Economic Impact Studies
“Quantify what matters: jobs, income, GDP, and tax base—delivered with methods reviewers recognize and trust.”
Economic Impact Studies
Organizations commission economic impact studies to quantify how a proposed project will influence jobs, earnings, value added (GDP), total output, and the public tax base in a defined geography. Our role is to translate project plans—capital budgets, operating models, staffing, supply chains, and timing—into clear estimates of direct, indirect, and induced effects for both the construction phase and ongoing operations. The outcome is a defensible, lender-ready narrative that withstands scrutiny from councils, boards, agencies, lenders, and community stakeholders.
Who relies on these studies—and why
Developers and project sponsors use economic impact studies to support site selection, demonstrate local benefits, and negotiate incentives. Cities, counties, states, and economic development organizations use them to evaluate whether a project aligns with policy goals and delivers a reasonable public return. Lenders and investors reference them alongside feasibility analyses to understand regional context and fiscal resiliency. Universities, hospitals, nonprofits, and venue operators use them to communicate mission and community benefits. Across all audiences, the study provides decision-grade clarity: what will happen, when it will happen, and how benefits and revenues accrue by jurisdiction.
How the results are applied
A well-crafted study becomes the backbone of applications and hearings. Sponsors append it to grant and incentive submissions; staff cite it in memos to councils and boards; lenders file it with credit packages; and stakeholders reuse its executive summary, one-page brief, and graphics for outreach. During negotiations, the quantified fiscal impact and payback period help calibrate abatements, PILOT structures, and milestone-based incentives. After opening, the same framework can be refreshed with actuals, creating a transparent record of performance against commitments.
What the study covers
Each engagement begins by profiling the project—location, phasing, capital and operating budgets, procurement and local-spend strategies, staffing and wage schedules, and applicable tax and fee regimes. We then define the geography of interest (city, county, metro, multi-county, or state) and apply input–output modeling to estimate changes in employment, labor income, value added, and output. Indirect effects capture supplier activity; induced effects capture household spending from wages. Results are reported separately for one-time construction and recurring operations, with annualized and cumulative views. Fiscal modules estimate incremental property, sales/use, income/payroll, lodging, and excise revenues and net them against incentives to present payback and sensitivity to key drivers.
Methods and data standards
Our methods reflect accepted practice for public and lender review. We employ IMPLAN-style input–output frameworks, location quotients, and calibrated multipliers that account for local capture, leakages, substitution, and potential displacement or crowd-out. Data are triangulated against BLS/OES, BEA, U.S. Census, and state and local sources, with all assumptions and rate schedules documented in an appendix. Sensitivity analysis tests uncertainty around employment levels, wage rates, local-spend percentages, capture rates, tax rates, pricing, and schedule. The deliverable is written in clear business English, with technical depth preserved for reviewers.
Deliverables
Clients receive a narrative report (PDF) suitable for public posting, an executive summary tailored to non-technical audiences, and source tables (Excel) that allow reviewers to trace inputs and reconcile totals. When helpful for hearings or investor meetings, we provide a concise slide deck and meeting-ready exhibits. All documents are formatted for incorporation into grant applications, staff reports, and lender credit files.
Process and timeline
Engagements typically proceed in three stages. First, scope alignment and data onboarding confirm objectives, geography, scenarios, and baseline conditions; we collect budget, operating, staffing, tax, and incentive information and agree on assumptions. Second, modeling and sensitivity work develops baseline and alternative cases and calibrates regional multipliers. Third, we issue a draft for Q&A and finalize the report and tables once comments are resolved. Most assignments complete within two to six weeks, depending on scope, data availability, and third-party requirements.
Quality criteria
Public and lender audiences expect transparency and discipline. Our studies separate construction and operating effects; show annual and cumulative views; disclose assumptions, geographies, and tax schedules; treat leakages and displacement explicitly; and present sensitivity results that frame upside and downside in practical terms. Each report undergoes internal peer review and QA/QC prior to release.
Pricing
Professional fees reflect scope, complexity, and schedule. As a general guide, single-site projects with standard economic and fiscal analysis typically range from $9,500 to $35,000. Multi-site, multi-phase, or portfolio engagements; studies requiring extensive jurisdictional fiscal modeling, specialized industry modules, or intensive public-meeting support; and assignments on accelerated timelines generally range from $40,000 to $95,000+. Fixed-fee proposals specify inclusions, milestones, and any optional add-ons (e.g., briefing deck, post-opening refresh, or expanded scenario sets). We are happy to provide a tailored quote once we review your project outline and data readiness.
What we need to begin
To scope accurately and keep the timeline tight, please share a brief description of the project and locations, anticipated schedule, CAPEX and OPEX summaries (five to ten years if available), staffing and wage tables by role, procurement and local-spend expectations, and applicable tax and incentive terms. If certain items are not yet finalized, we can structure scenarios that bracket reasonable ranges and clearly label assumptions.