

The approach consists of four primary steps, each of which are iterative in nature

(multiple cycles to generate, refine, pressure-test, validate, and finalize each

element of the approach):

1. Design Use Cases and Vet with Lab Scientists and Key Opinion

Leaders: Following the lab review, initial conversations were scheduled to design the preliminary use cases with lab scientists. Each use case served as

a broadly defined partnership opportunity for Wadsworth lab, based on

Wadsworth’s capabilities, perceived market interest, and capability gaps that

could be filled by a collaborative organization. These use cases were then

vetted among Wadsworth scientists and researchers and academic key opinion leaders (KOLs). The input from all parties was actively considered

and evaluated, and led to updates to the use cases (such as including non-TB

antibiotic resistant pathogens, and broadening genomics to include

diagnostics applications broader than oncology) and generated thinking

around possible solutions and structures to actualize a partnership.

2. Develop Partner Profiles and Perform Blinded Value Tests: Ideal

potential partner organization types were characterized and researched to

refine understanding of their needs and organizational goals, therapeutic

focus, possible reasons for partnering with the public sector, and key factors

that would drive decision making. Preliminary, blinded conversations were uses to gauge interest (for each potential partner type) in forming a

partnership focused around one of the proposed use cases, which ultimately

helped to develop the three solutions to be used in further authenticating the

partnership options. The iterative process of using meeting inputs, topics,


28

and outputs to refine use cases, solutions, and value propositions is

illustrated in Figure 30.

Figure 30: Iterative Process Refining Use Cases, Solutions, and Value Propositions

These exploratory meetings served as an opportunity to describe

Wadsworth’s unique functions and capabilities, and potential common goals

with academic or commercial organizations. A key outcome of these

conversations was insight into whether companies across the life sciences

ecosystem would be interested in collaborating with a public health lab. Some of these meetings helped determine then whether a particular

organization would be a candidate for a potential partnership with

Wadsworth, and refined the list of companies to reach out to during step 3 of

the market sounding process. In addition, knowledge gained during these

meetings was used to iteratively refine and adapt the preliminary use cases to better reflect partner roles and contribution to the use cases. Leveraging

insights gained from use case vetting, industry knowledge and expertise, and

company research, potential partners for each use case were identified based

on organization type, therapeutic focus, and research interests. The potential

partner profiles provided a deeper understanding of the specific organizations that could be interested in partnerships, and was used to develop

organization-specific value propositions prior to contacting named companies

to begin partner discussions.

3. Begin Partner Discussions Based on ESD Process: The initial

conversations helped to guide development of tailored value propositions by partner type and adapt preliminary partner solution outlines to individual

organizations. Meetings were then conducted with specific organizations,

based on their profile, to discuss definitive interest in partnering. A “rifle”

approach was used to select and set up meetings with a targeted list of

organizations across the following categories:


29

a. Academic Medical Centers

b. Biopharmaceutical Companies

c. Diagnostics / Medical Device Companies d. Informatics Organizations

e. Life Sciences Investors

Using the “rifle” approach and meeting with a representative sample of

approximately twelve organizations was agreed upon between Deloitte and

the NYS Department of Health. This differs from a broader, less focused “shotgun” approach, which was deemed to be less effective for the purpose

of concrete identification of initial partner interest. The difference between

these two approaches is further detailed in Table 14.

Table 14: Comparison of Rifle Approach and Shotgun Approach

Rifle Approach Shotgun Approach

Description • Identify targeted list of potential

partners based on organization profiles and existing relationships

• Schedule meeting with the correct

person in the organization to make decisions around Wadsworth collaboration

• Meeting involves review of potential

use cases which highlight the capabilities that make Wadsworth an attractive partner, and detailing of

collaboration solutions that might appeal to the partner organization

• Conversation occurs around value

proposition

• Generate long list of companies

that fall under each broadly defined organization type

• Reach out to known individual(s) in

the company and request them to shepherd internal discussions, or send a mass email blast communication, with a set due date

• Communication generally describes Wadsworth situation, assets, and capabilities

• Organization must generate and consider potential partnership options and value propositions

without guidance or support

Pros

(comparative)

Deeper understanding of

organizations’ structure, capabilities, and areas of interest

Knowledge around key factors for

making a partnership decision Tailored approach creates discussion

around specific, relevant, and enticing partnership options

Interest expressed in potentially partnering with NYS is given from a well-informed position

Use cases and solutions could be refined during the meeting to better align with the organizations’ goals

Higher chance of organizations being willing to engage in further discussions

Able to quickly contact a greater

number of organizations Requires smaller investment time

and work effort for each

organization Arrives at decision more quickly


30

Rifle Approach Shotgun Approach

Cons (comparative)

× Contact fewer potential partners × Requires greater investment of time

and work effort prior to each meeting

× Organization counterpart may not be the appropriate decision maker

× Mass email blast may not invoke

proper partnership consideration or

even generate a response × Generic descriptions are not as

attractive to potential partners

× Lower chance of organizations being willing to engage in further partnership discussions

Partner discussions were based on an understanding of the New York

Department of Budget engagement process, confirmed by ESD, to be in the

form of a proposal by NYS to partner organizations, based on and following partner requirements gathering. The understanding gained from developing

the list of targeted potential partners was used to direct conversations to be

relevant and in alignment with organizational goals. Conversations included

qualified components to facilitate the discussion, such as value propositions,

the role of the partner, level of magnitude of investment and expected benefits, and other factors important to the partner organization. The value

propositions could be further leveraged and refined after step 4 when

developing and presenting the proposed partner requirements to form a

formal partnership.

4. Align on Focused Proposal Requirement Process Partner discussions resulted in at least one organization expressing interest

in partnership, from academic, biopharmaceutical, diagnostics, and

informatics partner types. The companies are expecting to further align on

the process and timeline for proposal development and partnership definition

in fall 2017.

Developing ESD proposal requirements is out of scope for the engagement summarized in this report, but is expected to involve formal engagement

with interested organizations around deal structure and proposed timeline for

engagement, partnership terms and investments, areas of cooperation and

anticipated outcomes, and mitigation plan for potential risks. It is expected

that this step would occur after this report and would be needed to confirm named organizations, leading to a partnership agreement.

Intermediate outcomes from market sounding include a set of refined and validated

use cases and solutions, key outcomes from partner discussions based on ESD

process, tailored value propositions based on solution and partner type, and an

initial set of companies that have expressed interest in moving forward with gathering partnership requirements. These learnings will be of paramount

importance as formal conversations with interested partners continue through fall

2017, to agree on collaboration terms and move forward with a formal contracting

process.

Following the market sounding approach, we should adhere to a communications

plan to enable structured identification and engagement of potential partners, and ultimately appropriate broadcasting of the outcome, taking into account


31

communications channels that would provide maximum impact and clarity to in

scope audiences, as well as potential risks and other considerations.

Use Cases and Solutions Details

A mapping of use cases to solutions is depicted in Figure 31, with a detailed

explanation of each solution below.

Figure 31: Mapping of Use Cases to Solutions

Evolving Population Genomics

In the Population Genomics solution, a diagnostics partner supports development of a multigene panel for oncological and other diseases. The panel would test for

genetic mutations in tumor or other tissue samples to help improve clinical decision

support, clinical trials matching, CMS’s oncology care model (OCM), and for other

genomic diagnostic purposes.

Wadsworth appears to be well-positioned to develop advanced diagnostics:

Regulatory role equivalent to CLIA authority in NYS for laboratory developed tests (LDTs) – confirm technical validity prior to clinical use

Ability to develop and validate assays (currently used mostly for internal

purposes)

NYS is a payer, and multigene panels in cancer are not covered by most

insurance

In addition, current market dynamics make this use case highly attractive:

Rapidly shrinking cost of doing genomic sequencing


32

Rapid demand for broad sequencing of cancer and other patients, particularly

for disparate outcomes (influenza and others)

No payer / current payment mechanism for these diagnostics

High-level transactions between partner types is depicted in Figure 32 below, and

the value proposition for each partner type is described in Table 14.

Figure 32: Transactional Diagram for Population Genomics Solution

Table 14: Value Proposition for Population Genomics Solution

Life Sciences

Partner

Academic Partner New York State Informatics

Partner

Benefits Platform

technologies and research evolution

Preeminent multigene panel development

Novel IP Matching

capital from

NYS

Brand promotion

Novel IP

Improved quality of

genomic diagnostics Population-wide

genomic

characteristics evaluation

Novel IP Capital

contributions from commercial partner

Disparate data

stream access Detection and

analysis of

biological trends, patterns, and / or anomalies that may lead to development

of targeted future capabilities / solutions

Novel IP (products and services)

Contribution Matching capital contribution

Software Hardware

(from

diagnostics division)

Staff co-located in the

Capital Region

Patient candidates Oncology and other

gene research

Researchers co-located in the Capital Region

Biobank CLIA authority Payer

Genomics core Next generation

sequencing

Capital contribution Lab facilities in the

Capital Region

Cognitive capabilities (artificial

intelligence /machine learning)

Data management

capability / network / infrastructure

Staff co-located in the Capital Region


33

Infectious Disease Surveillance, Diagnostics, Therapeutics

In this solution, a leading life sciences company could partner with Wadsworth and

an academic medical center to support state-wide infectious disease sequencing, data capture, and analysis. This would lead to improved on-site diagnostics and

could result in the generation of IP to support the development of new therapeutics.

Wadsworth Lab would be an attractive collaborator in the diagnostics space due to

its valuable assets that could be used to appeal to a private partner in the

development of infectious disease diagnostics:

Sole regulator for approval of lab developed tests

Generate next-generation molecular assays and other assays

Basic research tests have the potential to be converted into clinical

diagnostics

Large biobank repository related to infectious disease and antibiotic resistant

pathogens

Large surveillance network of hospitals that track antibiotic resistance and

submit pathogens to the lab

The surrounding area has multiple companies focusing on nanotechnology which

would enable the application of miniaturization and microfluidics to prototype

design and development. There appears to be a need within clinical settings to identify nosocomial disease and take corrective action




34

Figure 33: Transactional Diagram for Infectious Disease (ID) Solution

Table 15: Value Proposition for Infectious Disease (ID) Solution

Life Sciences Partner

Academic Partner New York State Informatics Partner

Benefits Matching capital from NYS

Statewide

Infectious Disease data

IP from Infectious

Disease diagnostics

and therapeutics Hardware and

software

deployment in medical centers across the state

Statewide Infectious Disease data

Laboratory facilities in the Capital Region

Capital contribution from life sciences partner

Statewide Infectious Disease data

ID data platform

and diagnostic IP from Infectious

Disease diagnostics

and therapeutics

Disparate data stream access

Detection and

analysis of biological trends, patterns, and / or

anomalies that may

lead to development of targeted future

capabilities / solutions

Novel IP (products

and services)

Contribution Matching capital contribution

Software and hardware (from diagnostics division)

use Staff co-located in

the Capital Region

Infectious Disease research and

strategy Researchers co-

located in the

Capital Region Disease surveillance

in medical center

Capital contribution Lab facilities in the

Capital Region Research functions

and access to

scientists

Cognitive capabilities

(artificial intelligence /machine learning)

Data management capability / network / infrastructure

Staff co-located in

the Capital Region

Agricultural & Environmental Contaminant Identification

In this solution, Wadsworth and the academic partner identify potentially dangerous

contaminants, an agricultural or chemical company provides samples and

production insights. Wadsworth contributes its small molecule detection capabilities and the academic medical center provides patient samples for measurement and

analysis.


35

Within the agricultural and chemical production supply chain, there is constant

development of new processes that involve applications of compounds to improve

production processes, which may have negative impact on humans and the environment

Wadsworth has developed an advanced capability to assess environmental samples

for presence of organic and inorganic compounds. It has the capability to monitor,

detect, and quantify the concentration of small molecules, pinpointing chemicals of

interest. Agricultural and/or chemical companies would find value in using Wadsworth’s advanced sample assessment capability to identify contamination

sources in their supply chains



Figure 34: Transactional Diagram for Contaminant Identification Solution

Table 17: Value Proposition for Contaminant Identification Solution

Agricultural Partner Academic Partner New York State

Benefits Potential contamination incident avoidance

Potential weaknesses in

supply chain identification

Epidemiological research recognition

Academic / research

opportunities

Public health risks monitoring, identification, and quantification

Revenue from testing for commercial partners

Contribution Capital contribution

Staff in the Capital Region Samples for testing Chemicals / molecules of

interest identification

Researchers in Capital

Region Patient samples for

testing

Study design advisory

Capital contribution

Lab facilities in the Capital Region

Small molecule detection

and characterization capabilities


36

Appendix D: Profile of Economy and Life Sciences Sector by

Geographic Unit of Analysis

The tables below summarizes key economic data relevant to the life sciences sector

for the different levels of analysis examined in this report. These tables are

analogous to the data represented in Figure 3 of the report.

Table 18: Life Sciences Summary Statistics by Level of Analysis, 2015

Area Employment in Life Sciences + Supporting Industries

Labor Income per Worker17

Total Value Added18 (billions)

Output19 (billions)

NYS 3,345,397 $77,956 $398.6 $659.3

Albany EA 206,836 $66,421 $21.4 $40.8

Capital Region 192,331 $68,298 $20.4 $38.8

Capital District 164,429 $70,670 $18.0 $33.7

Source: IMPLAN NY County data, 2015

Table 19: Life Sciences Summary Statistics: Capital Region, 2015

Capital Region Employment Labor Income per

Worker

Total Value Added

(millions)

Output (millions)

Traded Life Sciences

19,062 $104,915 $3,206 $6,848

Local Life Sciences

74,296 $55,052 $4,954 $8,119

Traded Supporting

89,171 $70,983 $11,485 $22,294

Local Supporting 9,802 $73,049 $803 $1,496


17 The estimated payroll (including benefits) per person employed in those industries (in the region

supported by the project). It includes wages and salaries of workers, self-employed individuals, and income received by private business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc. 18 Value added is the portion of the monetary value of a final good or service that is generated by that

particular industry. 19 Output is the increase in the value of total sales for the region, or “Gross Local Product.”


37

Table 20: Life Sciences Summary Statistics: Capital District, 2015

Capital District Employment Labor Income per Worker

Total Value Added (millions)

Output (millions)

Traded Life

Sciences

16,923 $106,490 $2,833 $5,877

Local Life Sciences

60,176 $56,294 $4,108 $6,701

Traded

Supporting

78,479 $73,367 $10,353 $19,699

Local Supporting 8,851 $75,999 $748 $1,371



38

Appendix E: Methodology and Approach to Economic and

Clusters Analysis

Overview of Model Used

Economic impact assessments are used to estimate the approximate total amount

of direct economic impact that an entity has on a specific geography. This direct

impact also creates indirect impacts, such as the spending by the businesses that the entity frequents, and induced impacts, such as the spending by the staff that

the entity employs. The level of economic impact relies on the idea of net new

spending, which is spending that would not have otherwise occurred in the

geographic region. As a result, tourism or convention visitors from out of state

often serve as the largest sources of economic impact.

Deloitte uses IMPLAN, a widely used and accepted modelling software, to conduct

economic impact studies. The software uses inputs developed by Deloitte,

Wadsworth, the DOB, and DASNY in the modelling software to estimate the total

direct, indirect, and induced impact.

About IMPLAN

IMPLAN (IMpact Analysis for PLANning) was originally developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service in cooperation with the Federal

Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of

Land Management to assist the Forest Service in land and resource management

planning.

MIG (Minnesota IMPLAN Group) began work on IMPLAN bases in 1987 at the University of Minnesota. In 1993, Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. was formed to

privatize the development of IMPLAN and its software. Version 1 of the Windows

software was developed by MIG and released in June of 1996. The IMPLAN software

and data closely follow the accounting conventions used in the “Input-Output Study

of the U.S. Economy” by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (1980) and the rectangular format recommended by the United Nations.

Each year, MIG gathers statistical information at the national, state, and county

level on employment, employee compensation, proprietary income, population,

federal and state expenditures, selected wealth data, household expenditures, etc.

The results are then correlated into matrices for each county and industry to represent the multiplicative econometric effects of changes in local spending.

Introduction to Economic Impact Analysis

The IMPLAN model utilizes a methodology called input-output analysis to evaluate

the potential economic impact of the proposed relocation. Input-output analysis is a

means of examining the relationships within an economy between businesses, and

between businesses and consumers. It attempts to capture all monetary market transactions for consumption in a given time period. IMPLAN uses a flow table

called the Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) to represent economic relationships

between industries, as well as between government, industry, and household

sectors.


39

The resulting mathematical formula allows one to examine the effects of a change

in one or several economic activities upon an entire economy (called impact

analysis). The model assumes that industries respond to meet consumption (demand) directly or indirectly by supplying goods and services to other industries

responding directly. Each industry that produces goods and services generates

demands for other goods and services and so on, round by round. These iterations

could be mathematically summarized and described by “multipliers.” This buying of

goods and services (indirect purchases) continues until leakages from the region stop the cycle.

Data Inputs and Outputs Methodology

The following section provides details on the economic model to be used and the

associated methodology, which illustrates the approach taken in the economic

analysis.

Measurements of Economic Activity

The results of economic impact analyses are best understood when expressed in

everyday terms, such as total production, or jobs created. The results presented

herein are broken down into three general categories:

Output: The estimated increase in total production for all industries in the

region supported by the project, and is a measure of overall economic activity. Output could also be thought of as the increase in the value of total

sales for the region, or “Gross Local Product.”

Value Added: The estimated contribution to total output by each industry in

the region supported by the project. Value added could also be thought of as

a portion of the monetary value of a final good or service that is generated by that particular industry.

Labor Income: The estimated increase in total payroll (including benefits)

for all industries in the region supported by the project. It includes wages

and salaries of workers, self-employed individuals, and income received by

private business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc.

Employment: The estimated total jobs created and supported by the project, on both a temporary and ongoing basis.

Relevant Industries: Specific industries would be more impacted by the

activity that the new Wadsworth facility and potential public-private co-

investment would generate. IMPLAN allows the ability to measure the

amount of impact to the top industries, along with earnings and employment.

Multipliers: Measure the amount of total economic activity that results from

an industry or household spending money in the local economy. IMPLAN uses

the national and county-level data multipliers to estimate economic impacts

of various activities. One way to think about multipliers is it allows the

communication of points such as this: “that for every dollar invested by NYS and a potential private partner, X dollars of economic activity could likely be

generated in the Capital Region.”


40

Components of Economic Activity

Output, Income, and Employment could be further broken down into three sub-

components:

Direct Effects: Measure the changes in the employment and expenditures

due to the operation of the development itself. Direct impacts include

employment, construction, and infrastructure improvements, etc.

Indirect Effects: Measure the changes in inter-industry purchases as they

respond to the demands of the directly affected industries. Indirect impacts include business-to-business purchases arising from local spending for goods

and services.

Induced Effects: Measure the effects on all local industries caused by the

expenditures of household income generated by the direct and indirect

impacts.

Specific Assumptions and Key Inputs

Developing assumptions and the key inputs for the economic model is a critical step

in the process and would serve to establish the foundation of the economic impact

model. The following represent some high-level assumptions that would be required

to develop an economic model:

Activities: Within the model, there is the ability to define each activity that comprises the overall public (and potential private) financial commitment.

Each activity is a separate line and the aggregate of all of the activities

constitutes the model. A key consideration is that only the activities that are

“net new” to the study area would be taken into consideration. Net new

activity is defined as activity that would not have otherwise occurred in the area without the entity. An economic impact study measures the additive

impact that an entity has on a region. It also means that the spending has to

occur within the study area or with companies located within the vicinity of

the new Wadsworth facility/commercial facility to have the maximum impact,

i.e. using local managed vendors for catering or janitorial services. Further

breaking activities in to their subcomponents, yields the following categories:

- Capital Expenditures: The spending made on the construction is

measured as a separate activity. This activity relies on financial

information provided in the Basis of Design report produced by the

Wadsworth Center, which estimates architectural and engineering,

capitalized labor, contracts, general conditions, and insurance. The location of the vendors providing materials, labor, and services would

be required to estimate the impact.

- Use Case-related Expenditures: Spending by either the private or NYS,

on equipment, personnel acquisition, or other capabilities development

related to research, development, or commercial operations associated with the co-investment. While these expenses may be accrued over

time, we aggregate them into a one-time value spent up-front.


41

Associated Industry: In determining the exact nature of the economic

impact, the industry code for each activity is determined. This process

ensures that the right economic multiplier is used so that the true nature of the economic activity is represented. IMPLAN uses 518 separate industry

codes, which provides significant flexibility and options to represent each

activity.

Study Area: In order to conduct an economic impact assessment, a clear

geographic boundary needs to be defined. Three distinct data files were used to run the analysis for the Albany EA, the Capital Region, and the Capital

District. The software limits the smallest geographic unit down to individual

ZIP codes.

Time Period: Each activity is built for a one-year period, taking into account

estimated inflation and interest rates.

Scenarios: Given that economic impact studies often project expected economic impacts into the future, the software provides the ability to run

multiple scenarios. Scenarios were developed based on internal discussions

and conversations with key stakeholders to determine the range of potential

scenarios.

Overview of Industry Coding

To create the cluster types described in Section 2, we mapped IMPLAN’s 518

Industry Codes against the NAICS Codes managed by the U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics. The U.S. EDA uses these NAICS Codes to classify clusters. Four cluster

types were created, which were reported in tabular form in “Section 2.6” and

throughout. These include:

1. Traded Core Life Sciences-related Clusters (includes Biopharmaceuticals,

Medical Devices, and Education & Knowledge clusters, as classified by the

U.S. EDA)

2. Local Core Life Sciences-related Clusters (local hospitals, pharmacies etc.)

3. Traded Related and Supporting Industries (a series of industries as classified

by the U.S. EDA) 4. Local Related and Supporting Industries (a series of industries as classified

by the U.S. EDA)

In addition, Construction was created as a fifth category, to concisely report the

one-time economic impact created by activity and jobs related to up-front

construction of the new facilities. We note that employment figures between the two data sources are not perfectly analogous, due in part to the abstraction of data

that is required at the county level and below, to protect proprietary information for

firms in counties with few competitors.

The mapping of Industry Code, NAICS Code, and EDA Cluster is shown in Table 20

below. Note that Industry Codes 52, 55, 57, 459, and 519 do not directly map to an EDA cluster, but were included for sake of relevance when reporting key statistics.

This mapping was purely for descriptive purposes – modeling economic effects from

the scenarios analysis in IMPLAN relied on the pre-programmed correlations in the

software.


42

Table 21: Mapping of IMPLAN Data to BLS/EDA Cluster Data

Industry Code

Industry Code Description NAICS Code

NAICS Description EDA Cluster Cluster Type

52 Construction of New Healthcare Structures

23 Health care and institutional buildings

- Construction

55 Construction of New Educational and Vocational Structures

23 Educational buildings, museums, libraries, and dormitories

- Construction

57 Construction of Commercial Buildings

23 All other commercial buildings - Construction

163 Synthetic dye and pigment manufacturing

325130 Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing

Downstream Chemical Products

Traded Supporting

166 Plastics material and resin manufacturing

325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing

Plastics Traded Supporting

173 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing

325411 Antibiotics, uncompounded, manufacturing

Biopharmaceuticals Traded Life Sciences

173 Medicinal and botanical manufacturing

325411 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing


174 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing

325412 Adrenal medicinal preparations manufacturing


174 Pharmaceutical preparation

manufacturing

325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation

Manufacturing

Biopharmaceuticals Traded Life

Sciences

175 In-vitro diagnostic substance manufacturing

325413 Microbiology, virology, and serology in-vitro diagnostic substances manufacturing


175 In-vitro diagnostic substance manufacturing

325413 In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing


176 Biological product (except diagnostic) manufacturing

325414 Agar culture media manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals Traded Life Sciences

176 Biological product (except diagnostic) manufacturing

325414 Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing


179 Soap and other detergent manufacturing

325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

181 Surface active agent manufacturing

325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

185 Custom compounding of purchased resins

325991 Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins


Traded Supporting

187 Other miscellaneous chemical product manufacturing

325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

188 Plastics packaging materials and unlaminated film and sheet manufacturing

326112 Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing



43

Industry Code



188 Plastics packaging materials and unlaminated film and sheet manufacturing

326113 Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing


189 Unlaminated plastics profile shape manufacturing

326121 Unlaminated Plastics Profile Shape Manufacturing


190 Plastics pipe and pipe fitting manufacturing

326122 Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing


191 Laminated plastics plate, sheet (except packaging), and shape manufacturing

326130 Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging), and Shape Manufacturing


193 Urethane and other foam product (except polystyrene) manufacturing

326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing


195 Other plastics product manufacturing

326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing


254 Valve and fittings, other than plumbing, manufacturing

332911 Industrial Valve Manufacturing Production Technology and Heavy Machinery

Traded Supporting

254 Valve and fittings, other than plumbing, manufacturing

332919 Other Metal Valve and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing

Production Technology and Heavy Machinery

Traded Supporting

261 Other fabricated metal manufacturing

332999 All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing

Downstream Metal Products

Traded Supporting

268 Semiconductor machinery manufacturing

333242 Semiconductor Machinery Manufacturing

Information Technology and Analytical

Instruments

Traded Supporting

271 All other industrial machinery manufacturing

333249 Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

272 Optical instrument and lens manufacturing

333314 Optical Instrument and Lens Manufacturing

Medical Devices Traded Life Sciences

273 Photographic and photocopying equipment manufacturing

333316 Photographic and Photocopying Equipment Manufacturing

Information Technology and Analytical Instruments

Traded Supporting

284 Speed changer, industrial high-speed drive, and gear manufacturing

333612 Speed Changer, Industrial High-Speed Drive, and Gear Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

298 Fluid power cylinder and actuator manufacturing

333995 Fluid Power Cylinder and Actuator Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

299 Fluid power pump and motor manufacturing

333996 Fluid Power Pump and Motor Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

301 Electronic computer manufacturing

334111 Electronic Computer Manufacturing Information Technology and Analytical Instruments

Traded Supporting

302 Computer storage device 334112 Computer Storage Device Information Traded


44

Industry Code



manufacturing Manufacturing Technology and Analytical Instruments

Supporting

303 Computer terminals and other computer peripheral equipment manufacturing

334118 Computer Terminal and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

305 Broadcast and wireless communications equipment manufacturing

334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing

Communications Equipment and Services

Traded Supporting

306 Other communications equipment manufacturing

334290 Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing

Communications Equipment and Services

Traded Supporting

307 Audio and video equipment manufacturing

334310 Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

308 Bare printed circuit board manufacturing

334412 Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

309 Semiconductor and related device manufacturing

334413 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

310 Capacitor, resistor, coil, transformer, and other inductor manufacturing

334416 Capacitor, Resistor, Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor Manufacturing

Information Technology and Analytical

Instruments

Traded Supporting

311 Electronic connector manufacturing

334417 Electronic Connector Manufacturing Information Technology and Analytical Instruments

Traded Supporting

312 Printed circuit assembly (electronic assembly) manufacturing

334418 Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

313 Other electronic component manufacturing

334419 Other Electronic Component Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

314 Electromedical and electrotherapeutic apparatus manufacturing

334510 Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

316 Automatic environmental control manufacturing

334512 Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for Residential, Commercial, and Appliance Use


Traded Supporting

317 Industrial process variable instruments manufacturing

334513 Instruments and Related Products Manufacturing for Measuring, Displaying, and Controlling Industrial Process Variables


Traded Supporting

318 Totalizing fluid meter and 334514 Totalizing Fluid Meter and Counting Information Traded


45

Industry Code



counting device manufacturing Device Manufacturing Technology and Analytical Instruments

Supporting

319 Electricity and signal testing instruments manufacturing

334515 Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring and Testing Electricity and Electrical Signals


Traded Supporting

320 Analytical laboratory instrument manufacturing

334516 Microbiology instruments manufacturing


Traded Supporting

320 Analytical laboratory instrument manufacturing

334516 Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

321 Irradiation apparatus manufacturing

334517 Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

322 Watch, clock, and other measuring and controlling device manufacturing

334519 Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

323 Blank magnetic and optical recording media manufacturing

334613 Blank Magnetic and Optical Recording Media Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

324 Software and other

prerecorded and record reproducing

334614 Software and Other Prerecorded

Compact Disc, Tape, and Record Reproducing

Information

Technology and Analytical Instruments

Traded

Supporting

325 Electric lamp bulb and part manufacturing

335110 Electric Lamp Bulb and Part Manufacturing

Lighting and Electrical Equipment

Traded Supporting

326 Lighting fixture manufacturing 335129 Other Lighting Equipment Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

333 Motor and generator manufacturing

335312 Motor and Generator Manufacturing Lighting and Electrical Equipment

Traded Supporting

334 Switchgear and switchboard apparatus manufacturing

335313 Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

335 Relay and industrial control manufacturing

335314 Relay and Industrial Control Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

336 Storage battery manufacturing 335911 Storage Battery Manufacturing Lighting and Electrical Equipment

Traded Supporting

337 Primary battery manufacturing 335912 Primary Battery Manufacturing Communications Equipment and Services

Traded Supporting

338 Fiber optic cable manufacturing

335921 Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing Lighting and Electrical Equipment

Traded Supporting

339 Other communication and energy wire manufacturing

335929 Other Communication and Energy Wire Manufacturing


Traded Supporting


46

Industry Code



340 Wiring device manufacturing 335931 Current-Carrying Wiring Device Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

340 Wiring device manufacturing 335932 Noncurrent-Carrying Wiring Device

Manufacturing

Lighting and

Electrical Equipment

Traded

Supporting

341 Carbon and graphite product manufacturing

335991 Carbon and Graphite Product Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

342 All other miscellaneous electrical equipment and component manufacturing

335999 All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing


Traded Supporting

379 Surgical and medical instrument manufacturing

339112 Anesthesia apparatus manufacturing


379 Surgical and medical instrument manufacturing

339112 Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing


380 Surgical appliance and supplies manufacturing

339113 Adhesive tape, medical, manufacturing


380 Surgical appliance and supplies manufacturing

339113 Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing


381 Dental equipment and supplies manufacturing

339114 Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing


382 Ophthalmic goods manufacturing

339115 Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing Medical Devices Traded Life Sciences

383 Dental laboratories 339116 Dental Laboratories Local Health Services Local Life Sciences

384 Jewelry and silverware manufacturing

339910 Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing

Jewelry and Precious Metals

Traded Supporting

395 Wholesale trade 424210 Antibiotics merchant wholesalers Distribution and Electronic Commerce

Traded Supporting

395 Wholesale trade 423430 Computer and Computer Peripheral Equipment and Software Merchant Wholesalers

Distribution and Electronic Commerce

Traded Supporting

395 Wholesale trade 423440 Other Commercial Equipment Merchant Wholesalers


Traded Supporting

395 Wholesale trade 423450 Medical, Dental, and Hospital Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers


Traded Supporting

395 Wholesale trade 423460 Ophthalmic Goods Merchant Wholesalers


Traded Supporting

395 Wholesale trade 423490 Other Professional Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers


Traded Supporting

395 Wholesale trade 423610 Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Related Equipment Merchant Wholesalers


Traded Supporting

395 Wholesale trade 424210 Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers


Traded Supporting

395 Wholesale trade 424610 Plastics Materials and Basic Forms Distribution and Traded


47

Industry Code



and Shapes Merchant Wholesalers Electronic Commerce Supporting

401 Retail - Health and Personal Care Stores

446110 Institutional pharmacies, on-site Local Health Services Local Life Sciences

401 Retail - Health and personal care stores

446110 Pharmacies and Drug Stores Local Health Services Local Life Sciences

401 Retail - Health and personal care stores

446130 Optical Goods Stores Local Health Services Local Life Sciences

422 Software publishers 511210 Software Publishers Information Technology and Analytical Instruments

Traded Supporting

429 Satellite, telecommunications resellers, and all other telecommunications

517919 All Other Telecommunications Communications Equipment and Services

Traded Supporting

430 Data processing, hosting, and related services

518210 Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services

Business Services Traded Supporting

431 News syndicates, libraries, archives and all other information services

519190 All Other Information Services Marketing, Design, and Publishing

Traded Supporting

437 Insurance carriers 524114 Direct Health and Medical Insurance Carriers

Insurance Services Traded Supporting

443 General and consumer goods rental except video tapes and discs

532291 Home Health Equipment Rental Local Health Services Local Life Sciences

446 Lessors of nonfinancial

intangible assets

533110 Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible

Assets (except Copyrighted Works)

Business Services Traded

Supporting

447 Legal services 541199 All Other Legal Services Business Services Traded Supporting

449 Architectural, engineering, and related services

541380 Testing Laboratories Local Commercial Services

Local Supporting


541380 Biological (except medical, veterinary) testing laboratories or services



541330 Engineering Services Business Services Traded Supporting

450 Specialized design services 541420 Industrial Design Services Marketing, Design, and Publishing

Traded Supporting

450 Specialized design services 541490 Other Specialized Design Services Marketing, Design, and Publishing

Traded Supporting

451 Custom computer programming services

541511 Custom Computer Programming Services


452 Computer systems design services

541512 Computer Systems Design Services Business Services Traded Supporting

453 Other computer related services, including facilities management

541513 Computer Facilities Management Services



48

Industry Code



453 Other computer related services, including facilities management

541519 Other Computer Related Services Business Services Traded Supporting

454 Management consulting services

541611 Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services



541613 Marketing Consulting Services Marketing, Design, and Publishing

Traded Supporting


541614 Process, Physical Distribution, and Logistics Consulting Services



541618 Other Management Consulting Services


455 Environmental and other technical consulting services

541690 Biological consulting services Local Commercial Services

Local Supporting


541620 Environmental Consulting Services Local Commercial Services

Local Supporting


541690 Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services


456 Scientific Research and Development Services

541711 Biotechnology research and development laboratories or service in botany

Education and Knowledge Creation


456 Scientific research and development services

541711 Research and Development in Biotechnology



456 Scientific research and development services

541712 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life

Sciences (except Biotechnology)



459 Veterinary Services 541940 Testing laboratories, veterinary - Local Life Sciences

460 Marketing research and all other miscellaneous professional, scientific, and technical services

541910 Marketing Research and Public Opinion Polling

Marketing, Design, and Publishing

Traded Supporting

460 Marketing research and all other miscellaneous professional, scientific, and technical services

541990 All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services


461 Management of companies and enterprises

551114 Corporate, Subsidiary, and Regional Managing Offices


463 Facilities support services 561210 Facilities Support Services Business Services Traded Supporting

471 Waste management and remediation services

562112 Hazardous Waste Collection Environmental Services

Traded Supporting


562119 Other Waste Collection Environmental Services

Traded Supporting


562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal

Environmental Services

Traded Supporting

471 Waste management and 562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Environmental Traded


49

Industry Code



remediation services Incinerators Services Supporting


562219 Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal


Traded Supporting


562920 Materials Recovery Facilities Environmental Services

Traded Supporting


562998 All Other Miscellaneous Waste Management Services


Traded Supporting

473 Junior colleges, colleges, universities, and professional schools

611210 Junior Colleges Education and Knowledge Creation

Traded Supporting

473 Junior colleges, colleges, universities, and professional schools

611310 Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools


Traded Supporting

474 Other educational services 611410 Business and Secretarial Schools Education and Knowledge Creation

Traded Supporting

474 Other educational services 611420 Computer Training Education and Knowledge Creation

Traded Supporting

474 Other educational services 611430 Professional and Management Development Training


Traded Supporting

474 Other educational services 611699 All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction


Traded Supporting

474 Other educational services 611710 Educational Support Services Education and Knowledge Creation

Traded Supporting

475 Offices of physicians 621111 Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists)

Local Health Services Local Life Sciences

475 Offices of physicians 621112 Offices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists


476 Offices of dentists 621210 Offices of Dentists Local Health Services Local Life Sciences

477 Offices of other health practitioners

621399 Clinical pharmacists' offices (e.g., centers, clinics)



621310 Offices of Chiropractors Local Health Services Local Life Sciences


621320 Offices of Optometrists Local Health Services Local Life Sciences


621330 Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)



621340 Offices of Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapists, and Audiologists



621391 Offices of Podiatrists Local Health Services Local Life Sciences


621399 Offices of All Other Miscellaneous Health Practitioners


478 Outpatient Services 621498 Biofeedback centers and clinics, Local Health Services Local Life


50

Industry Code



outpatient Sciences

478 Outpatient care centers 621410 Family Planning Centers Local Health Services Local Life Sciences

478 Outpatient care centers 621420 Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Centers


478 Outpatient care centers 621491 HMO Medical Centers Local Health Services Local Life Sciences

478 Outpatient care centers 621492 Kidney Dialysis Centers Local Health Services Local Life Sciences

478 Outpatient care centers 621493 Freestanding Ambulatory Surgical and Emergency Centers


478 Outpatient care centers 621498 All Other Outpatient Care Centers Local Health Services Local Life Sciences

479 Diagnostic Services 621511 Bacteriological laboratories, diagnostic


479 Medical and diagnostic laboratories

621511 Medical Laboratories Local Health Services Local Life Sciences

479 Medical and diagnostic laboratories

621512 Diagnostic Imaging Centers Local Health Services Local Life Sciences

480 Home health care services 621610 Home Health Care Services Local Health Services Local Life Sciences

481 Other ambulatory health care services

621991 Blood and Organ Banks Local Health Services Local Life Sciences

481 Other ambulatory health care services

621999 All Other Miscellaneous Ambulatory Health Care Services


482 Hospitals 622110 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals


482 Hospitals 622210 Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Hospitals


482 Hospitals 622310 Specialty (except Psychiatric and Substance Abuse) Hospitals


483 Nursing and community care facilities

623110 Nursing Care Facilities (Skilled Nursing Facilities)



623311 Continuing Care Retirement Communities



623312 Assisted Living Facilities for the Elderly


484 Residential mental retardation, mental health, substance abuse and other facilities

623210 Residential Intellectual and Developmental Disability Facilities


484 Residential mental retardation, mental health, substance abuse and other facilities

623220 Residential Mental Health and Substance Abuse Facilities


484 Residential mental retardation, mental health, substance

623990 Other Residential Care Facilities Local Health Services Local Life Sciences


51

Industry Code



abuse and other facilities

510 Death care services 812210 Funeral Homes and Funeral Services


510 Death care services 812220 Cemeteries and Crematories Local Health Services Local Life Sciences

514 Grantmaking, giving, and social advocacy organizations

813212 Disease research (e.g., cancer, heart) fundraising organizations

- Local Supporting


52

Appendix F: Scenario Inputs and Outputs

This appendix contain a more detailed description of the inputs used for the scenario analysis as well as additional outputs for the different levels of analysis

examined in this report. These tables are analogous to the data represented in

Section 6.4 of the report, which was for the Albany EA.

Scenario Input Descriptions

Scenario #1: Do nothing for five years. In this scenario, the Wadsworth facilities remain unconsolidated across the currently existing facilities, and

NYS contributes no additional capital resources to construct a new facility for

the next five years. In effect, this scenario approximates the potential cost of

continuing to defer State investment in a new facility as well as the additional

cost incurred to mitigate risks and issues with the current state. Since the input/output model is not designed to estimate negative investments, these

costs were estimated by assessing the opportunity cost of continuing as-is,

which included the following data points:

- The five year look-forward risk mitigation budget, provided by

Wadsworth administration. This budget estimates spending for at-risk

elements of the existing DAI and Griffin labs, and includes line items such as central heating plant risk reduction, redesign of the rabies

necropsy facility, clean steam generator replacement, vivarium

autoclave replacement, and so forth. Wadsworth indicated that due to

scarcity of resources there were no risk mitigation funds directed to

the most outdated building, Biggs. Since Wadsworth leases the CMS building and it is the newest of the facilities, it also did not allocate risk

mitigation funds to that facility. Hence, this risk mitigation metric

undervalues the aggregate cost of facilities risk for the existing

infrastructure. The five-year budget for risk mitigation expenses was

$24.1m20.

- The cost of delay is measured by an inflation-indexed cost estimate for

a consolidated Wadsworth laboratory, contained in the Basis of Design

issued on August 19, 2013. This report estimated the total cost of a

649,970 SF facility at $663,426,367. This scenario indexed costs using

the Engineering News-Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index21, which

grew 3.0% per year over the last ten years (2006-2016). Assuming that growth rate from 2017 to 2022, inflating the Basis of Design

estimate until 2023 is approximately $202.9m.

- Note that it is difficult to estimate the potential cost of a public safety

emergency at the existing facilities. This scenario also does not model

other implicit costs from obsolescent facilities. Therefore, the past

20 2017-2018 DOH Capital Projects Cash Disbursement Plan, Wadsworth Center 21 200 hours of common labor at the 20-city average of common labor rates, plus 25 cwt of standard structural steel shapes at the mill price prior to 1996 and the fabricated 20-city price from 1996, plus

1.128 tons of portland cement at the 20-city price, plus 1,088 board ft of 2 x 4 lumber at the 20-city

price. http://www.enr.com/economics/historical_indices/construction_cost_index_history


53

occurrence of a fire at the Biggs lab in 2012 and other water

infiltration events suggest that the above method of calculation is

conservative. Rather the scenario assumes that a significant public safety event or continued employment attrition trends could cause

significant loss of currently employed staff.

Scenarios #2, #3, #4, and #5: Rebuild, Rebuild and low co-

investment, Rebuild and medium co-investment, and Rebuild and

high co-investment. In these scenarios, NYS rebuilds the Wadsworth facilities in a consolidated location, using the same Basis of Design budget

and cost indexing method. The rebuild investment number was estimated at

$746,973,413, assuming continued 3.0% cost escalation per annum. To

accommodate the parameters of the model, this scenario evenly split the

cost estimate between “Construction of New Healthcare Structures” and

“Construction of New Educational and Vocational Structures”, representing the unique nature of the new Wadsworth facility. In the co-investment

scenarios, in addition to NYS rebuilding the Wadsworth facilities, NYS and a

private sector partner co-invest in an add-on facility for the private sector

partner. These scenarios assume a 1:1 fund contribution ratio, with each

party investing $100m, $200m, and $300m for the respective scenarios. In the model, half of the matched investment is allocated to “Construction of

Commercial Structures”, with the other half allocated to “Scientific Research

and Development Services”.

Scenario Output for Additional Levels of Analysis

Table 22: Scenario #1: Do nothing for five years (applies to all)

Factor Cost (millions)

Risk Mitigation $24,088,429

Construction Delay Escalation $202,928,192

Total Cost $227,016,621

Economic Area

Table 23: Scenario #2: Rebuild-only

Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output

Direct Effect 4,048.8 $255,183,050 $327,686,493 $744,465,727

Indirect Effect 1,102.7 $64,963,050 $101,151,809 $194,681,808

Induced Effect 1,815.5 $81,098,800 $147,084,834 $253,191,685

Total Effect 6,966.9 $401,244,899 $575,923,135 $1,192,339,220

Table 24: Scenario #3: Rebuild and low co-investment


Direct Effect 5,138.8 $335,702,480 $429,635,826 $942,991,975

Indirect Effect 1,507.0 $88,147,178 $137,347,601 $259,407,251

Induced Effect 2,401.0 $107,281,315 $194,543,776 $334,934,825

Total Effect 9,046.9 $531,130,973 $761,527,203 $1,537,334,050


54

Table 25: Scenario #4: Rebuild and medium co-investment


Direct Effect 6,228.8 $416,759,236 $532,265,559 $1,143,408,226

Indirect Effect 1,913.5 $111,461,257 $173,744,846 $324,518,263

Induced Effect 2,990.4 $133,632,437 $242,308,379 $417,204,361

Total Effect 11,132.7 $661,852,930 $948,318,784 $1,885,130,850

Table 26: Scenario #5: Rebuild and high co-investment


Direct Effect 7,318.8 $497,547,329 $634,555,091 $1,342,879,475

Indirect Effect 2,318.9 $134,710,361 $210,041,365 $389,436,491

Induced Effect 3,577.9 $159,899,255 $289,920,152 $499,210,699

Total Effect 13,215.5 $792,156,945 $1,134,516,609 $2,231,526,665

Capital Region



Direct Effect 3,991.9 $262,242,965 $336,812,265 $748,000,034

Indirect Effect 1,049.2 $64,308,240 $99,769,034 $186,945,626

Induced Effect 1,852.5 $84,054,061 $151,895,228 $259,851,081

Total Effect 6,893.6 $410,605,266 $588,476,527 $1,194,796,740



Direct Effect 5,070.3 $343,954,307 $440,209,384 $948,000,035

Indirect Effect 1,455.2 $88,117,588 $136,872,595 $252,297,975

Induced Effect 2,448.8 $111,137,340 $200,811,604 $343,580,883

Total Effect 8,974.3 $543,209,235 $777,893,583 $1,543,878,893



Direct Effect 6,148.6 $425,665,649 $543,606,503 $1,148,000,036

Indirect Effect 1,861.1 $111,926,936 $173,976,157 $317,650,324

Induced Effect 3,045.2 $138,220,620 $249,727,979 $427,310,686

Total Effect 11,054.9 $675,813,204 $967,310,639 $1,892,961,046



Direct Effect 7,227.0 $507,376,991 $647,003,622 $1,348,000,037

Indirect Effect 2,267.1 $135,736,284 $211,079,718 $383,002,673

Induced Effect 3,641.5 $165,303,899 $298,644,355 $511,040,489

Total Effect 13,135.6 $808,417,174 $1,156,727,696 $2,242,043,198


55

Capital District



Direct Effect 3,830.4 $274,395,151 $353,354,537 $748,000,034

Indirect Effect 969.7 $62,530,334 $97,037,853 $176,903,997

Induced Effect 1,862.8 $87,516,213 $156,670,905 $265,929,765

Total Effect 6,662.9 $424,441,698 $607,063,295 $1,190,833,795



Direct Effect 4,883.8 $357,447,438 $458,388,050 $948,000,035

Indirect Effect 1,360.3 $86,793,265 $134,758,095 $242,015,738

Induced Effect 2,451.0 $115,181,219 $206,172,532 $349,999,825

Total Effect 8,695.1 $559,421,922 $799,318,678 $1,540,015,598



Direct Effect 5,937.2 $440,499,725 $563,421,564 $1,148,000,036

Indirect Effect 1,750.8 $111,056,196 $172,478,337 $307,127,480

Induced Effect 3,039.3 $142,846,225 $255,674,159 $434,069,885

Total Effect 10,727.4 $694,402,146 $991,574,060 $1,889,197,401



Direct Effect 6,990.6 $523,552,012 $668,455,077 $1,348,000,037

Indirect Effect 2,141.4 $135,319,127 $210,198,579 $372,239,221

Induced Effect 3,627.6 $170,511,231 $305,175,787 $518,139,945

Total Effect 12,759.6 $829,382,370 $1,183,829,443 $2,238,379,204


56

Appendix G: Approach to Potential New Site Assessment

Site Selection

Deloitte was provided a list of seven potential sites by stakeholders for

consideration:

• Griffin Laboratory

• David Axelrod Institute

• Harriman Campus • Rensselaer Technology Park

• Vista Technology Campus

• SUNY Poly Colleges of Nanoscale Science and Engineering

• SUNY East Campus

In addition to the listed sites, a targeted search for other potential sites within the City of Albany and the Capital Region was performed. The following three additional

sites were identified within the City of Albany:

• Noonan Lane – This area has some residential properties and was once a

proposed casino site.

• Kenwood/Howard Johnson Site – This area used to be a convent and private

school, and adjacent to that was a Howard Johnson. • Expanded DAI Site (Expanded Axelrod) – Multiple potential parcels of land

located adjacent to or near David Axelrod Institute.

Data Collection

The data collection process started once the sites were identified. The following

information was requested from each site representative to get a general understanding of its potential.

Building Information

• Address/Location

• Owner

• Class/Image • Total Space/Number of Floors

• Type of Lab Space (Wet/Dry)

• Expansion Potential

• Tenants

• Rent ($/SF)

• Other Occupancy Costs (Utilities, Taxes, Maintenance) • Parking Spaces

• Amenities

• Neighboring Uses

• Distance to Airport

Land Information

• Address/Location

• Size (Acre)

• Owner

• Price


57

• Zoning

• Allowable Building Size

• Topography • Utilities/Infrastructure Available

• Neighboring Uses

• Distance to Airport

Site visits were conducted, in addition to data collection, to meet with site

representatives, gain familiarity with the land, confirm the costs associated with land purchase, and understand anything that may not be available through public

research. Site visits were conducted as follows:

July 20, 2017

• Griffin Laboratory facilitated by Wadsworth Staff

• David Axelrod Institute facilitated by Wadsworth Staff

July 21, 2017

• VISTA Technology Campus facilitated by representatives from Columbia

Development Companies

• Rensselaer Technology Park facilitated by representative of Rensselaer

Technology Park

August 1, 2017

• SUNY Albany East Campus facilitated by representative of University at

Albany Bioscience Development Corporation

• SUNY Poly Colleges of Nanoscale Science and Engineering facilitated by

representative SUNY Poly

• Noonan Lane Site facilitated by Capitalized Albany • Kenwood/Howard Johnson Site facilitated by Capitalized Albany

August 8, 2017

Harriman Campus via phone meeting facilitated by representatives of NYS

Office of General Services

August 24, 2017

In person meeting with an owner of a parcel of land adjacent to DAI

facilitated by representatives of the land owner

A formal site visit was anticipated to be conducted for the land adjacent to DAI and Harriman Campus after August 25, 2017. Those parcels were also seen during other

site visits.

Evaluation Criteria Scoring

Table 35 below describes the scores assigned to each potential new site for each

new sit criteria.


58

Table 35: Scoring Description for Each Potential New Site Evaluation

Criteria

Cost Criteria Negative (1) On Par (2) Positive (3)

Site Acquisition

& Construction

·Privately owned

land, and new

construction or retrofitting

·State owned land, and

requires some

retrofitting; or ·Private entity affiliated

with a State

organization that could

have costs associated

with land acquisition, and new construction

·State owned land,

and new

construction

Utilities ·Missing one or

more necessary

utilities

·Has the necessary

utilities, but would

require upgrades to

meet needs

·All necessary

utilities available

Environmental

Risks

·Risks may prevent

construction entirely

·Environmental risks

would require mitigation or could

limit construction

·No major

environmental risks identified

Conditions Criteria

Negative (1) On Par (2) Positive (3)

Proximity to

Labor Pool

Residences22

·Less than 4,000

health tech and life

sciences employees

within a 15 minute

drive; or ·Located at the

edge of major labor

concentrations

related to health

tech and life sciences

·Between 4,000 and

5,500 health tech and

life sciences employees

within a 15 minute

drive; or ·Located within range

of multiple labor

concentrations related

to health tech and life

sciences

·Over 5,500 health

tech and life

sciences employees

within a 15 minute

drive; or ·Centrally located

among labor

concentrations

related to health

tech and life sciences

Proximity to

Airport

·Over 15 miles, or

·Over 30 minutes

·Over 10 miles, or

·Between 30 and 15

minutes

·Under 10 miles, or

·15 minutes or less

22 The source of the employment data is from the Census Bureau at the Census Tract level from the OCCUPATION BY SEX FOR THE CIVILIAN EMPLOYED POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER 2011-2015

American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates report. Data is from two occupation categories: Health

technologists and technicians, and Life, physical, and social science occupations.


59

Conditions

Criteria

Negative (1) On Par (2) Positive (3)

Proximity to

Train Station

·Over 15 miles, or

·30 minutes or

greater

·Over 10 miles, or

·Between 30 and 11

minutes

·Under 10 miles, or


Access to

Infrastructure

·Over 10 minutes to

a major interstate, or

·Over 2 miles to

nearest public

transportation

·Between 10 and 5

minutes to a major interstate, or

·Between 2 to 1 miles

to nearest public

transportation

·Under 5 minutes

to a major interstate, or

·Under 1 mile to

nearest public

transportation

Proximity to

Similar Institutions

·Over 10 minutes to

a cluster of life sciences facilities or

life sciences

academic

institutions


drive to a cluster of life sciences facilities or life

sciences academic

institutions

·Has life sciences

facilities, academic institutions, or life

sciences technology

facilities within a

short walking

distance

Quality of Amenities

·Amenities such as groceries,

shopping, hotels,

dry cleaners, etc

are over a 10

minute drive

·Amenities such as groceries, shopping,

hotels, dry cleaners,

etc are within a 10 to 5

minute drive

·Amenities such as groceries,

shopping, hotels,

dry cleaners, etc

are within walking

distance

Ability to Accommodate

Space Needs

·Maximum possible facility and parking

gross square

footage cannot go

over 600,000 SF


gross square footage is

between 600,000 SF

and 800,000 SF


gross square

footage could go

over 800,000 SF

Permitted Uses

and Zoning

·Is not permitted

for life sciences laboratory facilities

·Is permitted for life

sciences laboratory facilities

·Property is within

the City of Albany, and

·Is permitted for

life sciences

laboratory facilities

The Proximity to Labor Pool Residences criteria was mapped out using census data

at the Census Tract level from the OCCUPATION BY SEX FOR THE CIVILIAN EMPLOYED POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER 2011-2015 American Community

Survey 5-Year Estimates report. Occupations considered included Health

technologists and technicians, and Life, physical, and social science occupations.


60

Figure 35 provides a mapping of the labor pool concentrations in relation to the

potential sites.

Figure 35: Potential Sites Labor Pool Concentrations Mapping


61

Detailed Evaluation Criteria Notes

Griffin Laboratory

Griffin Laboratory is a state-owned and

Wadsworth-operated property situated on 205 acres in Guilderland, a suburb of the City of

Albany. The facility consists of a grouping of 22

buildings of BLS2, BSL3, and vivarium space

totaling approximately 87,000 SF. It also has one

of the largest incinerators in NYS. Composed of

early 20th century buildings, the Griffin Campus is home to the largest concentration of high

containment labs at Wadsworth. Though well-

maintained, the buildings are obsolescent for a

laboratory.

Average Cost Criteria Score: 2.33

Average Conditions Criteria Score: 2.13

Cost

Site Acquisition & Construction – The land is already owned by NYS, so no

additional cost for land acquisition. This would be predominantly new

construction.

Utilities – Existing facility has necessary utilities though may need

advancements to enable sufficient capacity for a larger facility. Environmental Risks – Had proof of concept in 2013/14, but SEQR process is

likely necessary since it is a nonresidential project physically altering 10 or

more acres of land

Conditions

Proximity to Labor Pool Residences – 3637 health tech and

life/physical/social science employees within 15 min drive.23 Location is at the

edge of labor concentrations.

Proximity to Airport – 10 miles or approximately 20 minutes.

Proximity to Train Station – 14 miles or approximately 20 minutes to Amtrak.

Access to Infrastructure – 10 minutes to I-87 and I-90, and 3.5 miles to

nearest bus stop.

Proximity to Similar Institutions – 20 minutes to Albany Medical College

cluster, 13 minutes to SUNY Poly, 23 minutes to SUNY East Campus, 24

minutes to Rensselaer Tech Park. There is not much commercial usage

nearby, mainly some residential areas.

Quality of Amenities – No amenities within walking distance; closest food and

lodging is 2-5 miles.

23 Ibid.


62

Ability to Accommodate Space Needs – Potential for roughly 5,357,880 SF of

impervious coverage (building and parking) based on acreage and zoning

restrictions.

Permitted Uses and Zoning – Rural Agricultural-3 (RA3) zoning in Town of

Guilderland, it is permitted for public buildings including state buildings.

Other Notes

Has an incinerator on site, which would not likely be possible to construct at

other sites.

David Axelrod Institute (DAI)

The David Axelrod Institute (DAI), occupied in 1993,

is 240,000 SF of NYS DOH owned BSL2 and BSL3

laboratories. The building has a vivarium, high-

containment facilities, media prep and core functions

to support biological sciences. Shallow lab depth and small overall relative size of the building create

inefficiencies. Recent issues at the Biggs laboratory

forced the Newborn screening division to move into

the entire 5th floor of the facility, further increasing

the overutilization of laboratories at this site.

Average Cost Score: 2.00


Cost

Site Acquisition & Construction – The property is already owned by NYS, so

no additional cost for land acquisition. This would be expansion of existing

facilities, in addition to reconfiguration of existing laboratories. However,

expansion is difficult to envisage. Utilities – Existing facility utilities may be at capacity, and its backup

generator is likely not capable of powering the entire building. Additionally,

the small size of the individual laboratories, coupled with the intensity of

heat-producing instrumentation, causes conditions where temperature in labs

could become too hot to operate appropriately. Environmental Risks – Has a flat topography, and existing facilities that

would indicate construction is feasible. SEQR process is likely necessary.

Conditions


life/physical/social science employees within 15 min drive.24 It is centrally

located among labor concentrations.



24 Ibid.


63

Access to Infrastructure – 10 minutes to I-87 and 12 minutes to I-90, located

in the City of Albany off of New Scotland Ave; very accessible from public

transportation and parking available.

Proximity to Similar Institutions – Campus is shared with similar institutions

such as Albany Medical College, Department of Veterans Affairs, and a

second Wadsworth facility (Center for Medical Science). 13 minutes to SUNY

Poly, 13 minutes to SUNY Easy Campus, 18 minutes to Rensselaer Tech Park

Quality of Amenities – No amenities within the building, but located in City of

Albany with access to many amenities such as restaurants, hotels, groceries,

dry cleaning, etc.

Ability to Accommodate Space Needs – Minimal amount of space for

expansion due to environmental issues. In its current state, DAI is likely not

a scalable solution, but it has the potential to foster life sciences growth in

the area by acting as a potential site for Wadsworth partners.

Permitted Uses & Zoning – Mixed Use-Campus/Institutions (MU-CI) zoning in

City of Albany. Permitted for offices (including laboratories), and parking

structures.

Rensselaer Technology Park

Rensselaer Technology Park, a university

based development for technology

ventures owned by Rensselaer

Polytechnic Institute (RPI). The park has over 400 acres of undeveloped land, and

currently is home to over 60 companies.

The proposed plot available here is

approximately 30 acres, but there is an

adjacent plot totaling around 200 acres.


Average Conditions Criteria Score:

3.13

Cost

Site Acquisition & Construction – The land would need to be leased at $225k to $250k/acre for a 49 year prepaid lease. Would be all new construction.

Utilities – There are existing facilities within the tech park, so utilities are

available though they may need to be upgraded to meet the needs of a

research laboratory.

o Water: Public, City of Troy, 36" Main and 12" secondary back-up

o Sewer: Public, Rensselaer County Sewer District Number One, 15"

Environmental Risks – There are some wetlands running along the potential

200 acre plot that could be an add-on site. Developed park, could assume an

Environmental Impact Statement has been completed for previous projects,

but SEQR process necessary since it is a nonresidential project physically

altering 10 or more acres of land.


64

Conditions


life/physical/social science employees within 15 min drive.25 Located towards

edge of one labor concentration and a bit further from downtown Albany

concentration.



Access to Infrastructure – Off of route 4, 5 minutes to I-90, and within

walking distance of bus stops.

Proximity to Similar Institutions – The campus is host to a number of

technology and life sciences facilities including Regeneron, GE Healthcare,

and 3M Health Information Systems. However, it’s not an easy walk from one

building to another. It is 15 minutes from RPI, 20 minutes from Albany

Medical College, 15 minutes from SUNY Poly, and 13 minutes from SUNY

East Campus.

Quality of Amenities – Hotels, restaurants, dry cleaners are within a 10

minute drive or 5 miles of the park.

Expandability/Constructability – Many parts of the park are still available; if

30 acres is not enough there is an additional plot that could be accessed from

Route 4.



restrictions. 318,000 SF building as shown in conceptual site plan for 15

acres since there is a limitation of three floors, but other facilities in the park

reach 6 floors; therefore there is a possibility of over 650,000 SF, plus more if accessing additional acreage.

Permitted Uses & Zoning – Technology Park (TP) based on zoning map

provided for Town of North Greenbush. Permitted for office buildings, public

and government buildings, and research and development facilities.

Other Notes

There appears to be an additional +/- 200 acres available off of Route 4 if

expansion is necessary.

25 Ibid.


65

Vista Technology Campus

Vista Technology Campus is a +/- 450 acre

mixed-use development project owned by

Vista Development Group, LLC and located in

Slingerlands, NY. Amenities are in place, but

future development is open to technology users, research and development,

manufacturing plants, and medical office

spaces.



2.88

Cost

Site Acquisition & Construction – $180k/acre for purchase of land. It would

be all new construction.

Utilities – Utilities are in place for use:

- Water: Public, Town of Bethlehem; 12" Main

- Sewer: Public, Town of Bethlehem; 8" Forced Main

- Electric: National grid redundant electric loop with 2-4 MW remaining

capacity but plan to develop a new substation for additional 11MW

- Gas: National Grid: 8" medium pressure loop

- Telecomm/Data: Verizon (Fiber & Copper); Time Warner/Spectrum

(Hybrid Fiber - Coaxial); Tech Valley/First Light (Fiber)

- Storm water management is not planned site wide, would need to be

planned for new construction

Environmental Risks – There are wetlands in the area which would need to

be banked by consumer. Since it is a developing campus, we could assume

an Environmental Impact Statement has been completed, but SEQR process necessary since it is a nonresidential project physically altering 10 or more

acres of land.

Conditions


life/physical/social science employees within 15 min drive.26 Located at the

edge of labor concentrations.



Access to Infrastructure – Off of route 85, 7 minutes to I-90, 15 mins to I-

87, within walking distance of bus stop.

Proximity to Similar Institutions – 11 minutes to SUNY Poly, 12 minutes to

Albany Medical College cluster; One solar panel manufacturer, mostly retail

26 Ibid.


66

(grocery, restaurants, etc.), some residential, no life sciences facilities in

immediate area.

Quality of Amenities – Shopping centers (Price Chopper, ShopRite),

Restaurants, Coffee, Banks, Post Office, Gas Station, Dry Cleaner, Bike Path,

hotel being planned all very close.



restrictions. 400,000 SF building size marked out for 27 acres, there is a

limitation of three floors going vertical but that could be revisited.

Permitted Uses & Zoning – Mixed Economic Development District (MEDD) in

Towns of Bethlehem and New Scotland. Permitted for offices, light industrial,

manufacturing, and technology based businesses.

Harriman Campus

Harriman Campus is predominantly a government

building complex with 27 acres

of open land on the east side.

Located within the City of

Albany, the plot has recently

demolished buildings making the site ready for new

construction.


Average Conditions

Criteria Score: 3.25

Cost

Site Acquisition & Construction – State owned land. Would be all new

construction

Utilities – NYS appears to be investing in utility access upgrades since they

may be at capacity currently:

- Sewer: New sanitary sewer pump

- Electric/Gas: Developer would be required to acquire electrical and gas

services from National Grid

- Water: City water service would be made available via 12" Main

- Telecomm: Readily available

Environmental Risks – Environmental analysis completed and included in

2016 RFP, but SEQR process necessary since it is a nonresidential project

physically altering 10 or more acres of land

Conditions


67


life/physical/social science employees within 15 min drive.27 Reasonably

located among labor concentrations

Proximity to Airport – 7.5 miles or approximately 12 minutes.


Access to Infrastructure – Off or route 85, 4 minutes to I-90, 10 minutes to

I-87, bus service right on campus

Proximity to Similar Institutions – 8 minutes to SUNY Poly, 11 minutes to

Albany Medical College cluster, 15 minutes to SUNY East Campus.

Governmental/Educational, Commercial/Retail, Medical Arts and Residential

type facilities on site. State facilities like Taxation & Finance Department,

Department of Labor, Department of Corrections, and NYS Food Laboratory

Division on site.

Quality of Amenities – Within the City of Albany very close to

shops/restaurants, gas stations, post offices, etc.



restrictions.

Permitted Uses & Zoning – Mixed Used-Campus/Institutions (MU-CI) in City

of Albany. Part of the City of Albany Commercial Office zoning district,

designated a "mixed-use, transit-oriented community". Permitted for offices

(including laboratories), and parking structures.

Other Notes

This land has been discussed for potential formal solicitation through an RFP

process.

27 Ibid.


68

SUNY East Campus

SUNY East Campus site has about

75 acres of land on SUNY East Campus owned University at

Albany Bioscience Development

Corporation which is a not-for-

profit affiliate of the University at

Albany Foundation. The land is located in the Town of East

Greenbush.


Average Conditions Criteria

Score: 3.27

Cost

Site Acquisition & Construction – Land owned by SUNY Albany affiliated

foundation that could have costs associated with acquisition. Would be all

new construction

Utilities – NYS is investing in utility access upgrades since they may be at

capacity currently:

- Water: Town of East Greenbush; 12" Main

- Electric: Niagara Mohawk Power Corp Easement has a 34.5 kV service,

and Regeneron working to increase capacity

- Sewer: Service line exists with connection to Rensselaer County or

Town of East Greenbush with capacity over 18,000 gpd

- Natural Gas: Available

Environmental Risks – Soil may need to be taken off site, and there are

slopes greater than 15% in some areas limiting expansion. Town of East

Greenbush completed an Environmental Impact Statement in 2009, and a

feasibility study including environmental was completed in December 2016,

but SEQR process is likely necessary since it is a nonresidential project

physically altering 10 or more acres of land.

Conditions






Access to Infrastructure – 8 minutes to I-90, 5 minutes to I-787, 5 minutes

to downtown Albany, within walking distance of bus stop.

Proximity to Similar Institutions – Regeneron, SUNY Public Health School,

AMRI, and Taconic Biosciences all within campus area; however, it’s not an

28 Ibid.


69

easy walk from one building to another. 15 minutes to SUNY Poly, 15

minutes to Albany Medical College cluster. Additionally, there are over 50

Wadsworth researchers and staff that have faculty appointments at SUNY

School of Public Health.

Quality of Amenities – 5 minutes from downtown Albany, 5 minutes to

Target/Walmart, Small cafeteria on site.



restrictions.

Permitted Uses & Zoning – Corporate Office/Light Industrial (OI) zoning in

Town of East Greenbush. Permitted for light industrial, research and

development lab, and health/medical office or clinic.

SUNY Poly Colleges of Nanoscale Science and Engineering

SUNY Poly Colleges of Nanoscale Science and Engineering has over 70 acres of

University at Albany owned land with about

5 acres on an existing parking lot within its

campus. The campus is predominantly for

nanoscale science and engineering

research through academia and private companies.



3.00

Cost

Site Acquisition & Construction – Is owned by University at Albany

Foundation which is a non-profit corporation. This would be all new

construction.

Utilities – Existing facilities on site that have the necessary utilities.

Environmental Risks – There is a detention basin at the edge of the 5 acre

parking area that may require movement or work around. This is a

developed area so we could assume that an Environmental Impact Statement

has been completed, but SEQR process is likely necessary since it is a

nonresidential project physically altering 10 or more acres of land.

Conditions





29 Ibid.


70

Proximity to Train Station – 8.5 miles or approximately 12 minutes to

Amtrak.

Access to Infrastructure – Right off of I-87, and at the intersection of I-90

and I-87, 4 minutes to bus service.


cluster, 15 minutes to SUNY East Campus, 15 minutes to Rensselaer Tech

Park, adjacent to University at Albany. Nanoscale technology research,

Nanoscale technology academics, and IBM are all within the campus, but not

really any life sciences.

Quality of Amenities – Within minutes of restaurants and a dry cleaner, 5

minutes to Walmart, 15 minutes to downtown Albany.

Ability to Accommodate Space Needs – Potential for roughly 700,000 SF of

impervious coverage (building and parking) based on 5 acre estimate of

parking lot and zoning restrictions. There is more land owned by University

at Albany in this area, but it is separated by a detention basin.


of Albany. Permitted for hospital, academic institutions, offices, parking

structures, and parking lot (as an accessory use). Special Permit uses for

offices using dangerous or hazardous materials.

Noonan Lane

The Noonan Lane site has about 50 acres

of privately owned Greenfield and residential properties within the City of

Albany. This site was once proposed for a

casino.



3.25

Cost

Site Acquisition & Construction –

Land price would need to be

discussed with residential property owners as it is privately owned.

Some demolition of existing residential homes, but mainly new construction

Utilities – Utilities should be in place as there are offices and residential

property in the vicinity, but likely would need upgrades to handle capacity of

a new lab facility

Environmental Risks – Large retention pond on site and river nearby, and

SEQR process is likely necessary since it is a nonresidential project physically

altering 10 or more acres of land.

Conditions


71






Access to Infrastructure – Right off of I-87, 15 minute walk or 3 minute drive

to bus service.


cluster, 15 minutes to SUNY Poly, 10 minutes to SUNY East Campus; NYS

Thruway Authority, but mainly residential facilities in proximity of site.

Quality of Amenities – 8 minutes to downtown Albany, within minutes of

restaurants, hotels nearby, 7 minutes to Walmart and other grocers closer, 8

minutes to dry cleaners



restrictions.





Kenwood/Howard Johnson

The Kenwood site is the location of

a disused convent and private

school. The land is privately owned

by the Society of the Sacred Heart,

and covers about 73 acres of land.


Average Conditions Criteria

Score: 3.25

Cost Site Acquisition &

Construction – Land price

would need to be discussed

with owners, and may need

to maintain convent

structure so could require some retrofitting and/or demolition in addition to new construction.

Utilities – Some utilities should be in place as it used to be the location of a

convent, but would likely need upgrades to handle capacity of a new lab

facility.

30 Ibid.


72

Environmental Risks – challenging topography with large slopes; SEQR

process necessary since it is a nonresidential project physically altering 10 or

more acres of land

Conditions






Access to Infrastructure – Right off of I-87, 15 minute walk or 3 minute drive

to bus service.


cluster, 15 minutes to SUNY Poly, 10 minutes to SUNY East Campus; NYS

Thruway Authority, some residential, and some industrial facilities

Quality of Amenities – 8 minutes to downtown Albany, within minutes of

restaurants, hotels nearby, 7 minutes to Walmart and other grocers closer, 8

minutes to dry cleaners



restrictions. However, some of the topography may not allow construction.





Other Notes There is a possibility that this site is currently under contract.

Expanded DAI Site (Expanded Axelrod)

The site is multiple parcels of land, up to

approximately 18 acres, located adjacent to or

near to DAI. This site is near a variety of peer

institutions such as Albany Medical Center and the Veterans Hospital. It is the only site which

would accommodate Wadsworth’s space needs

and take advantage of existing buildings, by

keeping and updating DAI. However, further

due diligence and site analysis is needed to confirm the feasability of laboratory

development.


31 Ibid.


73


Cost

Site Acquisition & Construction – Land price would need to be discussed. DAI

would be retained and updated. Expansion on to adjacent or near parcels of

land would require retrofitting and/or demolition in addition to new

construction.

Utilities – Necessary utilities are available, though they may need upgrades

to meet requirements of laboratory facilities.

Environmental Risks – Has a flat topography, and existing facilities that

would indicate construction is feasible. SEQR process is likely necessary.

Conditions


life/physical/social science employees within 15 min drive.32 It is centrally




Access to Infrastructure – 10 minutes to I-87 and 12 minutes to I-90, located

in the City of Albany off of New Scotland Ave; very accessible from public

transportation.

Proximity to Similar Institutions – Site is within walking distance to David

Axelrod Institute and is adjacent to institutions such as Albany Medical

College, 13 minutes to SUNY Poly, 13 minutes to SUNY Easy Campus, and 18

minutes to Rensselaer Tech Park.

Quality of Amenities – Located in the City of Albany with access to many

amenities such as restaurants, hotels, groceries, dry cleaning, etc.

Ability to Accommodate Space Needs – The site is up to approximately 18

acres of land. Allowing for approximately 2,000,000 SF of impervious

coverage (building and parking) based on zoning restrictions.


of Albany. Permitted for hospital, higher education institutions, offices,

parking structures, and parking lot (as an accessory use). Special Permit

uses for offices using dangerous or hazardous materials.

32 Ibid.


74

Appendix H: Industry Clusters Case Studies

The appendix below provides case studies on different relevant cluster developments both domestically and internationally. Each case study provides a

high-level overview of the cluster, key aspects of the operating model, and

potential applicability of the case to Wadsworth and NYS. Some of these cases are

in addition to those presented in Table 1 of the report.

Research Triangle Park33

Research Triangle Park (RTP) was founded by a committee of government,

university and business leaders as a model for research, innovation, and economic development. The idea was conceived in the mid-1950’s originating with several

business leaders and North Carolina State’s Chancellor. The governor commissioned

a concept report on the establishment of a research park to diversify the state’s

economic base. By the end of 1956, the Research Triangle Development Council

was formed with Duke University, North Carolina State, and University of North Carolina (UNC) joining the team. The report concluded that the concept of a

research park was valid and the state took the position that the effort should be

undertaken by the private sector and the three universities. In 1959, the Research

Triangle Foundation (RTF) of North Carolina was formed to assume management

responsibility for the park and to establish and administer land use regulations. The Park took off in 1965 with a 400 acre/600,000 SF IBM research facility and a

federal $70m National Environmental Health Science Center. Over the years the

public sector provided needed infrastructure in roads and utilities and the Park grew

to its current 8,971 acres. The park grew from 200,000 SF in 1960 to over 20m SF

in 2005. In its first 40 years the Park grew by six new companies and 1,800 employees per year. Current employment has reached about 50,000 employees.

The Park continues to grow with additional companies and stable employment.

Today the Park is home to one of the largest critical masses of knowledge workers

and intellectual activity in the world.

Operating Model

The operating model of RTP is underpinned primarily by a real estate and land development strategy geared to attract research entities to North Carolina. The RTF

is structured as a not-for-profit with the objective of economic stimulus, and has

few peers in the world.

22,500,000 SF of the Park’s development is for use by private enterprises. The

buildings were built by the users or in collaboration with private developers. Financing was conventional private and within standard economic development

incentives provided by the state. Of note, in 1986, real estate taxes in the Park

were capped at $0.10/100 SF. By comparison comparable real estate taxes in the

33 Sources: Research Triangle Park website; Wikipedia-Research Triangle Park and footnoted articles; Research Triangle Foundation website; Wikipedia-Research Triangle Foundation and footnoted articles; RTP.org/about-us/Park-Center; Dartmouth.edu: “The growth of Research Triangle Park” by Alan Link

& John Scott; Learnnc.com/news/lp/editions/nchist-recent/6177 “Research Triangle Park;

Ncpedia.org/research-triangle-park.


75

New York Metro area at the same time were about $3.00/SF. This could serve as an

effective kick-off point for negotiations. The Park and the RTF actively and

aggressively compete to attract new companies and jobs to North Carolina.

In addition, RTF owns three facilities that it has designated as co-working spaces

that could act as nodes for collaboration:

Frontier: A co-work space that is available at no cost to the RTP community.

In its first 8 months of operation Frontier had 20,000 visitors. The idea

behind this was creation of in-park collaboration space. There are open areas, work spaces and some small meeting spaces. There is a nominal

charge for using private spaces.

LAB: A co-working laboratory building of 75,000 SF that leases office space

at $15.95 per SF per year and LAB space at $25.00 per SF per year. By

providing small firms and individuals with turn-key office and lab spaces at

low costs, LAB encourages start-up companies and exploration.

Conference Center: The 6,800 SF conference center provides space for

larger meetings. Park tenants could book the conference center for special

purpose meetings in lieu of providing those spaces within their company’s

space envelope.

RTF recently purchased 100 acres for a Park Center that would become the live/play hub of activity within the Park. The first phase would be a $50m mixed-

use development including retail (e.g., supermarkets and salons), entertainment

spaces, and multi-family housing. The Foundation in its announcement identified

the following funding sources: RTF ($20m), Park tenants ($10m), and Durham

County ($20m).

Major educational institutions also play a significant role in cluster activity. Duke

University, North Carolina University, and North Carolina State are willing partners

and attractors for new business and innovation. Each university is a large research

entity in its own right that combined receive more than $2b in NIH research grants.

The intellectual capital at these universities is available for collaboration with Park

tenants. The Research Triangle is built on a willing local government, strong institutional partners, and an innovative real estate model founded on the strength

of local business leaders seeking a better economic climate for their businesses.

Applicability to Wadsworth Center

RTP is a real estate model to activate economic development through research and

technology. Given that NYS has expressed a preference for private investment capital to help grow the life sciences cluster, the RTP model has applicability for

Wadsworth in the following ways:

Collaboration between academia and private business: RTP was the

result of private business interests and major academic institution joining in

a vision to create a research and technology cluster in the triangle formed by the universities. Private interests raised the money to acquire the land

needed to implement the vision. NYS envisions a similar structure for the

Capital Region.


76

Master planning and state economic incentives: RTP relied on master

planning and conventional real estate development, while the State of North

Carolina played a role in providing competitive economic development incentives for new construction and job creation. The Capital Region requires

a cohesive life sciences strategy that should lay out a plan for attracting and

sustaining life sciences organizations to the region, and identify areas for co-

investment between the state and commercial organizations.

Academia as source of innovation: In RTP, research, technology, and innovation are driven by the universities and their various institutions on or

near campus. Additionally, the RTF supplements these resources with co-

working spaces and meeting spaces (Frontier, LAB, and Conference Center).

These elements along with a strong entrepreneurial spirit are essential to

grow the Capital Region life sciences cluster. The new lab could provide some

of this space, or an independent but proximate entity. These elements are critical for Wadsworth and NYS to take the next step forward.

Incubation and commercialization: Collaborative research, transfer of

technology, incubation, and commercialization abound in the Research

Triangle. It is a culture that provides an engine for innovation and economic

development. A similar culture is required for the Capital Region cluster to reach its full potential. An important part of NYS’s life sciences strategy

includes accelerators, which should define support for research coming out of

Wadsworth.

Skilled and motivated workforce: In the Research Triangle, the needed

workforce was developed throughout the academic institutions and retained in the area through high quality life styles and technology-based jobs. All

clusters face the challenge of attracting and retaining its workforce. Albany

needs to become a desirable destination for the target audience of leaders in

life sciences research and innovation. There need to be the requisite jobs,

programs, and quality of life to attract and retain a skilled work force. The

live/work/play paradigm must resonate clearly to both workers and the companies that employ them to sustain a cluster.

The Capital Region has elements for success in Wadsworth and its valued

infrastructure and relationships. The challenge is to develop a master plan and

business structure that would create demand, jobs, and economic impact. While

the Research Triangle project is large in comparison, the fundamentals of a workable model are sound and enduring.

San Diego, California Biotechnology/Pharmaceutical Cluster34

The biotechnology/pharmaceutical cluster in San Diego is a leading national center

of R&D. The cluster has grown rapidly both in terms of employment — adding more

than 8,000 jobs from 1988 to 1997 — and in terms of patent output — it had the

fastest growth rate of patent registration out of the 20 largest U.S. clusters. The

34 Adapted (quoted) from “Clusters of Innovation Initiative: San Diego,” 2002, a joint collaboration

between Professor Michael E. Porter, Harvard University, and Monitor Group (now Deloitte).


77

main features of the cluster’s composition are the many small companies that tend

to focus on one or two drug development targets, as well as the numerous research

institutions such as the University of California at San Diego, the Salk Institute, and the Scripps Research Institute, which have strong reputations in bio-science.

When local leaders established the Scripps Research Institute, the Salk Institute,

and University of California at San Diego (UCSD), Scripps required its researchers

to raise their own funds, which encouraged innovation and brought more R&D

funding into the region, and the Institute consistently partnered with businesses (e.g., Dow Chemicals donated their site), which encouraged more technology

transfer to industry. The Salk Institute does not seek corporate sponsorships but is

active in licensing its discoveries. About a quarter of Salk’s researchers are involved

with companies, and the Institute has recently taken equity in several companies.

An important event in the development of the cluster came with the founding of

Hybritech in 1978 by UCSD scientists Ivor Royston and Howard Birndorf. Hybritech became the first nationally successful biotechnology firm based in San Diego. It also

became the training ground for a large number of scientists and managers who

would later form more than 50 biotechnology or pharmaceutical firms in the region.

Within two years of Hybritech’s sale to Eli Lilly in 1986, alumni of the company

founded at least eight new firms.

The formation of UCSD CONNECT in 1985 was the next important event in the

development of the cluster. CONNECT brought VC money into the region, offered

business advice and mentoring, connected new businesses with experienced

managers, and institutionalized a culture of entrepreneurship within the university.

Many post-facto interviews credit CONNECT with greatly aiding start-up companies.

In the 1980s, the San Diego biotech/pharma cluster reached a critical mass such

that growth no longer depended on outside sources. New research centers, like the

Burnham Institute and the La Jolla Institute for Allergies and Immunology, had

been established and were eager to work with private sector entrepreneurs. The

different types of research institutions — ranging from a large public university, to

small private centers focused on basic research, to commercially oriented institutes — provided businesses with technologies and partnering opportunities. The close

proximity of research centers and firms on the Torrey Pines Mesa encouraged

collaboration and growth.

University of California Berkeley / Large Global Biopharmaceutical

Company Partnership35

While the corporate race to acquire plant genomic information and technology was

on, trend studies showed that federal government funding for agricultural research

was dwindling in comparison to corporate spending. The fraction of the U.S. research budget spent on agriculture had declined from 40 percent in 1940 to less

than two percent by the 1990s. UCB estimated that biopharmaceutical companies

had together spent upwards of $1.5b in plant genome sequencing, in contrast to

35 Sources: Stanford Graduate School of Business / Company Research Collaboration; Company - UC

Berkeley Agreement


78

$40m spent by the federal government. Industry spending and acquisition in plant

biotechnology had left university faculty researchers feeling as if they were at the

back of the pack. Universities could not compete with industry in acquiring the expensive equipment and technology needed to conduct cutting-edge research.

In 1997, UCB began a pioneering effort to call upon private companies to apply for

a broad plant genomics research alliance. The key provision entailed an exchange

of funds for licensing rights: companies would fund research by the Department of

Plant and Microbial Biology (PMB) at UCB and in exchange hold the rights to patent any discoveries.

In 1998 the CEO of a Large Global Biopharmaceutical Company had a mandate to

jump start the company’s basic research program in plant genomics. For the

company, advances in the cost-intensive field of life sciences combined with heated

competition in industry for leadership in biotechnology, helped to align its interests

with the university. The company ended up being selected by the university in April 1998.

This Public Private Research Partnership (PPRP) between the PMB and the Large

Global Biopharmaceutical Company was a path breaking agreement. The agreement

established a five-year operating agreement through a committed budget of $25m.

Operating Model

The operating agreement would give Berkeley’s PMB access to research funds as

well as to the company’s genetic sequencing databases. In return, the company

held first rights to patent discoveries made over the five-year period. The details

are below:

The research funded under this agreement would be selected and monitored by a faculty-company peer review research committee composed of three

university faculty, the CEO and a co-president from the company’s in-house

R&D division. The research eligible for potential finding under the agreement

would be selected by faculty and submitted to the research committee for

evaluation.

The company acknowledged that the university is an open, academic environment. Notwithstanding this acknowledgment, the university and the

company would use their best efforts to ensure that information and

materials were controlled in full compliance and accordance with the mutually

agreed terms.

The company would make available to the faculty its proprietary genomics bio-information database, research tools, biological materials, and

compounds to facilitate the conduct of the research. Faculty use of this

information was limited to the faculty research funded under the agreement.

Unless the company gave permission, proprietary information obtained

pursuant to an access agreement would receive confidential status for the five-year contract period, plus an additional five years.

PMB could fully disclose or publish its research results unless the disclosure

contained proprietary information, in which case company permission was

required.


79

The university owned all the results of the research and inventions funded

under the agreement. However, the results of the research and inventions

would be jointly owned if inventions were carried out by university and company employees (without the use of university research facilities) or

inventions were made solely by company employees (using university

facilities).

The company had the right to freely use all research results developed under

this agreement for its own research.

The university and the company had strict timelines on providing research

results and making determination of patent rights. If the company did not

obtain or elect to obtain rights to inventions, the university was free to

license to other entities and the university was obliged to give special

consideration to licensing to small businesses.


Academic and private partnership model for inventions: This case

study mainly focuses on the details of the operating agreement. Wadsworth

may consider templates for sharing risks and rewards through such

agreements as it moves forward with its potential partnerships.

Need for transparency with private industry: Apart from the measurable outputs of the contract, this example demonstrates a remarkable need for

greater transparency in the university's dealings with private industry, noting

that many of the objections to the agreement focused on the lack of input

early in the negotiations.

Safeguarding public interest while allowing private returns: The agreement also brought to the surface a recurrent debate in regards to the

core mission of public universities and the role private industry should play in

academia. To the extent that stakeholders align their interests, public-private

partnerships must safeguard public interest while allowing private returns.

Johns Hopkins University36

Johns Hopkins is a large academic, research, and clinical care complex located in

East Baltimore on several campuses, that contributes also to the life sciences cluster in Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University (JHU) was founded in 1876 as a

36 Sources: Johns Hopkins University website, Wikipedia and footnoted articles; Johns Hopkins

Medicine website, Wikipedia and footnoted articles; John Hopkins School of Medicine website, Wikipedia and footnoted articles; Johns Hopkins Health System website, Wikipedia and footnoted articles; Science+Technology Park website; Scienceparkjohns Hopkins.new/press/innovation-thrives-

in-maryland-5-reasons-why; Scienceparkjohnshopkins.net/press/latest-incubator-fast-forward-1812-spurs-commercialism; Ventures.jhu.edu/invest-in-a-venture and how-we-work and industry-collaboration; Johns Hopkins University Consolidated Statements of Activities Years ended June 30,

2015 and 2014; Johns Hopkins Medicine 2016 Annual Report; Johns Hopkins.corefacilities.org/landing/42#/cores; Johns Hopkins Medicine; “A Look at Our Books” Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Budget & Annual Operating Plan; NY Times Commercial Real Estate 6-8-2008

“Building a Technology Park in Baltimore by Rehabilitating a Neighborhood”;

Hopkinsmedicine.org/business/business_development; Ventures.jhu.edu/Fast Forward.


80

private research university and has continued the tradition into the 21st century.

With over $2b in funded research programs each year, JHU has been the number

one research university in the country for the past 35 years.

The $1.8b Science + Technology Park (S+T Park) is a relatively new project and

Baltimore’s largest redevelopment project that first opened in 2006 on 88 acres

adjacent to the medical campus. The Park would include a mix of uses

complimentary to the medical complex including 1,400,000 SF of commercial lab

and office space, 400,000 SF of retail and small commercial space, 2,400 for-sale and rental housing units, a new K-8 public school and a 5.5 acre public park, Eager

Park.

As is the case in many academic/science clusters, the Park adds a retail and

residential component to the live/work/play/learn paradigm. To date more than 40

life science companies and research institutions have located here to partner with

JHU in commercializing scientific discovery. In addition, 350 residential units and a 350-unit graduate student housing building are occupied. Residents and employees

working around Eager Park have priority to send their children to the new K-8

school.

Operating Model

JHU is a self-sustaining nonprofit enterprise and the largest employer in Maryland. The university has nine academic divisions that in fiscal year 2015 generated over

$5b in revenue. During the same period of time, Johns Hopkins Medicine (JHM),

another entity under the Johns Hopkins organization, generated over $7b in

revenue. Much of the revenue is generated through research activities that are

global in their reach.

Two aspects of the Johns Hopkins model set it apart from others:

Between two-thirds to three quarters of the students are active in research

projects. JHU has a “research” culture imbedded in its daily life.

JHU and JHM generated a combined $260m in net operating income in fiscal

year 2015. These funds provide the capital to internally fund major projects.

Fast Forward is a business incubator within JHU executed through a series of coordinated resources designed to move technologies from startup to marketplace,

including life sciences-related concepts. Currently, it supports more than 100

startups. Fast Forward members include tenants from JH innovation hubs, virtual

members who have licensed technology from JH, and non-JH entities that have

completed a rigorous application process.

Johns Hopkins Technical Ventures (JHTV) also participates in the value chain,

helping with the commercialization of discoveries and innovations including also life

sciences-related initiatives. They help innovators and entrepreneurs safeguard and

commercialize intellectual property, develop startups into sustainable ventures, and

forge strategic collaborations. JHTV supports emerging startups inside and outside Hopkins with education, space, mentorship, services and funding opportunities. In

2016, JHTV managed more than 500 invention disclosures.


81

Last year, JHU reported $58m in licensing revenue, three times the year before,

due largely to JHU’s share of a $300m deal with Astellas Pharma and Immunomic

Therapeutics. Companies founded on JH technology have raised about $1.1b in funding since 2012.


JHU is much larger than Wadsworth; and Baltimore is a maturing technology hub

compared to Albany. However, there are parallel lessons that may help Wadsworth

and the Capital Region reach their goals:

Vision: JHU has had the same vision for its university and medical center for

150 years. Wadsworth has the opportunity to define itself and refine its

vision/mission statement that would carry it into the foreseeable as a leader

in Public Health.

Master Planning: JHM reached out to premier real estate developer Forest

City to execute its vision for the S+T Park. In a similar way, Wadsworth and NYS could identify a suitable development partner to implement a master

plan for economic development around Wadsworth.

Role of Incubators: Fast Forward and JHTV play a vital role in feeding the

cluster by incubating start-up organizations and providing commercializing

support. An important part of NYS’s life sciences strategy includes accelerators. Start-up incubation and accelerator support should be included

in a cohesive life sciences collaboration strategy for the Capital Region, and

should define support for research coming out of Wadsworth.

Medical and Related Sciences (MaRS) Discovery District37

The Medical and Related Sciences (“MaRS”) Discovery District is a non-profit

organization dedicated to maximizing the economic and social impact of Canadian

innovation, built with the objective to grow Canada as a global leader in the race for innovation leadership. MaRS was first conceived in 2000 by business and

community leaders as a solution to this challenge. Specifically, it promotes

collaboration between the communities of science, business, and capital all in one

location. MaRS brings together diverse players – scientists, startups and scaling

firms, multinationals, investors, and enablers – to forge new collaborations, and help innovators get high-impact solutions to market faster.

The MaRS complex is comprised of a series of buildings connected by an atrium.

Each building has been designed to be used for office or lab space, representing an

important part of the ecosystem.

Operating Model

37 Sources: MaRS, Corporate Website, 2017; MaRS Innovation – Medical Equipment – Deals and Alliances Profile. GlobalData, Apr. 2017;

www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en14/306en14.pdf;

https://magazine.marsdd.com/the-story-of-the-west-tower-3e130b165c4e


82

MaRS is a leader in the development of urban innovation districts, which allow

entrepreneurs access to investors, mentors, university institutions, and labs to test

their concepts.

MaRS Phase 1, which opened in the fall of 2005, is fully leased to 100+ innovation

tenants. It generates revenue that MaRS uses to pay down its mortgage on the

building and to fund its entrepreneurship programs and services. In order to finance

Phase I, MaRS raised almost CAD $100m from all three levels of government and

both institutional and individual private sector donors. Approximately CAD $55m in contributions was made by the Ontario province to help with land acquisition,

construction costs and initial operations. An additional $130m of debt and credit

lease instruments were secured to support the development of the project.

MaRS Phase 2, which opened in 2014, includes a 20-story commercial office

building and laboratory space next to the MaRS Phase 1 facility with approximately

780,000 SF. It was backed by investments from Ontario’s Ministry of Research and Innovation, through a period of global downturn, to assist in the development

process, demonstrating their long-term commitment to the project. Total project

costs were CAD $379m. Previously, the Ontario province had contributed with CAD

$16m toward the acquisition of the land for this building.

MaRS employs the following strategies in working with private sector partners:

MaRS concentrates its efforts on fostering entrepreneurs and growing high-

impact ventures to capture global market opportunities in life sciences and

other sectors. MaRS works with partners to enter markets, address

regulatory barriers that have slowed the adoption of new technologies, and

increase the innovation capacity in these systems.

As a part of this effort, MaRS administers the Investment Accelerator Fund

(IAF), launched in 2007 and financed by Ontario province. It provides up to

$500,000 in seed money to startups in sectors deemed a priority in Ontario,

including life sciences.

MaRS Innovation (MI), an advisory service for organizations, inventors, and

founding teams also helps bring discoveries to global markets through industry partnerships, licensing assistance, and start-up assistance. MI

provides financial support through medical sciences proof-of-principle

support. The organization is supported by its member institutions and by the

Government of Ontario through the Ontario Centers of Excellence. MaRS also

promotes equity offering, venture financing, and partnerships and licensing agreements for the medical equipment and biopharmaceutical sectors.

MaRS Health, an entity within the MaRS non-profit, works closely with high-

impact, growth-oriented ventures to commercialize their breakthrough

innovations. These ventures offer a range of solutions that improve patient

experience. MaRS Health’s team of accomplished entrepreneurs and experienced business leaders supports these ventures with mentorship and

strategic advice, as well as connections to a robust network of investors,

industry specialists, potential partners, customers, and talent.


83

MaRS’s model’s success derives from co-locating different players in the innovation

system – from researchers to startups to multinational companies, along with

service providers and investors. MaRS charges market rates for commercial tenants, which allows it to provide discounted rates to startups. MaRS’s revenues

comprise real estate income and private sector support, as well as government

grants to deliver specific innovation programs for entrepreneurs across Ontario and

Canada. In FY 2015, total operating revenue was CAD $46m, which was divided as

follows: 44% government grants, 26% real estate, 21% donations and private sector support and 9% fee-based services.


MaRS was formed as a not-for-profit organization with the goal of creating social

and economic development in Toronto. NYS has a similar vision in stimulating for

the Capital Region life sciences cluster with investment in a public entity, and would

need a similarly aggressive delivery system. With appropriate strategic planning, NYS could use Wadsworth as an anchor user or tenant for a MaRS-like initiative

through the creation of a not-for-profit developer of the life sciences cluster.

Furthermore:

Public and private investment: MaRS pieced together financing from

public and private sources to construct Phase I based in part on the attractiveness of Toronto as a destination for innovation. The project was

subsequently leased and stabilized. In the case of the Capital Region’s life

sciences capabilities, Wadsworth could become the anchor tenant for Phase I

of a larger Capital Region cluster investment plan.

Location of ‘anchor’ organization: MaRS aggressively brought scientists, startups, scaling firms, multinationals, investors, and enablers to a single

place. With the Life Science Laboratory Initiative, a location needs to be

identified, planned, financed, promoted, and built. The key is financing, as it

will be driven by demand and the expectation of return if done in conjunction

with private sector investment and development.

Opportunity for investment in innovation: MaRS participates in commercial successes through MaRS Innovation that invests in deals and

ideas as equity. NYS could establish a comparable fund to invest in

innovative ideas with the dual pay off-of economic development and profit

participation.

Victoria, Australia Agribioscience Center38

Established in 2012, Agribioscience Center (AgriBio), is a joint initiative of The Victorian Government of Australia, through the Department of Primary Industries

(DPI) and La Trobe University, to invest in the development of a major new

research facility for agricultural biosciences. Its objective is to leverage Victoria’s

38 Sources: AgriBio, Corporate Website, 2017; Victoria State Government, Corporate Website, 2017; Dairy Futures CRC, Corporate Website, 2017; http://newsroom.dowagro.com/press-release/dow-agrosciences-victorian-department-primary-industries-initiate-new-research-and-dev


84

current competitive biosciences and biotechnology advantage to create a national

and international scientific research hub. The facility is located at La Trobe

University's Bundoora campus. AgriBio is one of Australia’s premier biosciences facilities, and is a major international facility for plant, animal and microbial

biosciences, and biosecurity research.

The core laboratory and office building enables a high degree of flexibility, allowing

for an easy adaption to changing scientific focuses, and external facilities. The

laboratory and office building includes physical containment levels two (PC2) and three (PC3) laboratories with adjacent office accommodation.

Operating Model

With a capital cost of AUD $288m, AgriBio houses research laboratories,

glasshouses and offices for more than 400 scientists, students, and business and

science support staff. The Government (the Department of Environment and

Primary Industries of Victoria) and La Trobe University, through a joint venture (JV) arrangement, engaged Plenary Research, a private sector consortium, to design,

construct, finance, and maintain AgriBio for 25 years in a formal private-public

partnership (PPP) arrangement to be repaid through availability based payments.

The State, through DPI, took a participating interest in the JV of 75 percent and La

Trobe University took a participating interest of 25 percent.

The Government/University JV engaged Major Projects Victoria (MPV), a division of

the Victorian Department of Innovation, Industry, and Regional Development, to

manage the procurement on its behalf. This project was thus delivered under the

Partnerships Victoria PPP framework. The Partnerships Victoria framework consists

of the National PPP Policy and Guidelines and Supplementary Partnerships Victoria Requirements.

Through this model, AgriBio transferred facilities risk to the private sector under a

PPP framework. This took into consideration construction, operation, and

maintenance synergies, and aligned the building’s long-term functional

requirements and needs for future research with its ability to optimize its efficiency

and yield for many years to come.

Additional objectives were to:

Achieve an optimal risk allocation in delivery of the facilities between the JV

and the private sector based on the Partnerships Victoria principles; and

Deliver a facility that is suitable for internationally recognized research,

diagnostic capacity, and educational activities

The project’s financing included senior debt, subordinated debt, and equity, as

follows, with the JV making periodic service-fee payments to Plenary Research

throughout the 25-year concession period, predicated on achievement of

performance requirements.

Linked to AgriBio, a regional accelerator program, led by LaTrobe University and including Federation and Deakin Universities, provides access to funding, office

space, structured mentoring programs, networking and local, national, and

international pitching opportunities. The Victorian Government also made an


85

election commitment to establish a new startup entity that would support

entrepreneurs to develop and grow businesses.


Potential to gauge public interest: The Partnerships Victoria Guidelines

required that the public interest be considered from the early stages of the

options appraisal process and reviewed at key stages of the procurement

stage through to the approval to enter into the Project Agreement. As part of

the finalization of the tendering process, the public interest test has been reviewed to ensure that the project continues to comply. NYS and Wadsworth

could consider gauging public interest in the Life Sciences Laboratory

Initiative.

Co-location and replacement of deteriorating facilities: Like

Wadsworth, some of DPI's metropolitan research and development facilities

were approaching or were at the end of their useful lives. The co-location of DPI’s dispersed metropolitan facilities to a central facility has helped to

facilitate collaboration, investment in and sharing of leading-edge scientific

equipment, and increased efficiency in the detection and diagnosis of

diseases.

UConn Health Center – Clinical Care, Advanced Biomedical Research

and Academic Education39

UConn Health is the branch of the University of Connecticut that oversees clinical

care, advanced biomedical research and academic education in medicine. It is located on a large suburban campus in Farmington, Connecticut, a suburb of

Hartford. The campus was established in the 1960s and 1970s, beginning with a

medical school and a teaching/research hospital. Today the campus is home to

UConn Research Labs, John Dempsey Hospital, UConn Outpatient Pavilion, UConn

School of Medicine, UConn school of Dentistry, UConn Graduate School, UConn Musculoskeletal Institute, UConn Health NEAG Comprehensive Cancer Center, and

Jackson Labs. The complex currently employs approximately 5,000 people and

serves over 800 graduate and medical students. Over the past six years, the

Campus has grown exponentially under Governor Malloy’s ‘Bioscience Connecticut’

initiative, which generated jobs at the University of Connecticut Health Center and aimed to support sustained economic growth and innovation to help make

Connecticut a leader in the biosciences industry.

The development history of UConn Health Campus lab facilities relied on state

bonds to fund new facilities and renovations as buildings deteriorated over time:

39 Sources: University of Connecticut Health Center website; Wikipedia-UConn Health and footnoted

articles; UConn.edu; Jackson Labs website; JAX.org/about-us/locations/Farmington; John Dempsey Hospital: healthusnews.com/…/university-of-connecticut-health-center-john-dempsey-hospital; Health.uconn.edu/bioscience-connecticut; Bioscience Connecticut: Report to General Assembly March

2017; UConn Health: Statement of Recourses & Expenses and Changes in Net Position for the years

ended June 30, 2015 and 2014.


86

The initial facilities began with a 285,000 SF research lab built in 1971, which

was recently renovated for $135.6m under Biosciences Connecticut. The lab

now houses over 500 researchers. Eventually, given deterioration of the initial facilities, there was a need to upgrade existing clinical and academic

facilities and expand UConn Health overall. Significant investments were

made to bolster and expand facilities at the UConn Health campus:

o Clinical healthcare at John Dempsey Hospital, which recently expanded

with a new 384,000 SF tower at a cost of $364.4m and another $86.7m was invested in renovations to existing spaces. The reason

that this facility was not financed with state bonds is that the

Bioscience Connecticut program had reached its limit and alternative

resources were needed.

o Academic buildings housing the medical and graduate schools of

UConn were renovated and expanded with the goal of attracting more students at a cost of $30.6m.

In 2013, a new 306,000 SF outpatient ambulatory care center was financed

for $203m with a loan from TIAA-CREF (at 4.9% for 25 years).

In 2014, Jackson Labs established an 189,000 SF research center on the

campus, funded in part with $291m from the state. Jackson Labs is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit entity headquartered in Maine. Their UConn Health

campus facility is focused on genomic research and collaborates closely with

UConn. The intent is for the Jackson Lab to become a $70m business entity

within 10 years and employ more than 300 scientists.

In 2016, the State added an incubator lab to the space at a cost of $19.4m, which houses UConn Health’s Technology Incubation Program (TIP). TIP

attracts and supports new Connecticut businesses by leasing space and

equipment to start-up technology and bio-medical companies.

Operating Model

The State of Connecticut and UConn Health have a collaborative business model

including:

A foundational investment of approximately $1B backed by the State to

renovate and build new facilities at the Farmington campus and to spur the

‘Biosciences Initiative’.

The mechanics of the program center on ‘Bioscience Connecticut’, existing

academic institutions, clinical and research facilities, and leadership from UConn Health. Strong leadership conceived the program in 2011 and has

overseen the investment into biosciences at UConn Health’s Farmington

campus.

The state has also established enterprise districts for new and relocated

businesses using corporate and property tax incentives as inducements that supports ancillary economic activities.

The State of Connecticut and UConn Health have aggressively sought and

supported entrepreneurial and start up activities through the Technical


87

Incubation Program (“TIP”) introduced above. In September 2013, then

Governor Malloy signed legislature to create a $200m bioscience fund for

innovation in smaller companies. The TIP is within this initiative.


State sponsored initiative for transformation: The State of Connecticut

conceived and implemented a visionary program, ‘Bioscience Connecticut’ to

lead and finance the growth of UConn Health. NYS has a similar opportunity

to rebuild Wadsworth, helping to grow the Capital Region’s life science cluster. NYS could leverage the Life Sciences Initiative to rebuild Wadsworth

and seek a similar transformation for the Capital Region, generating jobs and

economic impact and bringing new vitality to the area. For UConn Health, the

time horizon to economic sustainability was a decade at a cost of a billion

dollars.

Capital program of facilities and infrastructure: There is correlation between UConn Health and Wadsworth regarding its obsolete facilities

requiring replacement. Wadsworth has recognized the need to replace the

center just as UConn Health renovated existing facilities and expanded with

new facilities.

Foundational state investment, followed by private sector: UConn Health and the State of Connecticut leveraged existing life science resources

into a larger sustainable economic development model. In this model, the

state used its credit and bond capacity to fund asset ownership and

acquisition through capital projects as the foundation. The strategy moving

forward is for the private sector to follow by investing in the greater Hartford area as UConn Health grows and succeeds. NYS and Wadsworth have a

similar opportunity to leverage primary investment in public facilities and

operations into an economic development engine. If the UConn Health model

were to be followed, the challenges and issues might include:

o Conceiving a brand for the campus with an appropriate business plan

and aggressively selling it within the state and outside of the state.

o Finding a way to link academic and research centers within NYS to the

campus virtually or in person.

o Identifying a location for a new rehabilitated Wadsworth lab that

facilitates collaboration and growth.

o Financing of ancillary facilities associated with a Wadsworth centered campus.

o Addressing the need for an innovation/incubation space.

o Demonstrating patience. UConn shows science clusters take time and

resilience to germinate


88

University of Maryland40

The University of Maryland Baltimore (“UMB”) is a leader in education, research,

public service, and patient care, and contributes in part to the life sciences cluster

in Baltimore. The UMB complex near west Baltimore includes graduate schools, medical and law schools. Additionally, UMB is directly linked to University of

Maryland Medical Center and UMB BioPark. All facilities are within one mile of each

other and together create an academic/clinical/research cluster. The research

capacity began after 2000 with the BioPark and new UMB research facilities on

campus.

With 6,300 students, 2,700 faculty members and 3,900 staff, the university is an economic engine. It is estimated that every dollar appropriated to UMB from the

State of Maryland’s General Fund yields more than $15 of benefit. UMB faculty

generated $497.5m in annual research funding and contributed to important

advances in basic research and applied science during Fiscal Year 2016.

Operating Model

The operating model utilizes the complex as an anchor to expand research

opportunities and economic development through private development. In the UMB

model, the university’s graduate schools and the university medical center work

together to advance life sciences initiatives. These two institutions are linked by

similar mission statements, common faculty, close proximity, and State of Maryland empowerment.

The BioPark idea was initiated in 2003 with the creation of a 501(c)(3) non-profit

corporation, the University Health Sciences Research Park Corporation (RPC) to

direct the BioPark’s operation. RPC was staffed with a vice president for research

and development from the university, a small group of UMB Office of Research and

Development employees, and a ten-member private sector board.

RPC acquired ten nearby acres which to date includes two multi-tenanted lab

buildings totaling 356,000 SF and housing 33 tenants, with a third lab building,

BioPark III, scheduled to start construction in the near future. Additionally, the

BioPark is home to the Maryland Forensic Medical Center, the Maryland Proton

Treatment Center, a new clinical facility, and a parking garage. These combined facilities bring much needed laboratory and office space to the area and encourage

collaboration among biotechnology companies and the university.

Public private partnerships arise at the UMB campus in two primary ways:

Collaboration between UMB and the private sector: The campus

currently houses about ten private sector biopharmaceuticals tenants. Among

40 Sources: UMBC.edu official website for UMB; Wikipedia-UMB and footnoted articles; UMB BioPark

website; BizJournal.com: 9-24-2015 article “UMB BioPark Developer Requests $17m TIF for New

Building”; Baltimore Development Corporation: Oct 15, 2015 TIF Application for 850-873 W. Baltimore Street-UMB BioPark; University of Maryland School of Medicine website; UMB-Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position Years ended June 30, 2016 & 2015; University of

Maryland Medical Center website; Wikipedia-University of Maryland Medical Center and footnoted

articles


89

its functions, the Office of Research and Development is responsible for the

negotiation of corporate sponsored research agreements. UMB is proactive in

establishing relationships with the private sector.

Public Private Development Platforms: BioPark is developed on a public-

private platform with UMB/RPC as the catalytic manager of the park and

private sector interests responsible for developing and building the projects.

Through its evolution, UMB has been able to induce private sector developers

and investors to build speculative spaces in addition to pre-leased spaces.

In the UMB model, annual tuition ($107.8m in 2016) does not cover the cost of

faculty and operating costs ($336.5m). This deficit appears to be filled with state

subsidies ($217m). It also appears that grants and sale of services ($660m) nearly

covers the cost of research and other expenses ($696.7m).


Wadsworth is a large public institution with a public health mission. The BioPark could serve as a model for how a public institution could work within a life sciences

cluster and accelerate commercial activity. The following observations stand out:

Albany and Baltimore: The ongoing revitalization of Baltimore potentially

has parallels for development within the City of Albany. As with Baltimore,

this would require a vision, city-state partnerships, and public-private alliances. Wadsworth could become a catalyst for the City of Albany with an

appropriate vision and business plan. Engaging community leaders and

neighborhoods would be a key component to the overall plan as it was in

Baltimore.

Attracting Private Sector Partners: The BioPark began with the development of a critical mass of capabilities in UMB and the Medical Center.

Wadsworth’s research capabilities, along with other life sciences assets in the

Capital Region, could similarly serve as an anchor to attract partners. In the

case of the BioPark, collaborations took time, and this is likely to be the same

case for Wadsworth.

picture - empire state development corporation report_appendices_2018-04-18.pdfoverlay map life...

Documents