Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-06-2010 - 7eORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 6, 2010 Action Agenda Item No. "~ - e SUBJECT: Potential Framework To Support Future Business Investment and Job Creation DEPARTMENT: Economic Development County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Summary of Select Incentive Policies 2) Analyzing the Benefits and Costs of Economic Development Projects - April 2010 UNC School of Government Community and Economic Development Bulletin INFORMATION CONTACT: Dottie Schmitt, Economic Development, 245-2325 Willie Best, Assistant County Manager, 245-2308 Frank Clifton, County Manager, 245- 2306 PURPOSE: To discuss a potential framework to encourage and support the expansion of existing businesses and the location of new businesses within Orange County. BACKGROUND: For several years, local governments have been actively encouraging the expansion of existing businesses and the location of new businesses within their jurisdictions. While these efforts have utilized numerous tools, the primary frameworks to encourage business development have focused on potential benefits available to businesses based on 1) capital investments leading to an enhanced tax base; and 2) jobs created for local residents. Orange County has not previously pursued such a framework in its economic development program. Recent developments both within the County and outside indicate that now would be an opportune time for the Board of Commissioners to discuss additional tools for Orange County's business development efforts. An investment program could allow the County to establish specific parameters for financial benefits to expanding existing businesses as well as new businesses based on capital investments and the creation of new jobs for Orange County residents. Having such a program in place would add a measure of certainty as businesses look at Orange County for relocation and expansion projects. Provided at Attachment 1 are examples of frameworks/policies/programs from other local governments to support business investment and job creation in their jurisdictions. These examples are provided as a springboard for Board discussion on a potential framework for Orange County. Staff is not making a recommendation regarding a framework other than to 2 suggest that any benefits to expanding or new businesses be tied to directly capital investments and job creation for County residents and that any benefits not be provided to businesses until after the thresholds for those benefits have been met, not simply established. Jobs created should be required to pay the County's "living wage" as a minimum and any full-time positions should be provided health insurance through the employer. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the Board discussing a potential framework to encourage and support the expansion of existing businesses and the location of new businesses in the County. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board: 1) discuss a potential framework to encourage and support the expansion of existing businesses and the location of new businesses in the County; 2) Provide direction to staff regarding the possible development of a formalized framework/policy; and 3) Discuss and provide any initial direction to staff regarding the parameters of a formalized framework/policy, including any conditions to consider as part of the benefits available to expanding businesses and/or new businesses. A formal policy would be brought back to the Board for approval. 3 SUMMARY OF SELECT INCENTIVE POLICIES Prepared 11%19/2010 ALAMANCE COUNTY - "Incentives -The Carolina Corridor" • Type -Primary local incentive is cash grant o Also offer utility upgrades/extensions o Utility rate incentives o Expedited regulatory processes o Various fee waivers for development costs • Incentive Basis -Capital investment • Incentive Amount -Negotiable • Date of Policy -unknown DURHAM CITY - "Resolution Establishing an Economic Development Financial Assistance and Incentive Policy for Job Creation and Retention and Capital Investment" • TYpe -Not specified, other than payment' • Incentive Basis -Jobs and/ or capital investment • Tob-Based Incentive Award - up to $2,500 per new or retained job, with maximum of $1,000,000 (varies by designated area) • Capital Investment Incentive Award o From 1.5 % to 16 % of capital investment to maximum of $10,000,000 (varies by designated area) o Can be combined with required job creation Required Capital Investment -From $187,500 to $45,000,000 (varies by designated area) • Required Tob Creation Range - 5 - 25 new jobs (varies by designated area) during specified time period • Required Tob Retention Range - ' ...more than 100...' retained jobs during specified time period • Time Period for Tob Creation /Capital Investment Completion - 2 years to maximum 5 years (varies by designated area) • Tob Quality Criteria o Full time, permanent o Retained for at least 5 years o Must be posted in local ESC office o Must pay City's livable wage rate o Jobs creation levels maintained for continuous 12-month period o Payment based on employer's certified unemployment insurance filings with NCESC o Lower job creation requirement may be offered for jobs in 'Targeted Industry' 4 • Evaluation Criteria (varies by area o Need for assistance verified ("But for...") o Financial commitment of investors /Developer equity o Amount of new or expansion investment o Tax increment revenue exceeds incentive o Similar experience of developer o Number /type of jobs created and corresponding salaries o Type of product /service provided o Location of project o More specific criteria provided for targeted development areas within City Miscellaneous Information o Policy includes multiple 'development areas' with specific policies tailored to each area (e.g. Community Development Area, Urban Growth Area, Parrish Street Project Area o Specific investment criteria for the specific areas o Specific industries are called out (e.g. health care facilities, R&D, biotech, etc) -varies by area o Provide adjustment for job creation targets (i.e. lower) for specific industries o Provide criteria for what expenditures are eligible for incentives (e.g. design/engineer, infrastructure improvements, etc) o Specific project details provided in'incentive agreement' HARNETT COUNTY - "Economic Development Incentive Grant Program" ape o Grant based on actual value, schedule and payment of county property taxes o Property taxes paid in full each year; if criteria are met, portion of property tax will be returned • Amount of Incentive o Refund 80% of property taxes for varying number of years (3 - 7 years) o Number of years of 'refund' increases with investment level Incentive Payment Period - 3 to 7 years depending on criteria met • Required Capital Investment o Three tiers of investment for both new and expansions o New Investment: ^ $1.5 million or greater ^ $10 Million or greater ^ $20 million or greater o Expansions: $750,000 or greater 5 ^ $5 Million ^ $10 Million • Tob Quality Criteria-110% of County's average weekly wage • Municipal Involvement -Municipalities have agreed to match terms of County's proposal • Date of Policy -unknown; provided on website SILER CITY - "Economic Development Incentive Policy" [from web page - • ape o Grant based on payment of property taxes due o If incentive requirements met, a specific percentage of taxes paid will be granted in the form of an economic incentive grant (see table below for percentage) • Length of Incentive Period -pre-determined percentage of property taxes returned for 5 years • Required Tob Creation- Grant based on matrix of job creation AND investment -four categories of job creation are provided • Required Capital Investment- grant based on matrix of job creation AND investment -three cate ories of investment are rovided New or Expansion Amount 0-39 Jobs 40-74 Jobs 75-99 Jobs >100 Jobs $500,000- $2,499,999.99 55% 60% 65% 70% $2.5M - $7,499,999.99 60 % 65 % 70 % 75 $7.5M and u 65% 70% 75% 80% • Wa e Requirements - at least 100% of county's average weekly wage • Protocol -Business submits letter to Manager requesting incentive to contain: o Estimated property value increase o Product/ service produced o Number jobs created, average weekly wage and benefits o Schedule for construction completion o Preliminary site plan o Certification that company would not make investment without assistance • Miscellaneous o Specific industries targeted o Retail is excluded 6 CHATHAM COUNTY - "Chatham County Incentive Policy" • ape -'...financial incentive grant based on the percentages of annual property taxes paid ...for five year period." • Length of Incentive Period - up to 5 years • Incentive Award 0 30% to 90% of property taxes granted for 5 years ranges from based on overall score. o Percentage of award decreases from Year 1 to Year 5 • Required Tob Creation Range -varying points based on jobs created, ranging from 10 - 200 • Wage Requirements -varying points based on county and state average • Tob Quality Requirements -varying points based on benefits included (e.g. health insurance, vacation, employee owned company, etc) • Required Capital Investment -varying points based on level of investment ranging from <$500K to more than $25 million • Local Hire Requirement -varying points based on County residents hired, ranging from 10 - 200 • Environmental Impact -varying points based on building reuse, location, LEED certification, various sustainable features • Specific industries -varying points awarded for industries in county- specified clusters, company headquarters and supply-chain relationship with existing businesses • Miscellaneous Information o Incentive policy based on scoring matrix with points awarded for specific criteria up to 100 possible points o Most potential points awarded for job creation criteria (up to 50 points) DURHAM COUNTY - "Resolution Adopting Economic Development Policy" . Type o Not specified -referred to as'...expenditures for economic development... " o Applied to value of 'new or expanded' investment Capital Investment Incentive - 2.25% (up to 2.75% if one of *optional evaluation criteria included) of new investment ob-Based Incentive ^ 200-500 jobs - up to $1,000 per job ^ 501-1000 jobs - up to $1,500 per job ^ >1001 jobs - up to $2,000 per job ^ Note - a portion of the funding may be provided for training of County citizens Required Investment Period - 5 years Incentive Payment Period - up to 8 years Required Capital Investment - $50M for new projects, $30M for expansion Required Tob Creation -Minimum 200 new jobs Wade Requirements o Must be at least equal to average wage (by appropriate category) to Durham County wage o Health insurance must at least equal that required by Article 3J credits (at time of Resolution this required health insurance for full time positions with 50% of premium paid by company) Process -Developer provides county with written statement containing the following information: o Estimated value and square footage of project o Estimated value and type of equipment o Estimated design/construction costs of land preparation if County is being asked to pay for these activities o Description of product/ service of company o Name/address of developer seeking incentive o Estimated number jobs created and corresponding salaries o Location of project o Schedule for construction or relocation o Identify if facility will have on site child care(*optional) o Description of any sustainable features (*optional) Evaluation Criteria o Incentive as deciding factor ("But for...") o Amount of investment o Number new jobs o Type of business relative to tax base o Company reputation o Existence of competitors for project o Location in community (*optional) o Capacity of available infrastructure(*optional) o Value of incentives with respect to taxes collected o Prior incentives awarded to developer o Capacity of available infrastructure (*optional) o Sustainable design/construction/operating practices (*optional) Miscellaneous Information o No awards to properties classified as 'historic' for ad valorem taxation o Several claw-back provisions are included o Claw-back provisions take effect if company doesri t not employ at least 90% of employees promised in contract or if reduce employees by more and 10% within 5 years of contract o Claw-back also applies if facility closes within specified time period schedule 8 LEE COUNTY - "Lee County, City of Sanford and Town of Broadway Economic Development Investment Guidelines" • TXpe -not specified; referred to as '...various financial investments...' • Required Investment -Minimum of $5M for new project, of $1M for expansion • Wage Requirement -100% of applicable industry sector in Lee County • Targeted Industries -Only specific industries qualify • Miscellaneous Information -also references the inclusion of the Town of Broadway, City of Sanford in the policy • Use of Funds -examples provided, but not limited to: '... site acquisition, site preparation, internal and external infrastructure, site improvements, job training or other purposes which leave value in the community'. • Exclusions: o Company not current in ad valorem taxes o No assignment of grant to another company without written consent o Projects that pose significant risk to environmental degradation FRANKLIN COUNTY - "Franklin County Incentive Policy" • TYpe _ cash grant based on tax valuation of project; paid either as single payment or vial 4 payments over 4 years • Required Investment - no minimum stated in order to help both small and large businesses • Incentive Amount -1 % to 3% of investment • Tob Requirement -not specified, but must have a job creation component to qualify for incentive • Time -project must be complete in 18 months • Evaluation Criteria o Does business fit in defined business cluster for County o Number of jobs(no minimum requirement) o Amount of investment (no minimum requirement) o Does business offer healthcare/benefits package CITY OF BURLINGTON - "city of Burlington Economic Development Incentive Policy" • Type -grant paid from ad valorem taxes create by new/ expanded tax base from an Economic Development Fund • Incentive Amount -1 % of total investment; additiona10.5 % for corporate headquarters relocation or HQ expansion with 50 new jobs o Other incentives may include streets, site mitigation, clearing,. water & sewer extension etc. 9 Miscellaneous Information o Must be current in all taxes, fees etc o Reimbursement provision included in contract o Each project evaluated on individual basis o Retail excluded o Criteria may be waived for specific projects Required Capital Investment - $8M for new projects, $1.5M for expansion • Wage Requirements - at least equal to average hourly wage of all industry in county • Payback Period - 5 years • Other Evaluation Criteria (in addition to jobs and investment) o Impact on infrastructure o Impact on county resources (public safety, public works, etc) Process o Written application Miscellaneous Information o Retail excluded o Incentive contract will contain claw-back provisions WAKE COUNTY -'Wake County Business Investment Grant Policy" • Type _ not specified, referred to as 'grant' Incentive Amount - up to 2.25% of assessed value of new investment • Incentive Term -grant paid over a period up to 8 years 1' Required Capital Investment - $100M (in 2004 dollars) (value of land not included) for new projects, $50M for expansions if existing valuation is at least $75M Required Tob Creation - 50 new jobs • Wage Requirements -Full time, pay at least 120% of average county wage • Tob Quality -offer health insurance at least equal to that required under William S Lee Act (i.e. must pay 50% of premium cost) • Evaluation Criteria o Type of business, relative to current tax base o Types of new jobs o Company reputation o Competition for project Miscellaneous Information o All projects considered on case by case basis o 'Special consideration provided for Fortune 500 companies and large international companies o Policy assumes collaboration with municipalities for projects located within municipality 10 CARY • No formal policy -review each project on individual basis • Capital investment and number/quality jobs are prime evaluation criteria FUQUAY VARINA • ape _ appropriate of funds, town services or another 'appropriate form' • Wage Requirements -equal to or greater than median wage in Wake County • Payback - 36 months • Process -provide Town Manager with confidential request to contain: o Company profile (history, business, current financial statement, economic and employment philosophy) o Employment numbers for previous 5 years o Number new jobs proposed o Median wage, benefits, health insurance for employees o Water & sewer needs o Amount/type hazardous waste used, generated, discharged o List of governmental grants/incentives received by, applied for, to be applied for or offered to business o Amount of capital investment to be made Terms -to include: o Construction/ expansion complete 'within a time specified" o Business must operate at stated employment capacity 'for a time specified' o Business to identify size, type cost of capital investment o Identify number hires, number work shifts and employment terms o Wage rates o Incentive will be recouped within 36 months o Promise to be 'community involved' industry and encourage employees to reside in Fuquay and to become involved in community organizations Miscellaneous Information o Pose little/no environmental threat GARNER • Tel e _ Reimbursement of new property tax revenue on the following schedule: o Year 1- 95 o Year 2 - 85 o Year 3 - 5 (or until max incentive amt met)- 75% o Incentive paid after documentation of taxes paid and request for reimbursement provided to Town 11 • Incentive Amount -1 % of total investment of new or expanded tax value; additional 0.5% for corporate HQ with 50 new jobs with wages greater than median Wake County wage. • Wage Requirements -Greater than Wake County median wage Required Capital Investment -$10M and provides at least $1,100 of tax base per gallon of sewer allocated; $8M for expansion • Payback Period - 5 year, maximum (10 years for retail) Process -using application obtained from town manager, provide written request to include: o Amount of capital investment o Previous years' employment numbers o New job projections o Water and sewer needs o Type of business activity o Any hazardous waste used, generated, discharged Evaluation Criteria o Amount of new investment in community o Number and type new jobs o Average wage rate o Level of state or county participation o Timeframe for investment /job creation o Potential for expansion o Reputation of company o Competition for the project o Impact of existing quality of life o Corporate HQ o Past record of community involvement o Amenities provided (if mixed use project) Miscellaneous Information o Goal is 50%-50% residential -non-residential tax base split o Retail/mixed use only considered for incentives if met other criteria and adhere to set of design requirements/amenities included in agreement o All recipients of public funds will be involved in community, either actively or financially. Entity shall become member of Chamber of Commerce as long as incentive payments being granted. Will encourage employees to become involved in community organizations o Policy reviewed for updates every two years o Specific criteria for Retail jMixed Use projects ($50M investment and greater than 50 acres with associated design guidelines) 12 KNIGHTDALE • ape _ Reimbursement of new property tax revenue on the following schedule: o Year 1 - 95 o Year 2 - 85 o Years 3 - 5 (or until max incentive amt met)- 75% • Grant Amount -1 % of total investment of new or expanded tax value; additiona10.5% for corporate HQ with 50 new jobs with wages greater than median Wake County wage. • Required Capital Investment - $5M • Miscellaneous Information o Goal is 60% residentia140% non residential o Tax Increment Financing (TIF) may be an incentive offered to finance infrastructure o Specific industries are targeted MORRISVILLE • TYpe _ not specified, referred to as '... performance-based cash grant...' • Incentive Amount -benchmark of 1 % of total investment of new or expanded tax value will guide discussions; 0.5 % additional incentive for corporate HQ with at least 50 new jobs. Funded in long term financial plan and paid from new/expanded tax base from an Economic Development Fund • Required Capital Investment -$10M for new business, $5M for expansion • Required Tob Creation - 50 jobs for new business, 'some sustainable job creation for expansion • Wage Requirement -greater than or equal to average hourly wage of all industry in county • Job Quality -full time only, employers must pay at least 50% health insurance premium for full time employees • Time Period - 8 years, maximum • Evaluation Criteria o New jobs created o Average wage rate o Amount new investment in community o Employee benefits o State or County participation in project o Eligibility for One North Carolina Funds o Timeframe for investment /job creation o Impact on public safety, public works, etc o Sustainable building concepts o Innovation in design concept 13 o Consistency with and furtherance of Town planning and development objectives (e.g. downtown development, provision of greenways etc) Process -submit written request to town economic development office Miscellaneous Information o Retail excluded o Must have both capital investment and job creation component CITY OF RALEIGH • No formal policy -review each project on individual basis • Job growth, investment and project merits are prime evaluation criteria WENDELL ape _ not specified; referred to as'grant payments' Capital Investment Requirement o New - $5M; for each additional $5M can receive additional 5% tax assessment deductions up to 95% of annual assessment (for minimum $25M investment) o Expansion. - $1M o Small Business - $100,000 • Job Creation Requirement 0 20 new jobs 0 5 expansion jobs o No job creation requirement for small business • Incentive Amount - 75% of property tax assessment on new investment • Investment Time Period - up to 5 years • Wage Requirements -100% of average county wage rate • job Quality -company shall underwrite at least 50% of health insurance premium • Miscellaneous Information o Provide 'non-financial incentives' including reductions in parking requirements, density bonuses, property donation, technical assistance with other incentive applications, annexation delay • Process -Request submitted to Town Manager and shall include: o Type of business o Any hazardous waste generated, used, discharged o Site Plan /survey of property o Pre-investment tax valuation o Basic business plan o Financial statements o Total amount of capital investment o Existing employment profile 14 o New job/ local job projections o Wage structure/benefits o Water & sewer needs o Transportation/access needs • Evaluation criteria o Amount of new investment o Number/type new jobs vs. relocations o Job training incentives o Wage structure o Employee benefits o Amount of state/ Wake County incentives o Timeframe for investment /job creation o Potential for expansion o Business plan/financial history of applicant o Competition for project o Impact on existing quality of life o Past record of and proposed community involvement o Compatibility of project with Comprehensive Plan o Increase in marginal tax base vs. increase in marginal water & sewer usage o Impact on traffic o Green technology/environmental impact ZEBULON • TXpe _ ,business investment grant' • Amount of Incentive -1.5% of value of new investment • Incentive payment period - up to 5 years • Capital Investment Requirement - $10M • Job Creation Requirement - 50 new jobs • Wage Quality o Pay at least average wage for Wake County by occupation o Provide health insurance at least equal to minimum required un William S. Lee Act, i.e. minimum of 50% of premium • Miscellaneous Information o All project reviewed on case-by-case basis • Evaluation Criteria ~minimum~ o Types of new jobs o Potential for expansion o Reputation of company o Competition for project o Water an sewer needs o Impact on existing quality of life 15 SELECT INFORMATION ON STATE INCENTIVE AWARD PROCESS • Uses evaluation model developed in conjunction with Dr. Michael Walden, NCSU Economist • The state runs a 'preliminary' evaluation early in the process to see if the project qualifies for incentive consideration • Projects do not go to 'committee review' unless the initial model shows a 'net positive impact' • All awards are specified to be 'contingent on economic model' performed by the state NC STATUTE PROVIDING AUTHORITY FOR INCENTIVES g.s.158-7.1 (to be attached) COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BULLETIN Analyzing the Benefits and Costs of Economic Development Projects Jonathan Q. Morgan Introduction l As communities compete for private investment and jobs in an uncertain global economy, they will need greater access to better information on the expected benefits and costs of economic development projects to make sound decisions about them. An increasing number of companies ask for cash and other inducements as a requirement for locating or expanding their operations in a particular location. The use of such business incentives to promote economic development poses considerable financial risk for local governments unless proper safeguards are in place. How can local governments avoid paying too much for too little in return? Local governments can mitigate the financial risk of incentives by making an accurate assessment of whether a development project will generate economic and fiscal benefits that will outweigh its costs. Such an assessment increases the likelihood that incentives will be an investment of public dollars for the greater good rather than merely being a subsidy of private business activities. This bulletin discusses some of the analytical approaches and tools available to assess the benefits and costs of development projects. It highlights the advantages and limitations of vari- ous approaches and notes certain pitfalls. This bulletin is not intended to be a technical guide for how to conduct an economic or fiscal impact analysis. Instead, it introduces the basic con- cepts and describes the fundamental knowledge required for public officials to better under- stand the importance of having access to such analysis to get the information needed to assess a project. This bulletin should be especially useful to local elected officials who must decide how to vote on a growing number of incentive requests from both prospective and existing busi- nesses. Itwill help staff who must advise elected officials on how a project will benefit the com- munity and what amount of incentives, if any, is reasonable to offer. Finally, it may also assist public officials who must demonstrate the economic benefits of local projects when applying for federal stimulus funds and seeking other grant opportunities. Jonathan Q. Morgan is a faculty member at the School of Government specializing in economic development. The author is grateful for the helpful insights and suggestions for improvement from peers and colleagues who reviewed,draft versions of this bulletin. The reviewers were George Erickcek, senior regional analyst at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research; Lucy Gallo, associate principal with AECOM; and Bill Rivenbark, a faculty member at the School of Government. 1 ©2010 School of Government. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill N0.7 ~ APRIL 2010 2 Community and Economic Development Bulletin How Will a Development Project Affect the Local Economy? The first question in assessing whether a development project is worthy of some amount of public investment is, What economic benefits will the project create for the community? These benefits are most often measured in terms of employment, income, and output (business rev- enues or sales). In 2006 Google announced it would build a $600 million data center in Lenoir (Caldwell County), N.C. This project provides a useful illustration for how to assess and interpret the esti- mated economic effects of a new business location. Google is expected to employ 210 workers at the facility itself. While these 210 jobs will be directly supported by the day-to-day operations of the new facility, the North Carolina Department of Commerce estimates that Google will cre- ate atotal of 582 jobs statewide.l If Google is directly supporting only 210 workers, how can the total employment expected to come from the new facility be nearly 600? Economic Impact Analysis the primary quantitative technique used to estimate the economic benefits of a proposed devel- opment project is economic impact analysis. Economic impact analysis estimates how changes in economic activity, such as a new business locating in a communit}; will affect the wider local or regional economy. If the prospective business requires a new facility to be built, the construc- tion phase of the project will create a stimulus effect locally that can be captured in an economic impact analysis. Once a new facility is operational, a business such as Google will spend money directly on certain items, including (1) payroll, (2) service contracts with local vendors, and (3) local pur- chases of supplies and equipment. When a business makes such direct expenditures, it sets in motion a series of additional spending flows throughout various sectors of the local economy. For example, the purchase of goods and services from local suppliers supports the hiring of workers at those firms and enables those firms to purchase additional inputs from their suppli- ers situated further down the supply chain. In addition, the company's employees earn salaries and wages, some of which they will spend on local goods and services in a wide variety of indus- tries. That spending helps support workers in those industries who also will spend portions of their incomes locally, and so on. Using this logic, a typical economic impact analysis estimates the total impact of a change in economic activityZ as the sum of effects on three different levels. Direct effects are the initial changes in employment, income, or output that trigger the first round of spending (e.g., the value of a firm's initial change in payroll or production). Indirect effects are the changes in employment, income, or output in subsequent rounds of re-spending that arise through purchases from local supplier industries (inter-industry purchases). Induced effects are created evhen payrolls increase and workers in affected industry sectors spend more on local goods and services (household spending effect}. 1. TIZe estimates produced by the N.C. Department of Commerce are measures of statewide impact, but many of these jobs will be created in the larger region surrounding Caldwell County. 2. A change in economic activity can be an expansion or a contraction. For example, an expansion might involve new business investment while a contraction can result from a sales decline, plant closing, or other reduction in business spending. 17 ©2010 School of Government. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Analyzing the Benefits and Costsof.EconomicDeve1opment Projects Taken together, the indirect and induced impacts can be thought of as the "ripple effect" of the initial change in economic activity. These additional impacts on a community or region can be estimated by applying a ratio called a multiplier to the direct effects of new economic activity.3 The multiplier measures the total increase in employment, income, and/or output across all economic sectors per each new job created directly or per each dollar increase in earn- ings or business sales.. The multiplier gauges how an initial change in consumption byend-users or "final demand" in one sector translates into changes in the wider economy.4 A change in one sector of the economy affects many. others. The total economic impact, then, is the sum of the direct, indirect, and induced effects. Returning to the Google example, the total employment impact is estimated to be 582, which includes the initial employment of 210 that will be directly supported by the new facility. Based on these numbers, the employment multiplier for the Google project is 2.77 (582 divided by 210). The correct way to interpret Google's employment multiplier is that for every job the facility creates directly, an additiona11.77 new jobs will be created statewide.s In other words, Google's direct employment of 210 will produce an additiona1372 indirect and induced jobs for a total employment impact of 582. While exceptions might exist, as a rule of thumb, multipliers will rarely exceed 3.0 at the state level and 2.5 at the local level. Multipliers much larger than this should be considered with caution. Multipliers vary considerably by industry sector. Some industries have larger multiplier effects than others because they buy more of their inputs locally and sell goods outside the region. Industries that export or sell goods and services to businesses and households located elsewhere bring ne~v money into the local economy. Thus, applying one standard multiplier to a project's direct effects is a rather crude way to estimate economic impacts. More precise esti- mates can be generated using advanced modeling techniques that take into account the vary- ing degrees to which different industries purchase from local suppliers and export goods and services outside the local area. Rather than simply applying one generic multiplier for all projects, input-output models esti- mate unique multipliers for individual industry sectors. Input-output models capture the trad- ing patterns and money flows among the various sectors within an economy. By quantifying the purchasing transactions between industries, input-output models demonstrate how a change in one sector might affect numerous others throughout an economy. Localized economic impact models such as RIMS II, IMPLAN, and REMI (discussed below) use mathematical equations to apply national data on inter-industry input-output linkages to states and localities. These models calibrate the input-output multipliers based on the size of the area being studied. Larger geographic areas such as states will have higher multipliers than counties or cities because their "leakage" rate is lower. Leakage occurs when some portion of new dollars is not re-spent in the local economy. Dollars will leak out at every round of spending 3. For a good discussion on multipliers, see Benjamin H. Stevens and Michael L. Lahr, "Regional Eco- nomic Multipliers: Definition, Measurement, and Application," Economic Development Quarterly, 1988, vol. 2, no. 1: 88-96. 4. Cletus C. Coughlin and Thomas B. Mandelbaum, A Consumer's Guide to Regional Economic Mul- tipliers," Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review 73, no. 1 (January/February 1991): 19-32. Also available at http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/91/Ol/Consumer~an_Feb1991.pdf. 5. The multiplier ratio includes the direct employment which must be subtracted out to avoid double counting. The multiplier ripple effect of Google's 210 direct jobs is 372 additional jobs: 582 minus 210 or 1.77 multiplied by 210. 18 © 2010 School of Government. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Community and Economic Development Bulletin primarily because some purchases are made outside the local economy (imports), but also due to savings and tax payments. The larger a geographic area, the more likely it is that a new dollar will be re-spent within its boundaries. Economic Impact Models and Software Applications Short of employing a full-time regional economist, how.can communities gain access to eco- nomic impact analysis when needed? While complex, large-scale projects might warrant hiring an external consultant, to assess projects on a case-by-case basis some communities opt to pur- chase industry-specific regional or local multipliers produced by the federal government. Others decide to make alonger-term investment in having this sort of analytical capability by purchas- ing alicense to operate a commercially available economic impact model and software package. The most commonly used models for estimating the economic impacts of development projects are RIMS II, IMPLAN, and REMI. Each model has advantages and disadvantages, discussed below RIMS 11 The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has created a methodology for estimating regional input-output multipliers called RIMS II (Regional Input-Output Modeling System). RIMS II "regionalizes" BEA's national input-output table by modifying it with data that capture local or regional industrial structure and trading patterns 6 RIMS II provides industry-specific multipli- ers that users must apply to local project data in order to make economic impact estimates. It is not an automated model, such as those described below, with which users can interface directly to generate impact results. RIMS II provides users with a tabular list of (1) final-demand mul- tipliers for output, earnings, employment, and value-added and (2) direct effect multipliers for earnings and employment. Final demand multipliers are used when the initial value of business output or revenues generated from a project is known. Direct effect multipliers are used when information on the initial employment and/or earnings directly associated with the project is accessible. Users can purchase multipliers for all available RIMS II industries for a particular region (one county or more) or a single industry for all states. This model is probably the most affordable option for conducting a basic economic impact analysis, but its methodology and functionality are not as robust as those of the models discussed below. For more information on the RIMS II system and its multipliers, visit www.bea.gov/regional/rims. IMPLAN An input-output model widely used to conduct economic impact studies is IMPLAN. IMPLAN is a commercially available software package that utilizes national input-output data for more than 500 industrial and commodity sectors to derive industry-specific multipliers for states and counties. The input-output data come from federal government sources including the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis and reveal the extent to which industries buy from and sell to one another in producing goods and services. In contrast to RIMS II, which merely provides users with a static table of multipliers, IMPLAN is a fully 6. Kenneth Poole, George Erickcek, Donald Iannone, Nancy McCrea, and Pofen Salem, "Evaluating Business Development Incentives," National Association of State Development Agencies, 1999. Also available at www eda.gov/PDF/lg3_ebdi_report.pdf. 19 © 2010 School of Government. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Analyzing the Benefits and Costsof Economic Development Projects automated modeling system that uses built-in multipliers to estimate economic impacts. The IMPLAN software generates regional purchase coefficients in order to estimate the portion of demand for a good or service that is met locally.' IMPLAN is a static model and does not cap- ture the dynamics of how a regional economy might change over time. It assumes, as most stan- dard.input-output models do, that wage levels, prices, property values, input costs, labor supply, productivity, and other key variables will remain constant.$ As such, IMPLAN is not readily suitable for forecasting the effects of public policy changes. The N.C. Department of Commerce uses the IMPLAN model in conducting many of its economic impact studies; some universities within the state have access to it as well. It is sold and supported by MIG Inc. (Minnesota IMPLAN Group). The IMPLAN software is available by license. The data files for geographic areas are sold separately. For conducting a standard economic impact study of a new firm locating in a particular region, the IMPLAN model is a reasonable choice. For more information, visit www.implan.com. REMI REMI (Regional Economic Models Inc.) Policy Insight is a sophisticated forecasting and simula- tion model that combines a robust input-output component to capture relationships between industries with three additional modeling approaches: (1) general equilibrium, (2) econometrics, and (3) New Economic Geograph}: The general equilibrium feature allows REMI to account for dynamic changes in the economy over time, such as fluctuations in prices, wage Levels, migra- tion, productivity, and the like. In this way, REMI takes into consideration the tendency of an economy to reach an equilibrium point where supply and demand are in balance. REMI uses econometric equations and advanced statistical techniques to quantify relationships between the variables in its model. The New Economic Geography aspects of REMI are reflected in equa- tions that incorporate the spatial dimensions of a regional economy, such as the costs savings and other benefits that arise when firms and industries locate in proximity to one another. By integrating multiple modeling approaches, REMI goes well beyond standard input-output mod- els such as RIMS II and IMPLAN to allow multi-year forecasting and advanced policy analysis. As a result, a license for REMI is significantly more expensive than for most other models. Visit www.remi.com for more information. Summary Assessment and Limitations of Economic Impact Analysis Economic impact analysis can provide valuable information about how a proposed develop- ment project will benefit a local or regional economy, as a whole, in terms of additional gains in employment, income, and business output. Such information about the economic benefits of growth and development is essential in helping public officials decide whether to invest public dollars in a project and in what amount. The results of any economic impact model will be only as accurate and realistic as the assumptions and data used to produce them. While the underlying logic of economic impact 7. IMPLAN Version 3.0, released in late 2009, uses a new gravity model-based method for estimating regional trade flows that allows for more sophisticated, multi-region modeling. 8. Glen Weisbrod and Burton Weisbrod, "Measuring Economic Impacts of Projects and Programs," Economic Development Research Group, 1997. Also available at http://edrgroup.com/pdf/econ-impact- primer.pdf. 20 © 2010 School of Government.'Ihe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 6 Community and Economic Development Bulletin 21 analysis generally is straightforward, the intricacies and complexities of individual models will vary, requiring users to have specialized knowledge and skills to calibrate the models and interpret their results correctly. For example, a novice user might not realize that standard input-output models have a significant limitation to the extent that they do not reflect how an economy adjusts over time to changes in macroeconomic conditions, regional industrial struc- ture, public policies, and technological advances. More sophisticated, integrated models such as REMI address this shortcoming but are more expensive to operate and require greater user expertise. One of the major concerns about economic impact analysis is that multipliers are often mis- understood and used inappropriately. The tendency to overstate the ripple effect of a develop- ment project by using multipliers that are too large can be lessened with prepackaged economic impact models such as those discussed above. When used "off-the-shelf" with their default values, different models are likely to produce widely varying multipliers for the same project in the same geographic area s This inconsistency in estimating multipliers across models decreases when default values and assumptions are adjusted to better reflect Local conditions.10 Research- ers have created benchmarked versions of RIMS II, IMPLAN, and REMI to control for varia- tions in estimation methods and data sources and found no significant differences in the size of multipliers generated by the three models.ll In addition, standard, off-the-shelf economic impact models (with the exception of REMI) do not explicitly consider possible displacement impacts that could occur if a new firm competes directly with existing businesses for the same local customers. In this case the new firm gains at the expense of existing businesses and a smaller net impact on the jurisdiction results. For some projects, particularly in retail and certain service industries, the potential displacement effect can be significant iz Perhaps the most significant limitation of economic impact analysis is that it represents only the economic benefits of a development project and does not address local government costs. Public officials must utilize the fiscal impact analysis techniques discussed in the next section to understand what effect a development project will have on the local government budget. How Will a Development Project affect Local Government Changes in economic activity can lead to predictable fluctuations in local government revenues and expenditures. Economic growth can boost public revenues, but it also can increase costs in the form of expanded public services. While some economic impact models can be adjusted to produce estimates for how a development project will affect tax revenues, the models discussed in this bulletin generally are not designed to measure the various costs to local governments 9. William buncombe and Wilson Wong, °Building State and Local Government Analytic Capacity: Using Regional Economic Models for Analysis of Public Policy," State and Local Government Review 30, no. 3 (1998): 165-80. lO.Ibid. 11. Dan S. Rickman and Keith R. Schwer, "A Comparison of the Multipliers of IMPLAN, REMI, and RIMS II: Benchmarking Ready-Made Models for Comparison," Annals of Regional Science 29 (1995): 363-74. 12. George Erickcek, "Preparing a Local Fiscal Benefit-Cost Analysis," ICMA IQ Report 37, no. 3 (2005). ©2010 School of Government. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Analyzing the Benefits and Costsof Economic Development Projects 7 2 2 that come about as a result of growth and development. An economic impact analysis primarily emphasizes the economic benefits of a development project, but public officials must understand what a project will cost the local government as well. A development project that expands economic activity in an area increases the demand for public services. For example, when a new business facility locates in a community, it will cre- ate an influx of new workers who will use public infrastructure (roads, water and sewer), enroll children in public schools, and utilize other public services such as fire and police departments, parks, libraries, and so forth. An economic impact analysis using one of the models previously discussed will not directly capture the extent of these costs, which local governments must incur to support growth. However, the data from an economic impact study can be used to estimate the costs of the additional public services that a new development project will require. From a local government fiscal perspective, a new business hiring more employees or a new housing development creates a ripple effect that can have significant budgetary implications. Thus public officials and decision makers should understand what the net fiscal effect of a par- ticular economic development project will be. Fiscal Impact Analysis The most comprehensive way to determine how a development project ti~ill affect a local gov- ernment is to conduct a fiscal impact study. A fiscal impact analysis estimates the costs of Iocal government services needed to support a development project. The analysis considers the costs of development in relation to the public sector benefits such as new revenues from taxes, fees, and user charges. By addressing both the costs and benefits to local government, a fiscal impact analysis makes it possible to determine a project's net fiscal effect on a jurisdiction. With this information public officials can determine whether the public benefits (revenues) of a particular development project will exceed the costs incurred by local government, thereby creating a posi- tive return on the public investment in that project. Estimating the costs of development The local government costs that arise from an economic development project are those directly related to the project plus any additional expenditures required to support the growth that ensues. Direct project costs might include (1) public infrastructure expenditures specific to the project, such as improvements in water and sewer systems and roads and (2) any cash incen- tive grants or other financial assistance used as an inducement for a prospective business. The direct, project-specific costs can be readily identified. The other costs associated with the expected growth that will occur in the jurisdiction and region due to the development project can be estimated in a fiscal impact study. Many such costs will correspond to various local bud- get expenditure categories that might include education, public works, public safety, parks and recreation, public health, social services, and so forth. The two approaches to estimating the costs of any expanded local government services and infrastructure needed to support new development are average cost and marginal cost. The average cost approach is used most often because it is more straightforward and relies on data that are easier to obtain. Estimates based on average costs assume that what public services cost today is a good indicator of what they will cost in the future. The average cost approach calcu- lates the current average cost per unit (person, household, or acre of land) of providing a local government service. This average cost per service unit is then applied to the additional units that © 2010 school of Government. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 8 Community and Economic Development Bulletin 2 3 will need local government services as a result of the development project. The specific methods used to calculate average costs include the following:ls • The per-capita multiplier is the most common technique, in which the current cost of public services per resident, household, or pupil is multiplied by the expected increase in population, housing units, or school-aged children the new development will create. In practice, some analysts prefer to use a modified per capita approach that estimates the full- time equivalent functional population of a jurisdiction based on the amount of time people spend in a community as workers, residents, and/or visitors.14 The functional population methodology accounts for the fact that persons who both reside and work in a jurisdiction require public services for a fu1124-hour period, while those who just reside, work, or visit the jurisdiction will utilize services only for the portion of the day they are physically present. • The service standard uses data for a comparable group of jurisdictions to derive ratios of average government staffing per persori by functional service category. These service standard ratios are applied to the number of new residents anticipated as a consequence of a development project to determine the number of additional government employees that will be needed. This number is multiplied by the average operating cost per employee. The service standard approach is rarely used in practice. • Proportional valuation is a technique for estimating the local government costs associated with nonresidential development 15 Average costs are estimated by first determining the share of local government budget expenditures that goes to nonresidential land uses by multiplying the ratio of nonresidential real property valuation to total real property valuation by annual operating costs. The average local government operating costs for nonresidential land uses are then multiplied by the ratio of the new development's property valuation to that of all nonresidential real property. The average cost approach makes sense to use when it is expected that historical cost patterns accurately reflect current and future service costs, a scenario more likely in communities with average or moderate growth rates. However, in a rapidly growing community with high service demands and an already strained public infrastructure, the costs of providing expanded services could very well be higher than the norm. Likewise, areas experiencing economic decline and 13. Robert Burchell, David Listokin, and William Dolphin, The Ajew Practitioners Guide to Fiscal ImpactAnalysis (New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1985); George Erickcek, "Preparing a Local Fiscal Benefit-Cost Analysis," ICMA IQ Report 37, no. 3 (2005); L. Carson Bise, "Fiscal Impact Analysis: How Today's Decisions Affect Tomorrow's Budget," ICMA IQ Report 39, no. 5 {2007). 14. Arthur C. Nelson and James C. Nicholas, "Estimating Functional Population for Facility Planning," Journal of Llrban Planning and Development 118, no. 2 (1992). 15. An alternative approach is to use a jurisdiction's "functional population" as the basis for determin- ing how local government expenditures should be allocated between residential and nonresidential uses on any type of project. See Mary M. Edwards and Jack R. Huddleston, "Prospects and Perils of Fiscal Impact Analysis," Journal of the American Planning Association 76, no. 1 (2010). The idea is that a devel- opment project of any type-residential or nonresidential-will bring new people into a community who will require and utilize public services to varying degrees based on how much time they are physically present as workers, residents, or visitors. In addition, this change in population is more strongly linked to the actual provision of services, even for nonresidential projects, than proportional property values. ©2010 School of Government. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hi11 Analyzing the Benefits and Costsof Economic Development Projects 9. population out-migration may have underused public services and excess infrastructure capac- ity, which could make the cost of providing additional services lower than the average. Jurisdic- tions with excess capacity can absorb growth without necessarily having to spend money on capital improvements. In the case of either rapid growth or decline, the marginal cost approach will produce esti- mates that more accurately represent the actual costs to local government of new development. Instead of assuming that these costs will be consistent with average costs and existing service levels, marginal costing considers the capacity of a jurisdiction's infrastructure and capital facilities in determining the incremental cost of serving one more unit. Specific methods for estimating the marginal costs of providing additional local government services include the following:16 Case study analysis requires detailed information about the existing capacity of a jurisdiction to meet new public service demands. This method relies on interviews with local government department heads to identify either excess capacity or strain on public services and infrastructure and to collect data on the cost to expand services to accommodate the growth expected from a development project. This method assumes that information about actual local service levels and capacity is more accurate than standards based on average data. The case study method can produce detailed and precise results but can be time-consuming and expensive. Most analysts prefer this method despite the possibility that department heads will overstate projected costs to generate more funding for their units. Comparable city analysis relates local government costs to population trends among communities with similar demographic characteristics. Local government expenditure ratios (multipliers) based on the population sizes and growth rates of comparable communities are used to estimate how changes in population arising from new development will affect the marginal costs of public services. The goal is to account for the varying effects of population changes within communities of different sizes in deriving expenditure patterns to use as the basis for estimating future local government service and capital costs. In practice, the comparable city approach is rarely used. Employment anticipation can be used for nonresidential development to estimate future local government costs based on expected changes in employment. This method examines the relationship between employment and local government costs per capita by applying statistical coefficients generated with multivariate regression to the jobs anticipated to result from new development. These coefficients, or "employment anticipation multipliers," have been calculated for standard expenditure categories and represent the effect of one new industrial or commercial employee on local government service costs. The employment anticipation technique is rarely used. 16. Robert Burchell, David Listokin, and William Dolphin, 71ze New Practitioner's Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis (New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1985); George Erickcek, "Preparing a Local Fiscal Benefit-Cost Analysis,' ICMA IQ Report 37, no. 3 (2005); L. Carson Bise, "Fiscal Impact Analysis: How Today's Decisions Affect Tomorrow's Budget," ICMA IQ Report 39, no. 5 (2007). 24 ©2010 School of Government. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 10 Community and Economic Development Bulletin Estimating the public benefits of development Fiscal impact analysis considers whether a development project will have a net positive effect on a Local government budget by generating public benefits that exceed the operating and capi- tal costs that will be incurred to provide expanded public services. The public sector benefits resulting from growth and development are the increased revenues from property and sales taxes, fees, user charges, utilities, and intergovernmental transfers. Different types of develop- ment projects will affect these various sources of revenue in different ways. For example, a major retail project might be expected to boost sales tax revenues to a greater extent than would a new industrial facility. However, for a given development project, it is important to determine where new residents and workers will live and shop and how they will affect the value of housing in order to know which revenues will be most affected" It is also helpful to know the proportion of any new jobs that will go to existing residents versus in-migrants in determining the extent to which local government revenues will exceed costs. If most of the new jobs are taken by in-migrants, the revenue impact will be diminished by the higher service costs associated with population growth.18 The technique used to estimate a particular revenue stream will depend on the revenue source and how it is generated locally. The property tax is the most common local government revenue source. Growth-related changes in property tax revenues are estimated by applying the local property tax rate to the projected valuation of taxable property to be added in the juris- diction due to the new development. One way to estimate changes in other revenues stemming from growth is to allocate the different categories of revenue to land use types (residential or nonresidential) and divide by the existing total population and local employment 19 The calcu- lations will produce two figures: (1) residential revenues per capita, which is multiplied by the increase in new residents expected from new development and (2) local nonresidential revenues per worker, which is multiplied by the number of new employees the development project will create. Revenues shared with other jurisdictions, such as the North Carolina sales tax, are dis- tributed based on formulas (per capita and/or ad valorem) that revenue estimates must take into account. The revenue benefits for and costs to a local government resulting from a development project may not occur within the same time period.20 In many instances, a local government will make expenditures on project-specific infrastructure improvements and cash incentives up-front, while new tax revenues may not materialize until much later in the project's life. Therefore, decision makers must be able to estimate the future stream of benefits relative to the more cur- rent expenditures. One way to do this is to discount the value of public benefits and revenues 17. George Erickcek, "Preparing a Local Fiscal Benefit-Cost Analysis," ICMA IQ Report 37, no. 3 (2005): 11. 18. Kenneth Poole, George Erickcek, Donald Iannone, Nancy McCrea, and Pofen Salem, "Evaluat- ing Business Development Incentives," National Association of State Development Agencies, 1999. Also available at www.eda.gov/PDF/lg3_ebdi_report.pdf. 19. Mary M. Edwards, "Community Guide to Development Impact Analysis," Wisconsin Land Use Research Program (2000): 20. Also available at www.lic.wisc.edu/shapingdane/facilitation/all resources/ impactslCommDev pdf. 20. George Erickcek, "Preparing a Local Fiscal Benefit-Cost Analysis," ICMA IQ Report 37, no. 3 (2005). 25 ©2010 School of Government. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hi11 Analyzing the Benefits and Costsof Economic Development Projects 11 2 6 that occur in later years using a net present value calculation.21 This is necessary because future revenue streams will be worth less in five or ten years than those received today due to the time value of money.22 Paying attention to the timing of revenues and costs over the life of a project can pinpoint where numbers might need to be adjusted to express in real terms the value of the public benefits and outlays expected in later years. Public officials should consider the net present value of cash flows when determining the "payback period" {years it will take to recoup project expenditures) for incentives and other public investments. Fiscal Impact Models and Software Applications There are a few prepackaged models and web-based applications available to use in conducting a fiscal impact analysis of an economic development project. These models and applications help reduce the guesswork associated with estimating the local government costs and benefits that result from growth by providing a template for the data needed and confirmation of the assump- tions behind the estimates. Two available fiscal impact packages designed for use on economic development projects are discussed below FedFIT The Federal Reserve Fiscal Impact Tool (FedFIT) is a set of spreadsheets that produces esti- mates of how a development project will affect local government revenues and costs. FedFIT is essentially acomputer-based calculator that guides users through the steps and assumptions required to quantify the fiscal impacts of new development. The tool's creator candidly acknowl- edges its limitations to the extent that "[i]t does not purport to allow analysis with a high level of precision, but seeks to give only a rough picture:'zs To estimate local government revenues with FedFIT, users must input information about (1) the development project, such as new employment, average salary, the market value of real and personal property and (2) the jurisdiction, such as sales and property tax rates. The model's default for deriving cost estimates is to apply historical average expenditures per capita by service function to expected population changes (number of new residents). Users can opt to override the default approach and enter more precise information about the costs related to the new development. The model also includes a number of default assumptions about retail leakage out of the area, in-migration, school-aged children per new family, and the like, which the user can modify. The application includes historical data on retail sales, number of business firms or establishments, labor force and employment, population, and income, which can be used as contexts for interpreting results. FedFIT is available free of charge via a-mail or CD. Visit www.federalreserve.gov/forms/fiscalimpactrequest.cfm. 21. Michael J. Mucha, An Introduction to Fiscal Impact Analysis for Development Projects," (white paper, Government Finance Officers Association, 2007), www.gfoa.org/downloads/ FinanicalImpactAnalysis.pdf. 22. The time value of money refers to the preference for receiving money now rather than later.lVloney in hand today is more valuable than the same amount received in the future because it can be invested and earn interest. 23. Dan Gorin, "The Federal Reserve Fiscal Impact Tool,' Research Review 12, no. 2 (2005): 66. Also avail- able at www.icsc.org/srch/rsrch/researchquarterly/current/rr2005122/Federal Reserve Fiscal Impact.pdf. © 2010 School of Government. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ~Z Community and Economic Development Bulletin 2 7 WebLOCI WebLOCI is a web-based application available by license through the Georgia Tech Enterprise Innovation Institute. WebLOCI is a fiscal impact tool that includes a simple component for estimating economic multiplier (indirect) effects. WebLOCI does not include industry-specific multipliers as a built-in feature. Including the indirect effects of a development project in a fis- cal impact analysis requires the user to either enter average multiplier ratios derived from an input-output model or estimate how much of a firm's inputs are purchased locally. Though the economic multiplier function of WebLOCI is limited and maybe prone to user error, users can add the indirect economic (multiplier} effects to the application's estimates of total fiscal impact. WebLOCI also enables users to conduct fiscal impact analysis for municipalities, while many prepackaged models cannot be used at a subcounty level. WebLOCI employs the per capita (household) method for estimating local government costs. For more information on the soft- ware application and model, visit http://webloci.innovate.gatech.edu. Cost of Community Services (COGS) Studies Some communities want to know generally ho~v different types of land uses might affect local government budgets. For these communities, a cost of community services (COGS) study can provide insight into the net fiscal impact of broad categories of land uses-agricultural, residen- tial, commercial, and industria1.24 The American Farmland Trust developed the COGS approach to enable communities to measure the contribution of agricultural open space land uses to the local tax base. As an alternative to traditional fiscal impact analysis methods, the COGS approach is a relatively straightforward way to determine the extent to which different land uses generate a positive net fiscal return. In a COGS study, current revenues and expenditures from a local government budget are allocated to broad land use categories based on expert opinion, particularly interviews with department heads and budget and finance staff. The COGS ratio compares total revenues to expenditures for each type of land use. A ratio of greater than 1.0 indicates that a respective land use more than pays for itself by contributing in tax revenues an amount that exceeds the costs of the public services it receives. COGS studies conducted throughout the United States consis- tently show that industrial, commercial, and agricultural land uses have revenue-expenditure ratios above 1.0. Conversely, these studies find that residential land uses have ratios that are almost always Iess than 1.0, meaning that fiscally they are a net drain.zs In contrast to traditional fiscal impact analysis, which estimates how a specific proposed development project and future growth will affect the local government budget, COGS is based on current revenues and expenditures for broad types of land use at a point in time and does not capture changes in population or economic activity. In this sense, COGS studies do not measure the fiscal impacts of growth and new development as such.26 However, by indicating generally whether certain land uses, on average, run a net fiscal surplus or deficit, COGS stud- ies can provide baseline information for making decisions about future development. There 24. Professor Mitch Renkow, an economist at North Carolina State University, has conducted COGS studies for counties in North Carolina, including Chatham, Orange, Alamance, Wake, and Henderson. See www cals.ncsu.edu/wq/lpn/cost.html. 25. See American Farmland Trust Cost of Community Services Fact Sheet" at www farmlandinfo.org/ documents/27757/COCS_8-06.pdf. 26. Timothy W. Kelsey, "The Fiscal Impacts of Alternative Land Uses: What Do Cost of Community Service Studies Really Tells Us?"Journal of the Community Development Society 27, no. 1 (1996). ©2010 School of Government. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Analyzing the Benefits and Costsof Economic Development Projects 13 2 S could be exceptions to the average COCS ratio within a particular category of land use, however. For example, aggregating all residential land uses together can mask the fact that housing for families with school-aged children typically requires more public services than housing units for empty nesters and retirees?' Summary Assessment and Limitations of Fiscal Impact Analysis As a method for determining the cost of economic growth and development to local govern- ment, fiscal impact analysis is an indispensible tool. Fiscal impact analysis can aid the decision- making process by helping a jurisdiction assess and quantify service levels and needs, evaluate the capacity of capital facilities and infrastructure, consider alternative development scenarios, and otherwise prepare for change (growth or decline) 28 Connecting growth and development decisions to budgetary and capital planning considerations is an important way fiscal impact analysis makes such decisions more thoughtful and systematic. Also, when it accounts directly for the costs of business incentives offered for a development project, fiscal impact analysis pro- vides amore comprehensive assessment of the public sector's return on investment. Using fiscal impact analysis appropriately requires an understanding of its limitations. In isolation, fiscal impact analysis provides information only about local government costs and revenues and does not explicitly examine how a development project will affect the larger economy in terms of business output, employment, and income. A project's economic and pri- vate benefits can be substantial even if it runs a net fiscal deficit relative to the local government budget. Moreover, fiscal impact models vary in the extent to which they consider the secondary or indirect economic effects of a development project, if they do so at all. Other limitations of fiscal impact analysis include misapplication of costing methods by users, exclusion of social and environmental impacts, failure to measure cumulative effects over time, and the tendency to focus on a single unit of local government and ignore the impacts on overlapping and neigh- boring jurisdictions.29 Finally, some research demonstrates that different fiscal impact meth- odswill produce different results.30 Therefore, decision makers should carefully consider the assumptions underlying each respective method and how each translates growth into costs and revenues for a particular development project. What about Qualitative Impacts? The typical approaches to economic and fiscal impact analysis do not address ho~~ growth and development might affect a community in ways that are difficult to quantify. For example, a development project can provide hope that prosperity will return to communities hard hit by job loss. It can restore self-respect to unemployed workers who need jobs to support their families. These socio-psychological benefits of development will not appear in the numbers produced by an economic or fiscal impact study. Likewise, these studies may not necessarily 27. Ibid. 28. L. Carson Bise, "Fiscal Impact Analysis: How Today's Decisions Affect Tomorrow's Budget;' ICMA IQ Report 39, no. 5 (2007). 29. Zenia Kotval and John Mullin, "Fiscal Impact Analysis: Methods, Cases, and Intellectual Debate" (working paper, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2006), www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/1252_Kotval%20 Mulling'o202%20Final.pdf. 30. Mary Edwards, "Fiscal Impact Analysis: Does Method Matter?"Journal of the Community Devel- opmentSociety 32, no. 1 (2001): 106-129. © 2010 School of Government. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 14 Community and Economic Development Bulletin 2 9 capture negative externalities and other unintended consequences such as traffic congestion and environmental pollution, which can harm a community's quality of life. Of course, some devel- opment projects can enrich the quality of life in ways that a traditional impact analysis would ignore, such as by enhancing arts and cultural amenities. Conclusion An economic development project can create tangible benefits for local or regional economies and real costs and revenues for local governments. Public officials must understand both types of impact-economic and fiscal. In this sense, the economic and fiscal impact methods dis- cussed in this bulletin are complementary approaches; they both provide critical information needed to make sound public investment decisions about economic development. When used separately, each approach only partially reveals the potential impacts of growth and develop- ment. Local governments might consider including some basic level of impact analysis as part of the standard due diligence conducted for routine development projects. Small-scale proj- ects might not necessitate the time and costs required to conduct a comprehensive and highly detailed analysis. However, most major development projects will likely warrant an integrated approach that combines economic and fiscal impact analyses. Indeed, a local government should probably link its fiscal impact model directly to an economic impact model whenever possible. Some newer prepackaged models combine economic and fiscal impact analyses in one soft- ware application. Impact DataSource, a consulting firm based in Austin, Texas, offers two ver- sions of an integrated model: Quick Impact and Total Impact. The model is a Microsoft Excel- based program that uses RIMS II multipliers to calculate economic impacts and uses local tax rates and average service costs per household and pupil to translate these impacts into addi- tional local government revenues and costs. The model calculates the net fiscal impact (benefits minus costs) of a development project and discounts net benefits to reflect their present value. In addition, the model enables users to calculate the rate of return on any incentives offered to a business and the number of years necessary to recoup the incentives (payback period). The model does not produce results with the extensive industry detail of IMPLAN or REMI and is not designed to conduct dynamic, advanced regional analysis. However, the model is user- friendly and its combination of economic and fiscal impact analyses can help public officials better understand how an economic development project will affect both the local economy and the local government. The Quick Impact version of the model produces economic and fiscal impact analyses for only one taxing district while the Total Impact version can provide results for multiple jurisdictions. Both versions are available by subscription. For more information, visit www.impactdatasource.com. Table 1, on page 15, compares features of the six impact analysis tools discussed in this bul- letin. Despite their limitations, when used appropriately these tools will, more often than not, yield results that are more credible and accurate than the "back of the envelope" calculations so often used to "guesstimate" the impacts of development projects. The available models and soft- ware applications take some of the guesswork out of the process by providing a template for the data and information that the user will supply. A learning curve is required, however, to avoid treating the models as "black boxes" that will generate numbers with a few quick keyboard strokes. The most meaningful impact results are generated when users understand how to tweak ©2010 School of Government. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Table 1. Comparison of Economic and Fiscal Impact Models Quick Impact and RIMS II IMPLAN REMI Policy Insight FedFIT WebLOCI Total Impact Type Of model Input-output Static input-output Dynamic regional Fiscal impact Fiscal impact Economic and fiscal multipliers only modeling system economic and policy calculator impact modeling system Level of geography Counties, states, Counties, states, Multi-county Counties, cities Counties, cities Counties, cities, regions zip codes regions, states states Estimates indirect No, but the multipliers Yes Yes Yes (not primary Yes (not primary Yes economic effects can be used to do so function) function) Estimates local govt. No No No Yes Yes Yes revenues and costs Incentives analysis No No No Yes Yes Yes (return, payback period) Calculates net No No No Yes Yes Yes present value Format Viewer file or Desktop application Desktop application Excel workbook Web-based Excel-based spreadsheet application application Major strengths/ Affordable and Level of industry Robust forecasting Accessible and Provides detailed Integrates economic advantages accessible detail; multi-region and policy analysis easy to use cost estimates and fiscal impact modeling capability analyses Limitations/ No built-in modeling Ignores dynamic Expensive and Default values Requires users Lack of industry shortcomings capability changes in the complex may not produce to input a large detail and advanced economy over time precise results amount of data modeling capability Pricing! $50 per industry or $2,665 for $46,000, then Free $450, then $200 $3,000-$5,000 subscription fee $225 per county or NC package $10,000 annually annually region (no subscription $23,000 for a required) one-year rental $18,500 for a six-month rental. Vendor U.S. Bureau of Minnesota IMPLAN Regional Economic Federal Reserve Georgia Tech Impact DataSource Economic Analysis Group Inc. Iviodels Inc. Board Enterprise Innovation Institute W O 16 Community and Economic Development Bulletin 31 the default assumptions of prepackaged models to better reflect local conditions and the details of a particular project. Finally, some local government officials might wonder where they can find assistance with conducting or gaining access to economic and fiscal impact analyses. Economic development professionals may provide a basic assessment of a project's economic or fiscal impacts, or both. But the analysis of such a professional might not be purely objective since his or her job per- formance is dependent upon making projects happen. Project boosters and other advocates may not be the best source for independent and unbiased analysis of development impacts. If resources permit, a jurisdiction might consider purchasing or leasing a model or a software application through a commercial vendor for use on a regular basis. In addition to the initial financial investment, operating an impact model internally requires an organizational com- mitment to ensuring staff members possess the necessary kno«~ledge and skills to conduct the analysis and accurately interpret its results. For infrequent, large-scale projects a local govern- ment may find it helpful to contract with a private consulting firm, university professor, or other external expert to assist with performing a development impact analysis. In contrast to some states, however, North Carolina has no centralized resource for systematically assisting locali- ties with impact analysis. © 2010 School of Government. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill This bulletin is published and posted online by the School of Government to address issues of interest to government officials. This publication is for educational and informational use and maybe used for those purposes without permission. Use of this publication for commercial purposes or without acknowledgment of its source is prohibited. To browse a complete catalog of School of Government publications, please visit the School's website at www.sog.unc.edu or contact the Publications Division, School of Government, CB# 3330 Knapp-Sanders Building, UNC Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3330; a-mail sales@sog.unc.edu; telephone 919.966.4119; or fax 919.962.2707.