HomeMy WebLinkAbout057Michelle Farfan
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
peckassoc@ comcast.net
Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:31. AM
Garth Mann
David W. Johnson; Kristy Hollinger; Rich Schipanski
Pleasant Harbor SEIS Schedule
Fiscal Issues.zip
Garth,
The SEIS schedule has been revised as a result of time required to complete contract revisions with
EA, the County, and you and the projected response to comment period for consultants.
The SEIS schedule requires revision periodically to adjust to Planning Commission meeting dates
and issues for their addenda.
The consultants are expected to have their draft responses completed and submitted for review by
David and EA by March 15. Those drafts are likely to require some edits requiring additional input
from each of them.
I will be speaking with Joel Purdy at Geo Engineers this morning about the comments made related
their reports. You and I can discuss an alternative to Geo Engineers following my conversation with
Joel.
Attached is a memo concerning fiscal comments. Responses must be provided to these issues as
outlined by EA.
Thank you.
Craig
1
SUMMARY OF PLEASANT HARBOR IMPACTS
Jog CnranoN AND
VnIUr AoDED TO NNTIONAL ECOIUOMY
a
a
SUMMARY OF ANNUAT IMPACTS OF PIEASANT HARBOR PROJECT ON THE NATIONAT ECONOMY
n rlEtlltlE
Conrlruclion
Opcrotionr
ANNUAI. INPACT OF FAOUTY
Narioaol Economy (PLEASANT HARBOR)
Coasrucrba loro& lItlAlCS 235 ff{oro I Il
Output
lncome
Jobr
YEAR ONE THROUGH YEAR SEVEN
84 l{onrhs
20tt 2012 20t3
$153,619,840 $151.783"733 $l 49890,991
$37,656p81 $32206,008 536766,563
865 855 84s
2014 2015 2016
$1 48,240,235 $1 46A29 77O $144,858,31 O
s36,337AO7 335,918,130 $35J08/413
835 825 816
2017
tt 43,224,551
i35,107937
807
Ooerdiqr lor& lrllNCS, 7 21, 7 I 3, 7 22. 54 l, 7 3 l, 8 I I fl{ore 2ll
Ovtput
lncome
Jobs
s27,91O29O
$9,832,553
268
MULTIPTIER APPTrcATPNS FOR PROJECT
Dir€d [o] lndirco [b] lnduccd [c]lctol ilultiplicr
Summory of Nolionol lmpoct Seven Ycor Totol
Conslruction
Operotions (Annuol ot Completion [Note 3])
l Dctoilcd indurlry seclor onolysis contqined in IMPIAN oulput rcporr provided in originol submission by Edwords Economics Appcndix B
2. Complction orsumptions includcd 25% ditploemcnt of locol iobs
3. Operorions moy begin ln eorlier phoser but not or full employment until yeor sevcn
176el|2169 rer0l 5848 3.3r
1 s7l 41 268701 171
12 Months+
ABBREVIATED NATIONAL ECOIUOMIC I NNPRCT
or PITASANT Hnnson RspoRT:
Jos CnsnnoN AND
Valur AoOrO OUTPUT TO THr NATIONAL ECOIUOMY
Tqble of Conlenls
Key Findings of the Study.
I ntroduction a nd Methodology
The National Economic lmpact of the Pleasant Harbor Marlna and Golf Resort..........
Multiplier Application to Determine Economic lmpacts
lmpact on the National Economy
2
4
5
5
7
7
8Assumptions for the Project
Economic lmpact from PLEASANT HARBOR Project Construction ,...,.,..,,..,.10
Conclusion of Construction lmpacts ........,..........13
Economic lmpact of Ernployment from PLEASANT HARBOR Projects/Operations ........... 14
The Tax lmpact of the PLEASANT HARBOR on the Regional Economy...,.. ..,..................... 15
Conclusion and Findings ,......,......,..,.. t6
Actions to Enhance Long-Term Community Benefits .....,..,.....15
L
Key Findings of the Study
This report provides o summory onolysis of the notionol economlc lmpocl of the Pleosonl Horbor
Morino ond Golf Resort (PLEASANT HARBOR), o 22O-oqe residentiol, commerciol, ond
recreotion-bosed development octlvltles in the Jefferson Counly, WA. PLEASANT HARBOR
development plons include 890 resort residentiol units, os well os olher tourlsm-bosed omenhles
to such os o morhlme villoge, golf course, ond heolth spo. The innpocl of these developments ore
colculoted through o combinotion of primory ond secondory dolo sources opplled to economlc
modeling methods-specificolly IMPLAN input-output softwore. The followlng summorlzes ond
hlghllghts the resulls of the notionol impoct study:
Summory of Notlonol Economlc lmpocts:
Over the 7-yeor bulld out of the PLEASANT HARBOR Proled-he following economic impocts
ore generoted (ln 2010 dollors):
o TololOulput: $1.038 bllllon
a
a Totol employee compensollon (dlrecl, lndlrect, lnduced) frorn conslruction: $254 mllllon
Iotol Employment (Dlred,lndirect, lnduced)from Resorl (7-yeor summotlon):6,010
Annuol Dlrect Employment Conslructlon: 275
Annuol Direct Permonent Employmentr 185
a
a
o Addlng $20 mlllion ln onnuol soles tox revenue upon completlon
Tolol indirect buslness tox collectlon from construcllon: $25.4 mllllon
Upon complelion, onnuol property lox collectlon: $3.05 mllllon
PROPERTY TAX IMPACTS ON JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
l. The totol onnuol property tox of PTEASANT HARBOR remoinlng resorl proiects (ossumlng
$305 mllllon ossessment) is $3,050,594.
VATUE OF NEW HOUSEHOLD SPENDING ON JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
'l . For every new household movlng lnto lhe counly, thls produces new revenue ond exponds
the opportunlty for further retoll recruhmenl ln Jefferson Counly, WA. Bosed on my
evoluotion of the number of potentlol retlrees in the 30 mile rodius of lhe development-
the potentlol is greot for thls omenlty-bosed community.
2, On overoge, one new household (ossuming $80,000 household income) generotes
opproximolety $107 o month ln locol soles lox collectlon (bosed on retoil trode stotistics
for Jefferson County, WA) or $4884 yeorly.
2
VALUE OF TOURISM-BASED OPERATTONS ON JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHTNGTON
l. Bosed on doto f rom the Stotesmon Group, wilh muhlpller effects, the totol direct
commerce from the prolect ot completion is $94,073,312 mllllon onnuolly. Thls
development wlll lncreose the vlsltor numbers through golf, new morino operolions, ond
refoil-bul more lmportont, Increose the retoil copture rote for Jefferson County from
vishors on the v/oler. Using lhe IMPIAN Reglonol Purchoslng Coefflclent, Jefferson County
coptured opproximotely $20.8 million of the totol.
2. The new golf course ot Pleosont Horbor should expect opproxlmotely 551000 rounds per
yeor @ $60 per round-producing $3.3 million onnuolly ln green fccs ond $429,000 ln
soles tox.
3
lnlroduclion ond Methodology
Thls report provldes o comprehensive onolysls of economlc impoct of the Pleosont Horbor
on the Volley Reglon. The impocts of thls orgonlzotion ore colculoted through o combinotion of
primory ond secondory doto sources opplled to economlc modellng methods-lncludlng IMPLAN
lnput-oulpul softwore ond speclflc spreodsheel models developed by Edwords Economlcs, LLC.
These primory sources consist of one-on-one lntervlews with Pleoronl Horbor (PLEASANT HARBOR)
executives ond confldenllol compony doto. The stotlsticol lnformollon ls produced through the use
of published sources, ESRI Buslness Anolyst, ond speclollzed doto reports.
The stotlsticol doto on housing, business geogrophlcs, detolled populollon proflles, ond
populotion estimotes/proieclions ore reflectlve of Jefferson Comty, 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 Stotistics, ond the U.S. Deporlment of Commerce.
The key doto source for the moiorlty of the demogrophic reseorch ls lhrough the opplicotlon of
lnternotlonolly recognized ESRI ArcGlS Busfness Anolyst'-o speciolized geogrophic informotlon
syslems softwore pockoge.
4
The Notionql Economic lmpocl of the Pleosonl Horbor Mqrinq ond Golf Resorl
Thls secllon of the reporl documents fie economlc lmpoct of the Pleosont Horbor
(PLEASANT HARBOR) on the nolionol economy. The notlonol economlc lmpoct of PLEASANT
HARBOR lncludes oll residenllql ond commerciol developmentsr lo lnclude such operotions os golf
courses, morino villoge, retoll estobllshments, ond residenllol constructlon. A detolled llst with
correspondlng ossumptlons of PTEASANT HARBOR proJects ore ldentlfled ln Flgure 4. The lmpocls
of these developments qre colculoled through o combinotion of primory ond secondory doto
sources opplled to economlc modellng methods-lncludlng ltvtPtAN input-output soflwore ond
speclflc spreodsheet models developed by Edwords Economlcs, [LC.
Beyond the lntroduction, the reseorch ls dlvlded into the followlng sections: I ) ossumptlons
for colculotions; 2) economlc impocts of construction; ond 3) perrnonenl impocts of employment.
lnlroduction
Bosed on my experlence in economic development reseorch, understondlng the economlc
impoct of industrlol prolects ls relolively stroightforword ond oaeptoble becouse of the creotion
of new lobs-thus, odding new dollors to the locol economy through poyroll expendltures. Yet,
resldentlol/resorl developments cleorly hove slgnlflcont econonrlc lmpocts through conslructlon
expendilures, lox generollon, ond "splllover" effects. Ihls is especiolly true for the operolions of
the Pleosont Horbor, whlch lncludes molor retoll ond lorge resideillol developments, such os the
morino ond golf course, becouse of the tourism impocls olong whh lhe resldentlol development-
ot the core belng rhe obilily of thelr developmenls to ottroct dollors from outside fte reglon. As
demonstroted ln the demogrophlc secllon, new resldents wlll come into the region becouse of the
beoutlful surroundings, recreollonol omenltles, qnd surroundlng populotlon centers. This resort wlll
hove greot obility lo ollroct permonenl reliree residents ond weekend tourlsts.
5
The economic impocls of PLEASANT HARBOR developmenl con be loosely divided lnto lhe
immediole oreo of lhe developmenl (the reglonol economy) ond the expendlture impocts on the
notionol economy. The immediote oreo refers lo the posltlve extcrnolllles, or splllover benefits,
thot neorby properlles experlence os o result of the improvement of other oreos, such os
increosed properly volues, occess ?o newly constructed public hfrostruclure, etc. At lhe regionol
economic level ore the multiplier effects of spendlng on fte proiect itself, consumer expendltures
wlthln the locol economy, ond subsequent lox generollon from both. Spendlng on construction of
housing, for exomple, leods to income for constructlon firms, theh suppllers ond their employees-
who, in turn, spend the molorlty of thelr lncome wlthin the region.
Unfortunotely, quontifying the positive externolltles ossocloted with residentiol
development presents o chollenge. One method used to meosure economlc Impocts of new
residentiol development is property volue. Other meosures of the spillovers from the development
Include lncreosed tolol household lncome (from o comblnotlon of more households ond more
eornlng power), which leods to more soles for buslnesses ln neorby oreos. lncreoses in populotion
leods to oddltlonol publlc omenilies ond infrostructure, which obo beneflt the generol oreo. Yet,
onolyzing chonges in properly volues con be dlfflcult slnce so mony foctors, lncluding the overoll
economy, the strength of locol employers, ond consumer behovlor, plqy slgnlficont roles. ln my
opinlon, the most occurote ond conservotive woy to meosure the economlc impoct of the Pleosont
Horbor is lo focus on the economlc Impoct of construclion ond new permonent lob creolion os o
result of PLEASANT HARBOR ocrlvlrles.
Bosed on prevlous studies conducted by the Stolesmon Group, the rurol toto! woge impoct
of Pleosont Horbor on Jefferson Counly ofter the completion of the pro[ect will be opproxlmolely
$22 mlllion onnuolly. For q rurol locollon wilh o per coplto lncome of $27,000 onnuolly, thls is o
mofor contrlbullon to the locol economy, nol to lnclude lhe lndlrecl ond induced lmpocts ossocloted
with these operotlonol ond poyroll expendltures.
6
Multiplier Applicqlion lo Determine Economic lmpoctr
Uslng economic multipliers ls o common woy to estlmote the totol lmpoct from o new
development, whether residentlol or Industriol. For thls study, the opprooch uses the commonly
occepted proctice of onolyzlng one-llme construcllon lmpocts olong wlth lhe permonent lmpocts of
lob creotion ond toxes.
For this study, o TYPE lll mulllplier ls opplled, meonlng thot there ore three dlmenslons to
economlc multlpliers used in Impoct studles. Flrsl ls the dlrect effect. Thls ls the vqlue of the inltiol
spendlng used to compensole buslnesses, hlre workers ond poy suppliers. For exomple, bulldlng
houslng requlres controctors, englneers, ond bulldlng moterlol suppliers. Next is the indlrect effed.
This effect results from the lncreosed demond for goods ond servlces by oll those lndustrles thot
supply inpuls to lhe ocllvlty toking ploce os port of the dlrect effect. As controctors work to build
o home, fiey wlll require tools, fuel ond supplies from other buslnesses, which, in turn, will require
more inputs for thelr productlon. Finolly, there is the induced, or lncome effect. This is the wove of
spendlng by fie households lhot recelve qddltlonol v/oges or burlness proflts from the prolect ond
from the indlrect octlvlty lhol ls stlmuloted. As o result, business owRers ond employees hove more
money to spend in the generol economy. This recycling of expendltures results in wove ofler wove
of volue flowlng through lhe economy. The onology often mode ls to ripples in o pond; os lf
odditionol spendlng ls o stone fiot cquses lncreosed economic demqnd to reverberote throughout
the economy.
lmpoct on the Notionql Economy
Wlthln rhe IMPLAN model, fie user hos lhe obllity to opply reglonol purchoslng coefflclent
(RPC) model to idenllfy copture rotes for every economlc seclor. Ihls slmply meons thot bosed on
the existing industry mlx of o chosen geogrophy (ln lhls cose, the 48 conllguous stotes) whot
percentoge of the impoct remoins ln the oreo-for thls prolect, expendltures for constructlon. The
7
model RPC for ftls study vorles from 'l OOYo ior resldentlol construcllon lo 88.2 Yo lor the tourism
copfur*which mcons lhol thc impoct numbers occounl copture oll impocts for construction but
11.8o/o ls "leoking" oul of lhe notion in the tourlsm 3eclor. Thls slight leokoge Is logicol due to the
geogrophlc locollon of the development. These lcokogcs ore coplured In the results. Accordingly,
these impoct numbers ore speclflc lo the reglon/notlon.
Assumptions for lhe Proiect
ln order to meosure the economic impod ossocloted with the project, o boseline of
Informotlon wos gothered through doto collected from the Pleosont Horbor. Through ftls process,
o foundotlonol set of ossumptlon needs were ldentlfled. fhese colegorles ore presented ln Flgure
4. Of nole, oll future impoct results ln this section of the report ore deflored to 201 0 dollors.
8
Figure 4: lnformotion Gothered lo Cqlculqte Notionql Economic lmpoct
of PIEASANT HARBOR Development
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES AND EMPTOYMENT (7 YEARS) (NAICS: 2361
Construcllon Costs $300,000,000
Number of Dlrect Employees 2Tllonnuol overoge)
Poyroll Estimores $14,000,000 (onnuol)
Tourism ond Leiture Employment (NAICS:731)
Totol Employees Upon Completion.. ...,.,,....67
Hoseitolity (NAICS: 721 )
Totol Employees Upon Complelion.. ...........40
Restouront ond Food Services (NAICS: 7221
Tolol Employees Upon Completion.. ,,,...,,,..26
Med.Spo/Grotto (NAICS: 7l 3)
Totol Employees Upon Completion.. ..,,..,,,.22
Mointenonce qnd Securily (NAICS: 81 l)
Totol Employees Upon Completion.. ...........19
Environmentol Slondords ond Sofetv Monogemenl (NAICS: 54ll
Totol Employees Upon Complellon.. ...........17
TOTAT PERIIIANENT OPERATION EMPTOYTIIENT
NUMBER OF PER,'VIANANT EMPIOYEES..........
TOTAT ANNUAL PAYROLL....
t9t
$5,500,000 (Stotermcn esti mote)
9
Economic lmpoct from PIEASANT HARBOR Proiect Construction
ln order to more cleorly present the onnuol impocts from the prolects, the followlng tobles
provide detoiled informotion. lncluded ln the tobles ore totol oulpul, lobor income, employee
compensotlon, employment, totol volue odded lmpoct, ond indlrsct buslness toxes. There ls olso o
breokdown of dlrect, lndirect, ond induced impocts to clorify the lnterpretotion of the totol
lmpoct. Even more detqll con be extrocted from the IMPLAN Oulput Reports (ln Appendlx B)-to
include impocts to individuol industriol seclors from fte proied investmenl. The IMPIAN model
condenses economlc sectors into grouplngs of North Amerlcon lndusfilol Clossificotlon System
(NAICS)codlng lnto monogeoble flelds. For exomple, in 201 l, opproxlmotely 32 iobs were
creqted In food ond beveroge slores due lo constructlon expendltures from thls proJect (sector
4'13 in IMPLAN, NAICS 72211O,7224101.
The following tobles present the breokdown of economlclmpoct beglnnlng with fie 7-yeor
totol followed by o yeor lo yeor breokdown:
ECONOMIC IMPACT: Total Constructlon 2011-2017 (2010 dollarsl
362,O21,L76 387,15L,917 289,O74,339 I,O38,247,430
93,359,933 121,395,585 91,230,593 305,986,203
71,785,785 L03,477,218 79,237,540 254,500,542
853,587 L3,826,954 12,771,445 25,451,985
138,435,146 19L,237,L06 156,305,899 485,978,L52
L,768,7 2,168,9 1,910.0 5,847.7
10
Direct lndlrect lnduced Tota!
Output lmpact
[abor lncome lmpact
Employee Compensatlon
lmpact
lndlrect Business Taxes
lmpact
Tota! Value Added lmpact
Employment !mpact
ANNUAL ECONOMIC IMPACT FROM CONSTRUCTION
ECONOMIC IMPACT: Tota! Resort Construction 2011(2010 dollarsl
ECONOMIC tMPAC[: Total Resort Construction 2012 (2010 dollarsl
ECONOMIC IMPACT: Total Resort Constructlon 2013 (2010 dollarsl
53,564,915 57,283,278 153,619,840
13,813,603 17,961,779 13,498,558 45,273,939
Ll,724,AU 37,656,084t0,621,476 15,310,564
L47,321 2,37E,657 2,201,765 4,714,091
20,482,964 28,295,581 21,127,133 71,905,680
261.7 320.9 282.6 865.2
r
lnduced Tota!
s2,924,692 55,598,612 42,260,429 151,,783,731
17,747,09513,548,499 L3,337,2t9 44,732,814
10,494,526 15,127,568 11,583,915 37,206,008
146,458 2,372,4L9 2,19L,?15 4,710,19L
20,238,146 22,850,7L2 71,046,243
258.6 317.1 279.2 854.9
u@
52,299,588 55,930,116 41,761,294 149,990,991
t1,487,294 \7,5?7,N0 t?,179,691 44,204,464
10,370,574 14,948,894 L1,447,O95 35,765,563
144,728 2,344,397 2,165,433 4,654,558
19,999,110 27,627,174 22,590,919 70,207,103
255.5 313.3 275.9 844.8
q
LL
Direct lndirect lnduced
Output lmpact 42,771,648
[abor lncome Impact
Employee Compensatlon
lmDact
lndlrect Business Taxes lmpact
Total value Added lmpact
Employment !mpact
labor lncome lmpact
Employee Compensatlon
lmDact
lndirect Buslness Taxes lmpact
Total Value Added lmpact 27,957,?At
Employment lmpact
lndirect Total
Output lmpact
labor lncome lmpact
Employee Compensatlon
lmDact
lndlrect Buslness Taxes lmpact
Total Value Added lmpact
Employment lmpact
ECONOMIC IMPACT: Total Resort Construction 2014 (2010 dollarsl
ECONOMIC IMPACT: Total Resort Construction 2015 (2010 dollarsl
ECONOMIC IMPACT: Total Resort Construction 2016 (2010 dollarsl
51,689,128 55,277,277 4L,273,83O 149,240,21'
13,329,866 L7,3?2,fr6 13,025,853 43,688,497
L0,249,524 L4,774,N4 11,313,480 36,1?7,407
143,039 2,317r0rl 2,140,157 4,600,228
19,765,672 273(n,699 22,317,246 69,387,618
252.5 309.7 272.7 834.9
51,092,7L6 54,639,451 40,797,594 146,529,770
13,176,059 L7,132,782 t2,875,554 43,184394
10,131,260 14,603,930 Lr,,182,940 35,918,130
141,388 2,290,2lt8 2,115,463
19,537,608 26,989,6f4 22,O59,739 58,586,990
249.6 306.1 269.6 825.3
50,509,900 54016,193 40,132,216 144,858,310
t3,o25,760 16,917,y19 12,729,693 42,691,793
10,015,693 14,437,U4 11,055,376 35,508,413
119,775 2,264,172 2,09L,132 4,495,279
19,3t4,742 26,681,,775 21,809,104 67,804,621
246.8 302.5 266.5 815.9
q
t2
Direct lndlrect Induced Tota!
Output lmpact
Labor lncome lmpact
Employee Compensatlon
lmoact
lndlrect Business Taxes lmpact
Total Value Added lmpact
Employment lmpact
Dlrect lndlrect lnduced Total
Output lmpact
Employee Compensation
lmpact
lndlrect Buslness Taxes !mpact 2,547,L49
Total Value Added lmpact
Employment lmpact
Dlrect lndlrect lnduced
Output lmpact
Employee Compensation
lmpact
lndlrect Buslness Taxes lmpact
Total Value Added lmpact
Employment lmpact
ECONOMIC IMPACT: Total Resort Construction 2017 12010 dollars)
Conclusion of Conslruction lmpocls
Once ogoln, it ls importont to nole thot the totol economlc lmpocts from construction ore
not permonent, but yeor-to-yeor bosed on the octuol expendltures ln construcllon. Thot sold,
bosed on my economlc developmenl reseorch through my yeors of experlence, lndlrecl ond
induced employment from numerous sequentlol yeors of conslrudlon tends to be permonenl In
noture. Of course, chonges in development plons wlll chonge the volue lhe snnuol impocts of
PLEASANT HARBOR.
49,94O,216 531405,980 39,877,317 t43,224,55t
12,878,852 L6,746,324 12,585,125 42,210,302
9,902,732 L4,274,5L4 10,930,590 35,107,917
138,199 2,238,616 2,067,745 4,444,590
19,096,904 26,380,849 21,562,L46 67,039,897
244.0 299.2 263.5 806.7
13
Dlrect Indlrect lnduced Total
Output lmpact
Labor lncome lmpact
Employee Compensation
lmpact
Indirect Business Taxes lmpact
Total Value Added lmpact
Employment lmpact
Economic lmpoct of Employment from PIEASANT HARBOR Proiects/Operqlions
Bosed on the employmenl doto provlded by the Pleosont Horbor, the followlng toble
presenls the economlc lmpoct of employmenl vlo poyroll expardltures ln lhe nollonol economy.
When specific poyroll dotq for o seclor ls not ovolloble, thls study opplles the woges used ln the
IMPLAN model. Employmenl figures for the retoil sector ore bosed on the phosed growlh
ossumptions provlded by PTEASANT HARBOR.
ECONOMIC !MPACT: Annual Emnlovment !mpacts from Ooeratlon of Pleasant Harbor
11,016,146 6,325,319 10,568,827 27,9L0,290
5,650,157 2,29t,043 3,335,479 L1,276,679
4,988,223 t,947,432 2,gg5,ggg 9,832,653
879,156 220,196 548,O24 1,647,?76
7,146,129 3,501,181 5,7t4,699 16,361,999
I 155.6 41..4 69.8 267,8
L4
Direct lndirect lnduced Total
Output lmpact
Labor lncome lmoact
Employee
Compensatlon lmpact
lndlrect Buslness Tax
lmoact
Total Value Added
lmpact
Employment lmpact
The Tqx lmpqct of the PLEASANT HARBOR on the Reglonql Economy
The PLEASANT HARBOR prolect occurs ln Jefferson County, Woshlngton. Accordlngly, the tox
lmpocls ore slgnificont. These lmpocts occur moinly in the form of property ond soles tox. As
noted In fie previous secllon, lndlrect buslness toxes ore colq,rloted wlthin the IMPIAN model
during the conslruclion ond employment. ln order to more occurotely estimole property ond soles
tox, spreodsheets were developed to copture the impocts. Detolled tobles of lox lmpocts ore
provlded ln the onnuol lmpoct reporls submltted ln Appendlx B.
Bosed on IMPLAN outpul reporls, the onnuol soles tox :mpoct on lhe region is
opproxlmotely $20 million (2010 dollorsFossumlng the ossessmenl of fie Pleosont Horbor
proiect upon completion is $300 million. The moiorlty of the lrnpocl ls o result of construcllon
expenditures ond ossociqted poyroll spendlng. The economlc lmpoo study conduaed by the
Slotesmon Group meqrured direct commerce for the resort ol opproximotely $94 million
onnuolly.
Yet, this does not include the impocts of new resldents movlng Into the oreo os o result of
new houslng ovollobillly. Bosed on the eorller study perforrned by Edwords Economics, on
oyeroge, one new household (ossuming $801000 household lncome) generotes opproxlmotely
$402.00 o month in locol soles tox collection or $4884 yeorly. This onolysis is imporlont lo nole
os these odditionol PLEASANT HARBOR proiects only odd to the potentiol of moximizing these
soles tox dollors.
15
Conclusion ond Findings
Over the 7-yeor build out of the PLEASANT HARBOR Prolects{re following economic impocts
ore generoted (ln 2010 dollors):
Totol Output: $1.038 blllion
Totol employee compensotlon (dlrecl, lndirect, induced)from conslruction: $254 million
Totol Employment (Direct, lndlrect, lnduced)from Resort l7-yeor summotlon):6,010
Annuol Dlrecl Employmenl Construcllon: 275
Annuol Dlrect Permonent Employment: 185
Totol indirect buslness tox colledlon from construcllon: $25.4 million
Upon completlon, onnuol properly tox collectionr $3.05 mllllon
Adding $20 million In onnuol soles tox reyenue upon completion
Aclions lo Enhqnce Long-Term Communily Benefils
From o long-term community development stondpolnt, the followhg lndlrect beneflts wlll be
provlded from this proiect:
o Thls proiect is o cotolyst for encouroglng further economk ond communlty development in
the reglon through the slgnlflcont lnvestment of PIEASANT HARBOR.
o lmproved publlc occess to Hood Conol lhrough the morlno ond the developmenl of new
recreolionol octivllles thor will enhonce the quollty of life for locol residents.
o fhe development of new houslng thot utllizes environmenlolly sound bullding techniques
ond moteriols ln the construcllon ond operotions of ossocloted focilitles.
r Employment during the constructlon ond operotlng phoses of the proiecl to provide iob
opportunities for the rurol resldents.
a
a
a
a
a
a
15
. Durlng the construction ond operoling phoses of the proiecl, buslnesses bosed in Jefferson
County wlll beneflt from expendltures dlrectly from the profect ond Indirectly from poyroll
cxpcndilures.
o Enhoncing the morinos ond recreotionol booting industry by offerlng lmproved omenities
to boofers.
r Provldlng needed economlc sllmulus by ottroding new resldents, who wlll ullllze shopplng,
enterlqinment ond business services ln the reglon.
o Exponding the populotlon bose by oddlng new resldents, who would oct os workers,
toxpoyers ond shoppers in the community.
r Rolslng rcolestolc property volues on neorby property/neighborhoods, ond in so doing
help oddlng volue to the locol tox bose.
o Expondlng the ronge of holsing dtoices ovolloble to resldents ond non-resldenls looklng
for new houslng opportunities.
o Addlng posllively to the locol tourlsm industry through golf course, retoil shopping,
reslouront, ond morino support servlces,
o Provldlng new tox reyenues for the county qnd schools.
Eoch of these octions will help lo ensure thot lhe profect hos positive long-term economic ond
communlly developmenl lmpocl on Jefferson Counly, Woshlngton.
t7
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:
a Letter 38, Comment 24 - "Stote toxes collected mostly go to Olympio ond County seat (port
Townsend). These entities have free reign as to where and how it's spent, ond citizens of Brinnon
bear brunt of traffic ond sofety. Levies attoched to our property toxes will not be ovoiloble until
Phose 4 ond Full Build Out ore ochieved"
a Letter 7, Comment 6 - "Local government and oll county taxpayers will experience high
taxes/fewer services" "Developer does not poy sufficient toxes to cover costs of infrastructure
ond 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, CommenttT - "revealthe true impacts on the localeconomy from the proposed MPR
during construction and operation"
Letter 9, Comment L8 -" 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 ond public services
during ond ofter construction ond arronge to poy those costs, obove what is poid in toxes, to
local ond county government."
Letter 7, Comment 70 -'Taxpoyers will subsidize road improvement and repoir for heovy
equipment. Developer to prepare onolysis of true costs of road improvement ond repoir ond
make provisions to poy for those services to stote ond locol government entities".
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Letter 7, Comment 7 - "lt [resort] moy roise utility rotes for south county.
Letter 7, Comment 37 - "Developer to present ogreement with PUD for public review, including
possibility of rote increoses for oll rote poyers.
a Letter 7, Comment 8 "prepore a report of the services used by employees with woges below the
Brinnon AMI ond on estimote of the cost of those services. Developer to pay for costs of services
to these employees provided by tox funded entities. "
Letter30, Comment 5 The promised jobs would likely poy 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 a high rote of
poverty. Most of the jobs ore seosonol, minimum wege, ond port time. Could leove more people
added to the community in poverty, on Medicoid, ond 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/quantify the tax revenue that could be generated by the operation and construction of
the resort, employees and visitors.
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 AMI 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 a 7-year
buildout, as opposed to 1O-year buildout that is assumed in the SEIS.
lf this report is updated to address the fiscal issues, 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.