Professional Documents
Culture Documents
STATE BUSINESS INCENTIVES 2012 TRENDS WESTERN STATE FOR THE FUTURE TRENDS IN AND OPTIONSBUSINESS INCENTIVES
The Council of State Governments
Cheryl Duvauchelle
ExECUTIVE MANAgEMENT David Adkins Executive Director/CEO Chris Whatley CSG Washington, D.C., Office Director Wendell M. Hannaford CSG East Director Colleen Cousineau CSG South Director Michael H. McCabe CSG Midwest Director Edgar Ruiz CSG West Director EDIToRS Mary Branham Managing Editor, Print and Multimedia Jennifer Ginn Associate Editor Heather Perkins Senior Membership, Marketing and Media Associate gRAphIC DESIgNERS Jessica Hughes Senior Graphic Designer Rebecca Field Senior Graphic Designer Chris Pryor Design Coordinator Kelsey Stamper Graphic Designer
TABlE of CoNTENTS
Executive Summary ......................................................1 Trends in the Use of Tax and Financial Incentives in Western States .............................................................2 Figure 1: Western State Tax and Financial Incentives, 2010 .......................................3 The Big Picture: Economic Trends in the West ................4 Figure 2: Unemployment Rate, Year-over-Year Change, April 2011 April 2012 .............................4 Figure 3: 20012011 Compound Annual GDP Rate...4 Figure 4: Negative Equity Rates, 2Q 2011 ................5 State Profiles ................................................................6 State Profile Sample Page .......................................6 Alaska .....................................................................8 Arizona ..................................................................10 California ...............................................................12 Colorado ................................................................14 Hawaii ...................................................................16 Idaho .....................................................................18
Montana ...............................................................20 Nevada ..................................................................22 New Mexico...........................................................24 Oregon ..................................................................26 Utah ......................................................................28 Washington...........................................................30 Wyoming ..............................................................32 Appendix A: State Personal Income and GDP, 2011 .....34 Appendix B: Housing Measures, 20102011 ...............35 Appendix C: Employment and Unemployment Levels, 20112012 .................................................................36 Appendix D: State Financial Incentives for Business, 2010............................................................................37 Appendix E: State Tax Incentives for Business, 2010 ....38 Appendix F: A Guide For State Leaders to Evaluate Job Creation Proposals ................................................39 Appendix G: State Contact Information .......................40
Given the significant amount of funding at stakein some cases, upward of half a billion dollars per state economic development program per yearmany states are now using a number of strategies to ensure their investments are paying off, including: Specify qualifications for a tax breakStates often require companies to meet certain criteriasuch as wages paid, jobs created, health insurance and other benefits provided, capital investment made and taxes createdto qualify for a tax break or incentive. Forty-three states have a rule for at least one of their incentive programs that addresses this type of qualification. Some states provide additional or stand-alone incentives for firms that create jobs in a particularly high-growth area or jobs that pay a high wage. In New Mexico, for example, an eligible employer may receive a tax credit for each new high-wage
2
job it creates under the High Wage Jobs Tax Credit. The credit equals 10 percent of the wages and benefits paid for each new job created. Strengthen the approval processIn Arizona, every company seeking a tax incentive is screened for eligibility before it can receive a benefit and typically a minimum of two agencies are involved when awarding incentives. In Wyoming, the state economic development staff does extensive diligence on each project and follows development of those projects throughout their lives. As required by the states constitution, the investments are with the governmental entities rather than companies directly; should the endeavor fail, the governmental entity retains the assets created. Public disclosure and online accountabilityOne strategy states increasingly are employing is the use of online transparency and accountability systems. These systems provide the public with company-specific information on the amount of the tax subsidy, comparisons on the number of jobs promised and the number of jobs actually created, wage levels for employees, and the companys compliance record with various state rules and regulations. For example, Californias Employment Training Panel posts annual reports online that detail where the panels funding was spent, including the name of companies receiving contracts, the amount of funding the company received and the number of new hires or employees trained. A report by Good Jobs First1 found that 37 states provided online recipient disclosure for at least one key subsidy program, which is a significant improvement over 2007, when only about 23 states were doing so. ClawbacksSome states penalize businesses that dont comply with the requirements of the tax incentive using clawback provisions. At least 37 states use some form of clawback provision, either written into their statutes or defined by program guidelines. Post-Performance AwardsProviding incentive-based awards after a firm has met the criteria for an award ensures the state will see the return it specifies and creates more of a back-end accountability system. It also provides a true incentive for businesses to perform in the manner they have promised. If businesses cannot perform in that manner, states do not have to chase a business for reimbursement for a promise unfulfilled. In Utah, all state incentives are awarded on a post-performance basis so that companies must meet specific milestones, including generation of new state tax revenue, before incentives are disbursed. Program EvaluationRegular and comprehensive evaluation of incentive programs and use of those evaluations to make policy and budget decisions leads to a more informed and effective use of limited state dollars. A new report by the Pew Center on the States2 identifies three Western statesArizona, Oregon and Washingtonas leaders in the area of incentive program evaluation. Other common mechanisms states use include placing sunset provisions in statute so tax incentive programs cannot continue without additional legislative action and closely monitoring programs using performance audits. In Nevada, for example, audits are conducted for all incentives to affirm that the agreed upon number of workers have been hired or trained and pay levels are consistent with the incentive agreement.
1 Good Jobs First, Show us the Subsidies: An Evaluation of State Government Online Disclosure of Economic Development Subsidies, 2010, http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/showusthesubsidies 2 The Pew Center on the States, Evidence Counts: Evaluating State Tax Incentives for Jobs and Growth, 2012, http://www.pewstates.org/research/reports/evidence-counts-85899378806
Financial Incentives State-Sponsored Industrial Development Authority Privately Sponsored Development Credit Corporation State Authority or Agency Revenue Bond Financing State Authority or Agency General Obligation Bond Financing State Loans for Building Construction State Loans for Equipment, Machinery State Loan Guarantees for Building Construction State Loan Guarantees for Equipment, Machinery State Financing Aid for Existing Plant Expansion State Matching Funds for City and/or County Industrial Financing Programs State Incentive for Establishing Industrial Plants in Areas of High Unemployment * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Tax Incentives Corporate Income Tax Exemption Personal Income Tax Exemption Excise Tax Exemption Tax Exemption or Moratorium on Land, Capital Improvements Tax Exemption or Moratorium on Equipment, Machinery Inventory Tax Exemption on Goods in Transit (Freeport) Tax Exemption on Manufacturers Inventories Sales/Use Tax Exemption on New Equipment Tax Exemption on Raw Materials Used in Manufacturing Tax Incentive for Creation of Jobs Tax Incentive for Industrial Investment Tax Credits for Use of Specified State Products Tax Stabilization Agreements for Specified Industries Tax Exemption to Encourage Research and Development Accelerated Depreciation of Industrial Equipment * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Source: Site Selection Magazine, from State Business Incentives: Trends and Options for the Future, The Council of State Governments, 2011, http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/drupal/content/state-business-incentives-trends-and-options-future
Unemployment rates remain high across the nation, but this indicator is improving slowly. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 48 states and the District of Columbia reported a year-over-year decrease in their unemployment rate in April 2012, with the national rate falling 0.9 percentage points to 8.1 percent.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Year-over-Year Percentage Point Change in Unemployment Rates, April 2011-April 2012, Seasonally Adjusted, www.bls.gov
2.9%
2.7%
2.4%
2.4%
2.3%
2.0%
2.0%
1.8%
1.8%
WASHINGTON
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
NEW MEXICO
CALIFORNIA
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Compound Annual Gross Domestic Product Growth Rate, 2001-2011, www.bea.gov
COLORADO
WYOMING
MONTANA
ARIZONA
OREGON
NEVADA
ALASKA
HAWAII
IDAHO
UTAH
improvement in their rate over this time period. Wyoming at 5.3 percent and Utah at 6 percent reported the lowest unemployment rates in April 2012. Also in April 2012, nonfarm payroll employment increased in 32 states and the District of Columbia, while it decreased in 18 states. Every state in the Western region except Montana saw employment gains from April 2011 to April 2012, with the region adding a total of 364,000 jobs with California, which accounted for 175,600 of those jobs. Across the region from April 2011 to April 2012, the financial services sector contributed the most to the employment gains, increasing by 117, 600 positions. Much of those gains were in California, which added 80,600 positions. Only New Mexico lost jobs in this sector. Every state in the Western region had employment gains in the area of education and health services; Hawaii remained the same. The region added 91,800 positions in this employment category, with California accounting for more than half of those positions, adding 46,500 jobs compared to the rest of the states combined at 45,300, April 2011 to April 2012. The only employment category to report a net loss across the region over this time period was government, losing a total of 61,200 positions, with the vast majority of those losses taking place in California. The total government job losses in the region not counting California was 18,000 positions. Next to Californias loss of 43,200 positions in the government sector, Washington shed the next highest number of government employees, dropping 7,800 positions over the year.
7.6% 8.3% 9.9% 13.6% 17.2% 17.2% 20.6% 20.9% 23.0% 30.2% 48.7% 60.4%
ALASKA MONTANA HAWAII NEW MEXICO WASHINGTON OREGON COLORADO UTAH IDAHO CALIFORNIA ARIZONA NEVADA
housing
Over the past five years, statesparticularly those in the West have been hit hard by high foreclosure rates and those higher rates continue to hamper economic recovery. While many states have seen improvement in the amount of foreclosure activity, the situation remains a difficult one. In 2011, the three states with the highest foreclosure rates were all in the West. According to RealtyTrac, more than 6 percent of Nevada housing unitsone in 16had at least one foreclosure filing in 2011, giving it the nations highest state foreclosure rate for the fifth consecutive year. Arizona had the nations second highest state foreclosure rate for the third year in a row in 2011, with 4.14 percent of its housing unitsone in 24in some part of the foreclosure process. California came in with the third highest rate in 2011, as one in every 31 California housing units, or 3.19 percent, had at least one foreclosure filing during the year. Utah had the nations fifth highest state foreclosure rate, with 2.32 percent of its housing unitsone in 43with a foreclosure filing in 2011. Although these three Western states still have elevated foreclosure rates, they are also among the most improved in the country. From 2010 to 2011, Nevada saw a 31 percent decrease in foreclosure activity and a significant 35 percent drop in activity from the third quarter of 2011 to the fourth quarter. In California, the foreclosure rate dropped almost 2 percentage points in two years, down to 3.19 percent in 2011 from 4.08 percent in 2010 and 4.75 percent in 2009. Nationally, RealtyTrac reports show that 1.45 percent of U.S. housing unitsone in 69had at least one foreclosure filing during 2011, the lowest annual level since 2007.
Source: Core Logic, 2nd Quarter 2011 Negative Equity Rates, www.corelogic.com
A companion indicator for foreclosures is the negative equity rate, or the percent of mortgages that exceed the value of the underlying property, commonly referred to as underwater mortgages. Nationally in the second quarter of 2011, rates ranged from a low of 6.3 percent in New York and 6.9 percent in Oklahoma to a high of 60.4 percent in Nevada and 48.7 percent in Arizona. Alaska at 7.6 percent, Montana at 8.3 percent and Hawaii at 9.9 percent were the only three Western states to have a negative equity rate less than 10 percent.
The descriptive information provided in each state profilesuccessful incentive and development programs, oversight and accountability measures and recent legislative highlightswas gathered from a review of state economic development agency and division websites and a survey of agency staff. Economic indicators and key tax rates were collected from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Federation of Tax Administrators.
PRogRam iNfoRmaTioN
} Agency/Department Title } Website Address
EcoNomic iNdicaToRS
} Per Capita Personal Income
Per Capita Personal Income 2011 Percent of National Average Percent Change from 2010 200111 Compound Annual Growth Rate
} Real GDP
2011 Growth Rate 200111 Compound Annual Growth Rate
Source: Federation of Tax Administrators as assembled in CSGs 2012 The Book of the States, www.csg.org/bookofthestates
AlASKA
ECoNoMIC INDICAToRS
pER CApITA pERSoNAl INCoME
2011: $45,529 Percent of National Average: 109% Percent Change from 2010: 2.9% 2001-2011 Compound Annual Growth Rate: 3.5%
2011: $51.4 billion U.S. Rank: 44 2011 Growth Rate: 2.5% 2001-2011 Compound Annual
Tax Rate: 1.0% - 9.4% Lowest Tax Bracket: $9,999 Highest Tax Bracket: $90,000 Number of Tax Brackets: 10
REAl gDp
General Sales and Gross Receipts Tax: 0.0% Motor Fuel Tax Rates (cents per gallon) Gasoline: 8.0 Diesel: 8.0 Gasohol: 8.0
Mining (contributed 1.91 percentage points), Health care and social assistance (contributed 0.36 percentage points)
ARIZoNA
ECoNoMIC INDICAToRS
pER CApITA pERSoNAl INCoME
2011: $35,875 Percent of National Average: 86% Percent Change from 2010: 3.9% 2001-2011 Compound Annual Growth Rate: 2.8%
2011: $258.4 billion U.S. Rank: 20 2011 Growth Rate: 1.5% 2001-2011 Compound Annual
REAl gDp
Real estate and rental and leasing (14.4% of GDP), Government (12.6% of GDP)
Durable goods and manufacturing (contributed 0.60 percentage points), Finance and insurance (contributed 0.37 percentage points)
10
11
CAlIfoRNIA
PRogRam iNfoRmaTioN
} Governors Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) } www.business.ca.gov Governors Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) www.business.ca.gov
ECoNoMIC INDICAToRS
pER CApITA pERSoNAl INCoME
2011: $44,481 Percent of National Average: 107% Percent Change from 2010: 4.6% 2001-2011 Compound Annual Growth Rate: 2.8%
2011: $1.96 billion U.S. Rank: 1 2011 Growth Rate: 2% 2001-2011 Compound Annual
REAl gDp
Tax Rate: 8.84% Lowest Tax Bracket: Flat rate Highest Tax Bracket: Flat rate Number of Tax Brackets: 1
Real estate and rental and leasing (15% of GDP), Government (11.5% of GDP)
Durable goods manufacturing (contributed 0.63 percentage points), Professional, scientific and technical services (contributed 0.56 percentage points)
General Sales and Gross Receipts Tax: 7.25% Motor Fuel Tax Rates (cents per gallon) Gasoline: 41.2 Diesel: 38.0 Gasohol: 19.0 California imposes an additional 1 percent tax on taxable income over $1 million, making the maximum rate 10.3 percent over $1 million. The minimum corporation franchise tax in California is $800. The additional alternative minimum tax is levied at a 6.65 percent rate. The general sales and gross receipts tax rate may be adjusted annually according to a formula based on balances in the unappropriated general fund and the school foundation fund. Motor fuel tax rates include pre-paid sales tax; Gasoline is subject to 2.25 percent sales tax; and Diesel is subject to 9 percent sales tax.
12
GO-Biz
Gov. Jerry Brown created the Governors Office of Business and Economic Development, known as GO-Biz, to serve as Californias single point of contact for economic development and job creation efforts. Now, as part of the governors budget, the states economic development entities have been realigned under GO-Biz; those include the Infrastructure Bank, the California Film Commission, the California Travel and Tourism Commission, Small Business Loan Guarantee Program and the Small Business Development Centers. This streamlining of state programs places a stronger emphasis on job creation and promoting California as a place to do business. In 2011, California created more than 263,000 new jobsthe most in the nation and almost 60,000 more than the next closest state, Texas.
13
ColoRADo
www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/OEDIT/OEDIT/1162927366334 PRogRam iNfoRmaTioN } Office of Economic Development and International Trade } www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/OEDIT/OEDIT/1162927366334
ECoNoMIC INDICAToRS
pER CApITA pERSoNAl INCoME
2011: $44,088 Percent of National Average: 106% Percent Change from 2010: 4.2% 2001-2011 Compound Annual Growth Rate: 2.2%
2011: $264.3 billion U.S. Rank: 19 2011 Growth Rate: 2% 2001-2011 Compound Annual
Income Brackets Lowest: Flat rate Highest: Flat rate Number of Tax Brackets: 1
REAl gDp
Tax Rate: 4.63% Lowest Tax Bracket: Flat rate Highest Tax Bracket: Flat rate Number of Tax Brackets: 1
Government (12.8% of GDP), Real estate and rental and leasing (11.8% of GDP)
Information (contributed 0.47 percentage points), Professional, scientific and technical services (contributed 0.41 percentage points)
General Sales and Gross Receipts Tax: 2.9% Motor Fuel Tax Rates (cents per gallon) Gasoline: 22.0 Diesel: 20.5 Gasohol: 22.0
14
hAWAII
Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism http://hawaii.gov/dbedt } Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism } http://hawaii.gov/dbedt
PRogRam iNfoRmaTioN
ECoNoMIC INDICAToRS
pER CApITA pERSoNAl INCoME
2011: $43,053 Percent of National Average: 103% Percent Change from 2010: 3.6% 2001-2011 Compound Annual Growth Rate: 3.9%
REAl gDp
Tax Rate: 4.4% - 6.4% Lowest Tax Bracket: $25,000 Highest Tax Bracket: $250,001 Number of Tax Brackets: 4
Government (24.7% of GDP), Real estate and rental and leasing (16.3% of GDP)
Real estate and rental and leasing (subtracted 0.76 percentage points), Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (subtracted 0.18 percentage points)
General Sales and Gross Receipts Tax: 4.0% Motor Fuel Tax Rates (cents per gallon) Gasoline: 17.0 Diesel: 17.0 Gasohol: 17.0 Hawaii taxes capital gains at 4 percent. Financial
institutions pay a franchise tax or 7.92 percent of taxable income in lieu of the corporate income tax and general excise taxes.
16
17
IDAho
PRogRam iNfoRmaTioN
Department of Commerce http://commerce.idaho.gov/ } Department of Commerce
} http://commerce.idaho.gov/
ECoNoMIC INDICAToRS
pER CApITA pERSoNAl INCoME
2011: $33,326 Percent of National Average: 80% Percent Change from 2010: 4.3% 2001-2011 Compound Annual Growth Rate: 2.6%
2011: $57.9 billion U.S. Rank: 42 2011 Growth Rate: 1.5% 2001-2011 Compound Annual
REAl gDp
Tax Rate: 7.6% Lowest Tax Bracket: Flat rate Highest Tax Bracket: Flat rate Number of Tax Brackets: 8
Government (13.7% of GDP), Real estate and rental and leasing (11.2% of GDP)
Durable goods manufacturing (contributed 0.86 percentage points), Health care and social assistance industry (contributed 0.40 percentage points)
General Sales and Gross Receipts Tax: 6.0% Motor Fuel Tax Rates (cents per gallon) Gasoline: 26.0 Diesel: 26.0 Gasohol: 26.0 Idahos minimum tax on a corporation is $20. The $10 Permanent Building Fund Tax must be paid by each corporation in a unitary group filing a combined return. The motor fuel tax rate is reduced by the percentage of ethanol used in blending (reported rate assumes the maximum 10 percent ethanol).
18
19
MoNTANA
PRogRam iNfoRmaTioN
ECoNoMIC INDICAToRS
pER CApITA pERSoNAl INCoME
2011: $46,573 Percent of National Average: 88% Percent Change from 2010: 4.3% 2001-2011 Compound Annual Growth Rate: 3.8%
REAl gDp
Tax Rate: 6.75% Lowest Tax Bracket: Flat rate Highest Tax Bracket: Flat rate Number of Tax Brackets: 1
Government (16.28% of GDP), Real estate and rental and leasing (0.5% of GDP)
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting industry (subtracted 0.53 percentage points), Government (subtracted 0.41 percentage points)
General Sales and Gross Receipts Tax: 0.0% Motor Fuel Tax Rates (cents per gallon) Gasoline: 27.0 Diesel: 27.75 Gasohol: 27.0 The minimum tax per corporation is $50; the $50 minimum applies to each corporation included on a combined tax return. Taxpayers with gross sales in Montana of $100,000 or less may pay an alternative tax of 0.5 percent on such sales, instead of the net income tax.
20
21
NEVADA
ECoNoMIC INDICAToRS
pER CApITA pERSoNAl INCoME
2011: $38,173 Percent of National Average: 92% Percent Change from 2010: 3.3% 2001-2011 Compound Annual Growth Rate: 2.1%
2011: $130.4 billion U.S. Rank: 32 2011 Growth Rate: 1.2% 2001-2011 Compound Annual
REAl gDp
Accommodation and food services (14% of GDP), Real estate and rental and leasing (12.8% of GDP)
Mining (contributed 1.02 percentage points), Accommodation and food services (contributed 0.56 percentage points)
22
23
NEW MExICo
New Mexico iNfoRmaTioN PRogRamEconomic Development Department http://www.gonm.biz/ } New Mexico Economic Development Department } http://www.gonm.biz/
ECoNoMIC TRENDS
pER CApITA pERSoNAl INCoME
2011: $34,575 Percent of National Average: 83% Percent Change from 2010: 3.7% 2001-2011 Compound Annual Growth Rate: 3.4%
2011: $79.4 billion U.S. Rank: 37 2011 Growth Rate: 0.2% 2001-2011 Compound Annual
REAl gDp
Tax Rate: 4.8% - 7.6% Lowest Tax Bracket: $500,000 Highest Tax Bracket: $1 million Number of Tax Brackets: 3
Government (19.5% of GDP), Real estate and rental and leasing (11.6% of GDP)
Durable goods manufacturing (contributed 0.73 percentage points), Health care and social assistance (contributed 0.17 percentage points)
General Sales and Gross Receipts Tax: 5.125% Motor Fuel Tax Rates (cents per gallon) Gasoline: 18.875 Diesel: 22.875 Gasohol: 18.875
24
25
oREgoN
PRogRam iNfoRmaTioN
ECoNoMIC INDICAToRS
pER CApITA pERSoNAl INCoME
2011: $37,909 Percent of National Average: 91% Percent Change from 2010: 4.4% 2001-2011 Compound Annual Growth Rate: 2.6%
2011: $197.7 billion U.S. Rank: 25 2011 Growth Rate: 4.7% 2001-2011 Compound Annual
REAl gDp
Tax Rate: 6.6% - 7.6% Lowest Tax Bracket: Highest Tax Bracket: $250,001 Number of Tax Brackets: 2
Durable goods manufacturing (contributed 3.94 percentage points), Health care and social assistance industry (contributed 0.35 percentage points)
General Sales and Gross Receipts Tax: 0.0% Motor Fuel Tax Rates (cents per gallon) Gasoline: 30.0 Diesel: 30.0 Gasohol: 30.0 Oregons minimum tax for C corporations depends on the Oregon sales of the filing group. The minimum tax ranges from $150 for corporations with sales under $500,000 and up to $100,000 for companies with sales of $100 million or above. The motor fuel tax rates do not include local option taxes of 1.0 to 3.0 cents
26
Enterprise Zones
In exchange for locating or expanding in an enterprise zone, businesses receive exemption from local property taxes on new plant and equipment for at least three years, but up to
27
UTAh
PRogRam iNfoRmaTioN
Governor's Office of Economic Development http://business.utah.gov/ } Governor's Office of Economic Development } http://business.utah.gov/
ECoNoMIC INDICAToRS
pER CApITA pERSoNAl INCoME
2011: $33,790 Percent of National Average: 81% Percent Change from 2010: 3.9% 2001-2011 Compound Annual Growth Rate: 2.8%
2011: $124.5 billion U.S. Rank: 33 2011 Growth Rate: 2.0% 2001-2011 Compound Annual
REAl gDp
Tax Rate: 5% Lowest Tax Bracket: Flat rate Highest Tax Bracket: Flat rate Number of Tax Brackets: 1
Information (contributed 0.37 percentage points), Wholesale trade (contributed 0.34 percentage points)
General Sales and Gross Receipts Tax: 5.95% Motor Fuel Tax Rates (cents per gallon) Gasoline: Diesel: Gasohol: The general sales and gross receipts tax includes a
statewide tax of 1.25 percent levied by local governments in Utah. Food sales are subject to local taxes.
28
29
WAShINgToN
PRogRam iNfoRmaTioN
} Department of Commerce } http://www.commerce.wa.gov/ Department of Commerce http://www.commerce.wa.gov/
ECoNoMIC INDICAToRS
pER CApITA pERSoNAl INCoME
2011: $44,294 Percent of National Average: 106% Percent Change from 2010: 4.0% 2001-2011 Compound Annual Growth Rate: 3.0%
2011: $355.1 billion U.S. Rank: 14 2011 Growth Rate: 2.0% 2001-2011 Compound Annual
REAl gDp
Government (14.9% of GDP), Real estate and rental and leasing (12.1% of GDP)
Durable goods manufacturing (contributed 0.95 percentage points), Information (contributed 0.86 percentage points)
30
W Fund
This program is projected to be a more than $25 million venture fund organized to invest in early-stage technology, life science and information technology companies emerging from the University of Washington and other leading science research centers across Washington state. Fund recipients will be headquartered in Washington state, creating jobs and economic opportunity in key growth sectors.
31
WYoMINg
PRogRam iNfoRmaTioN
} Wyoming Business Council Wyoming Business Council http://www.wyomingbusiness.org/ } http://www.wyomingbusiness.org/
ECoNoMIC INDICAToRS
pER CApITA pERSoNAl INCoME
2011: $47,301 Percent of National Average: 114% Percent Change from 2010: 5.2% 2001-2011 Compound Annual Growth Rate: 4.2%
2011: $37.6 billion U.S. Rank: 49 2011 Growth Rate: -1.2% 2001-2011 Compound Annual
REAl gDp
Mining (subtracted 1.69 percentage points), Construction (subtracted 0.44 percentage points)
32
Cost Comparisons
Wyoming sells itself primarily on its low cost of doing business as it has no income tax. Unable to provide much in the way of direct financial incentives, the states economic development program can do a cost-of-doing-business comparison that generally demonstrates the benefits to a company exceed any upfront advantage another state may offer within five years or less.
33
United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
34
n/a - not available 1 Mortgage Bankers Association, Percentage of mortgaged properties that are 90 days or more delinquent in payments, Dec. 2011, www.mbaa.org 2 RealtyTrac, Percentage of housing inventory in the foreclosure process, Dec. 2011, www.realtytrac.com 3 Core Logic, Percentage of mortgaged properties in negative equity (owing more on a mortgage than the home is valued) or within 5% of being in a negative equity position, 2Q 2011, www.corelogic.com 4 CSG calculations of U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimate data, www.census.gov. Cost-burdened is defined as a household or individual that spends 30 percent of more of income on housing costs.
35
36
State
Alabama
Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming State Totals Puerto Rico
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 41 *
* *
* * * * 42 *
12 *
Source:Site Selection Magazine, from State Business Incentives: Trends and Options for the Future, The Council of State Governments, 2011, http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/drupal/content/state-business-incentives-trends-and-options-future
37
State
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming State Totals Puerto Rico
38
Source:Site Selection Magazine, from State Business Incentives: Trends and Options for the Future, The Council of State Governments, 2011, http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/drupal/content/state-business-incentives-trends-and-options-future
Does the proposed job creation proposal fit within the framework of the states economic development policy? Does the proposal have specific missions and goals? Are these goals likely to be achieved by this proposal? Does the proposal provide for a way to monitor its success, including clearly defined outcomes? Why is the proposal being created? What are the projected short-term and long-term costs of the proposal? Is there some way to provide a service other than through a government program? Can a market problem be addressed by changing rules and regulations instead of creating a program? Does the proposal help every business or only a small number of businesses? If the proposal is targeted to a narrow sector of the economy, is it a sector the state wants to target? Will the program help diversify the states economy? Is there a provision for return of the states investment if certain criteria are not met? Should government provide such services as direct financing or should the state provide more basic services such as job training and information? Is the legislature getting the right kind of data upon which to base programs and policy?
Is the program meeting its goals? Has the program outlived its usefulness? Has the program been monitored by the agency on a regular basis? Has the state development agency surveyed businesses to see if they were satisfied with the assistance they received through various state programs? Is the agency overstating the multiplier effect of a particular program? Has the agency calculated the actual costs of the program? Are the benefits of a program being accurately interpreted? Are the job creation figures accurate? Is the program meeting acceptable criteria for state investment? Has the program been audited? Does the agency have a uniform and standard policy for collecting data such as job creation figures? Has the agency conducted site visits to monitor its investment? Is the state agencys program evaluation based on verifiable data or on projections? Has the economic impact of a project been accurately detailed?
39
State Alaska Arizona California Colorado Hawaii Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico Oregon Utah Washington Wyoming
Name Wanetta Ayers Tiffany Frechette Priscilla Yang Kathy Green Dave Young Susan Davidson Karyl S. Tobel Michael Skaggs Therese Varela Nathan Buehler Jenni Osman Mary Trimarco Mark Willis
Title Division Director, Division of Economic Development Director, Financial Incentive Programs Communications Assistant Director of Communications and Marketing Communications Director Manager for Business Attraction Assistant Division Administrator, Business Resources Division Deputy Director Program Manager, Job Training Incentive Program Communications and Marketing Manager Incentives Coordinator Business Development Managing Director Chief Operating Officer
Agency Office of Economic Development Arizona Commerce Authority Governor's Office Business & Economic Development Colorado Office of Economic Development & International Trade Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism Department of Commerce Montana Department of Commerce Governor's Office of Economic Development New Mexico Economic Development Department Business Oregon Governor's Office of Economic Development Department of Commerce Wyoming Business Council
Email Address wanetta.ayers@alaska.gov tiffanyf@azcommerce.com priscillayang@gov.ca.gov kathy.green@state.co.us dyoung@dbedt.hawaii.gov susan.davidson@commerce.idaho.gov karylt@mt.gov mskaggs@diversifynevada.com therese.varela@state.nm.us nathan.buehler@biz.state.or.us josman@utah.gov mary.trimarco@commerce.wa.gov Mark.Willis@wyo.gov
40
The Council of State Governments is our nations only organization serving all three branches of state government. CSG is a region-based forum that fosters the exchange of insights and ideas to help state officials shape public policy. This offers unparalleled regional, national and international opportunities to network, develop leaders, collaborate and create problem-solving partnerships.
41