06-08-2016 Workshop Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 5 0 S i m o n s, Magner and Baku Exhibit 7 shows the return each program returned to the respective city for each city dollar invested. Economic Impacts In addition to the on -budget fiscal benefits and costs the city receives (or incurs) as a result of the rehab projects, economic benefits are also generated, off -budget, in the local economy. These economic benefits include job creation, minority business support higher property values, decreasing the number of abandoned homes and increasing homeownership rates retail sales. As mentioned above, some of these benefits do result directly in fiscal affects (jobs, retail sales and increased property values). However, since many of these benefits are not measured in dollars, they are "apples" to the fiscal on -budget "oranges" and thus must be considered separately. Also, these items affect the economy in general, rather than the local municipal budget. We recognize that this fairly simplistic approach did not utilize an input-output model. In addition to the fiscal benefits the city received from the projects, the ten NWOs, with a total output of 334 rehabbed units, generated substantial economic benefits. For example, 221 full-time (one time) equivalent jobs were created as a result of the rehab activities. Of these, the vast majority were for unit construction -related activities. Further, these CDCs hired 136 minority and female business enterprises as contractors, helping provide valuable experience for these business owners that can make them more competitive in future activities. The rehab activity brought forty new households to their respective cities and subsidized a total of 102 new homeowners, helping them get on the equity ladder and access all the other potential benefits associated with new homeownership. Also, rehab activity converted seventy abandoned units into occupied units, helping reduce blight in these communities. Retail sales increased by $4.2 million (mostly one-time expenditures due to construction materials), supporting local contractor -patronized building suppliers. Finally, direct ($4.6 million) and indirect ($9.2 million) property values attributable to the rehabs went up by an estimated total of $13.8 million. Exhibit 8 shows this information. Conclusion and Policy Implications The typical experience li)r the CDC's its the sample; was that each municipal dollar hwested returned $0.54—$0.56 in fiscal benclits, and two of the ten C'DC's returned 11wre than one dollar for each dk)llar invested. Strictly as an observation, and not implying generalizability beyond this sample, this is comparable to the benefit: cost ratios for Cleveland new housing programs (Simons and Sharkey 1997:159). Two of the CDCs programs had returns of less than $0.30, but the fiscal benefits 30