HomeMy WebLinkAbout050Michelle Farfan
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hollinger, Kristy < khollinger@eaest.com >
Monday, April 20, 2015 8:16 AM
David W. Johnson (djohnson@cojefferson.wa.us);'peckassoc@comcast.net'
Fiscal Issues
pleasant harborjiscal comments_.docx; Jobs and Economic Impacts -.pdf
Hi David and Craig,
AttachedisabriefoverviewoffiscalcommentsraisedontheDraftSEIS,andissueswhichneedtobeaddressed. Thisis
for your review before Craig sends along to Garth. I have also attached the report which could possibly serve as a
starting point for answering these issues, if it is updated and expanded.
We will talk to you soon,
Kristy
Kristy M. Hollinger
Planner
M
EA Engineering, Science and Technology, lnc., PBC
2200 Sixth Ave, Suite 707 | Seattle, WA 98121
O 206.452.5350 ext. 1726 | (0 206.443.7646
khollinser@eaest.com
http://www.eaest.com
a.
fi ""tor"
printing, think about ENVTRoNMENTAL responsibility
1
PLEASANT HARBOR FINAL SEIS
Response to Fiscal Comments
A number of fiscal-related comments were raised on the Draft SEIS regarding the project's potential
impact to the community in relation to taxes generated v. burdens, as well as potential costs to the
community resulting from low wage jobs, Below are examples of representative comments:
Letter 38, Comment 24 - "Stote taxes collected mostly go to Olympia and County seot (port
Townsend). These entities hove free reign os to where ond how it's spent, and citizens of Brinnon
beor brunt of troffic ond sofety. Levies attoched to our property toxes will not be ovoiloble until
Phose 4 ond Full Build Out are ochieved"
a
a
a
a
a
a
Letter 7, Comment 6 - "Locol government ond all county toxpoyers will experience high
toxes/fewer services" "Developer does not poy sufficient toxes to cover costs of infrostructure
and public services needed by the resort itself, resort members, ond resort employees"
Letter 8 Comment 5 - "What costs will be put to the area and state citizens? For instance, road
repair from additional traffic the resort will bring. Utility costs. Medical facilities. Taxation."
Letter 9, CommentlT - "revealthe true impacts on the local economy from the proposed MPR
during construction and operation"
Letter 9, Comment 18 -" A study of fiscal and economic impacts of destination resort in Oregon
concluded that, after subtracting the costs for services from the gross property and room tax
revenue generated by the study resort, only a modest net surplus remained. When cost of
capitalfacilities including roads, schools, fire and police stations, and others is also accounted
for, the net cost to local taxpayers is substantial even after accounting for all known payments
the resort would be required to make"
Letter 7, Comment 6 - "Developer to identify true costs of infrostructure and public services
during ond ofter construction ond orronge to poy those costs, above whot is poid in toxes, to
locol and county government."
Letter 7, Comment 70 - 'Taxpoyers will subsidize rood improvement ond repoir for heovy
equipment. Developer to prepare analysis of true costs of rood improvement ond repoir ond
moke provisions to poy for those services to stote ond locol government entities".
a
a
Letter 7, Comment 7 - "lt [resort] moy roise utility rotes for south county.
a
Letter 7, Comment 37 - "Developer to present ogreement with PUD for public review, including
possibility of rote increases for oll rote poyers.
a Letter 7, Comment I "prepore o report of the services used by employees with wages below the
Brinnon AMI ond on estimate of the cost of those services. Developer to poy for costs of services
to these employees provided by tox funded entities. "
Letter3o, Comment 5 The promised jobs would likely pay poorly, ond not enoble workers to be
finonciolly independent. We would end up supporting them through our community services.
Letter 40, Comment 6- Most of the jobs will be below fomily woge so there will be o high rote of
poverty. Most of the jobs are seosonol, minimum woge, ond port time. Could leove more people
odded to the community in poverty, on Medicaid, and stroining limited locol resources. Most
construction jobs will go with the lorge compony hired to build resort. Might not hire locolly.
ln order to adequately respond to these comments in the Final SEIS, and ensure a defensible document,
we recommend having a consultant address the following issues:
ldentify how will this tax revenue be distributed locally (i.e. what is Jefferson County's capture
rate).
ldentify the tax burden (cost) that the resort, its employees and visitors will result in, in terms of
additional population placing demands on public infrastructure and public services (i.e. will the
project cost more than the tax revenue it brings in?)
ldentify the impact of jobs that are at or below 80 percent of the AMt in terms of demand for
community/public services that could be generated. (Refer to Letter 7, Comment 8)
a
a
a
a
a
a
Some of the above identified issues were addressed in a previous report that was prepared: "summary
of Pleasant Harbor lmpacts: Job Creation and Value Added to National Economy". This report,
however, is undated and authored, and is now based on an outdated phasing plan, and a7-year
buildout, as opposed to 10-year buildout that is assumed in the SEIS.
lf this report is updated to address the fiscalissues, it is essentialthat it contain information that is
consistent with what is analyzed in the EIS and the other technical reports. ln particular, the estimates
of operational and construction employment must match those in Wright Johnson report.
ldentify/quantify the tax revenue that could be generated by the operation and construction of
the resort, employees and visitors.
-=2.6P
EEEJJ(Jzo9gkz
oFalgoo
lrlfJ
s
vtF(Jf
=EoE
E,
II
Fz
ltl
UIJa-
TIo
oc
=
=UI
aa
SUMTVIARY OF ANNUAT MPAqTS OF PLEASANT HARBOR PROJECT ON THE NATIONAI ECONO'IiY
TI'IiETINE
Conrtruclion
Operotionr
ANNUAT ftTPACT OF FACIITY
Notionol Economy (PLEASAIIIT HAR,EOR)
Coastnrtioa Iotols lr{AtCS 235 fllore I Il
Outpur
lncome
Jobs
YEAR ONE THROUGH YEAR SEVEN
8,( Months
20tt 2012 20t3
$153,619,840 5151 783733 tr 49890,991
$37,656p84 $37,206,008 536766,563
865 855 845
2014 2015
lr 48240,235 $1 46529 77O
s36,337AO7 535,918,130
835 82s
I
2017
1143224,551
s35,r07937
807
2016
$ I 44,858,31 O
$35J08/413
816
O*raiorc Totds NltlCS, 7 21, 7 I 3, 7 22, 511, 7 3 l, 8 I I lNote 2ll
Ovtput
lncome
Jobs
$27,91O29O
$9,832,653
268
,UUTNPLER APPTICATIONS FOR PROJECT
Dircd [o] lndircd lbl lnduccd [c]Iolol iluhiplicr
Summory of l{olionol lmpocl Sevcn Yecr Tolol
Construction
Operotions (Annuol ot Completion [Nore 3])
l. Dctoiled industry rGctor onolysis @ntoincd in IMPIAN oulpu? rcportr providcd in originol submisilon by Edwordr Eonomics Appcndix B
2. Cornplaion ossumption; irrludcd 257o dirploccrncnt of locol iobs
3. Operorions moy bcgin in eorlier phores but not ot full employnent until yeor 3evGn
176e1 2169 r9r0 3.3r58481
1 s7l 4l 70 1.71268l
AggnrvrATEo NnnoNA[ EcoruoMrc I nnpncr
or PITASANT HRReon RrpoRT:
Jos CnrnnoN AND
VnIur Aooeo OUTPUT TO THr NNTIONAL ECOTUOMY
Tqble of Conlents
Key Findings of the Study. ...,....,...........2
lntroduction and Methodoloty............. ...................4
The National Economic lmpact of the Pleasant Harbor Marlna and Golf Resort..,....... ....,.....5
Multiplier Application to Determine Economic lmpacts 7
lmpact on the Natlonal Economy .........................7
Assumptions for the Project ............8
Economic lmpact from PLEASANT HARBOR Project Construction 10
Conclusion of Construction lmpacts .,......,.....,....13
Economic lmpact of Employment from PLEASANT HARBOR Projects/Operations ......,....14
The Tax lmpact of the PLEASANT HARBOR on the Regional Economy.-.... ........................ 15
Conclusion and Findings ....,.........,..,,.15
Actions to Enhance Long-Term Community Benefits 16
I
Key Findings of the Study
This report provides o summory onolysis of the nolionol economlc lmpocl of the Pleosonl Horbor
Morino ond Golf Resort (PLEASANT HARBOR), o 22O-acte resldentiol, commerciol, ond
recreotion-bosed development oclivltles in lhe Jefferson County, WA PTEASANT HARBOR
development plons include 890 resort residentiol unils, os well os other tourlsm-bosed omenltles
to such os o morltime villoge, golf course, ond heolth spo. The impoct of these developments ore
colculoted through o combinotion of primory ond secondory doto sources opplled to economlc
modellng methods-specificolly IMPIAN input-output softwore. The followlng summorlzes ond
hlghlights the results of the nollonol impoct study:
Summory of Notlonol Economlc lmpocts:
Over the 7-yeor bulld out of the PLEASANT HARBOR Profeos-he following economic impocts
ore generoted (in 2010 dollors):
r Totol Output: $ I .038 billlon
Totol employee cornpensotlon (dlrecl, lndlrect, lnduced) from conslructlon: $254 mllllon
Totol Employment (Dlrecl, lndlrecl, lnduced)from Resorl 17-yeor summotlon): 6,010
Annuol Direct Employment Constructlonr 275
,Annuol Dlrect Permonent Employment: 185
a
a
a
Tolol indlrect buslness tox collection from conslruclion: $25.4 mllllon
Upon complelion, onnuol property tox collection: $3.05 milllon
Adding $20 mllllon ln onnuol soles tox revenue upon completlon
PROPERTY TAX TMPACTS ON JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
l. The totol onnuol property lox of PLEASANT HARBOR remoinlng resorl proiects (ossumlng
$305 mllllon ossessment) is $3,050,594.
VALUE OF NEW HOUSEHOLD SPENDING ON JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
l. For every new household movlng lnlo lhe county, thls produces new revenue ond exponds
the opportunily for further reloll recrultment ln Jefferson County, WA. Bosed on my
evoluollon of the number of potentlol retlrees in the 30 mlle rodius of the development-
the potentlol ls greot for thls omenlty-bosed community.
2, On overoge, one new household (ossuming $80,000 household Income) generotes
opproxlmolety $lOZ o month in locol soles lox collectlon (bosed on retoil lrode stotistics
for Jefferson County, WA)or $lgga yeorly.
a
a
2
VALUE OF TOURISM.BASED OPERATIONS ON JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
l. Bosed on doto f rom the Stolesmon Group, wirh muhlpller effects, the totol direcr
commerce from the prolect ot completion ls $94,073,312 mlllion onnuolly. This
development wlll lncreose the vlsltor numbers through golf, new morino operolions, ond
retoil-bul more lmportont, lncreose the retoil copture rote for Jefferson County from
vlsltors on the u/oler. Using the IMPIAN Reglonol Purchoslng Coefflclent, Jefferson County
coplured opproximolely $20.8 million of the totol.
2. The new golf course ot Pleosont Horbor should expect opproxlmotely 551000 rounds per
yeor @ $6O per round-prodrring $3.3 million onnuolly ln grccn fees ond $429,000 ln
soles tox.
3
lnlroduction ond Methodology
Thls report provides o comprehensive onolysls of economlc impocl of the Pleosont Horbor
on the Volley Reglon. The lmpocts of thls orgonlzotion ore colculoted through o combinotion of
primory ond secondory doto sources opplled to economlc modellng methods-lncludlng IMPLAN
lnput-output softwore ond speclflc spreodsheet models developed by Edwords Economlcs, LLC.
These primory sources consist of one-on-one intervlews with Pleocont Horbor (PLEASANT HARBOR)
executlves ond confldentlol compony doto. The stotlstlcol lnforrnotlon ls produced through the use
of published sources, ESRI Buslness Anolyst, ond speclollzed doto reports.
The stollstlcol dolo on houslng, business geogrophlcs, detoiled populolion proflles, ond
populotion estimotes/proiections ore reflective of Jefferson County, Woshlngton. Detoiled mops
ond tobles ore provided in Appendlx A. Reseorch sources include, but ore not limited to, the U.S.
Bureou of the Census, the U.S. Bureou of Lobor Stotlstlcs, qnd the U.S. Deporlment of Commerce.
The key doto source for the moiority of the demogrophic reseordr is lhrough lhe oppllcotlon of
internotlonolly recognized ESRI ArcGlS Buslness Anolyst-o spcciollzed geogrophic informotlon
systems soflwore pockoge.
4
The Notionol Economic lmpocl of the Pleosonl Hqrbor Mqrino qnd Golf Resorl
Thls sectlon of lhe report documents the economlc lmpoct of the Pleosont Horbor
(PLEASANT HARBOR) on the notionol economy. The notlonol economlc lmpoct of PLEASANT
HARBOR lncludes oll resldenllql ond commerciol developments,lo lnclude such operotlons os golf
courses, morino villoge, retoll estobllshments, ond residentiol conslructlon. A detolled llst with
correspondlng ossumptlons of PTEASANT HARBOR prolects ore ldenilfled in Figure 4. The lmpocts
of these developments ore colculoted through o combinotion of prlmory ond secondory doto
sources opplled to economlc modellng melhods-lncludlng IMPLAN lnpul-output softwore ond
speclflc spreodsheet models developed by Edwords Economlcs, [LC.
Beyond the introduction, the reseorch ls divided into the followlng sections: I ) ossumptlons
for colculotions; 2) economic lmpocls of construction; ond 3) permonent impocts of employment.
lnlroduclion
Bosed on my experience in economlc development reseorcfi, understondlng the economlc
impoct of industrlol profects ls relolively stroightforword ond oeeptoble becouse of the creotion
of new lobs-lhus, odding new dollors to the locol economy through poyroll expendltures. Yet,
residentlol/resorl developmenls cleorly hove slgnlflconl econornic tmpocts through conslruction
expendllures, lox generotlon, ond "spillover" effects. Thls is especiolly true for the operotlons of
the Pleosont Horbor, whlch lncludes molor retoil ond lorge residentlol developments, such os the
morino ond golf course, becouse of the tourism impocts olong with lhe resldentlol development-
ot the core belng the obillty of thelr developmenls lo ollrocl dollors from oulside the reglon. As
demonstroled ln lhe demogrophlc section, new resldents wlll come into the region becouse of the
beoutlful surroundings, recreollonol omenities, ond surrounding populotlon centers. This resort wlll
hove greot obility lo ollroct permonent retiree residenls ond weekend tourlsts.
5
fhe economic impocts of PIEASANT HARBOR developmenl con be loosely divided into lhe
immediote oreo of lhe development (the reglono! economy) ond the expendlture lmpocts on the
nollonol economy. The immediote oreo refers to the posltlve externolllles, or splllover benefits,
thot neorby propertles experlence os o resull of the improvement of other oreos, such os
increosed property volues, occess to newly constructed public hfrostructure, etc. Al the regionol
economic level ore the multiplier effects of spendlng on the proiect llself, consumer expenditures
wlthln the locol economy, ond subsequent lox generollon from both. Spendlng on construction of
housing, for exomple, leods to lncome for conslructlon flrmsr lhek suppllers ond their employees-
who, in turn, spend the molorlty of thelr income wlthln the region,
Unfortunotely, quoilifying the positive externolltles ossocloted wlth residentiol
developmenl presenls o chollenge. One method used to meosure economlc lmpocts of new
resldentiol development is properly volue. Other meosures of the spillovers from lhe development
lnclude lncreosed tolol household Income (from o comblnollon of more households ond more
eorning power), whlch leods to more soles for buslnesses ln neorby oreos. lncreoses in populolion
leods to oddltlonol publlc omenilies ond infrostructure, which obo beneflt the generol oreo. Yet,
onolyzing chonges in property volues con be dlfflcult slnce so mony foctors, lncludlng the overoll
economy, the strength of locol employers, ond consumer behovlor, ploy slgnlflcont roles. ln my
opinlon, the most occurole ond conservotive woy to meqsure lhe economlc impoct of the Pleosont
Horbor is to focus on the economlc impocl of construclion ond new permonent lob creolion os o
resulr of PIEASANT HARBOR ocrlviries.
Bosed on previous sludies conducted by rhe Stqlesmon Group, the rurol totol woge impoct
of Pleosont Horbor on Jefferson County ofter the completion of the proiect will be opproxlmotely
$22 mlllion onnuolly. For o rurol locotlon wlth o per copllo lncome of $27,000 onnuolly, thls ls o
molor conlributlon to the locol economy, not to lnclude the lndlrect ond induced lmpocts ossocloted
wllh these operollonol ond poyroll expendltures.
6
Muhiplier Applicolion to Delermine Economic lmpqcts
Uslng economic multipliers is o common woy to estimote the totol lmpoct from o new
development, whether residentlol or lnduslriol. For lhls study, the opprooch uses the commonly
occepled proctice of onolyzlng one-tlme conslrucllon lmpocts olong wlth the permonent lmpocts of
iob creotion ond toxes.
For this study, o TYPE lll multlpller is opplled, meonlng hot there ore lhree dlmenslons lo
economlc multlpliers used in lmpoct studles. Flrst ls the dlrect effect. Thls ls the volue of the inltiol
spendlng used to compensole buslnesses, hlre workers ond poy suppllers. For exomple, bulldlng
houslng requlres controc'tors, englneers, ond bulldlng moterlol suppliers. Next ls the indlrect effecl.
Thls effect results from lhe lncreosed demond for goods ond servlces by oli those lnduslrles thqt
supply lnputs to the octlvlly toklng ploce os port of the dlrect effed. As controctors work to build
o home, rhey wlll require tools, fuel ond supplies from other buslnesses, which, in lurn, will requlre
more Inputs for thelr production. Finolly, there is lhe induced, or lncome effect. This is fie wove of
spendlng by rhe households lhot receive qddltlonol woges or buslness proflts from the prolect ond
from lhe Indlred octivlty lhol ls stlmuloted. As o result, business owRers ond employees hove more
money to spend in the generol economy. This recycling of expenditures results in wove ofler wove
of volue flowlng through the economy. The onology often mode ls to rlpples in o pond; os lf
odditionol spendlng is o stone lhot couses lncreosed economic dernond to reverberote throughout
the economy.
lmpqcl on lhe Nolionol Economy
Whhln rhe IMPIAN model, the user hos the obllity to opply reglonol purchoslng coefflclent
(RPC) model to identify coplure roles for every economlc seclor. Ihls slmply meons thot bosed on
the existing Industry mlx of o chosen geogrophy (ln rhis cosg the 48 conllguous stotes) whot
percentoge of the impocl remolns In the oreo-for thls proiect, expendltures for conslrucllon. The
7
model RPC for fils sludy vorles from I OOo/o lor resldentlol construcllon lo 88,2 %o tor the tourism
copfure-which mcons thot lhc impoct numbcrs occount coplure oll impocts for conslruction but
11.8o/o ls "leoklng" oul of fte nolion ln lhe tourlsm sec?or. Thls slighl leokoge ls logicol due to the
geogrophlc locotlon of the development. Thcse leokoges ore coplured ln the rcsults. Accordingly,
these impoct numbers ore speclflc to the reglon/notlon.
Assumptions for the Proiect
ln order lo meosure the economic impocl ossocloled with the project, o bosellne of
lnformotlon wos gothered through dolo collected from lhe Pleosont Horbor. Through thls process,
o foundotlonol set of ossumptlon needs were ldentlfled. These olegorles ore presented ln Flgure
4. Of nole, oll future impoct resuhs ln lhis section of the reporl ore deflored to 2010 dollors.
8
Figure 4: lnformotion Gothered to Colculote Nqlionol Economic lmpoct
of PLEASANT HARBOR Development
TOTAT CONSIRUCTION EXPENDITURES AND EMPTOYMENT (7 YEARS) (NAICS: 236)
Construction Costs $30q00q000
Number of Dlrect Employees 27llonnuol overoge)
Poyroll Estimotes $14,0Oq000 (onnuol)
Toudrm ond leisure Employment (NAICS:731)
Totol Employees Upon Completion...........67
Hoaeilolitv (NAICS: 721 )
Totol Employees Upon Completion....,..,...40
Rectourqnt ond Food Servlce: (NAICS:7221
Tolol Employees Upon Completion.. ...........26
Med-Spq/Grolto (NAICS: 7l 3l
Totol Employees Upon Completion.. ..,,,,,,,.,22
Molnlenonce ond Securitv (NAICS: 81 l )
Totol Employees Upon Completion.r9
Environmenlol Slqndords qnd Sofely Mqnogement (NAICS:541 )
Totol Employees Upon Completlon.. ...........17
TOTAL PERIYIANENT OPERATION EMPTOYMENT
NUMBEN OF PER,MANANT EMPLOYEES..........
TOTAT ANNUAT PAYROLI....
t9t
$5,5@,000 (Stotecmon ertimote)
9
Economic lmpoct from PLEASANT HARBOR Proiect Construction
ln order to more cleorly present the onnuol impocts from the prolects, the followlng tobles
provide detoiled informotlon. lncluded ln the tobles ore tolol oulput, lobor lncome, employee
compensotlon, employment, totol volue odded lmpoct, ond indlract buslness toxes. There ls olso o
breokdown of dlrect, lndlrect, ond induced impocts to clorify lhe lnterpretolion of the totol
lmpoct. Even more detoll con be extrocted from the IMPIAN Oupul Reporls (ln Appendlx B)-to
lnclude impocts to individuol industriol seclors from the profed investmenl. Ihe IMPLAN model
condenses economlc sectors lnto grouplngs of North Amerlcon lnduslriol Clossificotlon System
(NAICS) coding into monogeoble flelds. For exomple, in 201 l, opproxlmotely 32 fobs were
creoted ln food ond beveroge slores due to constructlon expendhures from thls profect (sector
413 in IMPLAN, NAICS 72211O,72241Ot,.
The following tobles present the breokdown of economlc lmpocl beglnnlng with the 7-yeor
totol followed by o yeor lo yeor breokdown:
ECONOMTC !MPACT: Total Constructlon 2011-2017 (2010 dollarsl
162,021,L76 387,15r.,917 289,O74,1?8 I,O38,247,410
93,359,933 121,395,585 91,230,683 305,986,203
71,785,785 103,477,218 79,217,540 254,50O,542
13,826,954853,587 12,771,445 25,451,985
19L,237,LO6138,435,145 156,305,999 485,978,L52
L,768.7 2,t68.9 1,910.0 5,847.7
u
10
Total
Output lmpact
Employee Compensatlon
lmpact
ANNUAT ECONOMIC IMPACT FROM CONSTRUCTION
ECONOMIC IMPACT: Total Resort Constructlon 2011(2010 dollarsl
ECONOMIC IMPACT: Total Resort Constructlon 2012 (2010 dollarsl
ECONOMIC IMPACT: Total Resort Constructlon 2013 (2010 dollarsl
53,564,915 s7,283,278 42,771,648 153,619,840
13,813,603 17,961,779 13,498,558 45,273,939
10,621,476 15,310,564 LL,724,044 37,656,084
!47,121 2,378,653 2,201,765 4,714,09t
20,482,964 28,295,58L 2?,127,113 71,905,680
251.7 320.9 282.6 865.2
lnduced Total
Output lmpact 52,924,692 55,598,612 42,260,429 t5!,783,731
13,648,499 L7,747,0p5 L3,337,219 44,7?2,814
t0,494,526 15,127,568 11,583,915 37,206,008
146,458 2,372,4L8 2,191,315 4,710,191,
20,238,146 27,957,1U 22,850,7L2
258.6 317.1 279,2 854.9
tril@
Total
52,299,588 55,930,116 41,761,,284 149,990,991
13,487,294 t7,s37,484 t3,L79,69t 44,204,464
10,370,574 L4,948,8.ft4 tLA47,O9S 36,766,563
144,728 2,?44,397 2,165,433 4,654,558
19,999,110 27,627,174 22,590,919 70,207,L03
Emptoyment lmpact 255.5 313.3 27s.9 844.8
q@
TL
Direct lndlrect lnduced Total
Output lmpact
Labor lncome lmpact
Employee Compensatlon
lmDact
lndlrect Business Taxes lmpact
Total Value Added lmpact
Employment lmpact
Labor lncome lmpact
Employee Compensatlon
lmpact
Indirect Buslness Taxes lmpact
Total value Added lmpact 7t,046,243
Employment lmpact
Induced
Output lmpact
Labor lncome lmpact
Employee Compensatlon
!mpact
!ndlrect Buslness Taxes Impact
Totat Value Added lmpact
ECONOMIC TMPACT: Total Resort Construction 2014 12010 dollarsl
ECONOMIC IMPACT: Total Resort Construction 2015 12010 dollarsl
51,689,128 55,277,277 41,273,83O 148,240,235
13,329,866 L7,3?2,T16 13,025,853 43,688,497
to,249,524 L4,774,4t4 11,313,4E0 36,337,407
143,039 2,317,011 2,140,157 4,600,228
19,765,672 27,304,699 22,?17,246 69,387,618
252.5 309.7 272.7 834.9
Eil@@C
lnduced Total
Output lmpact sL,092,7L6 54,639,451 40,797,594 t46,529,770
13,176,059 L7,132,782 12,875,554 43,184394
10,131,260 14,603,930 35,918,130
141,388 2,290,?lt8,2,547,L49
19,537,608 26,989,6t14 22,O59,739 68,586,990
249,6 306.1 269.6 825.3
4@
50,509,900 54,016,193 40,132,216 144,858,310
11,o25,760 l6,9t7,Ug 12,728,683 42,691,791
10,015,693 14,437,y4 11,055,376 35,508,413
139,775 2,254,172 2,O91,,?92 4,495,279
I 19,314,742 26,681,,775 21,808,104 67,804,621
I 246.8 302.5 266.5 815.9
t2
ECONOMIC IMPACT: Total Resort Constructlon 2015 (2010 dollarsl
Output lmpact
Employee Compensatlon
lmoact
Employment lmpact
tabor lncome lmpact
Employee Compensation
lmDaGt
Ll,,182,940
!ndlrect Buslness Taxes lmpact 2,1L5,461
Tota! Value Added lmpact
Employment lmpact
Direct lndlrect lnduced Total
Output lmpact
labor Income !mpact
Employee Compensatlon
lmpact
lndlrect Buslness Taxes lmpact
Total Value Added lmpact
Employment lmpact
ECONOMIC IMPACT: Total Resort Construction 2017 12010 dollarsl
Conclusion of Conslruclion lmpqcls
Once ogoln, ll is importont to nole thot the tolol economlc lmpocts from conslruclion ore
not permonent, but yeor-to-yeor bosed on the qctuol expendltules ln constructlon. Thot sold,
bosed on my economlc developmenl reseorch lhrough my yeors of experlence, lndlrecl ond
induced employment from numerous sequentiol yeors of conslrudlon tends to be permonent in
nolure. Of course, chonges in development plons wlll chonge the volue fte onnuol lmpods of
PLEASANT HARBOR.
49,94O,216 53,405,980 39,877,3?7 t43,224,55L
12,878,852 16,746,324 12,585,125 42,210,302
9,9O2,732 L4,274,5L4 10,930,690 35,107,917
138,199 2,238,676 2,067,745 4,444,590
19,095,904 26,380,849 2t,562,L46 67,0?9,997
244,0 299.2 263.s 806.7
13
Dlrect lndlrect lnduced Total
Output lmpact
Labor lncome lmpact
Employee Compensation
lmpact
lndirect Business Taxes lmpact
Total Value Added lmpact
Employment Impact
Economic lmpoct of Employment from PIEASANT HARBOR Proiects/Operotions
Bosed on the employment doto provided by the Pleosont Horbor, the followlng toble
presents the economlc lmpoct of employment vlo poyroll expardltures ln the nollonol economy.
When speclflc poyroll doto for o seclor ls not ovolloble, thls study opplles lhe woges used ln the
IMPLAN model. Employment figures for the retoil sector ore bosed on the phosed growth
ossumplions provided by PTEASANT HARBOR.
ECONOMIC IMPACT: Annual Emolovment lmoacts from Ooeratlon of Pleasant Harbor
11,016,146 6,325,318 10,568,827 27,9L0,290
3,335,479 Lt,276,6795,650,157 2,291,041
4,988,223 1,947,412 2,gg5,ggg 9,832,653
I 548,O24879,155 220,196 L,647,376
7,146,129 3,501,181 5,714,689 15,361,999
I 155.6 41.4 69.8 267.8
m
LrfliE llliln'il
r
lEll
L4
Direct lndlrect lnduced Total
OutDut !moact
Labor lncome lmpact
Employee
Compensatlon lmpact
The Tqx lmpqct of the PLEASANT HARBOR on the Reqlonql Economy
The PLEASANT HARBOR project occurs ln Jefferson County, Woshlngton. Accordlngly, fie tox
impocts ore slgniflcont. These lmpocts occur moinly in the form of property ond soles lox. As
noted in the previous seclion, lndlrect buslness toxes ore cololloted within fte IMPLAN model
during lhe construction ond employment. ln order lo more occurotely estimote property ond soles
tox, spreodsheets were developed to copture the impocts. Detqlled tobles of tox lmpocts ore
provlded ln the onnuol lmpoct reports submitted ln Appendlx B.
Bosed on IMPLAN outpu? reporls, the onnuot soles tox impoct on the region is
opproxlmotely $20 million (2010 dollors)"-ossumlng lhe ossessment of the Pleosqnt Horbor
proied upon completion is $300 million. The moiorlty of the irnpocl ls o result of constructlon
expenditures ond ossocioted poyroll spendlng. The economlc lmpoct study conducted by the
Slotesmon Group meosured direct commerce for the resort ot qpproximotely $94 million
onnuolly.
Yet, thls does not include the impocts of new resldents movlng lnto the oreo os o result of
new houstng ovollobillty. Bosed on the eorller study performed by Edwords Economics, on
oyeroge, one new household (ossuming $801000 household lncome) generotes opproximotely
$407.00 o month in locol soles tqx collection or $188a yeorly. This onolysis is importont to note
os these odditionol PLEASANT HARBOR proiects only odd fo the potentiol of moximizing these
soles tox dollors.
t5
Conclusion ond Findings
Over the 7-yeor build out of the PLEASANT HARBOR Prolects{re following economlc impocts
ore generoted (in 2010 dollors):
Totol Oulput: $1.038 billion
Totol employee compensotlon (dlrecl, lndlrect, Induced) from conslruction: $254 million
Totol Employment (Direct, lndlrect, lnduccdlfrom Resort (7-yeu summotlon):6,010
Annuol Dlrecl Employmenl Construcllon: 275
Annuol Direct Permonent Employment: 185
Totol lndirect buslness tox collectlon from construcllon: $25.4 milllon
Upon completlon, onnuol property lox collectlon: $3.05 mllllon
Adding $20 milllon In onnuol soles tox reyenue upon completlon
Aclions lo Enhonce Lono-Term Communily Benefils
From o long-term community development stondpolnt, the followhg lndlrect beneflts wlll be
provlded from this proiect:
o This proiecl is o cotolyst for encouroglng further economk ond communlty development in
the reglon lhrough the slgnlflcont lnvestment of PLEASANT HARBOR.
o lmproved public occess to Hood Conol through the mqrlno ond the development of new
recreolionol octivitles thot will enhonce the quollty of llfe for locol residents.
e The development of new housing thot utlllzes environmenlolly sound bullding technlques
ond moterlols ln the conslrucllon ond operotions of ossocloted focilities.
o Employment during the construction ond operollng phoses of the project to provide lob
opportunitles for lhe rurol resldents.
a
a
a
a
a
a
15
. Durlng the construclion snd operoting phoses of the proiecl, buslnesses bosed in Jefferson
County wlll beneflt from expendltures dlreclly from the profecl ond lndirectly from poyroll
cxpenditures.
o Enhoncing the morinos ond recreotionol booting industry by offerlng lmproved omenilies
to boolers.
o Provldlng needed economlc sllmulus by ottrocting new regldents, who wlll ulllhe shopplng,
enlerloinment ond business services In the reglon.
o Exponding the poputotlon bose by oddlng new resldents, who would oct os workers,
loxpoyers ond shoppers in the community.
r Rolslng rcol cstote property vqlues on neorby properly/neighborhoods, ond in so doing
help odding volue to the locol tqx bose.
o Exponding the ronge of houslng drolces ovolloble to resldents ond non-resldenls looklng
for new houslng opportunilies.
o Addlng posltively to the locol tourlsm industry through golf course, reloil shopping,
restouront, ond morino support servlces.
o Provldlng new tox revenues for the county ond schools.
Eoch of these octlons will help lo cnsurc thot the proiecf hos positive long-term economic ond
communlty development Impocl on Jefferson County, Woshlngton.
77