The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-0915 Study Session PACKET ( - CITY OF ASHLAND CITY COUNCILDY SESSI<* AG NDA Monday. September 15.2008 at 6:00 p+m. Siskiyou Room. 51 Winburn Way ,8:00 p.m. Study Session 1. Look Ahead Review 2. Reviewaf regular meeting agenda for 3. Does the Council want to schedule for ion a request th.t Jackson County examine the possibility of including sev raJ areas zoned for",employment uses within Ashland in'the Jackson County nterprise Zone? (1 iHour) In compliance with the Ame~ans' with Disabilities A , if you need special .sistance to patficipete in this meefing, please contact the City Administrator's tit (541) 488-6002 (7trY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). NoIIIlcatkJn 72 hours prior to the I'IJfHIIing 'will enable the City to mak" reasonable arrangements to f!lll8ure acesssibirlty to the meeting (28 CFR 35. 102- 5. 104 ADA Title I). I COUNCIL MEETINGS AREBRO I)CAST LIVE ON ClIANNEL 9 VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S SITE AT \VWW.AStHLAND.OR.US ~ co 00 ~ Qm~-I)>)> a. en I'::." m ;:+ a. :i" or ~ ~. o.g m 2: -. 0 0 !:!: :J (ii' e!. m 3 0 ~:J"<o-3:J - 3 ~ 0 (ii. a s:: ~ -. a !!!. "C CD .... Q.. :j" 0 0 tQOCDm:J= m _ en _ 0 :J m 0 g ~ s: <D' Va..., CD CD en 39:)>tQm 2: ~ 3 ~ 5. !1.g~~"C OJ CD a. a !:!:b3 0 ~ S::CD ~ m ~ 3. c "Cm~ m "i2-~ en e!. g. 0' en m .., "C a ~ a p 2: ~ cr en en rrr ~~~ e!.e!.e!. J! ! CD ~ o ~ S iii' iii' Ib o ~ " ..... Ib ~ Q" (I) 6- ';. CO) - o CO) ::s- Ib ~ 000 0 ;;0 ;;0;;0;;0 ~ ~ ~ ~ o 000 ;;0 ;;0;;0;;0 ~ ~ ~ ~ c;) ogo a:Ja -. :J -. :J CD :J mom :J .... :J o -'0 CDgCD ..,,- .., ~';O~ m -.m !:!:g.!:!: :Jm:J <0..,<0 or9:o or ::E ::E a :J CD en .., ~ m -. <0 :J C " - - m CD .... .., -. en 0 :J m :J a. o a en en ~ o' :J" m .., a )> a. 3 3' r CD <0 e!. r r CD CD <0 <0 e!. e!. "'0 "'0 :E :E ..... UI :;: w N ::: 0 co 00 ...... CD UI . Co) I\) "'Ooen ..,0.... m35. CD 3'< < _. en m ~ CD g: o. ~ :J :J o' "'Om:J -<0 "" ~ m ::=. _as: s:: 3' "'0 ~ <0 or -. .... :J m :J" :J -- CD -. OcE OJ m ~:J :I: a. -. :I: en -. ....en 0.... ::!. 0 o ::!. o (J) s:: G'I ~ i .. f) ~ ~ Q, Jl i i ." ir r;:; C) g~ N~ . ~~ g~ ;% !ijg 8b . Ii - o ;;0 Ii' N e!.ogenlDc~ Oa3~CD"C.;::I ::E -. .... - a. (5 3. ~ ~. e!. OJ a ::+ :J en:J -.CD <OoenmpoS:: ~ CD o. Q: :J (ii' CDm:J;:;: or>> o orm'< or" - .... -. "C '< CD 3' 3' -5 a en CD 3 <0 CD' .... en 00 n mQo Q: "C ~ .... 0 Fi~ 0 rif -." "C m.., cE 3' ~ 5. ~ a. <0 e!. -I en CDm _ OJ? s. <0 a :J CD Oc 3 en CD CD or m - ~ g: "C g s:: -. :J or 0 ~ oen :J :JCD :J"_ :J _~ ~ 3' 0 a. <0 0 -- :J ID ~~~~ <0 ~~~~ e!. :J:Jen:J -. -. 0 cE~ ~CD :J"'O ~ :E o CD o ;;0 o ~ o ;;0 o ~ z m :E z m :E 00"'0 o a c ~ 3.g m 0 ~g:I: ~ CD m . O'::!. ~"'cE CD m .. ena:)> m..,3 :J a. CD o.m:J 02:0. :J"CD3 m :J" CD caO:J CDc::: en !!!.O - 1.::2 )> r~ :J m~:J - -. CD ;or-5>< O' ~ :J" 0 m :J B o~ G> ;0 O~)>m OCD::EO -I ;a -. c G5 o' s: g: )>if~:J O'..,CDm ..,a<o .. :E 0-1 m ~O .... <-I ~ a9: en CDen ~ ~~ ; ~g ~ CD:J ~ ::E~ Q aCD " ~ ~ ); G) a. a m c 3 "C 5> :J 2- " 3' m :J o CD r CD <0 e!. "'0 or :J :J 3' <0 r CD <0 e!. "'0 or :J :J 3' <0 )> a. 3 3" "'0 "'0 :J: :J: o ;;0"'0 ~:J: () o z (J) () o z (J) o ;;0 o ~ Z ::;i?2 a mCDen o' :J CD 0 :J en3:c m_ ;:;: ~ m m -. " :J::+O ::;. a. :J" :J CD cn~m "'O:UO - m ~ 0 ~ ~ i~ cE ~o~ 0 OO~ a. :J 5 I (ii' 4'n~ 9: 0=01 0- o ~ c or3~S: g: ~ c :J ~ i (jJ a o -I :J 0 ~ -I CD ;:;: Z 02 m en a:g .., en a. !!!. m 0 O-:J mo :J"~ o :J C 0 !!!.CD :J :J .... <' OJ CD _. en =m :J a. m <0 c or o -< 0- m .., .., <D. m "'0" :E ~. r:J CD 0 <0 CD e!. )>~ a.:J 3 m -':J :J 0 CD )> a. 3 3' r"'O CD- m m :J -:J 3' <0 )> a. 3 3' " @" )> a. 3 3" (J) s:: (J) (J) (J) (J) () "'0 o ;;0 z 0 (J) () ~ . . . . . . . n ~ sa. I- ::r ii ~ Q. n o c ::::I S: :E I S- a 8 ~ :.. ::r I Q. ~ .,.. Co) o CO 'i3Q~QQ -. "0 0. " 0. 0. o .., -. CD -. -. iro;:,.:,:...;:,;:, ~<O) 0)0) o.CD::J ;:,;:, -30 00 CD CD CD CD a)> CDCD 3 ..- 0) CD -ta ;:'::J .., CD 0.0. 0) 0. en -. ;:, "0 ~ ~ 6" CD)> 00 ~. 3: 6t ~ ;: (') g: "2_ o ~ ;:,.~ m~ (')~ 01\> 0;0 o 5=> 3 o. 3r 3:T CD 0 . 0) ;:'0 _.., me!.. ;oS: o. :T 0) P. r rr ~ ~~ e!.. e!..e!.. "'tJ "'tJ ~ ~ J! = (I) CD ~ 0 ~ S iii' iii' Q) t:J ~ "11 ..... Q) ~ Q. (I) 6- -;. n - 8' n ::r Q) ~ !D 0 ::0 ~ Gl t 0 ::0 ~ 0 -0 N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ::!! if -;;::; 8 ~~ ~~ 8~ ~~ ~o ~: ~Ui =roo ll~ o ::0 ~ o ;;0 9 IV I o z e: m N ~ Co) QD )> o o CD "0 - 0) ::J o CD o - )> ::J ;:, c: e!.. ." S. 0) ;:, o ~ ;0 CD "0 o ::l. ? CD -!. ." s- O) ;:, o CD Co) Co) ....... 0) )> ." "0 0) a ~ < (D. e!.. 0 o 3: - 0) OJ ::u 0 "'tJem )> fa .., o E. "tJ g~o; -0;:' moo n 5 (ji. -0 ~g o. II: ~ .3 I (r -;:, l'5> ;:, ~ m )> CD 0. n 3 .., S- o. ." :i" 0) ;:, o CD z m ~ :il: Co) Ul ::JC'- CD 0 ~ S. g3 0. CD CD CDt:!: -;:, OCO o ~. CDg "tJ 0) ~ o 0) ::J 0. (') o c: ;:, g "tJ." m -- ~~ o ;:, o CD )> 0. 3 S. en en - o - OJ 3 CD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oa)>Qm~~)>)>S)>?)>CDrZO C9Q "'-3o.~~-::l.o.l~"'CDo. CDc: C~0 ~oCD-mCD~(')Oo.ZCDOO)~O) ~o ;:'d;:,;:'uo "Om ':':"'''00 ::l. "'tJCDc: mO)o.~=~~og:m;o g:~~CD 0~0 ~~3~~~u~;:,0~ ;:,~~~ ~ ~ CD CD CD 3 CD 0 -. 0 ;:, 0 0) 0." 1--" ..J "':Ta~CD:T..,0-(')~ o-~~~ c: !!. 0 _ ~ ;:, -. 0. !!. "0 0 _..J rg mC:OCD-~-ooO.., c:~0m::uo. m~)>~am~;:,~~m 00CD;:'~m 0.;:';:,- ;:,b-00 6"CD~~cm _~;:,~mOo3:CD=CD 3~3e!...b O~CD ~dCD~:Q_ CD"'_;o~3: o -. ~ _. ::::;;. )> ^' _ 0 3: ..,)> -.. CD 0:;: m-- ;:,..J3-..J0)- -00~O~ 3Pt:!: _0) ~o._" CDo.:T"'~C~ o 0;:'CD-"00CD )> ~ ;:, q-o;:, ..,~)> ;:'0; ::l." O 0) CD 0. 0)> c. _ t:!: ;:, ." h - t:!:~3 0;:,:- -<o.zr~ 9: <ii 3: CD ~ 2- ~ <! ~ JC_ e ~ m~a E; o~~:-~ - "0 0) ~ CD m 3: CD" 3" ..J "O;:';u 0 0 -. fa o CD P -. t:!: CD" )> CD e!.. g. ~ 0 I'--- ~ 0 m'" ;:, )> .., "0 a ~ 2 .:.... a - ~ CD ~ o. 0 o o rrr ~~~ e!..e!..e!.. S. ;0 o. :T m d r CD e!.. )>)>-t 0. 0. 33:!! -. -- ;:, ;:, ;:, m r ;:, CD 0 co CD e!.. :!!-t-t:!! ~ r r~ ;:, ~ ~ ::J ~e!..e!..~ r CD co e!.. "tJ 0; ::J ;:, S. co r CD co e!.. o 0 ::0 ::0 ~ ~ o ::0 o N 000 ::0 ::0 ::0 000 t..J ~ t..J Z "'0 8 m :I: Z ~ en (') (') (') .... o 0 0 ~ Z Z Z ~ en en en o ::0 o N I "'tJ c: ~ o. ~ o ~ o en en en en ~ -t m ;:, o "0 o ::l. m - o. ;:, (') o 3 3 (ji. o o. ;:, "tJ ~ . . . . . . . n ~ a r ~ .- :I D. n o c :I ~ ~ I :r G 8 ~ :. ~ tI . D. CITY OF ASHLAND AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL September 16, 2008 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? [5 minutes} 1 . Special Meeting of August 5, 2008 2. Executive Session of September 2,2008 3. Regular Council of September 2,2008 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS None. VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes] 1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees? 2. Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a Special Procurement for electrical engineering services to CVO Electrical Systems? 3. Should the Council raise the limit from 25kW to 50kW for renewable energy generation systems by revising the City's Net Metering Resolution? 4. 1ih Annual Report on Implementation of the Valdez Principles. 5. Should the Council authorize the submission of appropriate land use application(s) on City- owned property by the Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation? " 6. Should the Council approve a resolution supporting Regional Problem Solving H~PS) in the Greater Bear Creek Valley as well as the general sequencing of the RPS approval process? 7. Should Council accept the quarterly report as presented? 8. Does Council wish to approve a contract allowing an Americorps worker to hold an 11-month positition at the North Mountan Park Nature Center to assist with a number of different functions at the center? VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the subject of a Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds vote of council {AMC S2.04.040}) None. IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for, Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less, depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.) [15 minutes maximum] COUNCIL 't\1EE"1'INCrS ARE BROADCASI' LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISrr THE CITY OF ASl-JLAND'S \VEB SITE A"1' \V\V\V.ASHLAND.OR.US X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. XI. NEW AND MISCEllANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Will Council approve a resolution establishing a public hearing date of November 18, 2008 to consider the formation of Local Improvement District No. 89 to improve Beach Street? [15 Minutes] 2. Will Council designate a voting delegate to the annual League of Oregon Cities Conference? [5 Minutes] XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Should the City Council conduct and approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance relating to parking regulations, allowing use of immobilizing device, authorizing towing, removing downtown parking limitations, updating and correcting parking processes and procedures, amending AMC Sections 11.08.080, 11.28.060, 11.28.080, 11.28.090, and 11.28.110, and repealing AMC chapter 11.30 AMC Section 2.28.215" and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? [15 Minutes] 2. Housing Trust Fund [45 Minutes] a. Should the Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code; adding new Chapter 4.36, providing for the establishment of an affordable housing trust fund" and move the ordinance to Second Heading? b. Should the Council approve a resolution titled, "A Resolution to establish policies and procedures for administration of the affordable housing trust fund"? c. Should the Council approve a resolution titled, "A Resolution deferring payment loans to the affordable housing trust fund? 3. Should the City Council conduct and approve First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance relating to irrigation systems, providing a penalty, and amending AMC Section 15.16.170" and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? [10 Minutes] 4. Should the City Council conduct and approve First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance relating to water regulations and cross connection, and repealing Ordinance 2773" and move the ordinan~e on to Second Reading? [10 Minutes] XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCil MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCil LIAISONS 1. Discussion of the City's response to Ashland Forest Resiliency Project XIV. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (ITY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35. 102-35. 104 ADA Title I). COUNCIL 1\1,EETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISrr TIlE Crry O"F ASHLAND'S \VEB SlIT Aor \V'vV\V.ASHLAND.OR.US CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: Study Session - Potential Inclusion of Certain Employment Areas within Ashland in Jackson County Enterprise Zone September 15, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Administration E-Mail: Community Deve Secondary Contact: Martha J. Benn Estimated Time: Martha J. Bennett bennettm@ashland.or.us Bill Molnar 1 hour Question: Does the City Council want to schedule for action a request that Jackson County examine the possibility of including several areas zoned for employment uses within Ashland in the Jackson County Enterprise Zone? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council pursue inclusion in Jackson County's Enterprise Zone to support the expansion and/or recruitment of certain kinds of businesses in Ashland. Although the disadvantages are real, staff believes that, in the long-run, inclusion in the program creates a more "level playing field" for Ashland in its economic development work, which diversifies our employment and economic base, both of which are essential for the community. Background: During the summer, Larry Holzgang, Business Development Manager for the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD), suggested that the City consider requesting that three general areas of Ashland be included in the Jackson County Enterprise Zone. These three areas include the Croman Mill site (and some surrounding properties), the W ashington/J efferson Street areas that are zoned E-l, and the areas in and around the airport that could be developed for aviation-related businesses. Larry Holzgang and Ron Fox of South em Oregon Regional Economic Development, Inc (SOREDI) will present the concept to Council at your study session. The State of Oregon has designated 59 enterprise zones throughout the state. The total number is set by the Legislature, and the program is administered by OECDD. The areas included in enterprise zones have to be economically distressed as defined by an index of several economic measures. Under the program, certain categories of businesses receive a total abatement of property taxes on new buildings and equipment for three to five years if their new construction increases the number of jobs that pay 150% of the county average wage. Only businesses within the "traded sector" economy are eligible for this program. In other words, it generally doesn't apply to retail development. If the Council wishes to pursue inclusion of these properties, and any others that the City could include, then the City would request that Jackson County include these properties. The County would then analyze the eligibility of these properties. If the areas meet the criteria for inclusion, then the County would notify all of the taxing districts affected by the decision. The City would then be asked to adopt a resolution supporting inclusion, and the County would make a final decision. Staff expects that the process would take between three and six months to complete. 091508 Enterprise Zones.CC.doc r~' II I ----- CITY OF ASHLAND Advantages There are four advantages to including these employment areas in the Jackson County Enterprise Zone: o Eliminates Competitive Disadvantage for Ashland. Ashland currently cannot offer "traded sector" businesses that wish to locate or expand here the same economic development incentives as other communities in Oregon, including areas in Jackson County, Josephine County, Grants Pass and Medford. This means it is more expensive for businesses that need to build or expand their facilities to do so within Ashland than in other areas of Oregon or the Rogue Valley. o May Accelerate Developmen t/ Redevelopment of Employment Properties. If Ashland carefully selects the property it wishes to include in the County Enterprise Zone, it could create an incentive for investment to happen in those areas rather than generally in the City. This may accelerate redevelopment, especially for the types of businesses that qualify. o Improves Ashland's ability to diversify employment. Because these incentives are available only to "traded sector" businesses, this action would support the Council's desire to diversify the community's employment base to ensure that there are more than service, government, education, and tourism-related employment in Ashland. o Rewards Expanding Businesses. As Council knows, Ashland has few spaces for existing businesses to expand into. Many of these businesses want to stay but will have to build new facilities to stay. This program will reward the existing businesses who opt to build new or expanded facilities within Ashland for their investment. Disadvantages There are four major disadvantages to including land in the County Enterprise Zone. o Lost tax revenue. As you all know, the City faces real financial shortfalls in the short term. Depending on the business, the community will subsidize services that qualify for these benefits at least three years. o No guarantees for longevity. The program does not require a business to commit to continuing in Ashland beyond five years. Some businesses may take advantage of the tax abatement and relocate after five years. o Effectiveness of Enterprise Zones is unproven. As outlined in the materials submitted by Councilor Hartzell (attached), there is significant disagreement about whether Enterprise Zones are actually effective in stimulating business investment. Please note as you review this program that every state's Enterprise Zone program is different and that the federal programs created during the Clinton Administration are different than Oregon's programs. The conclusions reached by several studies are that businesses investment decisions may not be related to incentives and that incentives may be a very costly way to create jobs. 091508 Enterprise Zones.CC.doc r~' ---n--r--- CITY OF ASHLAND o No Ability to Tailor Program. Because Ashland would be participating in the County program, we would not be able to add any conditions to the program. For example, in other states, enterprise zone requirements include a preference for local hiring or for creation of affordable housing. Related City Policies: Council Goal: Develop an Economic Development Strategy Comprehensive Plan Policies 7.07.03 (3); (4) (d); and (5) (attached) Council Options: Provide direction to staff that could include: o Request that a formal request for to Jackson County be prepared for future Council Action o Request specific information about the program o Decline further consideration of inclusion of land in Ashland in the County Enterprise Zone. o Request that the action be deferred to completion of an economic development strategy o Request development of local incentives that do not include property tax abatement. Potential Motions: · None Attachments: Oregon Enterprise Zone Fact Sheet from OECDD (2 pages) Comprehensive Plan Policies for the economy Materials submitted by Councilor Cate Hartzell 091508 Enterprise Zones.CC.doc r.t. , ---rr--r---' - Oregon Enterprise Zones July 2008 ORS 285C.055 (2007) sums up the purpose for enterprise zone legislation, first enacted by the Oregon Legislature in 1985, as follows: "... [T]he health, safety and welfare of the people of this state are dependent upon the continued encouragement, development, growth and expansion of employment, business, industry and commerce throughout all regions of the state, but especially in those communities at the center of or outside of major metropolitan areas for which geography may act as an economic hindrance. The Legislative Assembly further declares that there are areas in the state that need particular attention of government to help attract private business investment into those areas and to help resident businesses to reinvest and grow and that many local governments wish to have tax incentives and other assistance available to stimulate sound business investments that support and improve the quality of life." Number and Size Fifty-nine enterprise zones are currently designated: 48 being rural, 11 urban. The boundary of a zone may be noncontiguous, but it must not encompass more than 12 square miles (above the high water mark) and must conform to restrictions on distances within the zone. Each zone terminates after 10 years, at which time local governments may apply to the Economic and Community Development Department for new opportunities or for re-designation. How it Works In exchange for locating or expanding into an enterprise zone, eligible (generally non-retail) business flrtIls receive total exemption from the property taxes normally assessed on new plant and equipment for at least three years (but up to five years) in the standard program. Longer-term tax incentives are available in certain zones. < For more on tax incentives> Local Determination Sponsored by local city /port/ county governments or tribal governments, an enterprise zone typically serves as a focal point for local development efforts and incentives. One hundred five cities in 35 counties currently use enterprise zones to create better economic opportunities. Role of State Agency The Economic and Community Development Department is responsible for the designation and termination of enterprise zones and for changes to zone boundaries. In cooperation with the Department of Revenue and other state agencies, the Economic and Community Development Department also provides administrative rules, information materials, training, technical assistance and marketing support to local govern- ments and county assessors for implementing business tax incentives, as well as active promotion with eligible firms. Local Application and Designation Cities, ports and counties across Oregon apply for designation of an enterprise zone. The statutes specify the following two threshold criteria for local economic hardship in order for a proposed zone to be designated: (1) Household median income is 80 percent or less of state median income, or (2) Unemployment rate is 2.0 percentage points or more above comparable state unemployment rate, based on the most recent annual figures The Economic and Community Development Department can define or consider alternative but equally severe threshold criteria, one of which is location predominantly in a "distressed area," which are based on a sophisticated index of econOl111C measures. Note: Oregon also as areas of tax-increment financing (fIF) known as "urban renewal" districts. Statutory Tax Incentives in an Oregon Enterprise Zone -Standard (fhree-to-Five-Year) Property Tax Exemption Through an exemption from taxation on new property, an Oregon enterprise zone induces eligible businesses of all sizes to make additional investments that will improve employment opportunities, spur economic growth and diversify business activity. Qualifying new plant & equipment in a zone receives a total exemption for at least three and-in some cases-up to five consecutive years from the local assessment of ad valorem property taxes, which can otherwise have a deterring effect on private investors seeking to start or enlarge operations with a substantial capital outlay. Enterprise zone property (except hotel/ resorts and utilities) also is exempt for up to two years while it is being constructed or installed. * Business Firm Eligibility Prior to commencing construction/installations, an eligible business firm submits an application for local "authorization." Eligible fmns include manufacturers, processors, shippers and other operations that serve other organizations, as well as headquarters and call centers. Also, hotels and resorts are eligible in some or all of 42 of the 59 zones. In the up to 10 specially designated "E-commerce" enterprise zones any electronic commerce operation is eligible and may receive a spedal income tax credit, too. Otherwise, retail, construction, financial and certain other activities are explicitly ineligible by statute. QuaHfied Property A new building/ structure, structural modifications or additions, or newly installed machinery or equipment qualify for exemption, but not land, preexisting property value and minor personal property items. Requirements Basic, 3-year enterprise zone exemption ("as-of-right") . Increase full-time, permanent employment of the firm inside the enterprise zone by the greater of one new job or 10 percent (or special-case local sponsor waivers) . Generally no concurrent job losses outside/beyond the zone boundary . Maintain minimum employment levels during exemption period . Enter into first-source agreement with local job training providers . Satisfy local additional conditions, potentially imposed under an urban zone policy. Extended Abatement, 4 or 5 years of exemption in total--same as 3-year, plus. . . . "Compensation" of new workers at 150 percent of county average wage, t . Local approval by written agreement with the local zone sponsor, . Additional requirements that the local zone sponsor may reasonably request. * Two other material benefits of the standard exemption program for authorized business firms: (1) Local government incentives, such as fee waivers, reduced charges and administrative priority, and (2) The right to acquire (state/local) publicly owned and available real estate for use in the zone. t Other than in an urban enterprise zone within the Portland metro area. -Long-Term Rural Enterprise Zone Tax Incentives In certain rural enterprise zones-those inside a "county with chronically low income or chronic unemployment" -an entire qualified facility is fully exempt from property taxes during construction and then for 7 to 15 years. With the Governor's approval, corporate income tax credits can supplement this property tax relief. Special criteria restrict these incentives to rather exceptional investments in terms of minimum investment cost and a minimum number of new hires, which depend on the facility's location and the county's size, in addition to requirements equivalent to those noted above for the 5-year exemption. L;J ~L() E ~ o ~ s:: :J o ~ U 2 Q) c: .;: Q) a. ~ ..... I :.a I- o V Vl ~ "'0 C j v ...c::: ...... c:: 01) 'Vi v "'0 o ~ ;> V "'0 ~ "'0 ...c::: I- C Vl 0 c\i .o~ C .- "'0 0 U .- Vl V ;> ;> ...c::: 0 .- f- a "'0 1.8] ;>. v c\i .~ u -J (3~~ t:l.; s::: ~ --.. N z o C> w a:: z o <( ...J o a. Z w c::( 2: ...J C/) I Z en W c::( ~ - 0:: o a. ~ ~ () l) v --ci' I- c:: ~ ~ v ::a C Vl o <t ...... 0 :::s ...... o "'0 .0 V c\i "'0 v "'0 E ~ :::s Vl Vl .0 C 0 o '-"'j u ~ - v .~ ~ ...... C v E 0.. o ~ ;> v "'0 ~ v Z c'~ - ~ ~ v V I- ...c::: t8~ "'0 01) c:: :::s ~] 4-< ...... o ~ .:c I cJ 01)1-l.l:: .- t8 4-< l- ~ ...... "'0 V b u C o..~ .t: ~ U U t; l.l:::::S 'a 'u b "0 v ;>. I- 0.. ;> Vl ~ ...c::: v .........c::: .~ 0 ...... V I- ~ ~ :::s I- "'0 V . ;; 0.. :.a 15 C 0 '-"'j C 0 o 0 v - ~.8 ~ v l- V U "'0 c\i .~ ~ ~ 0.. v 15 .0 .~ "'0 c:: ro :.a 01) c:: '2 ~ o U N 'E E v ...... v Vl c:: E I- B ;>. t8 Vl o v 'Vi - "'0 C 0..._ 0 E ;> U v e v 0.. ..c: ...... o E o tl:: o v5' l- t) 0 v E . (5'l "'0 a ~ l- V 01) ,.... o Vl Vl ro 0.. I V "'So c:: 'Vi Vl V Vl :::s ~ 'C ...... Vl :::s "'0 .9 V "'0 ;> @ ..;:: c\i ,..: ~ 0 I- 'p Vl ~ "'0 l- I- .0 c\i '> "'0 CI.l c:: ....; 0.. c\i Vl 'C t; :::s ...... v "'0 V U ~ U C Vl :.a E '8 ~ v5' ...... c:: U :.a '5 ...... Vl ~ :.a ...... 01) c:: C v 'C E :::s o..t) cS :::s C c\i E "'0 C ro ...... c:: v E v 'S; ;>. :::s ;> o C ..c: o..'p U E C :a v 8 ~ Vl ...... :.a C 8 ......v E . _c\i 'p "'0 ;.;:; c:: 0.. E v c\i 0 s-g--ci'~ 15 ~ .g ~ :::s ...... v t" Vl V 0.. <3 ~ '5 ~ ~ "8 g"'2 t> E I- C ro ~\J") E 'S; 0.. 0\ o ;> v ...... U..c:...c::: :::s ~ u ...... 0 o :a ~ ~ :;~61- V S Vl t8 CI.l ~ CI.l E"'O~ .t: 0 V ...... ro :::s 0 v 0 v 0 I- C E .0 ...... ~ c\i "'0 _ .S .... B C .~ 0 ro ro ~ ...c::: v ~ v roO 1-...... I-VNuO ,.g t> ~ :::: ...c::: f- C Ci .~ b o .8 .... .... Vl V Vl V V I- U .... U U') ~ "'0 c:: C 0 ro E ~ E <t 8 01) 4-< C 0 o CI.l ~ E ~ '0 v 0.. U "'0 U v ro ...... -g 'E (5 v I- I- .... :::s c:: Vl o c:: U v --.. .0 01) c:: '0 01) l- V "'0 C :::s I- o 01) c 00.. o ~ co::i > v V I- "'0 ro Vl ~ :A ('j - ...... c:: ro ...c::: ...... ....... c:: Vl v ~ E Vl 0.. V 0 C ~ '00 > :::s v .0"'0 o ...... v Vl ...c::: ....... ....... c:: v E 0.. o ~ ;> v "'0 U 'E o c:: I- o 0 U s::: V "'0 .9 a3 .0 o v ...c::: .... 4-< o V (3 I- ~ ...... ro ""5 01) (!) I- ;>. "'t: v ;> o o ...... .... o c:: .... :::s .0 0 ~ ~ 01) - ro 0.. I- .... :::s v o ~ ,.g u &3 f- ~ E ~ ...c::: U ..c: ~ v ..c: ........c: c:: ...... ...... .~ c:: v v :0 E 'p 0.. ro o 0.. ~ E ~ 0 ti "'0 U 'F; V V - I- .0 Vl 0' = :.a E o~ ~ v t) c: E .t: 0 0........ I- o CI.l B ~ 0 U ~ ~ u ~ ro "'0 .t: ~ -s ~.8"5 ~ v .~ v :::sz:r:-s Vl c:: --.. v - Vl V C ~ "'0 '3 01) ...... c:: v E 0.. o ~ ;> v "'0 u l.l:: Ou (!) 0.. U') --.. U fI) Q,I fI) ~ ~ ~ .5 ~ 8 o = o ~ Q,I Q,I .c .... .... ~ .c .... f: .....J ~ <( = o Q,I (9~ .- M o t- o t- - V "'0 V "'0 I- .0 :::s ~ ;>.u v c:: --= .~ -C; o E ~ ~ 'c c\i :::s 0.. = o ...... .- ;>. 0 ~ :.Q c ...... CI.l :::s U') .- .0 01)~--ci' C "0 B o ~ C "'@ ...... v ...... U') 'C c:: "'0 9 v c v [~ :0 o ~ 0 ~ <t E ;> "'0 .8 v c:: :::s o ro ~ N CI.l ~ ~ -s E Vl "'0 c:: C 01) ro '00 ~ ~u "'0 G' @ :0 ~ci~ ._ ro ;> g.'S ~ ~ ~ c: "'0 "'0 0 @&EVl - v v 01) I- .~ ro t8 t) 3 ...... ro 0 '00 I- U C t:: c:: c\i ro v b c .~ c v .... :.a ...c:::cs::: ~ ...... :: 0 0 .... o~ I- t8 '€ 'E f: ~t8 OW Q,I c\i Vl ~ 0.. :::s .c c"'O c\i 0.. .... 01),.....;; "'0 0 ~ CI.l~eco.. = v 4-< 0.. c\i V ~ "'OOOVl-S ~ ]o......E-S Q,I c\i 'p ~ ~ .- ~ ~ ~ @ ~ '00 ~ co::i :E ~ 0 g.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !; .:: ...... .c ~ t; c\i Q. = c.......- c:: e e ~ .~ ~ Ci .~ ] Q,I '5= Vl U "'0 CI.l 0 I- ~ = ;>. ~ .9 "'0 U :::s '5= Q,I .::: :::s "'0 ~ ~ ,.g '- uVlc""c...... ~Bv o..c\i s::: v I- _ ..c: c\i - E "'0 t8 .~ ~ f- :;; .~ v '00 :cal c::~E~S::: = 'W c\i V ;>. - .9 Q..c G'o: E..Q ~ t) '" .~:.= v E 0.. 2 . o~ ~.c~...c::: 0 E4-< I- Q,I~ ......uvoo.. QJ c...,. ~ = 0 - fI) Q,I 5 fI) '- Q,I ~ ;a ~ = ~ .:! .... "; Q,I .c z z o ~ C) a.. W w 0::: > o (/) z o w Z I <( ~ ....J a.. I ~ en 0 <( U - o ~ <.) ~ E II') o g C N o ~ Co) .; (I) "0 CI) ~ ~ ";:: .... a.. L;J I >--. o 0.. E --. ...... ';; ...... U C\l ~ 'C ...... Vl ~ -0 t:: d' ...... <u ..c '- 0.0 C\l t:: -0 C\l c:: .0 C\l 5 v- <u u ..c 'E ~ <u :.2 Vl ...... '@ ~ ...... Vl <u '- '- <u <u '- = Vl 4-. ;3 0 ...... ..c t:: u <u :.2 E ~ 8 t:; C\l x 0.. <u -0 t:: C\l --. ...... :::: ~V)u o E --. ' ...... 0 --g C\l - t:: Vl 0. ~ --. @ e C\l --. 0 Vl -;:: ..c '- :; :> Su o..c:: E ,~ --. ~ .0 Vl c:: t:: 0 ' 0.0 'P B 'r;; '2 '~ '- ..c o ...... ~' ~ o..~ o 0 ~ 2. ~ '(3 ...... c:: <u -0 u '6 o c:: o U <u ~ c:: o '@) <u '- ~ c:: o '@) <u '- 0.0 t:: 'P C\l c:: Vl :.a ('j '- ...... V--o u 0 t+: 0 4-...c o 0 .0 '~ -so C\l > c:: ..c --. u ~ >-. ...... o --....... ~ <u E -g ,p u C'j t:: ,5 ~ E Vl Vl <u u e 0 c....... ...... Vl U ,~ -5 :E Vl 0] ..... t:: ,~ --. -. ~ 5...2 .9 o 0. = '- E ~ 8: --. 5 <u IoV ..c ""@ ..... 'u <u 0. Vl <u ,~ ,5 ...... = -0 <u c:: "'0 C'j ~ ..... 'a Vl o :r: --. 4-. _ 0 ...... ,,, - t+: E E g "'0 -'-0 ..2 a E~ ~ ~ -0 --. C\l ~ .0 ...... C'j "2 ~ Vl >--.> b C'j ,~ '- rJj ~ (3 ~ >-. C\l c....... ~ o Vl = '- ~ ~ E X ~ ..c ...... >-. ...... o -0 -5 e c:: Vl 0. ('j ~ 0. '- <u C\l ~ ";; <u o ~ ~ ~ 0.0 .9 .9 '- Vl Vl 0 = <u "'@ 8 ...... 'p -0 '(3 0 c:: ~ E C'j u g :0 u = '- o.~ ~-o t: -.. ..... t: '@ t::: --. u (3 0... ~ 'ti3 ..c u :.c ~ E ('j '- 0.0 ~ o -. ..... ...... t:: ...J (f) J: Z en W <{ ~ - c::: o a.. ~ ~ () u l-t .~ ~ o r/J ..... s:: ;:j o E C\l ..... s:: C\l U t.l: .2 on .~ ..... .s a.> ~ ..s::: ..... r/J a.> r/J r/J a.> s:: .~ ;:j ~ a.> l-t .- a.> ;:j - 0".0 a.> C\l l-t _ ~ .~ oS C\l r/J (5 2 s:: r/J C\l r/J ~ g u .S! .x s:: 2-5 a.> a.> ..... ..... C\l a.> l-t u ..... C\l ..s::: ..... d o .;:: ::3 - (3 0.. --. .0 ..... s:: a.> E a.> ;> o l-t 0.. E - -a ..... .s.. C\l U a.> ..s::: ..... s:: :.2 ..... .~ s:: .9 r/J ;:j U s:: - .~ ~ ..s::: 0 u on :a E ~ a.> r/J E ..... 0.. 5 0 E a3 a.> ~ 6 '"0 a~ E ~ l-t r/J I .~ on :E 8 .u a.> ~ ;> a.> r/J :a E u ~ C\l on 0.. e a3 0.. ..s::: --. u -a r/J o 0.. r/J ~ r/J '"0 a.> a.> ~ N g ~ ;>.. .~ .u ~ ::3 a.> U ~ ~.2 --. u r/J a.> :9 o 0.. '"0 s:: C\l I o U .....~ l-t ;:j 2 s:: u C\l ~ ~ '"0 s:: C\l ..... s:: a.> E ~ o 0.. E ~ a.> '"0 .;; ~ ~'"O o ~ g 0.. .;:: 0 C\l a3 a.> ;> l-t a.> u~ a.> ..... C\l ;> .C 0.. a.> ..s::: ..... l-t <2 r/J a.> .::: ..... s:: a.> u s:: * --. '"0 I ~ l-t o a.> a.> l-t r/J C\l ~ c;j '"O..s::: s:: ..... j E :J o o a.> ~ -5 r/J a.> r/J ..s::: a.> ..... s:: .s ~ a.> .0 -o~ :::: 0 U ..... s:: en -a~ ..s::: .u en a.> ~o.. ..... r/J o a.> a.> u ..s::: s:: E- ~ --. '"0 I E o U l-t <2 a.> ::0 C\l .@ ;> C\l E a.> ..s::: ..... on s:: ~ C\l E en '"0 s:: ~ on s:: .C ::3 ..... ;>-, ~ ::9 a.> :::: -5 o a.> ~ ~ C'd c;j ~ .;- ..s:: ...., - ..... ~ 2 ..0 a.> .C ~ ::0 ~ s:: '"0 ~ >- s:: 0.. 0 C\l a.> .0 ..... U C\l r/J U a.> C\l a.> u ...... ..s::: @ ;:; c:: a.> 0 l-t a.> C\l l-t o E en s:: o .;:: C\l l-t a.> g- E E c.g c;j o a.> ..s:: t.t: 0....... l-t '"0 U ~ 0 a.> t..t:: r/J a.> ,-:: 'u :::: g :-e a.> a.> ,U ..s::: 0.. s:: - o ent..t:: a.> l-t l-. a.> a.> 0..0-0 E 0\ I - >= 0.. o 00 0\ s:: C\l 0: ~ ..... o -0 s:: en C\l a>:a -+oJ en O~ c~ -+oJ 0 00 00 LL_ en ~~ C\l 0 ~r/J ~ O"@ O"@ ..s::: en ..... s:: a.> E 0.. o a3 >- on.g s:: u .;:: en r/J .s 8 x 0 l-. a.> s:: ;:j l-t 0 ~ ~ ~ -a a.> C\l ~ -a .;:: ..s::: r/J u .2 ..... .-:: .2 ::3 r/J ..... l-t o 0.. 0.. o en a.> en :::: on s:: .C :::: ..... u ~ ::3 s:: C\l E '"0 s:: C\l "@ .u l-t a.> E ..... s:: a.> ~ 0.. o a.> >- a.> -0 u 's o s:: o u a.> a.> ~ ~ @ l-. ::3 o U s:: a.> ..... s:: a.> E ~ o - a.> o....s::: E E- a.> . a.> r/J u ..... s:: s:: C\l .g ..s:: . - s:: r/J a.> ~ ~ ..... o a.> a.> -5 ..s:::~ E- 0 --. V) ~ ..... s:: a.> E a.> u s:: C\l ..s::: s:: ..s::: a.> ..... a.> -a ..s::: a.> ..... ..s::: ~ u o .s e- 0 ;:j s:: 0.. 0 C ~ C\l ~en E ~ .C ..... 0.. .2 ;:j E E o u a.> ..s::: ..... r/J ~ C\l ,~ a.> (3 ~ 0.. ..s::: 0\ 00 0\ s:: o en a.> l-. o s:: l-. a.> ..s::: ..... ::3 o r./) >-. a.> >- l-t ::3 r./) s:: 0\ .9 00 s:: 0\ .a o gf u .C ::0 0.. ;:j r./) 0.... ~ v) on ~ a.> C\l - ....J8 s:: a.> o ..... o ~ r'". r./) r..: a.> .0 o ..... U o ...: l-. o 0.. a.> l-. -a s:: t.l: "@ >- ..... r/J Q.) L.L s:: C\l 0:: a.> l-. ::3 ..... :::: L.L N ..... r/J a.> C\l I E..s:::-5 5 ~ :: r/J o on 0 .~ g e ..... :E a.> 0.. ~ .u o 2 E ,~ ..... C\l ..s::: -- Q.):::: r/J..s::: on-o u ~ ~ .0 ~ o on~ l-t U '"0 ~ ~ a.> s:: a.> ..... ..s::: C\l ..s::: 0 ..... ..s::: ..... '"0 -5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >-. ~ ~ g .<;:: ~ ~ 5 ] _..s::: ~~~~ ~bb~B . -:: Q.) . <;:: r./) UoSu ~ Q.) a.> a.> . ~ ..s:: on..s::: .",- E- C\l E- ........ --- \0 o.;i ~ 0.. ..... Q.) ~ l-t C\l E "@ s:: .9 ..... C\l s:: l-t a.> ..... .s Q.) ..s::: ..... o ..... Q.) on '"0 .C .0 C\l Q.) '"0 .;; o l-. 0.. >-. l-t ~ :::: s:: ~ -. r..: Q.) -;:: ::3 CO ~ u :::: ..s::: U ..s::: ..... "~ r- o ";:: C\l r/J l-t Q.) >- s:: o u -a r- o ~ 0 a.> 0\ 0....0\ "T i~ ..... ~ ~ a.> ~ 0.. ~ o en ..... s:: ::3 o E l-. C\l <2 a.> Q.) e.n ::0 ~ ~ Q.) .5 r/J r/J :::: s:: ..s::: ;:j U ~~:a "'C r/J ~ ~ r/J Q.) Q.) r/J U s:: a.> .~ ~ .~ .,g g o~ .~ o ~ ~ a.> Q.) ..s::: 0..___ E- 0 ~ on s:: .~ .2 <2 a.> ..s::: ..... --- t' N Q.) ::0 ~ - - > l-. Q.) ..... 0.. C\l ..s::: U s:: C\l 0:: Q.) >- en s:: Q.) ..c a.> l-. 0.. F= o U '"0 s:: C\l :a r/J ~ V', r/J -0 a.> Q.) s:: l-. Q.) ..... C\l ~ en '"0 s:: C\l :a r/J ~ s:: Q.) ..s::: ~ b ~ .u Q.) 0.. r/J a.> $" u. b P\.' -tnc..\ ~ C.o~ c ,I or ko.rt"4!~ n Oller the last 25 years, both states and the federal government adopted entelprise zone programs to stimulate economic activit)' in economically distressed urban and rural locations. Since their inception, social scientists questioned their effectiveness. This policy brief reviews the empirical economics literature on enterprise zones and offers policy suggestions in light of this literature. NCRCRD July 2005 Enterprise Zones: Using Research to Impact Policy by Don Hirasuna and Joel Michael The original idea for enterprise zones is credited to Peter Hall, an urban planning professor in Great Britain. In 1977, Hall proposed using enterprise zones as an "extremely last-ditch solution" to be tried "only on a very small scale." These zones were to be free of nearly all taxes and government regulation /. Enterprise zones in the United States provide tax incentives, subsidies or relief from burden- some regulations. As a policy matter, enterprise zones are best used if benefits outw.eigh the costs. Researchers consistently find it difficult to mea- sure benefits and assess whether growth would have occurred despite the zone. Predicting their success and inlpact always includes uncertainty because studies of existing zones find both neg- ligible and significant employment increases. The research does indicate that zones may be temporarily successful. In the last 10 to 15 years, a number of stud- ies produced mixed results about enterprise zones. Leslie E. Papke found that in Indiana's enterprise zone program, there was a reduc- tion in un~mployment claims;2 likewise, Kala Seetharam Sridhar found a temporary decrease in unemployment rates in Ohio's enterprise zone3. Conversely, in a study conducted by John B. Engberg and Robert T. Greenbaum that examined California, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia's enterprise zones, they found no significant change in per capita employment rates1. In addition, Alan H. Peters and Peter S. Fisher found no significant increase in employment when examining enterprise zones across the countryS. \\That causes these differences in results is uncertain but could include the statistical method, the data used for analysis, the par- ticular program, or the economy within and surrounding the zone. Insights from the Studies Various factors may affect zone programs' chances for success. Although there is no consensus, the research uncovers insights into the conditions and pro- gram features that may increase employn1ent 1Il zones: · Larger financial incentives may be necessary to spur growth. . Areas with fewer barriers are more likely to be successful. Employment growth may shift rather than add employment within the region. · Benefits may last for only a short time. · Zone development may substitute for incentives created by high quality public services and amenities. Subsidy strings may not assure greater job growth. Tax incentives in general appear to have small positive effects, particularly in more eco- nomically healthy areas of the state. A consensus is forming from the research that tax incentives have s111a11 positive effects upon Zones involving local, holistic, participatory efforts that do not include attracting industry, can be successful, which is shown through a study ofEZ/EC communities performed by the NCRCRD. Please visit http://www.ncrcrd.iastate.edu/activi- ties/ezec/ezec.htm for more information. the state economy. The perennial problem in tax incentive studies, like enterprise zone stud- ies, is recognizing whether growth would have occurred without the incentives. Several researchers suggest that some areas are more likely to grow in response to tax incentives than others6: areas with already low employment rates and with historically high levels of investment in nlanufacturing facilities and equipment, and suburban areas instead of central cities. These studies suggest that tax incentives may be most effective in already economically viable areas; although typically these areas do not qualify as enterprise zones. Significant ideas from the studies include the following: Reducing property taxes may increase employment. Reducing sales tax rates may increase employment growth rates. Personal property taxes may reduce employ- ment growth. Job tax credits may increase employment. Research and development tax credits stimulate investment in research and devel- opment, leading to income and productivity growth.' Policy Implications Considering all the studies using regression analysis, the economic effect of enterprise zones remains unclear. Uncertainty in itself has policy implications. The literature can provide policy insights for existing enterprise zone programs. Economically viable areas seem to have more prospects for success, rather than traditional zone locations--areas with stagnant or declining economies. The following are several policy insights or implications that we draw from the literature on enterprise zones. Regularly evaluate the zone program's effects. Careful evaluation of a new zone program is needed after 5 years to help deci- sion makers assess its contribution to the state or to help design policies. This study should be objective, conducted by a nonpar- tisan organization that performs regression analysis involving control areas that are not zones. Sunset the program. Upon evaluation, the state may wish to close the enterprise zone( s). Studies show that enterprise zones may be most effective in the short term rather than over an extended number of years. Find ways to limit the incentives only to firms that are induced to locate in the area because of the program. Several researchers suggest that new zone businesses may locate in the zone, instead of a nearby location, to take advantage of the zone benefits. Limiting the zone to enterprises that were not already considering other sites in the region is one possible policy consideration. · Choose the right set of tax incentives and other benefits. In choosing tax incentives or other benefits, it may be worth considering who directly benefits. If business owners directly benefit, recognizing whether ben- efits are passed onto employees or whether investments are made in equipment instead of labor is important. · Do not let the quality of local public ser- vices drop so much that it outweighs the benefits of the zone. Studies suggest that local public services may make households better off and enhance economic growth. This may be relevant if the zones result in a loss in tax revenue by reducing the number of new businesses that locate just outside the zone, which may result in fewer dollars for publicly provided goods and services. . Areas with more barriers may need more benefits or incentives. Some hard-to- develop areas may not be interested in a basic incentive package and may require more incentives or other benefits. Because of this potentially large and costly endeavor some may forgo the development of a region for nlOre viable projects. · If the goal is to hire local residents, then additional policies may be needed. Some research indicates, at least in urban areas, that enterprise zones do little to increase local employment. Increasing access to jobs may not be enough to fix the problem for unskilled residents who live in the area. · If the goal is regional development instead of development for a location, then con- sider other policies. Enterprise zones may do little to increase regional employment; they may provide only local benefits. · Keep regulations and restrictions to a min- imum. Some suggest that enterprise zones may not develop business activity when too many regulations are in place. For example, if too many costly requirements must be satisfied to qualify for a job tax credit, some firms may decide against the program. Think the tax incentive and subsidy game through to the end. A number of studies warn that state economic development incentives will be matched by incentives from other states. Before undergoing an enterprise zone venture, the state may benefit by devel- oping a decision tree of "what-if" scenarios to help further refine their risk of failing to provide enough benefits to justify the costs. Do not create too many enterprise zones. Some suggest the trend of adding new zones may dilute the effect of the incentives in preex- isting zones. As more zones are created in the state or in competing states, fewer comparable advantages remain in the original zones. To read an extended version of this policy brief with additional references to the studies men- tioned here, visit http://www.house.leg.state. mn.us/hrd/pubs/ entzones. pdf For More Information Don Hirasuna and Joel Michael are legisla- tive analysts in the Minnesota House of Representatives Research Department, (651) 296-8038, Donald.Hirasuna@house.mn; or (651) 296-5057, Joel.Michael@house.mn. North Central Regional Center for Rural Development (515) 294-8321, ctlora@iastate.edu www.ncrcrd.iastate.cdu This material is based upon work supported by annual base funding through the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture. The NCRCRD prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender identity, religion, age, eisability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, sex, marital or family status, or status as a u.s. veteran. References 1. Boarnet, !v1arion C., 2001. "Enterprise Zones and Job Creation: Linking Evaluation and Practice." Econo1'nic Development Quarterly. 15,3: 242-254. 2. Papke, Leslie E., 1991. "Tax Policy and Urban Development: Evidence from an Enterprise Zone Program" (working paper 3945), National Bureau of Economic Research. 3. Sridhar, Kala Seetharam, 1999. "The Incentive Programs and Unemployment Rate," Review of Regional Studies 30, 3: 275- 98. 4. Engberg, John and Robert Greenbaum, 2000. "An Evaluation of State Enterprise Zone Policies;' Policy Studies Revit;w 17,2-3: 29-46. 5. Peters, Alan, H. and Peter S. Fisher, 2002. State Enterprise Zone Programs: Have They ~Vorked? Kalamazoo: Upjohn Press. 6. Goss, Ernest P. and Joseph 1\1. Phillips, 2001. "The Impact of Tax Incentives: Do Initial Economic Conditions I\-1atter?" Growth and Change 32: 236-50; Goss, Ernest P. and Joseph M. Phillips, 1999. "Do Business Tax Incentives Contribute to a Divergence in Economic Growth," Economic Development Quarterly 13, 3: 217-28; Rainey, Daniel V. and Kevin T. McNamara, 2000. ('Tax Incentives: An Effective Development Strategy for Rural Conlmunities?" Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 34, 2: 319-25. ~\AJr~M~\\-- ~ Co~ec \0(' ~l!e..\\ Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 15, No.2, 168-180 (2001) 001: 10.1177/089124240101500205 An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Louisville's Enterprise Zone Thomas E. Lambert Spalding University Paul A. Coomes University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky, has one of the oldest and largest enterprise zones (EZs) in the United States, yet until recently, the program had not been independently evaluated. Perhaps because no clearly superior evaluation methodology has emerged in the literature, the efficacy of EZ programs around the United States remains a contentious subject among scholars and policy makers alike. The' authors take a quasi-experimental approach in evaluating Louisville's EZ, using many different measures to give the program every chance to show success. Program tax exemptions and administrative costs of more than $55 million within the 13-year period studied are identified. The measures reveal that one of the EZ's three objectives was obtained in one geographic subset of the zone, but not because of the EZ policy treatment. The research adds one more case study to the EZ literature and provides another indication of the questionable benefits ofEZ programs. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p mla apa research citation/O/6/7/5/1 /p67519 index.html Abstract: While enterprise zones were originally intended to provide tax incentives to businesses for locating in impoverished neighborhoods, virtually all state programs have changed their zone designation rules to permit the designation of non-distressed areas as enterprise zones. No state is better for examining the dynamics and consequences of the expansion, or un-targeting, of enterprise zones than Ohio which is one of the oldest and most expansive programs. In this paper, we examine three issues. First, if enterprise zones are no longer targeted at economically distressed areas, which areas are designated as enterprise zones? Second, which enterprise zones generate the most new jobs and private investment? Third, we evaluate the performance of zones using developmental, efficiency, and equity criteria to answer the question, where should Ohio designate its enterprise zones? This study does not weigh in on whether state enterprise zone programs work in attracting investment and jobs. Instead, this research seeks to orient the discussion toward the question of who, or to be more accurate "where," benefits under enterprise zones. Our research contributes to the policy and political debate over the value of spatially targeted economic development programs and the impact of intra-state economic development competition. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Potential Legal Pitfalls Facing State and Local Enterprise Zones, ACCN-4587 Michael Allan Wolf 1985,84pp. Unpublished paper to be published by Urban Law and Policy. Currently available from HUD USER, P.O. Box 23268, Washington, D.C. 20026-3268 Phone: 1-800-245-2691 The author identifies and discusses six areas in which there is potential conflict between enterprise zones and State or Federal constitutions and statutes; he suggests ways of improving State and local programs by considering the legal questions addressed. Tax exemptions or abatements may not constitute "equal and uniform taxation" or may not meet the requirement of several States for affirmative constitutional authorization for such exemptions. In a few States, officials are forbidden to contract away sovereign taxing power. Revenue bonds for private purposes may be challenged in some States, as may tax increment financing. Preferential hiring (as for zone residents) may violate congressional authority to regulate interstate trade, absent F ederallegislation endorsing the zones, or the "privileges and immunities" language of the fourth amendment. Granting competitive advantages to distressed areas could be held to illegally restrain trade. The decision to designate one area and not another as an enterprise zone could in certain cases be held to deny equal protection under the law to an area denied designation. The elimination or relaxation of regulations in enterprise zones might be held "arbitrary and unreasonable," and the use of eminent domain to take property zone tax impact model. "The tests to ease blight in enterprise zones might be held a taking for private rather than public purposes. Substantial public input into the drafting of enterprise zone statutes or regulations is viewed as one firms considering expansion way of convincing the courts that no rights were violated or the public purpose sacrificed to the private. State Enterprise Zone Programs: Variations in Structure and Coverage, ACCN-4589 Roy E. Green and Michael Brintnall1986,37pp. Unpublished paper Available from HUD USER, P.O. Box 23268, Washington, D.C. 20026-3268 Phone: 1-800-245-2691 The cumulative impact of enterprise zones can be ju4ged on (1) the extent to which they emphasize a freer marketplace to meet public need rather than greater government intervention; (2) the extent to which they emphasize entrepreneurial opportunities rather than a government focus on preconceived needs along which entrepreneurs would be directed; (3) the extent to which they create incubator environments for small, new ventures rather than relocating existing ones; and (4) the extent to which the zones focus on business creation and growth rather than a more diversified social agenda. The authors find that enterprise zones have flourished in States that had relatively lower taxes in the past and have not emerged in States with a tradition of liberal activism in past public policy. To a lesser extent, the authors found enterprise zones attracted by States that are beginning to slow or lag in population growth. Enterprise Zones: Outlook 1986 Robert M. Sparks Area Development: Sites & Facility Planning, v. 2 1, n. 2 (February 1986): 12-13,26,44 An overview of the 5-year development of State-fostered enterprise zone programs is followed by a discussion of some of the issues involved in evaluating the success of the programs. Since the zones address longstanding problems, long-term evaluation is suggested, divided into evaluation of direct and indirect results. One analysis of eight zones suggests a preponderance of activity in the small-business category and favorable economic results in six of the eight zones. The author suggests that an integration of Federal, State, local, and private activities, embodied in enterprise zones, will continue to be encouraged and that the zones should achieve the desired results if they are carefully blended with other programs addressing the investment climate of their target areas. Enterprise Zones: The jobs and Investment Numbers Continue To Grow, But the Criticisms Remain Eric Peterson with Dora Hatras and Alison Hayes I Business Facilities, v.19, n.5 (MayI986): 26-33,90,92-94,98 Although impressive figures reflect many jobs created or retained, some enterprise zones still show net job loss. Analysis suggests that growth of smaller firms offering employment opportunities has coincided with loss of large employers and that zones have helped achieve economic stabilization in cities where rapid declines would otherwise be expected. Close targeting of zone goals (or of entire State programs) seems to generate successful results. In cases where gains are less impressive, stability alone has been a tangible achievement. Thus zones are characterized as "a basic economic development tool." In an accompanying article, a State-by-State directory describes programs in 27 States. Judgment Policies Used in Assessing Enterprise-Zone Economic Success Criteria Paul Miesing and Thomas C. Dandridge Decision Policies, v.17 (1986): 50-64 The authors describe 11 criteria for selection of an enterprise zone, including transportation, zoning and land use, vacancy of property, labor potential, unemployment, city competency and history, commitment of employers, commitment of business, commitment of residents, property ownership, and planning and development. The authors prepared 27 unique combinations of these attributes, describing each criterion as "poor," "adequate," or "good," and presented them to 20 New York State officials-legislators; regional or county commissioners of economic, industrial, or urban development; and city planners, managers, or council members. The respondents were asked to rate in each of the 27 cases, on a scale of 0 ("no chance") to 100 ("sure thing"), the likelihood of the area's becoming a successful enterprise zone. Only five of the attributes (transportation, labor potential, competency, and commitment of employers and of business) proved significant at the .001 level as indicators of potential success. A sixth (extent of development) was significant at the .05 level. The more visible and powerful respondents tended to be less optimistic about success than the lower level administrators. But in a separate comparison, those le.ss involved with economic development were less optimistic than those extensively involved. Enterprise Zones: An Evaluation of State Government Policies Rodney A. Erickson and Susan W. Friedman with Richard E. McCluskey January 1989, 170 pp. Available from NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 Although enterprise zones are no panacea for economic distress, notable improvements have occurred in many zones, according to this study of 17 States with the longest standing programs. More than 25 percent of the zones achieved a gross job gain growth higher than the national rate during comparable periods. Moreover, these gains have occurred in distressed areas with far worse unemployment, poverty, and economic and demographic stagnation than found elsewhere. Typical zone investments added several new businesses and aided existing ones, and zone residents held most of the jobs gained. New firms and the expansion of existing ones accounted for more than 80 percent of the investments. Of course, some zones outperformed others. The zones that performed better than expected had four common characteristics: high development potential; enterprise designation, which helped stabilize the area; a broad set of incentives; and strong local cooperation and zone marketing efforts. In general, the State and local incentives used in enterprise zone programs were relatively low-cost inducements such as tax incentives, revolving loan funds, and job credits. Enterprise Zone Tax Incentives: Their Value to Firms and Their Cost to the Federal Government, ACCN-S470 Clifford R. Kern and Philip Spilberg December 1983,35 pp. Available from HUD USER, P.O. Box 23268, Washington, D.C. 20026-3268 Phone: 1-800-245-2691 A mathematical formula is used to forecast the potential effect of Federal tax incentives on efforts to promote investment and employment growth in enterprise zones. Because the proposed Federal enterprise zone program would use tax incentives rather than direct budgetary outlays as the active ingredient for economic development, the cost of the program is not predetermined. Consequently, the cost depends on the ability of zones to absorb the tax credits. The size of these incentives per dollar of sales provides a measure of their power to promote economic activity and can be used in estimating Federal revenue losses. Setting the EZ Record Straight: What Can We Learn from the States? Michael Allan Wolf Tax Notes (March 27, 1989) pp.1657-1660 An analysis of State programs is used to assess the potential for a Federal enterprise zone program. At the time the article was written, 36 States and the District of Columbia had implemented a wide array of programs offering tax concessions to attract business and retain economic activity in distressed areas. Among the most familiar incentives under State programs are sales tax relief, employee and employer income tax credits, favorable treatment for capital gains, and investment tax credits. While there are similarities in name and general approach, the variegated State experience should not be used to predict the success or failure of Federal enterprise zones. However, there are a number of lessons from the States' experiences that should be heeded in developing a Federal enterprise zone program. F or example, eligible areas should be encouraged to compete for enterprise zone designation. Also, incentives should be kept to "a manageable few" to avoid complicating the program with too many variables. Do Enterprise Zones Work? Patrick G. Marshall Editorial Research Reports (April 28,1989)pp.230-243 Available from Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1414 22d Street NW., Washington, DC 20037 Various political and economic factors are analyzed to assess the potential for implementation of Federal enterprise zone legislation. Perennial enterprise zone legislation to provide Federal tax breaks to businesses willing to locate or expand in economically distressed areas has failed to win Congressional approval for nearly a decade. But in 1989, the political climate may be more favorable for enactment of Federal enterprise zones. Among the encouraging elements cited in the report are strong support from President Bush and HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, the sponsor of the original 1980 enterprise zone bill, and Congressional willingness to consider tax relief-based economic development policies. However, a number of issues have yet to be resolved. For example, how much the program will cost depends largely on the success of zones in creating new jobs as opposed to relocated jobs. Then, there is the question of whether tax incentives are enough to coax businesses into distressed areas. The States' experiences with enterprise zones provide clues about how a Federal program might work and what problems it would face. Federal Tax Incentives for Enterprise Zones: Analysis of Economic Effects and Rationales, ACCN-S490 Dennis Zimmerman June 15, 1989, 20 pp. Available from HUD USER, P.O. Box 23268, Washington, D.C. 20026-3268 Phone: 1-800-245-2691 An analysis of the potential economic effects of six enterprise zone bills introduced in the 101 st Congress concludes that Federal tax incentives could stimulate increased economic activity in distressed areas; however, the tax breaks would result in a loss of national income. Consequently, such a program must be justified on the basis of social benefits-business investment and employment in depressed areas. Nevertheless, the congressional enterprise zone proposals present several difficulties in attempting to maximize social benefits per dollar of Federal revenue loss. Enterprise zone residents will derive few direct benefits from the capital subsidies (money spent to buy equipment and build structures) and the labor subsidy. Although enterprise zone residents would receive some indirect benefits from the investments stimulated by the incentives and an improved tax base, land prices would increase, raising the cost of living in the area and offsetting some of the improved public services or reduced tax rates financed by the new investment. Zeal for the Zones Robert Guskind National Journal (June 3,1989) pp.1358-1362 Comments from experts, including HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, and examples of State and local programs present arguments on both sides of the enterprise zone issue. Nearly a decade after enterprise zones entered the American political arena, there are no conclusive data on their effectiveness in attracting business investment in distressed areas. Nevertheless, around the country, there are more than 500 active State enterprise zones. Most programs offer businesses in enterprise zones a combination of local property tax abatements, tax credits for hiring disadvantaged workers, sales tax relief, and deductions for capital improvements. Some offer low interest loans and grants to businesses willing to locate in distressed areas. Some programs are geared toward attracting small businesses, but most States have opted to use enterprise zones as an offering in their industrial recruitment packages of tax breaks, loans, and grants. While more than two-thirds of the States have implemented their own programs, the debate, which began in 1980 when then Congressman Kemp proposed the first Federal enterprise zone legislation, has come full circle. It remains to be seen whether Congress and the Administration will finally enact Federal tax incentives for enterprise zones. Enterprise Zones in States With Competitive Programs-Performance and Effectiveness: A Survey of 22 State Enterprise Zone Coordinators, ACCN-S471 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation June 1989, 16 pp. Available from HUD USER, P.O. Box 23268, Washington, D.C. 20026-3268 Phone: 1-800-245-2691 A survey of 22 State enterprise zone program coordinators found that tax credits for hiring new employees and sales and use tax exemptions for building materials, equipment, and machinery are the most effective incentives offered to attract business investment in distressed areas. A high level of support from local elected officials was rated as the most effective program component provided by local enterprise zone programs. The 22 States in the HUD survey have operational enterprise zone programs in which zone designation is based, at least in part, on competition among applicants. These States have more than 500 operational enterprise zones that have attracted nearly $5.5 billion in private investments in businesses that have created almost 100,000 jobs. The survey found a high positive correlation between the number of jobs created or retained and reported levels of business investment. An "Essay in Re-Plan": American Enterprise Zones in Practice Michael Allan Wolf The Urban Lawyer (Winter 1989) pp. 29-53 The results of an analysis of State enterprise zones are reported in this examination of tax-based economic development programs. The use of enterprise zones-geographically targeting tax, financing, and regulatory incentives to a depressed area to encourage economic development or neighborhood revitalization-is firmly established in 37 States without the effective assistance of the Federal Government. Lawmakers, administrators, and bureaucrats have promulgated and implemented a diverse array of incentives designed to attract employers and investors to the Nation's most distressed regions. Existing programs have been modified to make State and local redevelopment and revitalization efforts more successful. With existing State and local programs slated to continue far into the 1990's and interest stirring in other States, it is noted, enterprise zones will likely be around for at least the next decade. Section III-Enterprise Zones: Case Studies and State Reports State Designated Enterprise Zones: Ten Case Studies, ACCN-4S70 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1985,372pp. Available from HUD USER, P.O. Box 23268, Washington, D.C. 20026-3268 Phone: 1-800-245-2691 I --..--- Researchers compiled detailed studies at 10 sites, including a total of 182 site interviews. The 10 sites were Bridgeport, Connecticut; Chicago; Dayton, Ohio; Louisville, Kentucky; Macon, Missouri; Michigan City, Indiana S1. Louis, Missouri; Thief River Falls, Minnesota; Tampa, Florida; and York, Pennsylvania. Each case study includes details about the characteristics and development of the State and local enterprise zone programs; the physical, social, and economic characteristics of the zone; impacts on the area since the designation as a zone; and assessments by State and local officials of their enterprise zone experience. According to the authors, "Zone designation appears to produce a positive and tangible impact on business investment in the ten zones. Zone designation itself, the catchy and flexible concept of an enterprise zone, in many cases appears more important in generating new investment than the specific package of incentives offered. Designation provides a significant marketing tool for the zone in particular and for the city as a whole." An executive summary provides other conclusions from the study as a whole, but makes no claims about their applicability to all zones. Summary and Analysis of State Enterprise Zone Legislation, ACCN-5472 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation 1989, 66 pp. Available from HUD USER, P.O. Box 23268, Washington, D.C. 20026-3268 Phone: 1-800-245-2691 This analysis summarizes features of 36 State enterprise zone statutes that can be useful in assessing existing programs and developing new or revised enterprise zone legislation. The summaries contain highlights of State and local program administration, selection criteria, and incentives. Among the specific topics included in the summaries are the statutory authority and requirements for State administration of the program, key elements of local plans and programs necessary for zone designation, and organizational innovations at the State and local level. Special features of State selection criteria systems include size, population and demographic requirements and competitive factors for enterprise zone designation. Of particular note is an analysis of how States balance \ economic development goals and distress criteria in the selection process. Also included in the State summaries are innovative tax and nontax incentives for the zones and eligibility requirements for those incentives such as residency and income thresholds for employees. Provisions for paybacks and benefits, as well as evaluation and reporting requirements, are also analyzed. Michigan's Enterprise Zone 'Program: Progress, Prospects, Problems and Recommendations Ann Workman Sheldon and Richard C. Elling April 1988, 146 pp. Available from Center for Urban Studies, College of Urban, Labor, and Metropolitan Affairs, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202 An evaluation of Michigan's enterprise zones, commissioned by the Michigan Department of Commerce, found that the program has been an important factor in stimulating State and local efforts to strengthen economic development efforts. Following an evaluation of the program's impact on the State's first enterprise zone in Benton Harbor, researchers at Wayne State University's Center for Urban Studies noted that the infusion of State and county resources is likely to lead to increased public-private cooperation and the channeling of additional private resources into enterprise zones. Although interest in the program incentives during the first 18 months was more limited than expected, it is recommended that the program be continued with modifications to make business development in the zones more attractive. In addition, the program should be expanded to permit designation of additional zones in a limited number of economically distressed communities. Additional incentives should be directed toward improving the physical condition, infrastructure, and municipal services in the zone; stimulating greater private involvement in the local program; and increasing the business community's confidence in the future of enterprise zones. The San Jose Enterprise Zone Program, ACCN-S473 Peter Burwell Williams May 1988, 124 pp. Available from HUD USER, P. P.O. Box 23268, Washington, D.C. 20026-3268 Phone: 1-800-245-2691 A coordinated and comprehensive local economic development strategy with linkages to the local business community may be the best benefit of the enterprise zone program, according to a planning report evaluating components of the San Jose, California, program. The San Jose enterprise zone program is mainly the result of a State policy with local applications. The principal incentive is a State corporate income tax credit for firms that hire from specified job training programs administered through Santa Clara County. Some of the other tax incentives include a IS-year net operating loss carryover, a first-year business expense deduction for part of the cost of certain property purchased for use within the zone, and tax-free interest on certain investments. In addition to the package of State- sponsored incentives, the program offers several local incentives, including a suspension of local construction-related taxes within the zone. -Firms that purchase new machinery and equipment for use exclusively within the zone are also eligible for a sales tax credit. Evaluation of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Enterprise Zones in Illinois Ann H. Elder and Ira Cohen June 29, 1989, 41 pp. Available from Community Research Services, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61761 An evaluation of enterprise zones in Illinois, conducted under a grant from the Governor's Office of Planning, notes that attracting business to economically distressed areas is influenced by a wide range of characteristics of the area itself-tax climate, quality of life, availability of sites for development, government services, and market accessibility. Consequently, government intervention can affect only part of the benefits or liabilities of a particular area, but it can be important, according to a study of 12 enterprise zones in the State. The study found that enterprise zones are more likely to make marginal changes in economic development in an area than spark major redevelopment. Zones, in combination with other incentives, may result in more business creation than might otherwise occur, but they may be insufficient to reverse severe economic decline. The most successful enterprise zones, it is noted, are located in areas with adequate infrastructure and public services. Another characteristic they seem to have in common is a strong zone organization with experienced administrators and a coherent local plan for economic development. The report includes recommendations for improving the State's enterprise zone program. Among them is that zones should be separated into two categories: those that are economically distressed and in need of special assistance because of their location; and non- distressed areas in which zone designation will assist the State as a whole. The Syracuse Economic Development Zone Analysis and Recommendations for Evaluation, ACCN-S474 Department of Public Administration, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University June 10, 1988,73 pp. Available from HUD USER, P.O. Box 23268, Washington, D.C. 20026-3268 Phone: 1-800-245-2691 The impact of an enterprise zone on economic development can only be assessed by contrasting what would have happened without the zone with what actually happened, concludes a study of the Syracuse, New York, Economic Development Zone program. Most program evaluations focus on descriptive statistics-the number of new jobs created, the amount of capital investment, and the public cost per new job. To make a fair estimate of the real impact of the zone involves collecting data on several variables at the zone level and comparing them over time, then comparing those same variables at the county and State levels. The study also concludes that an economic development program aimed at enticing new businesses dilutes the potential effectiveness of enterprise zones. Programs directed at increasing the total value of the labor, goods, and services that a city "exports" to markets outside the zone will improve its citizens' economic circumstances by bringing money into the community. Economic development policies are effective only when they cause behavior that would not have occurred otherwise. Consequently, enterprise zone incentives must be narrowly targeted toward those firms most open to influence. The New Jersey Urban Enterprise Zone Program: An Evaluation July 10, 1989,88 pp. Available from New Jersey Department of Commerce, Energy, and Economic Development, Trenton, NJ 08625 An economic model is used to estimate the impact of New Jersey's Urban Enterprise Zone Program on the State's economic and fiscal bases. The data used in this study, prepared for the New Jersey Department of Commerce, Energy, and Economic Development, were derived from a survey of "qualified" firms that had been in the program for at least 1 year as of June 30, 1988. Based on those responses, the study concludes that the program has improved the relative position of the State's most distressed communities and has had an overall positive economic impact. On average, employment in the 10 enterprise zones grew at a slower rate than in non-enterprise zone cities prior to the program's inception, but at a faster rate after implementation. The study also found that program benefits were more important to larger firms. The influence of individual program benefits on business location and expansion decisions varied widely, with respondents reporting that sales tax exemptions were more influential than the corporate business tax credits and the unemployment insurance tax rebates in these decisions. Business Impacts of Enterprise Zones, ACCN-4579 Susan A. Jones, Allen R. Marshall, and Glen E. Weisbrod 1985,147pp. Available from HUD USER, P.O. Box 23268, Washington, D.C. 20026-3268 Phone: 1-800-245-2691 Case studies of eight enterprise zones (in Norwalk, Connecticut; St. Louis, Missouri; Philadelphia; Baltimore; Dayton, Ohio; Topeka, Kansas; Decatur, Illinois; and Louisville, Kentucky) sought to answer four questions: What result have the zones had on business entry and exit and employment trends? Have zones showed reversal of negative economic trends over time? Have zones shown economic growth that differs from that of the cities of which they are a part? Are there consistent factors that seem to affect these results? The study found diversity in economic targeting strategies and incentives; three zones report higher participation by new businesses than old. All show high numbers for job creation and retention, especially by large businesses. Many zone-located businesses do not participate in zone incentives, but the zone may have been an incentive for their locating there. Total business activity increased in all zones examined, though half of them declined in overall employment. The mix of business appears to be broadening from traditional heavy manufacturing. Enterprise Zone Programs and Neighborhood Revitalization: The First Two Years Earl R. Jones 1985,30pp. Available from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, 1003 West Nevada Street, Urbana, IL 61801 In order to determine whether enterprise zone programs had begun to stimulate neighborhood revitalization, a legislative analysis examined the extent to which State zone programs provided new employment opportunities, job training, citizen participation, venture capital, and reduction of neighborhood displacement. In addition, an indepth study was conducted of the enterprise zone in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and a nonzone comparison area. There was no significant difference in real estate transfer activity between the two areas. Building permit activity increased substantially in the zone immediately after designation, but activity in the comparison area also rose, and the difference was not statistically significant. The report concludes that, at this point, enterprise zones may not be stimulating revitalization. State Enterprise Zone Roundup National Association of State Development Agencies 1985,36pp. Available from National Association of State Development Agencies, Hall of States, Suite 526,444 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20001 This report presents succinct one or two-page summaries of enterprise zone programs in 26 States. Included are name of State department; name, address, and telephone number of State contact; program status; number of zones; eligibility criteria; incentives offered; and an update on recent developments. The update provides such information as, for Alabama, "As of August 1985, only the city of Prichard in Mobile County had created a local enterprise zone"; for Missouri, "24 zones as of September 1, 1985 applications received continuously"; or, for Tennessee, "No zones yet designated." $6 Billion Invested in Enterprise Zones Phyllis Messer Herman Plants, Sites & Parks, v. 1 (May-June 1986): 1, 6B, 135-137, 139, 142 A survey reveals that $6 billion has been committed by 3,100 firms to new or expanded facilities in the 677 enterprise zones of 15 States since 1981, although the figures are incomplete. Six States in the Midwest account for 65 percent of all investments. The article sketches developments since a HUD estimate 6 months earlier of $2.5 billion invested and 75,000 jobs; new activity is traced in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Minnesota, Ohio, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, Oklahoma, Texas, and Oregon. Connecticut Enterprise Zone Study: Findings and Recommendations State of Connecticut Governor's Development Cabinet February 27,1987,8 pp. Available from Connecticut Department of Economic Development, 21 0 Washington Street, Hartford, CT 06106 Connecticut enterprise zones have had a positive impact on urban blight, bringing new incentives to the State's central cities, and should be integrated with other State programs, according to an examination of the program. In addition to encouraging business investment and job creation and retention in the State's six enterprise zones, the program has so evolved that it can now address the housing and human service needs of those areas. The report recommends that the program be expanded to include education, skills training, transportation, child care, health services, employment preparation and support services, and permanent, rewarding jobs for zone residents. In one zone, a pilot program offers welfare recipients job training and counseling. Recommendations for similar programs involve collaboration among various State agencies and with local governments. To promote this collaboration, it is recommended that the Connecticut Department of Economic Development coordinate the many State resources bearing on urban problems to improve the quality of life in the zones. Enterprise Zones: The Connecticut Experiment 1985,43pp. Available from Connecticut Department of Economic Development, 210 Washington Street, Hartford, CT 06106 Originally prepared as a report to four members of the State General Assembly's Joint Planning and Development Committee, the document traces the 4-year history of enterprise zones in Connecticut. It claims the State is unique in having the first State-designated zone program, for the program's strong neighborhood emphasis, breadth of incentives, and simplicity, and for targeting the six most deteriorated urban neighborhoods. Claimed results include a positive effect on urban blight, new investments in central cities, a projected creation of over 4,300 new jobs, and retention of 4,200 existing jobs. The commercial-retail-service category surprised program designers by drawing $84 million in investment and adding 3,355 new jobs; the report suggests that despite good industrial job retention, the program's incentives may not be strong enough to draw as much new industry as desired. The six sites are Bridgeport, Norwalk, New London, New Britain, New Haven, and Hartford; the report recommends establishing zones in three more cities and expanding the area of two existing zones. Appended is a response to committee questions asked after the report was first submitted; among other recommendations, the appendix supports Federal enterprise zone legislation but says the State program would continue without it. Progress Report on Maryland's Enterprise Zones, ACCN-4572 Richard N. Funkhouser and Edward Wise 1985,24pp. Available from HUD USER, P.O. Box 23268, Washington, D.C. 20026-3268 Phone: 1-800-245-2691 After 1 to 2 years experience with the 10 enterprise zones in Maryland, the authors find evidence supports neither advocates' claims that the zones are worthwhile nor opponents' contentions that the concept is unworkable. As an experimental program, the zones could not be a cure-all for unemployment or any other socioeconomic problems of the depressed areas they cover. Corporate income tax credits of $28,000 for hiring 49 new employees and property tax credits of $162,000 were substantially lower than the $3.8 million in capital investment and 1,964 new jobs reported by 24 firms. (A lag in reporting may explain much of the difference.) Property tax credits were taken more widely, or at least more quickly, than income tax credits. Of the total public cost of the 10 zones, the largest was public infrastructure expenditures of $2.4 million, 84 percent of the $2.8 million cost. The report concludes that more time is required to determine the effectiveness of the zones. Minnesota Enterprise Zone Status Report 1984 Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development 1985, 16pp. Available from Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development, 900 American Center Building, 150 East Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55101 The Minnesota statute authorizes three types of enterprise zones: border cities, which seek to reduce the cost of doing business in Minnesota compared with neighboring States, mainly through tax equalization; competitive cities, encouraging economic growth in depressed areas; and federally designated zones, not yet operative. Through maps, photographs, and statistics, this brochure presents the progress of the State program and its 22 zones through summer 1985. Illinois Enterprise Zone Program, Second Annual Report Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs 1985,43pp. Available from Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, 620 East Adams Street, Springfield, IL 62701 Illinois had 32 enterprise zones when this document was issued, but the report focuses on the 20 that were in operation in the year ending June 1985. Before State certification, a locality must present its own plan for the zone and pass a local ordinance specifying boundaries and the local tax incentives to be offered. A proposed zone must meet at least one of four criteria defined by measuring poverty, low income, unemployment, or population loss. State-provided incentives include investment tax credits, sales tax exemptions, job tax credits, income tax deductions, utility tax exemptions, and bonding authority. An Enterprise Zone Training Fund was established with a Federal grant under the job Training Partnership Act (JTP A). The report describes the zones and lists several Department of Commerce and Community Affairs initiatives that have aided the program. Tax Incentives for Community Revitalization in Florida Coopers & Lybrand 1983, 45pp. Available from State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, 2571 Executive Circle East, Tallahassee, FL 32301 The report explains tax credits available to firms paying Florida corporate income taxes that invest in economically oppressed areas of the State. The credits apply to contributions to community development projects, creation of jobs in businesses that may employ residents of enterprise zones, and new businesses or expansion of business located in enterprise zones. Each of the three analyses covers intent of the program, advantages, eligibility requirements, application instructions, operating constraints, and sources of additional information. Two additional sections analyze tax incentives provided under Federal tax legislation passed in 1981 and 1982 and State and local development incentives including industrial revenue bonds, tax incr~ment financing, and tax abatement. Findings include: (1) The tax credit makes the real cost of a contribution significantly less than the actual donation. (2) The real cost of the contribution decreases as the size of the firm increases. (3) Tax savings from the jobs incentive decrease as the size of the firm increases. (4) For the new or expanded business credit, the savings decrease as the size of the firm increases. Florida's Enterprise Zones 1983, 53pp. Available from House Committee on Tourism and Economic Development, 324 House Office Building, Tallahassee, FL 32301 The report presents a survey of all local Florida governments that approved enterprise zones before September 1983 and a statistical analysis of zones in six metropolitan areas. After reviewing the history of the enterprise zone concept and its development in Florida and in other States, the report notes that the 154 zones approved in the State overlap so that the actual total is 109, with 55 jurisdictions represented. Average zone population is 11,425. When one county with large zones is excepted, average area is 3.29 square miles. All but four local governments have acted to enhance State incentives, most frequently by use of Federal redevelopment funds, mainly Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Thirteen counties have voted a total of23 industrial revenue bond issues for their zones. More than 50 percent of zone lands are zoned residential. In municipalities with more than one zone, one, usually the largest and located in an inner city, tends to be far more distressed. The report concludes that present zones are too large for proper impact targeting and that greater city- county participation is needed. More precise targeting and designation procedures are urged. Virginia Enterprise Zones: Measuring the Impact June 1987, 24 pp. Available from Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, 205 North Fourth Street, Richmond, VA 23219 Feedback from the business community and statistical information on Virginia's enterprise zone program is presented in this report by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). Based on a survey of businesses in the State's enterprise zones and accounting firms that have helped businesses qualify for State tax credits, as well as data provided by the Virginia Department of Taxation and DHCD, the program has achieved limited success. Fewer than 30 of the 3,700 firms operating in the 12 enterprise zones at the time of their designation have applied for tax credits, and only five new firms have qualified for the program since it began in 1984. One reason for this lack of participation, the report notes, is that the Federal income tax lowers the value of State tax inducements for new business and to encourage expansion of existing operations in distressed areas. State tax credits that a business receives from the enterprise zone program must be declared as income on its Federal tax return, thereby increasing the firm's Federal tax liability. The report also contains a number of recommendations for improving the program. Among these are proposals to: limit the number of enterprise zones; extend the period of eligibility in which firms may be reimbursed for unemployment tax payments; and give enterprise zones priority in awarding State economic development aid. Virginia Urban Enterprise Zone Program Report for 1984 August 29, 1985, 3pp. Available from Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development 205 North Fourth Street, Richmond, VA 23219 The report offers a cumulative report on business and investment activity in the six original zones -- Danville, Lynchburg, Newport News, Norfolk Portsmouth, Roanoke, and Saltville. Information on six new zones (Chesapeake, Hampton, Hopewell, Petersburg, Wythe-Carroll Counties, and South Hill) will be incorporated in 1986 reports. The original six zones together reported 205 new firms, 257 expanding firms, 3,532 new jobs, 162 business closures, and 1,715 job losses. Investment activity reported was limited to construction permits, of which 953 were issued at a value of$5.5 million. Rebuilding Our Cities: The Case for Enterprise Zones New York Legislative Commission on Public-Private Cooperation 1985, 71 pp. Available from State of New York Legislative Commission on Public-Private Cooperation, Room 310, Legislative Office Building, Albany, NY 12247 Recommending quick passage of State enterprise zone legislation, without waiting for Federal action, the Commission finds: (1) Enterprise zones are effective in improving chronically depressed neighborhoods. (2) Twenty-five States have such programs, with 1,281 zones in 524 local jurisdictions. (3) The form and size of zones differ among States, and elements are changed as experience grows. (4) Zone programs seem to be more effective when areas must compete for designation rather than qualifying automatically or meeting criteria. (5) Criteria most often used include unemployment 1.5 times or more greater than the State average, a 10 percent loss in population since 1970, a percentage of families with incomes below the poverty line that is greater than the State average, and eligibility for Federal Urban Development Action Grants (UDAG). (6) Incentives may include tax credits for new employees hired, exemption from sales taxes on materials used for construction within the zone, real estate tax abatements, tax credits or deductions for improvements or employee training programs, easy borrowing from economic development agencies, fast processing of permit applications, and access to improved roads and water and sewer service. (7) Enterprise zones primarily result in new, not "pirated," business. The report recommends: (1) Prompt passage. (2) Zones should be competitively designated by a nonpartisan panel. (3) Large and small cities, plus rural areas, should be included. (4) A "significant number of zones should be created ... promptly." (5) A variety of tax incentives should be created to appeal to a variety of business types. (6) Health, safety, and environmental standards should be maintained but paperwork and delay reduced. (7) Community participation should be encouraged. (8) Each zone should have an adequate, locally based staff. (9) Zones should get priority for help from existing State economic development programs. (10) Localities should be authorized to reduce local taxes and regulations within their zones. (11) A special enterprise zone task force should be created within an appropriate State agency. by Alan H. Peters, Peter S. Fisher - 2002 - Political Science - 345 pages ENTERPRISE ZONES AND ECONOMIC-DEVELOPMENT POLICY A central problem with almost all economic - development program evaluation is that, even after decades of 00 Website with book entry: hUp:/ /books. google.com/books?id=OZ5JEv5 808cC&pg= P A2&lpg= P A2&dq= Enterorise+zones+evalu ation&source=web&ots=PEdSE6ZniF&sig=GieI7fA19We752YKFUwVS04XYn Y &hl=en&sa=X&oi =book result&resnum=6&ct=result ALSO: hnP ://books.QQ.Qgle.com/books ?id=sn iGzlvOpwC&IUJ=PA207 &II! g=PA207 &dq=Enterprise+zones+evaluation&source=web&ots=s8 JSEuilq1 &sig=wOQOSdfQGpDQS1 Osz4Ap1 dlxWrU&hl=en&sa=X &oi=book result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPA210,M1 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ http://www . ncsl. org/programs/econ/evalentzones. htmEvaluating Enterprise Zones NCSL/Annie E. Casey Partnership on Family Econ'omic Success By Ian Pulsipher Zone-based initiative programs, commonly referred to as enterprise zones, are included in the economic development policy of 43 states. Designed to encourage investment and economic growth in distressed communities, enterprise zone programs have been in operation in this country for more than 20 years. Many zone incentives and requirements are common to the programs of different states, although the design, purpose and goals of each state's enterprise zones vary significantly. Despite the popularity of enterprise zones as an economic development tool, significant disagreement still exists as to whether they deliver the proposed benefits to states and communities. With legislative authorization for many programs set to expire, some states are choosing to expand their programs; others are content to see them go. State Enterprise Zone Programs, Origins and Current State The idea for enterprise zones first came to America from the United Kingdom. British House of Commons member Lord Geoffrey Howe and Professor Peter Hall coined the phrase and promoted the concept of enterprise zones in 1978. The belief of Howe and Hall--that 1) reducing governmental involvement in commerce on a geographically designated basis would increase local economic development and that 2) targeting underdeveloped communities for this strategy would decrease economic disparity between areas--still forms the rationale and design of today's U.S. state enterprise zone programs. Connecticut became the first state to create enterprise zones in 1981, and by 1995, more than half the states had followed suit. Currently, 43 states operate approximately 3,000 enterprise zones under a variety of different names, including "Renaissance Zones," "Empire Zones," Pine Tree Opportunity Zones," "Crop Zones," and "Economic Target Areas." The prevalence of these programs in the states varies. New Mexico's program consists of one enterprise zone located in the city of Deming, while more than 1,700 separate enterprise zones are spread throughout Louisiana. A third of Ohio is reported to be covered by the state's enterprise zones, and three states--Arkansas, Kansas and South Carolina-- have designated their entire state as an enterprise zone. Still, most state programs are comprised of less than 50 defined zones that average less than 20 square miles in area. Federal Zone Programs In addition to state zone-based incentive programs, federal enterprise communities and empowerment zones were created by the Clinton administration in 1993. These zones, modeled after state enterprise zones, share the same goals and methods of improving distressed communities--the facilitation of economic investment by reducing tax burdens on business and provision of further financial support for development. The authorizing legislation, included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, allows for nine empowerment zones (six located in urban areas and three located in rural areas), and 95 enterprise communities (65 urban, and 30 rural). For an area to become either an empowerment zone or an enterprise community, conditions related to distress and poverty must be demonstrated to the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, which designates urban zones, and to the secretary of Agriculture, which was assigned to designate rural zones. Purpose and Goals of Enterprise Zones Enterprise zone programs, in both their conception and current operation, are designed to improve the economic conditions of underdeveloped areas and communities. Enterprise zones encourage economic growth in these areas by creating more favorable and attractive conditions under which businesses can operate. Enterprise zones have increasingly been regarded as an orthodox economic development and business attraction program for states; however an understanding and commitment to the original focus of improving distressed communities remains almost universal in the states. Even the three states that . have designated the entire state as an enterprise zone maintain a focus on the most vulnerable communities by offering increased incentives to more distressed areas. Although the general commitment to decreasing regional economic disparity through increased focus on underdeveloped areas is common to all enterprise zone programs, the focus and stated goals of enterprise zone programs for achieving that objective can and do vary. In Michigan, goals of enterprise zones include curbing population flight from inner city neighborhoods. Detroit's Neighborhood Enterprise Zone program offers property tax cuts for residing in certain areas to stop the exodus of residents from the city. Other enterprise zone programs focus on improving a community's infrastructure--an important factor in fostering economic development. New Jersey's program directs the sales taxes collected from businesses that operate in the zone to neighborhood improvement efforts, including street cleaning, fa~ade repair and security. A 2005 proposal in New Jersey would channel funds originating from enterprise zone business taxes into community schools. Many state enterprise zone programs have a goal of increasing investment generally by enticing new firms to relocate in the state without targeting specific types of industry or firms. The Missouri program, for example, offers considerable flexibility in the designation of enterprise zones by allowing communities to create new enterprise zones or to alter existing boundaries to encourage negotiations with specific firms that are considering relocation within the state. The goals of many state programs focus on employment issues. Tax credits for increased payroll expenditures as a result of more hiring are among the most common incentives offered to firms in enterprise zones throughout the states. Efforts to increase local employment often are accomplished through attracting manufacturing facilities that require significant labor inputs to relocate to enterprise zone communities. Illinois, for example, offers a 50 percent tax abatement for 10 years to qualifying manufacturing firms that locate or significantly expand in enterprise zones. Requirements and Incentives To ensure that enterprise zone programs are being used to help less developed communities, most states require a condition of economic distress in the area, demonstrated by specified economic or demographic indicators, for an area to be designated as an enterprise zone. These indicators usually include high unemployment, low overall investment and poverty. Some states also include low real estate occupancy, physical blight and population loss as conditions that qualify areas for enterprise zone designation. States may offer firms that relocate or expand in designated enterprise zones a number of financial incentives aimed at reducing costs associated with governmental regulation of their business activities. The most common incentives, offered in more than half the enterprise zone states, include income tax credits, job creation tax credits, and sales and use tax exclusions. Other incentives--such as direct state loans, property tax relief, investment tax credits, tax increment financing, and improvements on public infrastructure and services--are offered by more than a third of the enterprise zone states. Incentives-- including venture capital funds, employee income tax credits, and other general reductions of regulatory burdens--also are offered to firms in some state enterprise zone programs. Beyond physical location in the zone, firms also may be required to demonstrate performance measures on net job ~reation, capital investment in facilities located within the zone, and employment of enterprise zone residents or other workers who belohg to a group defined by the program as disadvantaged, in order to maintain eligibility for the incentives. Evaluating Enterprise Zones Despite the popularity of enterprise zone programs in the states, significant disagreement still exists regarding the effectiveness of these programs. The most obvious divisions of opinion are visible between private business interests and economic development offices that support the programs and academics whose studies often show little significant economic benefit in operating enterprise zones and call for their replacement. The existence of an enterprise zone and its accompanying incentives usually is not credited as the sole factor in the relocation, hiring or investment decisions of firms, nor are they often credited as the only reason for increases in economic activity in the host communities. However, private business and state government officials often describe enterprise zone incentives as an important factor in these dynamics and as an important component of a complete and effective community and economic development strategy. Academic reviews of en~rprise zones, often prepared using econometric models, have found little evidence that zone programs would actually result in net job creation and increased community investment. Some economists hold that, as a rule, fiscal variables have very little effect on economic development, thus undercutting the fundamental rationale for enterprise zone programs. For those who maintain that fiscal variables do exert influence on development, such influence is described as only moderate, and the incentives that are commonly offered in enterprise zone programs are said to be too small to induce firms to change their business and investment decisions. In addition, in areas that have experienced growth after enterprise zone designation, it has been difficult--in empirical considerations of enterprise zones--to demonstrate a causal relationship between the two developments. State governments also have conducted a number of reviews of their respective state enterprise zone programs. As with other economic development programs, authorizing legislation for enterprise zones usually stipulates periodic reviews of zone operations. In addition, as several state enterprise zone programs have approached their expiration date--typically fifteen or twenty years--considerations about whether to continue the programs in some cases have led to comprehensive state program evaluations that are larger in scope than they scheduled assessments. In 2004, the Office of the State Comptroller in New York published the report Assessing the Empire Zones Program: Reforms Needed to Improve Program Evaluation and Effectiveness. Available online to the public, this report details areas of the program that could be targeted for improvement, and contains specific recommendations to that end. Also included in the report, for contrast and comparison, is information about other state enterprise zones. Also in 2004, Florida's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability published an information brief that provided background information about Florida's enterprise zones, data about zone distribution and program components of other states, and recent developments concerning enterprise zones on a national scale. Periodic and comprehensive reports usually include relevant information such as the amount of incentives offered and the amount actually accepted by firms qualifying for the enterprise zone program, the number of firms participating in the program, the number of jobs created in the zone, capital investments undertaken by the firm, the number of local residents employed by firms within the zone, and information about program administration. This information, although it is not the only data needed for definitive evaluation of enterprise zone program effectiveness, would provide state lawmakers with a crucial understanding of actual results of the programs A common frustration often voiced by those who conduct these reports, and by legislators who reference them for their policy decision, is that accurate and complete information about economic activity within the zone is not available. Among the factors that contribute to lack of actionable data in the state reports are incomplete reporting by participating firms, lack of resources and capability to conduct thorough reviews of the zones, and a general misunderstanding of the purpose and goals of the state programs. In addition to the obvious difficulty presented by the lack of proper information to analyze, the evaluation of enterprise zone programs has been difficult due to lack of program focus. Economic development officials and zone administrators may be unclear about the existence and relative importance of the various goals that an enterprise zone was designed to meet. This can lead to 1,'1 I imprecise accounting and reporting for the goals of the program, making even more difficult the analysis of the success or failure of reaching those goals. Effects on Communities and Families Central to the goals and functions of enterprise zones is the ultimate increase of the wellbeing of the communities and families inside the zone boundaries. Another part of program evaluation, therefore, is consideration of how enterprise zones affect communities and families within their borders. Chief among these possible effects are those related to employment and small business development. Zone incentives often are used to attract new companies to an area, thus increasing the overall level of investment in a community and adding local employment opportunities. In addition, many enterprise zone programs design incentives to induce firms to hire more workers, and often more specifically, to hire more local residents or disadvantaged workers. Louisiana's enterprise zone program that requires firms hire 35 percent of their workers from specified groups of disadvantaged individuals if they wish to be eligible for selected incentives. Enterprise zone firms in Illinois are eligible for a $500 income tax credit for each "dislocated worker" or "economically disadvantaged individual" hired, provided they have added a minimum of five employees from one of these groups. The effect of enterprise zones on small business start-up and expansion and the consequential effects on the local community are other important micro-level aspects of zone programs. Enterprise zone incentives that focus on small businesses can be particularly important during the periods of start-up and expansion that involve large, fixed costs--and, therefore increased risk--for firms. Benefits to small firms during this time--even marginal benefits that would encourage their development--translate into gains for the community and local residents represented by increased business activity and employment. Enterprise zones that successfully encourage what many have deemed the engine of economic development--small businesses--can affect communities in significant and positive ways. Maine's Pine Tree Zone program, although still in the early stages of operation, has received a strong response from small businesses that already are operating in the state but are hoping to expand. In the first year of program operation, eight zones were designated with 30 businesses participating in the program by the end of 2004. Maine's commissioner of economic development reported in November 2004 that another 100 businesses had made inquiries about participating. Officials in Maine do not expect that level of interest to continue indefinitely. They do, however, describe the Pine Tree Zone / program as one that facilitates business expansion by providing firms with the opportunity to invest through a decrease in overall costs, albeit by marginal amounts. In addition to employment and small business development, enterprise zone goals often include the broad aim of improving general community economic conditions. A study conducted by Fannie Mae in 1999 attempted to measure this. The study considered whether the presence of enterprise zones in a community would result in positive economic effects that would be visible through a broad development indicator of appreciating local housing markets. The study found that enterprise zone areas with low vacancy rates did experience positive growth in housing rates, while their findings for communities with high vacancy rates exhibited no similar benefit from enterprise zones programs. Recent Developments As legislative authorization for many state enterprise zone programs approaches expiration and state economic and fiscal conditions remain less than ideal, more states are considering programs options. Colorado's enterprise zone program could possibly undergo modifications to expand. In 2005, the Colorado economic development office hopes to further extend enterprise zone incentives with bill proposals that would extend to businesses outside the currently designated enterprise zones the same job creation tax credit offered inside the zones. The proposal also would allow the application of investment tax credits to equipment owned by a firm that is operating within the enterprise zone, but whose capital machinery--Iong haul trucks--are used in business operations outside zone boundaries. Kentucky, on the other hand, is phasing out its enterprise zone program by allowing legislation for its 10 enterprise zones to expire. Bills proposing to renew the program have failed four times in the state legislature. In addition to concern that the revenue lost as a result of the tax breaks has exacerbated the state's fiscal difficulties, a major complaint about the program was that data collected for program evaluation was incomplete and did not allow for meaningful analysis of the program's effectiveness. Although many small businesses and state and local economic development officials have been vocal in their support for continuation of the program, Governor Fletcher has indicated his intent to discontinue it, and possibly replace it with a new incentive program. At the same time, some states have recently initiated enterprise zone programs. Maine's Pine Tree Zone program, discussed earlier, began operating in 2004. Although the program's short history makes it difficult to distinguish the relative importance of its economic contribution from outside factors, the Pine Tree Zone program has been well regarded and welcomed by Maine business and government. Contact for More Information: Ian Pulsipher NCSL--Denver (303)-364-7700, ext. 1649 Posted 26 February 2008.