GA P'Jo7> .mJ ;Jbo'} !;-d.~ RECEIVED AUG 1 C 2004 DOCUMENTs TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Message from Governor Sonny Perdue 4 Message from Hugh M. Tarbutton, Authority Chairperson 6 Message from Doug J. Marchand, GPA Executive Director 8 Executive Summary 11 Chapter 1: Introduction 13 Chapter 2: Economic Impact Highlights 14 Chapter 3: The Concept of Port Economic Impact 16 Chapter 4: Methodology 19 Chapter 5: The Results 23 Chapter 6: Comparisons to Previous Estimates 25 Tables 30 Appendices The Economic Impact of Georgia's Deepwater Ports on Georgia's Economy in FY 2003 (ffi) - - - - - - ' 7 85 - - - - - The University o fGeorgia TERRY COLLEGE OF BUS I NESS April 2004 By Jeffrey M. Humphreys and Barbara D. Bart Dr. Humphreys is the Director of the Selig Center Terry College of Business The University of Georgia Athens, Georgia Dr. Bart is the Director of the Survey Research Center Office of Graduate Studies and Sponsored Research Savannah State University Savannah , Georgia This study was supported by a grant from the Georgia Ports Authority. GOVERNOR'S MESSAGE ------------------------------------------------ In April 2004, the University of Georgia's Terry College of Business released a study titled , "The Economic Impact of Georgia's Deepwater Ports on Georgia's Economy in FY 2003." It was an eye opener to many of us about the true economic impact of Georgia's ports. As part of the State's economic heartbeat, Georgia's deepwater ports translate into 275 ,968 full- and part-time jobs and $35.4 billion in sales annually. Whether you 're located in St. Mary's or in Rome, the impact of Georgia's ports is felt statewide. Whether imported or exported , Georgia products and services are a vital part of the global economy. From zipper manufacturers such as YKK to electric wire manufacturers such as Southwire to peanut and poultry producers from around the state, Georgia companies are leading the way to satisfy the demand of consumers in more than a hundred countries. Sonny Perdue Governor U.S. retailers, such as Georgia-based The Home Depot, are utilizing Georgia's ports to feed distribution centers throughout Georgia and 25 other states. Forest products generated by companies such as Georgia Pacific are grown for export in every corner of our state. Georgia kaolin , from communities throughout Middle Georgia, is exported for use in the manufacturing of products such as medicine, paper coatings and paints. And , as world demand for Georgia products grows, Georgia-based service providers such as UPS become even more important, providing the necessary services and technology to transport cargo ranging from small packages to ocean going containers. With nearly 800 million people in the world hungry and malnourished , the Georgia Ports Authority also acts as a conduit for humanitarian aid in the U.S. "Food for Peace" program. As an agri-product producing state with excellent port facilities, Georgia has become a strategic partner in the food aid export network with commodity shipments that range from American grain to evaporated milk. In all, Georgia's ports have been successful because they operate in a pro-port, pro-business environment. The State of Georgia is committed to investment in the necessary infrastructure, technology and people to continue to make Georgia's ports competitive, world-class facilities. Though this economic impact study puts a monetary value to the power of Georgia's ports, as gateways of a coastal state, our ports provide Georgia with much more. Beyond the financial considerations, Georgia's ports add global recognition to Georgia and act as a magnet for international investment and trade , thus placing our state front and center on the world's stage. Georgia's ports, coupled with competitive rail links and superior interstate access keep Georgia on the world's mind. -------------------------------------- 2 -------------------------------------- CHAIRPERSON'S MESSAGE Georgia's ports mean business. That's the message ringing clearly throughout the recently released study conducted by the University of Georgia's Terry College of Business. Today, from supporting a quarter of a million jobs to having a total impact of more than $35 billion in sales annually, the Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) plays a large role in giving companies in every corner of the State access to the resources to compete in the global market. Worldwide, the GPA has become known as the "Georgia Model." The standard by which our ports are defined, operated and marketed is increasingly the guide by which other ports are measured. Technology? Look to the GPA's WebAccess, the on-line browser interface that provides qualified port users with secure, real-time access to a wealth of container terminal transaction data gathered via the Navis yard management system. Hugh M. Tarbutton Chairperson Seamless operations? Look to the GPA's on-terminal James D. Mason lntermodal Container Transfer Facility, which allows GPA to offer overnight container delivery service to Atlanta and 2 to 4 day delivery to inland hubs such as Chicago, Charlotte, Memphis and Dallas. Focus on service? Look to the GPA's Client Relations Center, the first of its kind in the maritime industry, which acts as a front-line communications tool , providing customers and other port users with a direct, responsive link to service assistance, cargo coordination and issue resolution . Infrastructure? Look to the GPA's ever-broadening sphere of operations with increased berthing, expanded terminals, continuous facility and equipment upgrades and growing workforce to serve the shipping industry. That Georgia's ports are a vital factor in the economic well-being of the State of Georgia comes as no surprise. Every year for 16 consecutive years the Georgia Ports Authority has written its own success story, and the impact is felt throughout the State of Georgia and beyond. The success experienced by Georgia's ports is the result of a great workforce , a wellrun operation and 59 years. of constant, long-term support from state government. Thanks to the hardworking men and women of Georgia's ports for their commitment to create the most efficient, productive port facilities in the nation. Thanks to our state leaders for their efforts to provide jobs and business opportunities for Georgia's citizens. -------------------------------------- 4 -------------------------------------- Hugh M. Torbunon Chairperson, Sandersville Albert J. Scon Vice Chairperson, Savannah Richard C. "Stock" Coleman Member, Waycross Glennie CoxBench Secretory/Treasurer, Bainbridge AUTHORITY MEMBERS Maxine H. Burton Member, Bogart Jim lientz Member, At/onto ThomasJ. Dillon Member, Savannah Curtis Farrar, Jr. Member, Douglas Mock Moningly Member, St. Simons Island Keith W. Mason Member, Atlanta Arturo "Joke" Sanchez Member, Duluth 5 --------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE In 2003, the Georgia Ports Authority partnered with the University of Georgia's Terry College of Business on an economic impact study of Georgia's deepwater ports. The study's conclusions were revealing. Even in tough economic times, Georgia's ports continue to be a pillar of the state's economy that translates into jobs, higher incomes, greater production of goods and services, and revenue collections for government. Fostering the development of virtually every industry, the deepwater ports are one of Georgia's strongest economic engines, supporting other forms of transportation , manufacturing , and wholesale/distribution centers. Georgia's deepwater ports' outstanding performance relative to other U. S. ports reflects the strong competitive advantages that allowed our ports to expand, even as the national economy declined . Doug J. Marchand Executive Director At the Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) , we have an outstanding leadership team of hard-working employees and strong local , state and federal support. The Client Relations Center, the first of its kind in the maritime industry, acts as a front-line communications tool , providing customers and other port users with a direct, responsive link to service assistance, cargo coordination and issue resolution. We have substantially broadened the sphere of operations in both Savannah and in Brunswick, with increased berthing, expanded terminals and extensive infrastructure upgrades. Other infrastructure improvements include WebAccess , an on-line browser interface that provides qualified port users with secure, real-time access to a wealth of container terminal transaction data gathered via the Navis yard management system , and the James D. Mason lntermodal Container Transfer Facility, an on-terminal rail facility which allows the GPA to offer overnight container delivery service to Atlanta and 2 to 4 day delivery to inland hubs such as Chicago, Charlotte, Memphis and Dallas. Our vision is based on the concept of relationship marketing and the philosophy to stay ahead of the growth curve. We do much more than just anticipate what will be needed, but we purposefully build the framework to shape the future. We know that when our volume increases, our ability to create Georgia jobs and new income also increases. Georgia's ports are on the move, and we are standing on the threshold of even better times to come. -------------------------------------- 6 -------------------------------------- EXECUTIVE STAFF David A. Scholler Deputy Executive Diredor Doug J. Morchond Executive Director Thomas H. Armstrong Director of Strategic Development & lnformotion fechnology Robert Morris Diredor of fxtemol AHoirs Byron X. Hock Diredor of frode Development Moria H. Roberts Director of Rnonce WilsonTillotson Director of Engineering & Maintenance J. Roy Smiley Director of Administration John D. Trent Director of Operations ~------------------------------------ 7 -------------------------------------- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: THE ECONOMIC IMPAG OF GEORGIA'S DEEPWATER PORTS ON GEORGIA's EcoNOMY IN FY 2003 By Jeffrey M. Humphreys and Barbara D. Bart This summary highlights some of the findings regarding the economic impact of Georgia's deepwater ports on Georgia 's economy in fiscal year 2003. The chapters that follow this summary contain the comprehensive technical report. The statewide economic impact of Georgia's deepwater ports in fiscal year 2003 includes: $35.4 billion in sales (7% of Georgia's total sales); $17.1 billion in gross state product (6% of Georgia's total GSP); $10.8 billion in income (4% of Georgia's total personal income); 275,968 full- and part-time jobs (7% of Georgia's total employment); $3.2 billion in federal taxes; and $1.4 billion in state and local taxes. These economic impacts were especially significant given the sub-par performance of both the national and state economies. Even in tough economic times, continued emphasis on the ports as a pillar of the state's economy translates into jobs, higher incomes, greater production of goods and services, and revenue collections for government. Output Impacts - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - Measured in the simplest and broadest terms, the total economic impact of Georgia's deepwater ports on Georgia's economy is $35.4 billion, which is about 7 percent of Georgia's output in FY 2003. Out of the total , $18.6 billion represents initial spending, or direct economic impact; $16.8 billion is indirect and induced spending , or the respending (multiplier) impact. Dividing the FY 2003 total output impact ($35.4 billion) by initial spending ($18.6 billion) yields an average multiplier value of 1.902. On average, therefore, every dollar initially spent by the port industry and port users generates an additional 90 cents for the state's economy. GSP (Value Added) Impacts Measured in terms of GSP or value added , Georgia's deepwater ports contributed $17.1 billion to the state's economy in fiscal year 2003, which is about 6 percent of Georgia's total GSP. Out of the total , $7.8 billion represents the direct effects of initial spending, or the direct economic impact; $9.4 billion is indirect and induced spending, or the re-spending (multiplier) impact. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - Income Impacts - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Measured in terms of income, Georgia's deepwater ports contributed $10.8 billion to the state's economy in fiscal year 2003, which is about 4 percent of Georgia's total personal income. Of the total, $4.9 billion represents the direct effects of initial spending, or the direct economic impact; $5.9 billion is indirect and induced spending, or the respending (multiplier) impact. Employment Impacts The economic impact of Georgia's deepwater ports probably is most easily understood in terms of its effects on employment. Measured in these terms, ports support 275,968 full- and part-time jobs, which is about 7 percent of Georgia's total employment. This means that one job out of every fourteen is in some way dependent on the ports. Of the FY 2003 total employment impact, 120,1 09 jobs represent the direct effects of initial spending, or the direct economic impact; 153,860 jobs constitute the indirect and induced effect of spending, or the re-spending impact. State and Local Tax Impacts _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ The total economic impact of Georgia's deepwater ports on tax collections by state and local governments in fiscal year 2003 is $1.4 billion. Federal Tax Impacts _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ The total economic impact of Georgia's deepwater ports on tax collections by the federal government in fiscal year 2003 is $3.2 billion. Deepwater ports are one of Georgia's strongest economic engines, fostering the development of virtually every industry. The ports are especially supportive of other forms of transportation, manufacturing, and wholesale/distribution centers. The outstanding performance of Georgia's deepwater ports relative to other American ports reflects strong competitive advantages that allowed our ports to expand their share of activities even as the national economy declined, floundered, and recovered anemically. These advantages are largely the result of strategic investments in port facilities by the State of Georgia over many years. As the state and national economies gain momentum, Georgia's deepwater ports will thrive, generating even more substantial economic impacts in future fiscal years. ----------------------------------- 9------------------------------------ Chapter 1: Introduction Georgia's deepwater ports industry consists of public marine terminals in Savannah and Brunswick owned by the Georgia Ports Authority as well as private marine terminals. Savannah 's port is one of the fastest growing container ports in the world, ending the fiscal year 2003 with a 31.5 percent increase in the number of TEUs (Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units) , and a record 1.5 million TEUs shipped. Brunswick, which has carved a niche for itself in agricultural cargo and car shipments, experienced a 25.2 percent increase in the shipments of cars and machinery. The superb performance of Georgia's ports relative to other ports reflects strong comparative advantages that allowed them to expand their share of regional and national waterborne cargo traffic. These comparative advantages are the result of a series of strategic expansions over many years. It is obvious that Georgia's deepwater ports create substantial economic impacts on the State of Georgia in terms of output (sales) , gross state product (GSP) , income, employment, and tax revenues for federal , state, and local governments. Nonetheless, this study provides a quantitative assessment of the changes in overall economic activity as a result of the presence and operations of Georgia's deepwater ports in fiscal year 2003. The facilities owned by the Georgia Ports Authority in Savannah and Brunswick will be referred to as the Port of Savannah and the Port of Brunswick, respectively; and cargo volumes, expenditures, and impact estimates for these facilities will be reported separately from those for private facilities/docks. For analytical purposes, portions of the study were conducted in inflation-adjusted 2000 dollars, but the amounts expressed in this report (including the abstract, executive summary, and all appendices) are reported in current dollars (fiscal year 2003). -------------------------------------- 11 -------------------------------------- Chapter 2: Economic Impact Highlights _ _ __ The fundamental finding of this study is that the strategic decisions by state government to invest public resources in Georgia's deepwater ports have contributed to substantial economic activity in Georgia. The statewide economic impact of the deepwater ports in fiscal year 2003 includes: $35.4 billion in sales (7% of Georgia's total sales); $17.1 billion in gross state product (6% of Georgia's total GSP) ; $10.8 billion in income (4% of Georgia's total personal income); 275,968 full- and part-time jobs (7% of Georgia's total employment); $3.2 billion in federal taxes ; and $1.4 billion in state and local taxes . Measured in the simplest and broadest possible terms, the total economic impact of Georgia's deepwater ports on Georgia's economy is $35.4 billion . This amount represents the combined impact of the port industry and port users on output, which can be thought of as the equivalent of business revenue, sales, or gross receipts. The $35.4 billion output impact accounts for about 7 percent of Georgia's total output in FY 2003. Out of the $35.4 billion , $2.5 billion (7.1 percent) represents the results from the port industry and $32.9 billion (92.9 percent) represents the results from port users. Of the FY 2003 total output impact, $18.6 billion represents initial spending, or direct economic impact; $16.8 billion is indirect and induced spending , or the re-spending (multiplier) impact. Dividing the FY 2003 total output impact ($35.4 billion) by initial spending ($18.6 billion) yields an average multiplier value of 1.902. On average, therefore, every dollar initially spent by either the port industry and port users generates an additional 90 cents for the economy. Expressed in other dimensions, the ports industry and port users together support $17.1 billion in GSP and $10.8 billion in income, which account for about 6 percent and 4 percent of Georgia's total gross state product and total personal income, respectively. The total economic impact on employment is 275,968 full- and part-time jobs. The combined impact of the port industry and port users on state and local tax collections is $1.4 billion. The combined impact on federal tax collections is $3.2 billion . The distribution of total economic impacts of cargo-based activity at the Georgia Ports Authority's facilities in Savannah and Brunswick by mode of cargo indicates that containerized cargo accounts for about 85 percent of the reported economic impacts. Breakbulk cargo accounts for slightly more than 5 percent of the reported impacts, and auto/vehicle cargo accounts for slightly less than 5 percent of the reported impacts. Liquid bulk and dry bulk account for about 3 percent and 2 percent of reported impacts, respectively. ----------------------------------- - 13 ------------------------------------- Chapter 3: The Concept of Port Economic Impact _ _ The total economic impact of Georgia's deepwater ports consists of (1) direct spending by the port industry, (2) direct spending by port users, and (3) the secondary or indirect and induced spending - often referred to as the multiplier effects - created as direct expenditures by either the port industry or port users are re-spent. The port industry is defined to include economic activity (spending) that involves the transportation of waterborne cargo and port services, including the ports themselves, the companies engaged in deepwater transportation , and companies that provide ship services, and companies that provide inland transportation of waterborne cargo. Port investment (capital expenditures) for additional and/or improvements to Georgia's deepwater ports are also included as part of the port industry. This definition of the port industry is identical to the definition used by the US Department of Transportation , Maritime Administration in the MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit. Thus, the industry includes activities that take place on the vessel, at the terminal , and during the inland movement of cargo. Since the firms and enterprises that provide these activities locate in Georgia because of the existence of the ports, all of their activity (spending) can be counted as direct economic impact. Port users are mainly manufacturers and wholesalers/distributors that use the ports to transport materials and/or products. Although most port users are importers and exporters, some port users ship materials or products to and/or from domestic locations. All of the economic activity (spending) generated by port users whose decision to locate, remain, and/or expand in Georgia hinges on the presence of Georgia's deepwater ports can be counted as direct economic impact. But since most port users are only partially dependent on the presence of Georgia's deepwater ports, only a portion of their total economic activity is counted as direct economic impact. For example, firms that use Georgia's deepwater ports due to cost advantages over alternative ports or alternative modes of transportation are only partially dependent on Georgia's ports. Also, port users that only ship a portion of their production and materials through Georgia's deepwater ports are only partially dependent on the ports. To avoid double counting, port users' activity is defined to exclude their transportation expenditures associated with the waterborne cargo that is handled by Georgia's port industry. ------------------------------------ 14------------------------------------- Secondary spending is often referred to as the multiplier effect of direct spending. There are two types of secondary spending , indirect spending and induced spending . Indirect spending refers to the changes in inter-industry purchases as Georgia's industries respond to the additional demands triggered by spending by either the port industry or port users. It consists of the ripples of activity that are created when the port industry or port users purchase goods or services from other industries located in Georgia. Induced spending is similar to indirect spending except that it refers to the additional demands triggered by spending by households as thei r income increases due to changes in production . Basically, the induced impact captures the ripples of activity that are created when households spend more due to the increases in their earnings that were generated by the direct and indirect spending . The sum of the direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts is the total economic impact, which often is expressed in terms of output (sales) , GSP, income, or employment. Output is gross receipts or sales, plus or minus inventory. Total output impacts are the most inclusive, largest, measure of economic impact. Because of their size, output impacts typically are emphasized in economic impact studies and receive much media attention . One problem with output as a measure of economic impact, however, is that it includes the value of inputs produced by other industries, which means that there inevitably is some double counting of economic activity. The other measures of economic impact (GSP, income, and employment) are free from double counting and provide a much more realistic measure of the true economic impact of Georgia's deepwater ports. GSP is value added, which consists of employee compensation , proprietor income, other property income, and indirect business taxes. GSP (or value added) is equivalent to gross output (sales or receipts and other operating income, commodity taxes, and inventory change) minus intermediate inputs (consumption of goods and services purchased from other industries or imported). It is often referred to as the state-level counterpart of the nation's gross domestic product (GOP) . Income is all forms of employment income, including wages, salaries, and proprietors' incomes. It does not include non-wage compensation (e.g., pensions and health insurance), transfer payments (e.g., welfare or Social Security benefits) , or unearned income (e.g., dividends, interest, and rent). Employment includes total wage and salary employees as well as self-employed individuals. It includes both full- and part-time jobs and is measured in annual average jobs. -------------------------------------- 15-------------------------------------- Chapter 4: Methodology_ _ _ __ Estimating the economic impact of Georgia's deepwater ports involved two distinct steps. First, data regarding tonnage by type and capital expenditures were obtained from the Georgia Ports Authority. The tonnage and capital expenditure data were imported into the U.S. Department of Transportation's MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit to estimate the direct, indirect, induced, and total economic impacts of the port industry. Second, port users' spending was estimated. Port users were surveyed to determine the degree to which they depend on Georgia's deepwater ports. To help correct for non-responses and/or incomplete responses, several types of government and administrative data were used to assess the proportion of revenue or sales in various industries that could be attributed to port users' utilization of the ports. The IMPLAN Professional 2.0 Social Accounting and Impact Analysis Software was used to estimate the indirect and induced economic impacts of the port-related portion of spending by port users. Estimating the Port Industry's Economic Impact The U.S. Department of Transportation's MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit was used to estimate the direct, indirect, and induced economic impact of spending by the port industry. The study area (geographic region that was modeled) was defined as the State of Georgia. U.S. estimates of the port-related costs per unit of cargo were used as a proxy for the actual costs at the Ports of Savannah and Brunswick. A detailed discussion of the MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit, including its structure, methods, and use can be found in MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit: Volumes 1-2. The Georgia Ports Authority provided the fiscal year 2003 data that the MARAD model required. Specifically, the Georgia Ports Authority provided cargo volume (import and export) by mode of transportation for the facilities that it owns in Savannah and Brunswick. The cargo volume reported for the Port of Savannah includes data for the Garden City and Ocean terminals. The cargo volume reported for the Port of Brunswick includes data for Colonel 's Island, Logistec (Marine Port Terminals), and the Mayor's Point Terminal. Table 1 summarizes cargo volume for autos, containerized cargo, breakbulk cargo, dry bulk cargo, and liquid bulk cargo. Cargo volume is expressed on a per-vehicle basis for auto/vehicle cargo; a per-TEU (Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit) basis for containerized cargo; and a per-short ton (2 ,000 pounds) for breakbulk, dry bulk, ------------------------------------ 16 ------------------------------------- and liquid bulk. In addition , the Georgia Ports Authority provided estimates of cargo volume for the private facilities/docks based on an analysis of data obtained from PIERS, and the estimates are summarized in Table 2. The Georgia Ports Authority also provided capital expenditures (port investment) in FY 2003 for the facilities that it owns. Capital expenditures by the private facilities/docks are not included in this analysis. Estimating the Port Users' Economic Impact A confidential survey of the entire population of current users of the Georgia Ports Authority's facilities was conducted to identify the industries that utilize the ports, their sales , and the extent to which they depend on the port. Appendix 1 contains both the survey instrument and a brief summary of responses. Due to both a low response rate and incomplete responses, secondary sources of information supplemented the information obtained from the survey. These secondary sources include: (1) The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 's historical data on gross domestic product and output, gross state product, and personal income (estimates for fiscal year 2003 were prepared by the Selig Center) . (2) The U.S. Department of Labor's and the Georgia Department of Labor's historical data on employment by industry. (3) U.S. Department of Transportation , Maritime Administration , Office of Ports and Domestic Shipping data on the economic impact of port users at the national level. (4) The Georgia Department of Community Affairs and the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism's summary information from their survey of manufacturers about international trade activity and current and future exports of their products. Based on an analysis of both the survey and secondary information sources, it was determined that port-related sales (output) totaled $17.2 billion in Georgia in fiscal year 2003, or about 3 percent of Georgia's total output that year. About $14.1 billion of manufacturing sales and approximately $3.1 billion in wholesale/distribution sales were determined to be port related . Type SAM multipliers from the IMPLAN Professional Version 2 .0 modeling system were used to estimate the indirect and induced economic impact of port users' direct expenditures. A detailed discussion of the 1MPLAN modeling system , including its structure , methods, and use, can be found in IMPLAN Professional Version 2.0: Users Guide, Analysis Guide, and Data Guide. ------------------------------------ 17------------------------------------- Chapter 5: The Results _ _ _ __ The total economic impact of Georgia's deepwater ports on output, GSP, income, and employment is summarized in Table 3. The direct, indirect and induced, and the total economic impacts of Georgia's deepwater ports in terms of output, income, and gross state product are reported in Table 4. Similarly, Table 5 and Table 6 report the employment and tax impacts, respectively. Table 7 reports the overall multiplier values for output, employment, income, and GSP. Table 8 reports the total economic impacts of cargo-based activity by mode of cargo at the Georgia Ports Authority's operations in Savannah and Brunswick. More detailed tabulations of the economic impact of Georgia's deepwater ports are included in Appendix 2. Output Impacts Measured in the simplest and broadest terms, the total economic impact of the Port of Savannah and the Port of Brunswick on Georgia's economy is $35.4 billion , which is about 7 percent of Georgia's output in FY 2003. Out of the total , $2.5 billion (7.1 percent) represents the results from the port industry. The GPA's operations at the Port of Savannah contribute 71 percent of this $2.5 billion . Port users' $32.9 billion total output impact is thirteen times greater than that of the port industry ($32.9 billion for port users compared to $2.5 billion for the port industry itself). Indeed, port users account for 92.9 percent of the total output impact of Georgia's deepwater ports. Of the FY 2003 total output impact, $18.6 billion represents initial spending, or direct economic impact; $16.8 billion is indirect and induced spending, or the re-spending (multiplier) impact. Dividing the FY 2003 total output impact ($35.4 billion) by initial spending ($18.6 billion) yields an average multiplier value of 1.902. On average, therefore, every dollar initially spent by either the port industry and port users generates an additional 90 cents for the state's economy. The multipliers associated with port users and cargo-based activities are much higher than the multiplier associated with port-investment, reflecting port users and cargo operations relatively greater degree of interaction with the local economy. ------------------------------------ 19------------------------------------- GSP (Value Added) Impacts Measured in terms of GSP or value added , Georgia's deepwater ports contributed $17.1 billion to the state's economy in FY 2003, which is about 6 percent of Georgia's total GSP. Out of the $17.1 billion total GSP impact, $1 .3 billion (7.4 percent) represents the results from the port industry. The GPA's operations at the Port of Savannah contribute 71 percent of this $1.3 billion. Port users' $15.9 billion GSP impact is twelve times greater than that of the port industry- $15.9 billion for port users compared to $1.3 bill ion for the port industry. So, port users account for 92.6 percent of the total GSP impact of Georgia's deepwater ports. Of the FY 2003 total GSP impact, $7.8 billion represents the direct effects of initial spending, or the direct economic impact; $9.4 billion is indirect and induced spending, or the re-spending (multiplier) impact. Dividing the FY 2003 total GSP impact ($17.1 billion) by the direct GSP impact ($7.8 billion) yields an average multiplier value of 2.205. On average, therefore, every dollar of direct GSP produced by the port industry and port users generates an additional $1.21 for the state's economy. Income Impacts Measured in terms of income, Georgia's deepwater ports contributed $10.8 billion to the state's economy in fiscal year 2003, which is about 4 percent of Georgia's total personal income. Out of the total , $840 million (7.8 percent) represents the results from the port industry. The GPA's operations at the Port of Savannah contribute 71 percent of this $840 million, but port users' $9.9 billion income impact is almost twelve times greater. Indeed , port users account for 92 .2 percent of the total income impact of Georgia's deepwater ports. Of the FY 2003 total income impact, $4.9 billion represents the direct effects of initial spending, or the direct econom ic impact; $5.9 billion is indirect and induced spending, or the re-spending (multiplier) impact. Dividing the FY 2003 total income impact ($1 0.8 billion) by the direct income impact ($4.9 billion) yields an average multiplier value of 2.188. On average, therefore, each dollar of direct income produced by the port industry and port users creates an additional $1.19 for the state's economy. ------------------------------------- 20 ------------------------------------- Employment Impacts The economic impact of Georgia's deepwater ports probably is most easily understood in terms of its effects on employment. Measured in these terms, Georgia's deepwater ports support 275,968 full- and part-time jobs, which is about 7 percent of Georgia's total employment. This means that one job out of every fourteen is in some way dependent on the ports. Out of the 275,968 jobs, 26,519 (9.6 percent) represent the results from the port industry. The GPA's operations at the Port of Savannah contribute 71 percent of these 26,519 jobs, but port users' 249,449-job impact is nine times greater, so port users account for 90.4 percent of the total employment impact of Georgia's deepwater ports. Of the FY 2003 total employment impact, 120,109 jobs represent the direct effects of initial spending, or the direct economic impact; 153,860 jobs constitute the indirect and induced effect of spending , or the re-spending (multiplier) impact. Dividing the FY 2003 total job impact (275,968 jobs) by the direct job impact (120, 109 jobs) yields an average multiplier value of 2.298. So, on average, every job created directly by the port industry and port users means there are an additional 1.3 jobs generated for the state's economy. State and Local Tax Impacts Spending by the port industry and port users generate substantial tax revenue for Georgia's state and local governments. The total economic impact of Georgia's deepwater ports on tax collections by state and local governments in fiscal year 2003 is $1.4 billion. Of this $1.4 billion , $76 million (5.5 percent) comes from the port industry and $1.3 billion (94.6 percent) from the port users. Federal Tax Impacts Spending by the port industry and port users generate substantial tax revenue for the federal government. The total economic impact of Georgia's deepwater ports on tax collections by the federal government in fiscal year 2003 is $3.2 billion . Out of this total, $173 million (5.4 percent) represents the results from the port industry and $3.0 billion (94.6 percent) represent the results from the port users. ------------------------------------ 21 ------------------------------------- Chapter 6: Comparisons to Previous Estimates _ __ In 1997, the Georgia Ports Authority retained Booz-AIIen & Hamilton Inc. to estimate the economic impact of Georgia's deepwater ports on the state's economy. Economic impact estimates for 1996 were published in Economic Impacts of Georgia 's Deepwater Ports of Savannah and Brunswick (March 20, 1998). Instead of using actual cargo volumes and standard macroeconomic input-output modeling systems (e.g. , MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit, IMPLAN , RIMS, or REMI) to measure direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts, Booz-AIIen & Hamilton relied primarily on direct survey methods. Regional economists and economic consulting firms do not commonly use this approach. Indeed , Booz-AIIen & Hamilton indicate that their approach is "somewhat unique". Due to the unique character of their methods as well as the use of non-conventional definitions of standard economic impact terms , it is very difficult to compare their results with the results of this or any other port economic impact study. Booz-AIIen & Hamilton found that the total economic impact of Georgia's deepwater ports on output and employment were $22.3 billion and 76,672 jobs, respectively. Their estimates of the economic impact on tax collections by state and local governments was $569 million , and that the economic impact on wages was $1 .7 billion . Our impact estimates for 2003 are cons iderably larger. The order of magnitude of Booz-AIIen & Hamilton's output impact ($22 .3 billion) , however, appears to be somewhat reasonable considering that: (1) the Port of Savannah and the Port of Brunswick both experienced exceptionally rapid growth in cargo volumes from 1996-2003 (implying that direct spending by the port industry was much smaller in 1996 than it was in 2003) ; (2) Georgia's overall economy was much smaller in 1996 than it was in 2003 (implying that port-related impacts we re much smaller in 1996); (3) the survey-based approach did not capture all of the direct economic impacts; (4) the survey-based approach is incapable of capturing many of the indirect economic impacts; and (5) the survey-based approach does not capture any of the induced economic impacts. In 1999, Georgia Southern University applied more conventional input-output model ing techniques to re-estimate the economic impact of Georgia's deepwater ports in 1996. It appears, however, that Georgia Southern University basically relied on Booz-AIIen & Hamilton's estimate of direct economic impact. Nonetheless, Georgia Southern's use of the REMI model to re-estimate both the indirect and induced economic impacts more fully captured the indirect and induced economic impacts of the direct spending (as estimated by Booz-AIIen & Hamilton) . Consequently, their impact estimates were somewhat higher than those produced by Booz-AIIen & Hamilton. ----------------------------------- 23 ------------------------------------ Table 1 Cargo Volume by Mode of Transportation At the Georgia Ports Authority's Facilities in Savannah and Brunswick (Import and Export in FV 2003) Cargo Volume 1 Cargo Type Autos Total Mode Long Dist. Truck Short Dist. Truck Barge Rail Containerized Total Long Dist. Truck Short Dist. Truck Barge Rail Breakbulk Total Long Dist. Truck Short Dist. Truck Barge Rail Dry Bulk Total Long Dist. Truck Short Dist. Truck Barge Rail Liquid Bulk Total Long Dist. Truck Short Dist. Truck Barge Rail Total 235 ,993 0 0 94,387 330,380 1,035 ,410 226,033 30 , 106 225,792 1,517,340 699,471 307,103 0 323,703 1,330,277 0 789,885 0 450,630 1 ,240 ,515 612,648 71 '191 35 ,595 6.160 725,593 Savannah 15,756 0 0 0 15,756 1,035,410 226,033 30 ,106 225,792 1,517,340 607,611 193,729 0 207,317 1,008 ,657 0 33,133 0 0 33,133 612,648 71 '191 35 ,595 6,160 725,59 Brunswick 220 ,237 0 0 94,387 314 ,624 0 0 0 0 0 91,860 113,374 0 116.385 321 ,620 0 756,752 0 450,630 1,207,382 0 0 0 0 0 Percent of Total by Mode 71.43 0.00 0.00 28.57 100.00 68 .24 14.90 1.98 14.88 100.00 52.58 23.09 0.00 24.33 100.00 0.00 67.67 0.00 36 .33 100.00 84.43 9 .81 4.91 0.85 100.00 Cargo volume is expressed on a per-vehicle basis for auto/vehicle cargo; a per-TEU ("Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit") basis for containerized cargo, a per-short ton (2,000 pounds) basis for breakbulk, dry bulk, and liquid bulk cargo. Cargo volume is for the public facilities owned by the Georgia Ports Authority and does not include cargo volume for private facilities/docks. Source: Estimated by the Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, the University of Georgia (www.selig.uga.edu) based on data provided by the Georgia Ports Authority for FY 2003 (April 2004). ----------------------------------- - 25 ------------------------------------- Cargo Type Breakbulk Dry Bulk Liquid Bulk Total Total Total Total Table 2 Cargo Volume for Private Facilities/Docks (Import and Export in FY 2003) Total 1,278 ,767 8 ,390 ,762 3 ,803 ,945 13,473,474 Cargo Volume1 Savannah 889,481 8,390 ,762 3,744,238 13,024,481 Brunswick 389 ,286 0 59 ,707 448,995 Cargo volume is expressed on a per-short ton (2,000 pounds) basis for breakbulk, dry bulk, and liquid bulk cargo. Cargo volume is for the privately owned facil ities/docks and does not include cargo volume for facil ities owned by the Georgia Ports Authority. Source: Estimated by the Georgia Ports Authority based on data from PIERS for FY 2003 (March 2004). Port Industry 1. Savannah Cargo-Based Activity 2. Brunswick Cargo-Based Activity 3. Port Investment 4. Private Facilities/Docks Port Users Total Output/Revenue Impact Table 3 Summary of the Economic Impact of Georgia's Deepwater Ports, Fiscal Year 2003 (millions of 2002-03 dollars) Output Total Economic Impact on: Gross State Product Income 2 ,502 1,772 130 43 557 32,864 35,366 1,276 907 68 28 273 15,863 17,139 840 598 44 19 179 9,947 10,787 Employment (jobs) 26 ,519 18,952 1,421 577 5,569 249,449 275,968 Note: The port industry refers to firms/enterprises located in Georgia because of the existence of the ports. Savannah and Brunswick Cargo-Based Activity and Port Investment refer to impacts generated by the public facilities owned by the Georgia Ports Authority. Private Facilities/Docks refers to impacts generated by privately-owned facilities/docks. Port users refers to firms/enterprises that utilize port facilities (primarily importers and exporters) . Source : Estimated by the Selig Center for Economic Growth , Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (www.selig.uga.edu), April 2004. - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - Table 4 The Economic Impact of Georgia's Deepwater Ports on Output (Revenue), Income, and Gross State Product (GSP) in Georgia, Fiscal Year 2003 (millions of 2002-03 dollars) Direct Economic Impact on Output/Revenue Indirect & Induced Economic Impact on Output/Revenue Total Economic Impact on Output/Revenue Port Industry 1. Savannah Cargo-Based Activity 2. Brunswick Cargo-Based Activity 3. Port Investment 4. Private Facil ities/Docks 1,422 996 75 31 320 1,079 776 54 12 237 2,502 1,772 130 43 557 Port Users 17,175 15,689 32 ,864 Total Output/Revenue Impact 18,597 16,768 35 ,366 Direct Economic Impact on Income Indirect & Induced Economic Impact on Income Total Economic Impact on Income The Port Industry 455 1. Savannah Cargo-Based Activity 322 2. Brunswick Cargo-Based Activity 25 3. Port Investment 13 4. Private Facilities/Docks 95 382 840 276 598 16 44 6 19 84 179 The Port Users 4,476 5 ,471 9 ,947 Total Income Impact 4,931 5,853 10,787 Direct Economic Impact on Gross State Product Indirect & Induced Economic Impact on Gross State Product Total Economic Impact on Gross State Product The Port Industry 624 1. Savannah Cargo-Based Activity 441 2. Brunswick Cargo-Based Activity 35 3. Port Investment 17 4. Private Facilities/Docks 131 653 1,276 466 907 34 68 11 28 142 273 The Port Users 7,150 8,713 15,863 Total GSP Impact 7 ,774 9,366 17,139 Note: The port industry refers to firms/enterprises located in Georgia because of the existence of the ports. Savannah and Brunswick Cargo-Based Activity and Port Investment refer to impacts generated by the public facilities owned by the Georgia Ports Authority. Private Facilities/Docks refers to impacts generated by privately-owned facilities/docks. Port users refers to firms/enterprises that utilize port facil ities (primarily importers and exporters). Source: Estimated by the Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (www.selig.uga.edu), (April 2004). -------------------------------------- 27 -------------------------------------- Table 5 The Economic Impact of Georgia's Deepwater Ports on Employment in Georgia, Fiscal Year 2003 (full- and part-time jobs) Direct Economic Impact on Employment (full- and part-time jobs) Indirect & Induced Economic Impact on Employment (full- and part-time jobs) Total Economic Impact on Employment (full- and part-time jobs) The Port Industry 1. Savannah Cargo-Based Activity 2. Brunswick Cargo-Based Activity 3. Port Investment 4. Private Facilities/Docks 14,005 10,005 784 364 2 ,852 12,515 8,947 637 213 2,718 26 ,519 18,952 1,421 577 5,569 The Port Users 106,104 141 ,345 249,449 Total Employment Impact 120,109 153,860 2 7 5 ,968 Note: The port industry refers to firms/enterprises located in Georgia because of the existence of the ports. Savannah and Brunswick Cargo-Based Activity and Port Investment refer to impacts generated by the public facilities owned by the Georgia Ports Authority. Private Facilities/Docks refers to impacts generated by privately-owned facilities/docks. Port users refers to firms/enterprises that utilize port facil ities (primarily importers and exporters) . Source: Estimated by the Selig Center for Economic Growth , Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (www.selig.uga.edu) , April 2004. Table 6 The Economic Impact of Georgia's Deepwater Ports on Tax Collections in Georgia, Fiscal Year 2003 (millions of 2002-03 dollars) Federal Taxes State & Local Taxes Port Industry 1. Savannah Cargo-Based Activity 2. Brunswick Cargo-Based Activity 3. Port Investment 4. Private Facilities/Docks 172.5 123.5 8.8 3.3 36 .9 75 .9 54 .0 3.9 1.5 16.5 Port Users 3 ,0 0 9 .5 1,315 .9 Total 3,182 .0 1,391.8 Note: The port industry refers to firms/enterprises located in Georgia because of the existence of the ports. Savannah and Brunswick Cargo-Based Activity and Port Investment refer to impacts generated by the public facilities owned by the Georgia Ports Authority. Private Facilities/Docks refers to impacts generated by privately-owned facilities/docks. Port users refers to firms/enterprises that utilize port facilities (primarily importers and exporters). Source: Estimated by the Selig Center for Economic Growth , Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (www.selig.uga.edu) , April 2004. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 28 - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- -- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - -- -- --- Table 7 Overall Multipliers for Output, Employment, Income, and GSP Output Multiplier Value Employment Multiplier Value Income Multiplier Value GSP Multiplier Value Port Industry 1. Savannah Cargo-Based Activity 2. Brunswick Cargo-Based Activity 3. Port Investment 4. Private Facilities/Docks 1.760 1.779 1.733 1.387 1.741 1.894 1.894 1.813 1.585 1.953 1.846 1.857 1.760 1.462 1.883 2.044 2.057 1.943 1.647 2.079 Port Users 1.913 2.351 2.222 2.219 Total 1.902 2.298 2.188 2.205 Note: The port industry refers to firms/enterprises located in Georgia because of the existence of the ports. Savannah and Brunswick Cargo-Based Activity and Port Investment refer to impacts generated by the public facilities owned by the Georgia Ports Authority. Private Facilities/Docks refers to impacts generated by privately-owned facilities/docks. Port users refers to firms/enterprises that utilize port facilities (primarily importers and exporters). Source: Estimated by the Selig Center for Economic Growth , Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (www.selig.uga.edu) , April 2004. Table 8 Distribution of Total Economic Impacts of Cargo-Based Activity at the Georgia Port Authority's Facilities in Savannah and Brunswick by Mode of Cargo Mode/Impact Output/Revenue (Mil. $2002-03) Gross State Product (Mil. $2002-03) Income Employment (Mil. $2002-03) Uobs) Containerized Breakbulk AutoNehicle Liquid Bulk Dry Bulk 1,628 98 86 62 28 833 549 17,328 54 35 1,260 46 29 934 29 20 586 14 9 264 Total 1,903 976 642 20,372 Percent of Total Containerized Breakbulk AutoNehicle Liquid Bulk Dry Bulk 85.6% 5.2% 4.5% 3.3% 1.5% 85.4% 5.6% 4.7% 3.0% 1.4% 85.5% 5.5% 4.6% 3.0% 1.4% 85.1% 6.2% 4.6% 2.9% 1.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: Estimated by the Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (www.selig.uga.edu) , April 2004. ------------------------------------ 29 ------------------------------------- APPENDIX 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Survey of Port Users A survey of port users was conducted from August through November 2003. The survey was conducted to help estimate the parameters of the economic simulation models, MARAD and IMPLAN. The goal was to assess the degree of dependency that a variety of shippers and businesses have on Georgia's ports. Th is Appendix outlines the methodology and findings from the survey. Sample Methodology The Georgia Ports Authority provided a database of domestic and international businesses with connections to Georgia's deepwater ports. This database was refined by the Survey Research Center to include businesses with offices in the United States. There were 975 different businesses in the database representing the following categories: Surface transportation companies moving goods to and from the ports. Service businesses that handle vessel/cargo at the ports. Banking and insurance firms that provide international financial services to port participants. Shippers that move goods through the ports. Public agencies that monitor/oversee port activity (e.g. U.S. Customs). Other public agencies that work with the ports. Port dependent construction firms. In most cases the questionnaires were mailed to the president, operations managers, logistics managers, and/or controller. Where names were available, they were used to personalize all communication. Most companies received more than one copy of the cover letter and questionnaire - to people holding different titles. There were 1,700 questionnaires mailed to 975 different businesses. A total of 147 letters were returned to the Georgia Ports Authority as undeliverable due to inaccurate or out-of-date contact information. Of the 828 companies actually contacted, there were 126 responses (a 15.2% response rate). A total of 89 of the responses contained useful information. Questionnaire A questionnaire was developed to obtain the following information: Employment data Revenue data Tax data Percentage estimates of the degree of dependency on Georgia's ports for revenue and employment. A copy of the questionnaire and cover letter appear in Exhibit A 1-1 and Exhibit A 1-2. ------------------------------------- 30 ------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - THE SURVEY OF PORT USERS ~ FOR H'0'\0\IJ(' GRO\\ Til T1-" CouiC.I Of Bu<.l,,. .., . Ttl Uo~~-.'ll'.ltr {)J Gtc;.C.:A Exhibit A-1 Questionnaire For Office Follow-up Only: This space contained a labeiiViTh rhe company name and address -- a dup licate of rhe mailing label. Georgia Ports Authority Economic Impact Questionnaire Please provide the following information for all of your offices and facilities in Georgia. This information will be held in the strictest confidence. Your name will not appear on our reports to GPA and will only be used for follow up purposes. Please use 2002 data, or the latest full year of data you have available. 1. Number of offices/facil ities located within the State of Georgia? (#) 2. Average annual number of full-time employees who work in Georgia. (#) 3. Average annual number of part-time employees who work in Georgia. (#) 4. Average annual number of contract/temporary employees who wo rk in Georgia. (#) 4. Total annual payroll for all employees working in Georgia. ($) 5. Total revenue from operations in Georgia? _ _ __ _ _($) or Total Revenue of Firm Percentage Earned in Georgia _ _ _ _ _($) _ __ _ __ (% ) 6. Total operating expenses in Georgia? ($) 7. Total capital expenditures in Georgia? _ _ _ _ _ _ _($) 8. Total taxes paid to the State of Georgia in 2002 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _($) [Please exclude all federal taxes- include only State of Georgia taxes] a. Georgia property taxes paid in 2002: $ ________ b. Georgia business income taxes paid in 2002: $ _________ c. Other Georgia taxes paid in 2002 (e.g. fuel tax) : $ _ _ _ __ _ __ Please provide your best estimates for the following items: 9. What percentage of your sales is dependent upon, or related to, the movement of waterborne commerce in Georgia? (0-1 00%) 10. What percentage of your employment in Georgia is engaged in an activity related to the Ports of Savannah and/or Brunswick? (0-1 00%) 11. Would your company be located in Georgia if the Ports of Savannah and/or Brunswick did not exist? __Yes No Please explain your answer to the above question. _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ If you have any questions about completing this form , please contact Dr. Barbara Bart at Savannah State University via email at bartb@savstate.edu. Mail your completed form in the enclosed postage paid envelope or fax it to the Survey Research Center at Savannah State University (912) 353-3138. - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - 31 - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- - -- --- Appendix 1 Exhibit A-2 Cover Letter (Georgia Ports Authority Stationary) August 15, 2003 Name, Title Company Address City, State Zip Dear Name: Five years ago we completed a study to determine the economic impact of the deepwater ports in Georgia on the state's economy. As you know, many things have changed in the past five years. The State of Georgia has committed more resources to improvements and upgrades at the Ports of Savannah and Brunswick and our volume of business has increased substantially. We believe that it is now time to re-evaluate the economic impact of our business activities on Georgia's economy and have asked Dr. Jeff Humphreys from the University of Georgia and Dr. Barbara Bart from Savannah State University to help us with this analysis. The purpose of my letter to you today is to ask for your cooperation as they gather information . Enclosed is a copy of the questionnaire they would like you to complete and return by fax or mail directly to Dr. Bart. She has asked me to ask you to respond with data that reflects your business activities in Georgia only. The questionnaire can also be found on our website at www.gaports.com/economic_development. The response you provide will not be made known to the Authority. We certainly respect your valuable time and recognize that our request represents a bit of an intrusion. For example, you may need to consult with your company's controller to be able to answer some of these items. However, without your kind cooperation and follow through , the results of the study will be inconclusive. We would appreciate very much your prompt response so that Dr. Bart and Dr. Humphreys can complete their analysis. When they have completed their report, we will share their findings with you. One of the firms completing and submitting the survey by September 5 will be selected in a blind drawing to receive a complimentary registration to the 37th Annual Georgia Foreign Trade Conference on Sea Island November 9 through 11 , 2003 to demonstrate our appreciation for your time and effort. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Very truly yours, David Schaller Deputy Executive Director ------------------------------------ 32 ------------------------------------- THE SURVEY OF PORT USERS The questionnaire in Exhibit A-1 was significantly shorter than the one employed by Booz, Allen & Hamilton in 1998. The expectation was that this would boost the response rate while still providing the most important data about the proportion of revenue and employment that could be attributed to the ports. This type of questionnaire follows the "limited survey approach", that is often used to estimate parameters for simulation models such as IMPLAN , REMI , or MARAD. The cover letter in Exhibit A-2 was prepared to communicate the importance of participation in the study. It also emphasized the confidentiality of the response and the fact that the academic researchers would report the results in summary form without identifying individual companies. Method of Administration The letters and questionnaires were mailed on August 25, 2003. A copy of the letter and questionnaire also appeared on the economic development page of the Georgia Ports Authority website, www.gaports.com/economic_development. A postpaid envelope was mailed with the letter and questionnaire. Follow up reminder postcards were mailed on September 15, 2003 and reminder telephone calls were made to over 500 businesses from October 1-15, 2003. To encourage early return of the questionnaires, a drawing for a free registration at the Georgia Foreign Trade Conference in Sea Island, Georgia was offered to those who returned their completed forms by September 12, 2003. By this date there were 56 responses. Responses were received by postpaid return envelope, fax, and website. A total of 126 responses were received from all sources. On October 22, 2003, Dr. Humphreys and Dr. Bart reviewed the questionnaires, selected 89 usable ones, and coded them with an IMPLAN sector code based on SIC codes and SEA commodity classifications. Limitations The response rate of 15% was particularly disappointing because of all of the efforts made to encourage response. With a cover letter, a reminder postcard, and a reminder telephone call , and with three ways to return a response (mail , fax, and internet), a response rate over 20% was anticipated. Another limitation , perhaps even more problematic, was the quality of the response received . Many items were left blank and not reported. Many companies indicated that they were privately held and refused to disclose financial information . Many of the companies contacted by phone responded that they did not want to share this type of information, even for research purposes. ,Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis, "The Economic Impact of Connecticut's Deepwater Ports: An IMPLAN and REMI Analysis," p. 30. ------------------------------------ 33 ------------------------------------- APPENDIX 1 Thus, the survey produced helpful information, but it did not adequately provide the data needed to derive the proportions and coefficients required by the MARAD or 1MPLAN models. Additional secondary data support was required. One possible explanation for the low response rate and incomplete returns is that companies are reluctant to voluntarily disclose data about employment, revenues, and taxes. Future administrations of this study should consider these challenges. Findings Table A 1-1 Responses by Type of Business Type of Business Number of Responses Received Shippers/Agricultural 6 Shippers/Forestry & Minerals 12 Shippers/Other 6 Shippers/Industrial Machinery, Electronics & Automotive 6 Shipping Lines & Surface Transportation Companies 18 Port Related Service Businesses 18 Wholesalers/Warehouses 6 Banking & Insurance/International 3 Port Dependent Construction 4 Gov't/Public Agencies 10 Total Useable Responses 89 Table A 1-2 Percentage of Sales Dependent on Waterborne Commerce in Georgia: Median and Range of Response by Type of Business Type of Business Median Percentage Range of Response Shippers/Agricultural 20% 3%-30% Shippers/Forestry & Minerals 20% 2%-40% Shippers/Other 30% 5%-100% Shippers/Industrial Machinery, Electronics & Automotive 30% 12%-50% Shipping Lines & Surface Transportation Companies 65% 5%-100% Port Related Service Businesses 70% 5%-100% Wholesalers/Warehouses 60% 5%-100% _ ,. Banking & Insurance/International 50% 5%-100% Port Dependent Construction 95% 90%-100% Gov't/Public Agencies 65% 10%-100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THE SURVEY OF PORT USERS Table A 13 Percentage of Employment Dependent on Waterborne Commerce in Georgia: Median and Range of Response by Type of Business Type of Business Shippers/Agricultural Shippers/Forestry & Minerals Shippers/Other Shippers/Industrial Machinery, Electronics & Automotive Shipping Lines & Surface Transportation Companies Port Related Service Businesses Wholesalers/Warehouses Banking & Insurance/International Port Dependent Construction Gov't/Public Agencies Median Percentage No response 50% 50%1 No response 65% 70% 60% 30% 95% Not valid to report Range of Response No response 30%-70% 5%-100% No response 5%-100% 30%-100% 15%-100% 25%-40% 90%-100% 0%-100% Table A 1-4 Would Company Be Located in Georgia If Port Did Not Exist: Percent Yes by Type of Business Type of Business Shippers/Agricultural Shippers/Forestry & Minerals Shippers/Other Shippers/Industrial Machinery, Electronics & Automotive Shipping Lines & Surface Transportation Companies Port Related Service Businesses Wholesalers/Warehouses Banking & Insurance/International Port Dependent Construction Gov't/Public Agencies Percent Yes 33% 90% 50% 50% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0% 50% Discussion Since the sample size was small and the range of response was broad, it was necessary to supplement and refine the findings with support materials from secondary sources of information. APPENDIX 2 Table A 2-1 The Economic Impact of Port Industry Activity at the Georgia Ports Authority's Facilities in Savannah and Brunswick on Georgia in Fiscal Year 2003 (thousands of 2002-03 dollars) Impacted Industry Agriculture Agri. Serv., Forestry, & Fish Min ing Construction Manufacturing Trans. & Public Utilities Wholesale Retail Trade Finance, Ins., & Real Estate Services Government Total Output 232.3 1,030.9 7 1 4 .9 34,003.8 48 ,141.0 1,200,282 .1 52,325 .7 1 0 8,547 .0 216 ,803.4 2 2 5 , 4 4 7 .6 15,505.6 1,903 ,034 .2 Employment Uobs) 2.0 53 .2 29.9 177.9 109.4 11 ,711.3 410.0 2,502 .7 1,848.5 3,303.4 224.4 20,372 .7 Income 35.6 856 .5 137.6 15,904.4 4 , 9 7 4 .8 387 ,959 .1 19,881 .6 38,027 .5 68 ,978.4 97,189.9 8,171.4 642 ,116.7 GSP 181 .6 763.2 280 .8 21,518.4 13,696.4 546 , 157 .9 34,726.6 66,429.4 138,639 .7 144,422.4 8 ,722.2 975 ,538.6 Distribution of Economic Impact 1. Direct Impact 2. Indirect & Induced Impacts 3. Total Economic Impact 4. Multipliers (e.g. , 3/ 1) 1,071 ,743.0 831,291 .0 1,903,034.1 1.776 Composition of Gross State Product 1. Wages (Net of Taxes) 2. Taxes, Total a. Local Taxes b. State Taxes c. Federal Taxes 3. Profits, dividends, rent and other 4. Total Gross State Product (1 +2+3) Effects Per Million Dollars of Initial Expenditures Employment Uobs) Income State Taxes Local Taxes Gross State Product 10,788 .8 9,584 .0 20,372 .6 1.888 346,775 .5 295 ,341.0 642 ,116.5 1.852 475,582 .0 4 9 9 ,956 .6 975 ,538 .6 2.051 568 ,798 .2 190,271 .6 2 4 ,7 5 7 .8 33 ,217 .3 132,296.5 216,468 .7 975 ,538 .5 19.0 599,133.0 30 ,993.8 2 3 ,1 0 0.5 910 ,235.5 Note: Employment includes full- and part-time jobs. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding . Source: Estimated by the Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (www.selig.uga.edu) using the MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit (April 2004) . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = - - - - DETAILED TABLES Table A 2-2 The Economic Impact of Port Industry Activity at the Georgia Ports Authority's facilities in Savannah on Georgia in Fiscal Year 2003 (thousands of 2002-03 dollars) Impacted Industry Agriculture Agri. Serv., Forestry, & Fish Min ing Construction Manufacturing Trans. & Public Utilities Wholesale Retail Trade Finance, Ins., & Real Estate Services Government Total Output 216 .2 965 .5 635 .2 30,795.4 42 ,852 .6 1' 124,640.6 48 ,916 .0 101 ,425 .5 201 ,805 .1 208 ,614 .8 12 ,0 0 7 .7 1,772 ,874 .5 Employment Uobs) 1.8 49 .8 26 .5 160.8 99.7 10,963 .9 383 .1 2 ,338.4 1,728 .6 3,028.2 170.8 18,951 .7 Income 33.0 801 .6 122.6 14,391.9 4 ,509.9 363 ,877 .2 18,578 .1 35 ,533 .8 64 ,534 .9 89 ,691.0 5,959 .5 598 ,033 .5 GSP 169.0 714.3 250.2 19,472.0 12,240.2 510 ,893 .3 32,449.7 62 ,072.3 129,173.3 133,371.2 6,284.1 907 ,089 .6 Distribution of Economic Impact 1. Direct Impact 2. Indirect & Induced Impacts 3. Total Economic Impact 4. Multipliers (e.g., 3/ 1) 996 ,322.7 776,552 .0 1,772 ,874.6 1.779 Composition of Gross State Product 1. Wages (Net ofTaxes) 2. Taxes, Total a. Local Taxes b. State Taxes c. Federal Taxes 3. Profits, dividends, rent and other 4. Total Gross State Product (1 +2+3) Effects Per Million Dollars of Initial Expenditures Employment (jobs) Income State Taxes Local Taxes Gross State Product 10,004.5 8,947.2 18,951 .7 1.894 322 ,254.4 275 ,779.2 598,033 .6 1.856 440 ,686 .3 466 ,403.4 907 ,089.7 2 .058 530 ,103.1 177,567 .2 23 ,023 .7 31 ,011 .9 123,531 .5 199,419.4 907,089 .7 19.0 600 ,240 .9 31 ,126.4 23 , 108.7 910 ,437.6 Note: Employment includes full- and part-time jobs. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding . Source: Estimated by the Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (www.selig .uga.edu) using the MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit (April 2004) . -------------------------------------- 37 -------------------------------------- APPENDIX 2 Table A 2-3 The Economic Impact of Port Industry Activity at the Georgia Ports Authority's Facilities in Brunswick on Georgia in Fiscal Year 2003 (thousands of 2002-03 dollars) Impacted Industry Agriculture Agri. Serv. , Forestry, & Fish Mining Construction Manufacturing Trans. & Public Utilities Wholesale Retail Trade Finance, Ins. , & Real Estate Services Government Total Output 16.1 65.4 79 .6 3,208.3 5 ,288 .3 75 ,642.4 3,409 .7 7,121 .6 14,998.4 16 ,833 .0 3,497.9 130,160.8 Employment Uobs) 0.1 3.4 3.4 17.1 9.7 747.4 26.9 164.3 119.8 275.1 53.6 1,420.8 Income 2.5 54 .8 15.0 1,512.4 464.9 24 ,082 .1 1,303.6 2,493.7 4,443.5 7,498.9 2,211 .9 44 ,083.4 GSP 12.6 48 .9 30 .6 2,046.4 1,456.2 35 ,265 .0 2,277.0 4,357.1 9,466.5 11 ,051 .3 2,438 .1 68 ,449.5 Distribution of Economic Impact 1. Direct Impact 2. Indirect & Induced Impacts 3. Total Economic Impact 4. Multipliers (e.g., 3/ 1) 75 ,421.1 54 ,739.7 130,160.8 1.726 Composition of Gross State Product 1. Wages (Net of Taxes) 2. Taxes, Total a. Local Taxes b. State Taxes c. Federal Taxes 3. Profits, dividends, rent and other 4. Total Gross State Product (1 +2+3) Effects Per Million Dollars of Initial Expenditures Employment (jobs) Income State Taxes Local Taxes Gross State Product 784.2 636 .8 1,421 .0 1.812 24,521 .3 19,562.1 44 ,083.4 1.798 34 ,895 .9 33,553 .5 68 ,449.4 1.962 38 ,695 .5 12,704.7 1 ,734.1 2 ,205 .5 8,765.1 17,049.2 68,449.4 18.8 584,496.7 29 ,242 .5 22 ,992 .2 907 ,563 .8 Note: Employment includes full- and part-time jobs. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. Source: Estimated by the Selig Center for Economic Growth , Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (www.selig .uga.edu) using the MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit (April 2004). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - 38 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --- DETAILED TABLES Table A 2-4 The Economic Impact of Port Industry Activity at Private Facilities/Docks in Savannah and Brunswick on Georgia in Fiscal Year 2003 (thousands of 2002-03 dollars) Impacted Industry Agriculture Agri . Serv., Forestry, & Fish Mining Construction Manufacturing Trans. & Public Utilities Wholesale Retail Trade Finance, Ins., & Real Estate Services Government Total Output 65.4 235.1 503.1 8,990.1 33 ,335 .3 329 ,533 .3 18,142.4 30 ,740.4 60 ,187 .2 68 ,848 .5 6,524 .6 557 ,105 .2 Employment Uobs) 0.6 12.1 22 .1 46 .9 54.4 2 ,908 .3 143.8 708.9 518.4 1,056 .9 97 .1 5,569.5 Income 10.0 196.9 91 .8 4,200.3 2 ,700 .0 100 ,862 .7 6 ,952 .5 10 ,767 .1 19,383.7 29 ,548 .0 3,760.9 178,474.0 GSP 51 .1 175.4 185.4 5,682.3 9 ,039 .4 139,988.4 12,143.6 18,811.4 38 ,577 .1 44 ,154.7 4 ,082 .0 272 ,890 .7 Distribution of Economic Impact 1. Direct Impact 2. Indirect & Induced Impacts 3. Total Economic Impact 4. Multipliers (e.g., 3/ 1) 319,926.3 237,178.8 557 ,105.2 1.741 Composition of Gross State Product 1. Wages (Net of Taxes) 2. Taxes, Total a. Local Taxes b. State Taxes c. Federal Taxes 3. Profits, dividends, rent and other 4. Total Gross State Product (1+2+3) Effects Per Million Dollars of Initial Expenditures Employment Uobs) Income State Taxes Local Taxes Gross State Product 2,851 .8 2,717.6 5,569.4 1.953 94 ,775 .2 83 ,698 .8 178,474.0 1.883 131 ,229.8 141 ,660.9 272 ,890 .7 2.079 160,308.5 53,379.9 6 ,937 .5 9,531 .0 36,911 .3 59 ,202.3 272 ,890 .7 17.4 557 ,859 .6 29 ,791.4 21 ,684.9 852 ,979 .9 Note: Employment includes full- and part-time jobs. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding . Source: Estimated by the Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (www.selig.uga.edu) using the MARAD Port Econom ic Impact Kit (April 2004). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- -- - - 39 - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - APPENDIX 2 Table A 2-5 The Economic Impact of Port Industry Activity at Private Facilities/Docks in Savannah on Georgia in Fiscal Year 2003 (thousands of 2002-03 dollars) Impacted Industry Agriculture Agri . Serv., Forestry, & Fish Mining Construction Manufacturing Trans. & Public Utilities Wholesale Retail Trade Finance, Ins. , & Real Estate Services Government Total Output 60.9 215.9 484.7 8,396.4 32 ,096.8 310 ,903 .9 17,194.5 28 ,699.8 56 ,207 .9 62 ,516.8 6,077.2 522,855.0 Employment Uobs) 0.5 11 .1 21.3 43.8 52.1 2,711.5 136.3 661.8 484.4 936 .0 90.4 5 ,149.2 Income 9.3 181.0 88 .3 3 ,923 .3 2,588.7 94 ,707 .2 6 ,590 .9 10,052.2 18,121 .7 26 ,712 .3 3,499.0 166,473.9 GSP 47 .7 161.3 178.3 5 ,307 .5 8 ,697 .3 131 ,174.7 11 ,512.1 17,562.4 36 ,038.4 39 ,938.2 3 ,796.7 254,414.6 Distribution of Economic Impact 1. Direct Impact 2. Indirect & Induced Impacts 3. Total Economic Impact 4. Multipliers (e.g. , 3/ 1) 300 ,275.1 222 ,580 .0 522 ,855.1 1.741 Composition of Gross State Product 1. Wages (Net of Taxes) 2. Taxes, Total a. Local Taxes b. State Taxes c. Federal Taxes 3. Profits, dividends, rent and other 4. Total Gross State Product (1 +2+3) Effects Per Million Dollars of Initial Expenditures Employment Uobs) Income State Taxes Local Taxes Gross State Product 2,604.7 2 ,544 .5 5,149.2 1.977 87,991 .8 78,482 .2 166,474.0 1.892 121 ,628.0 132 ,786 .6 254,414.6 2.092 149,488.1 49 ,769.2 6,458 .6 8 ,903 .6 34,407.0 55 ,157.4 254,414.7 17.1 554,404.9 29 ,651.4 21,509 .0 847 ,271 .9 Note: Employment includes full- and part-time jobs. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. Source: Estimated by the Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (www.selig .uga.edu) using the MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit (April 2004). ----------------------------------------- 40 ----------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - DETAILED TABLES Table A 2-6 The Economic Impact of Port Industry Activity at Private Facilities/Docks in Brunswick on Georgia in Fiscal Year 2003 (thousands of 2002-03 dollars) Impacted Industry Agriculture Agri . Serv., Forestry, & Fish Mining Construction Manufacturing Trans. & Public Utilities Wholesale Retail Trade Finance, Ins., & Real Estate Services Government Total Output 4 .3 19.1 18.4 593.7 1,238.4 18,629.3 947 .8 2 ,040.6 3 ,979.3 6,331 .8 4 4 7 .3 34 ,250.1 Employment Uobs) 0.0 1.0 0 .8 3.1 2 .3 196.9 7.5 47.1 33.9 120.9 6 .7 4 2 0 .2 Income 0 .6 15.9 3 .5 277 .0 111.4 6 ,155 .5 361 .6 715 .0 1,261 .9 2,835 .7 262 .0 12,000.0 GSP 3.4 14.2 7 .0 374 .7 342 .1 8,813 .6 631 .5 1,249 .0 2 ,538.7 4,216 .7 285 .2 18,476.1 Distribution of Economic Impact 1. Direct Impact 2. Indirect & Induced Impacts 3. Total Economic Impact 4. Multipliers (e.g. , 3/1) 19,651 .2 14,598.9 34,250 .1 1.743 Composition of Gross State Product 1. Wages (Net of Taxes) 2. Taxes, Total a. Local Taxes b. State Taxes c. Federal Taxes 3. Profits, dividends, rent and other 4. Total Gross State Product (1 +2+3) Effects Per Million Dollars of Initial Expenditures Employment Uobs) Income State Taxes Local Taxes Gross State Product 247.1 173.1 420 .2 1.701 6,783 .3 5,216.6 12,000 .0 1.769 9,601 .8 8 ,874 .3 18,476.1 1.924 10,820.4 3,610.7 478 .9 627.5 2,504.3 4, 0 4 4 .9 18,476.1 21.4 610,648 .1 31,930.4 24,372 .5 940 ,200.3 Note: Employment includes full- and part-time jobs. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding . Source: Estimated by the Selig Center for Economic Growth , Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (www.selig .uga.edu) using the MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit (April 2004) . APPENDIX 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Table A 2-7 The Economic Impact of AutoNehicle Cargo at the Georgia Ports Authority's Facilities in Savannah and Brunswick on Georgia in Fiscal Year 2003 (thousands of 2002-03 dollars) Impacted Industry Agriculture Agri . Serv., Forestry, & Fish Mining Construction Manufacturing Trans. & Public Utilities Wholesale Retail Trade Finance, Ins., & Real Estate Services Government Total Output 10.8 43 .8 25.8 2,394.5 1,689 .5 52 ,557.4 1,941.8 4 ,650 .0 10 ,229 .9 10,057.6 2 ,824 .7 86,425 .8 Employment Uobs) 0.1 2.2 1.0 12.8 4.1 515 .2 15.2 107.3 78.8 153.5 43.5 933.7 Income 1.7 36 .8 5.3 1,130.8 183.5 16,498.4 737 .9 1,628.2 2,916.2 4,485 .6 1,805 .8 29,430 .1 GSP 8.4 32 .8 10.9 1,530 .0 486.3 24 ,344.4 1,288 .9 2,844.9 6,413.4 6,581 .8 1,993 .8 45 ,535 .5 Distribution of Economic Impact 1. Direct Impact 2. Indirect & Induced Impacts 3. Total Economic Impact 4. Multipliers (e.g., 3/1) 49 ,622 .7 36 ,803 .1 86,425.8 1.742 Composition of Gross State Product 1. Wages (Net of Taxes) 2. Taxes, Total a. Local Taxes b. State Taxes c. Federal Taxes 3. Profits, dividends, rent and other 4. Total Gross State Product (1+2+3) Effects Per Million Dollars of Initial Expenditures Employment Uobs) Income State Taxes Local Taxes Gross State Product 508.5 425 .2 933.7 1.836 16,301.8 13,128.3 29 ,430 .1 1.805 22,909.4 22,626.2 45,535.5 1.988 25 ,765.4 8,299.7 1,130.3 1,424.9 5,744.6 11,470.5 45 ,535.5 18.8 593 ,077.6 28 ,714 .0 22 ,776.0 917 ,636.5 Note: Employment includes full- and part-time jobs. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding . Source: Estimated by the Selig Center for Econom ic Growth , Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (www.selig.uga.edu) using the MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit (April 2004) . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 42 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DETAILED TABLES Table A 2-8 The Economic Impact of Containerized Cargo at the Georgia Ports Authority's Facilities in Savannah and Brunswick on Georgia in Fiscal Year 2003 {thousands of 2002-03 dollars) Impacted Industry Agriculture Agri . Serv., Forestry, & Fish Mining Construction Manufacturing Trans. & Public Utilities Wholesale Retail Trade Finance, Ins., & Real Estate Services Government Total Output 198.4 894.1 560 .6 28,461 .3 37 ,893 .9 1,040 ,540 .2 44,769 .3 93 ,043 .8 185,369 .2 186,001 .7 10,376.4 1,628 ,108 .9 Employment Uobs) 1.7 46.1 23 .3 148.7 90.2 10,157.7 350 .5 2,145.1 1,587 .9 2,630.5 146.6 17,328 .3 Income 30 .4 742.0 108.6 13,304 .3 4,061 .8 337 ,361.4 16 ,997 .9 32 ,596.9 59 ,287.6 79 ,754.2 5,029 .3 549 ,274.4 GSP 155.1 661 .4 221 .9 18,000.4 10,868.9 473 ,744.1 29 ,689 .8 56,942 .1 118,668 .9 118,545.6 5 ,276.4 832 ,774. 8 Distribution of Economic Impact 1. Direct Impact 2. Indirect & Induced Impacts 3. Total Economic Impact 4 . Multipliers (e.g., 3/ 1) 914 ,085 .1 714 ,023.8 1 ,628 ,108.9 1.781 Composition of Gross State Product 1. Wages (Net of Taxes) 2. Taxes, Total a. Local Taxes b. State Taxes c. Federal Taxes 3. Profits, dividends, rent and other 4 . Total Gross State Product (1 +2+3) Effects Per Million Dollars of Initial Expenditures Employment Uobs) Income State Taxes Local Taxes Gross State Product 9,107.9 8,220.4 17,328.3 1.903 295 ,636 .5 253 ,637 .9 549 ,274.4 1.858 403 ,930 .0 428 ,844.4 832 ,774.4 2 .062 485 ,930.9 162 ,947 .7 21 ' 133.2 28 ,447 .1 113,367 .5 183,895 .9 832 ,774 .5 18.9 600 ,900 .7 31 ,120.8 23 ,119.5 911 ,047.2 Note: Employment includes full- and part-time jobs. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding . Source: Estimated by the Sel ig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (www.selig .uga.edu) using the MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit (April 2004). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - 43 - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- -- -- -- -- - APPENDIX 2 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Table A 2-9 The Economic Impact of Breakbulk Cargo at the Georgia Ports Authority's Facilities in Savannah and Brunswick on Georgia in Fiscal Year 2003 (thousands of 2002-03 dollars) Impacted Industry Agriculture Agri . Serv., Forestry, & Fish Mining Construction Manufacturing Trans . & Public Utilities Wholesale Retail Trade Finance, Ins., & Real Estate Services Government Total Output 12.8 58 .2 54.1 1,769 .1 3,660 .7 51 ,683 .2 2,671 .6 5,939.4 11 ,573.7 19,583 .2 1,411 .2 98,417 .3 Employment Uobs) 0.1 3.0 2 .3 9.2 6.9 575 .6 21 .1 137.1 98 .1 385.4 21 .2 1,260.0 Income 2 .0 48 .2 10.2 825 .8 328 .0 17,501.4 1,019 .9 2,081 .2 3,651.4 8 ,837 .1 838 .6 35 ,143.8 GSP 10.0 4 3 .0 20 .6 1,117.2 1,010.4 25 ,351 .6 1,781.4 3 ,635.4 7 ,374.7 13,122.5 914 .9 54,381 .8 Distribution of Economic Impact 1. Direct Impact 2. Indirect & Induced Impacts 3. Total Economic Impact 4. Multipliers (e.g., 3/1) 56 ,764 .0 41 ,653.2 98 ,417 .2 1.734 Composition of Gross State Product 1. Wages (Net of Taxes) 2. Taxes, Total a. Local Taxes b. State Taxes c. Federal Taxes 3. Profits, dividends, rent and other 4 . Total Gross State Product (1 +2+3) Effects Per Million Dollars of Initial Expenditures Employment Uobs) Income State Taxes Local Taxes Gross State Product 761.5 498 .9 1,260.4 1.655 20 ,192 .9 14,951.1 35 ,1 4 4.0 1.740 28 ,901.8 25,480 .0 54,381 .8 1.882 31 ,638.2 10,588.3 1,423.0 1,831.3 7 ,334 .1 12,155.3 54 ,381.8 22 .2 619 ,125.7 32 ,261 .7 25 ,068 .6 958 ,036 .1 Note: Employment includes full- and part-time jobs. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. Source: Estimated by the Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (www.selig.uga.edu) using the MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit (April 2004) . - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 44 - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - -- -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DETAILED TABLES Table A 2-10 The Economic Impact of Dry Bulk Cargo at the Georgia Ports Authority's Facilities in Savannah and Brunswick on Georgia in Fiscal Year 2003 (thousands of 2002-03 dollars) Impacted Industry Agriculture Agri. Serv., Forestry, & Fish Mining Construction Manufacturing Trans . & Public Utilities Wholesale Retail Trade Finance, Ins., & Real Estate Services Government Total Output 3.2 11 .1 43 .4 534 .1 2 ,884 .6 15,578.1 1,031.5 1,469.1 2 ,878 .5 2,948.8 496.2 27 ,878 .7 Employment Uobs) 0.0 0.6 1.9 2.8 4.3 138.8 8.3 33.9 24.6 41 .5 7.5 264.2 Income 0.5 9.3 7.8 251.3 219.5 4,854.6 398 .7 514 .2 920.2 1,267.0 304.8 8,747 .9 GSP 2.5 8.2 15.8 339.9 774.1 6 ,896 .6 696 .4 898 .6 1,845 .3 1,878 .0 334.4 13,689.8 Distribution of Economic Impact 1. Direct Impact 2. Indirect & Induced Impacts 3. Total Economic Impact 4. Multipliers (e.g., 3/1) 16,547.0 11 ,331.5 27,878.6 1.685 Composition of Gross State Product 1. Wages (Net of Taxes) 2. Taxes, Total a. Local Taxes b. State Taxes c. Federal Taxes 3. Profits, dividends, rent and other 4. Total Gross State Product {1+2+3) Effects Per Million Dollars of Initial Expenditures Employment Uobs) Income State Taxes Local Taxes Gross State Product 133.8 130.5 264.3 1.975 4,712.0 4,035.8 8,747.9 1.857 6 ,846 .3 6 ,843 .6 13,689.9 2.000 7 ,637 .3 2,600.1 357.5 470.0 1,772 .6 3,452.5 13,689.9 16.0 528 ,660.3 28,400.1 21 ,606.5 827 ,327 .7 Note: Employment includes full - and part-time jobs. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding . Source: Estimated by the Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (www.sel ig.uga.edu) using the MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit {April 2004) . - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - 45 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - -- - APPENDIX 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - Table A 2-11 The Economic Impact of Liquid Bulk Cargo at the Georgia Ports Authority's Facilities in Savannah and Brunswick on Georgia in Fiscal Year 2003 (thousands of 2002-03 dollars) Impacted Industry Agriculture Agri . Serv., Forestry, & Fish Mining Construction Manufacturing Trans. & Public Utilities Wholesale Retail Trade Finance, Ins., & Real Estate Services Government Total Output 7.1 23 .8 30 .9 844 .8 2 ,012 .2 39 ,923.1 1,911 .5 3,444.7 6,752 .1 6,856 .2 397.2 62,203 .6 Employment Uobs} 0.1 1.2 1.3 4 .3 3.9 324 .0 15.0 79.4 58.7 92.4 5.6 585 .9 Income 1.1 20.0 5.8 392 .3 181 .9 11 ,743.2 726.7 1,207.0 2 ,202 .8 2,845 .9 193.1 19,519.9 GSP 5 .6 17.8 11.7 530.7 556.7 15,821 .3 1,270.3 2,108.4 4,337 .2 4,294.3 202.7 29,156 .6 Distribution of Economic Impact 1. Direct Impact 2. Indirect & Induced Impacts 3. Total Economic Impact 4. Multipliers (e.g ., 3/1) 34 ,724.4 27 ,479.2 62 ,203.6 1.791 Composition of Gross State Product 1. Wages (Net of Taxes) 2. Taxes, Total a. Local Taxes b. State Taxes c. Federal Taxes 3. Profits, dividends, rent and other 4. Total Gross State Product (1 +2+3) Effects Per Million Dollars of Initial Expenditures Employment Uobs) Income State Taxes Local Taxes Gross State Product 276 .9 309 .0 585.9 2.116 9,932.4 9,587 .9 19,520.3 1.965 12,994 .6 16,162.1 29 ,1 5 6.6 2 .244 17,826.6 5,835 .7 7 1 3 .8 1,044.2 4,077 .7 5 , 4 9 4 .3 29 ,156.6 16.8 562,151.6 30,070.5 20,557 .9 839,660.3 Note: Employment includes full- and part-time jobs. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. Source: Estimated by the Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (www.selig .uga.edu} using the MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit (April 2004) . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 46 - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DETAILED TABLES Table A 2-12 The Economic Impact of Port Investment (Capital Expenditures) at the Georgia Ports Authority's Facilities in Savannah and Brunswick on Georgia in Fiscal Year 2003 (thousands of 2002-03 dollars) Impacted Industry Agriculture Agri. Serv., Forestry, & Fish Mining Construction Manufacturing Trans. & Public Utilities Wholesale Retail Trade Finance, Ins., & Real Estate Services Government Total Output 7.5 53.4 723 .2 10,715.6 7,061.0 5,199.7 1,332.1 2,928.1 7,404.9 7,206.8 239.2 42,871.7 Employment Uobs) 0.1 2.7 5.4 216 .9 91.6 44.4 10.4 67.4 46 .0 88 .9 3.3 577.2 Income 1.1 45 .0 239 .7 8,142 .5 3 ,015 .6 1,422 .0 503 .7 1,035.2 1,674.0 2,923.2 104.6 19,001.9 GSP 5.7 40 .0 546 .0 9,344.2 3,653.7 2,479.4 879 .8 1,800 .2 4,486.4 4,166.6 107.2 27,509 .1 Distribution of Economic Impact 1. Direct Impact 2. Indirect & Induced Impacts 3. Total Economic Impact 4. Multipliers (e.g., 3/1) 30 ,940.4 11 ,931 .3 42,871 .7 1.386 Composition of Gross State Product 1. Wages (Net of Taxes) 2. Taxes, Total a. Local Taxes b. State Taxes c. Federal Taxes 3. Profits, dividends, rent and other 4. Total Gross State Product (1+2+3) Effects Per Million Dollars of Initial Expenditures Employment Uobs) Income State Taxes Local Taxes Gross State Product 363 .8 213.2 577 .0 1.500 12,905.1 6,201.4 19,106.6 1.481 17,006.9 10,502.2 27 ,509 .1 1.618 14,667.5 4,806 .3 640.8 853.5 3,312 .0 8,035 .3 27 ,509 .1 18.6 617,528 .7 27 ,584.1 20,711 .2 889,099 .5 Note: Employment includes full- and part-time jobs. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding . Source: Estimated by the Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (www.selig.uga.edu) using the MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit (April 2004). - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 47 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- -- - - - - - - - - -- -- -- APPENDIX 2: DETAILED TABLES - - - - - - - -- -- -- - - - - Table A 2-13 The Economic Impact of Port-Related Activity on Georgia in Fiscal Year 2003 (thousands of 2002-03 dollars) Impacted Industry Agriculture Mining Construction Manufacturing Trans. , Comm . & Public Utilities Trade Finance, Ins., & Real Estate Services Government Other Total Output 426 ,267.5 22 ,092.7 223 ,020 .1 19,408,355 .3 1,409,325 .3 5,904,992 .3 1,973 ,514 .0 3 ,247,433 .2 241 ,846.9 7,483.1 32,864,330.4 Employment Uobs) Income 6,394 .1 124.7 1,821 .9 89 ,692 .5 6,447 .9 82 ,644.2 8,762 .0 4 8 ,073 .9 4 ,394 .7 1,092 .8 138,531 .7 7 ,142 .7 70,632 .8 4,302 ,380.5 431 ,056.4 2 ,597 ,702.4 386 ,981.2 1,817,206 .0 183,358 ,560.0 12,172.8 2 4 9 , 4 4 8 .7 9,947 ,165.1 Value Added 211 ,464.5 13,413.3 79 ,872 .6 6 ,843,452.4 815,443.3 4,189,791 .2 1,375 ,083.0 2 ,103 ,198.1 224 ,027 .3 7,483.1 15,863 ,228.9 Distribution of Economic Impact 1. Direct Impact 2. Indirect & Induced Impacts 3. Total Economic Impact 4. Multipliers (e.g., 3/1) 17,175 ,0 0 0 .0 15,689 ,330.1 32 ,864 ,330.4 1.914 Tax Impacts 1. Federal Taxes (NonDefense) 2. State and Local Taxes (NonEducation) a. Corporate Profits & Dividends Taxes b. Indirect Business Taxes c. Personal Taxes d. Social Insurance Taxes 108,103.6 141 ,345 .0 249,448 .7 1.308 4,476 ,201.9 5,4 70 ,963 .1 9 ,947 ,165 .1 2 .222 7 ,149 ,954 .8 8 ,7 1 3 ,2 7 3 . 7 15,863,228 .9 2 .219 3,009,477.0 1,315 ,919.4 41 ,544.1 999 ,778.2 2 6 6 , 6 1 7 .6 7 ,979 .5 Note: Employment includes full- and part-time jobs. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding . Source: Estimated by the Selig Center for Economic Growth , Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (www.selig .uga.edu) using IMPLAN Professional 2.0 (April 2004) . - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - 48 - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - APPENDIX 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ Printed Publications: American Association of Port Authorities (March 2004). US Public Port Facts. Booz-AIIen & Hamilton Inc. (March 20, 1998). Economic Impacts of Georgia 's Deepwater Ports of Savannah & Brunswick. Prepared for the Georgia Port Authority. Bureau of Business Research & Economic Development, Georgia Southern University (January 25, 1999). The Regional Impacts of Georgia 's Deep Water Ports. Prepared for the Georgia Ports Authority. Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis, Department of Economics, University of Connecticut (May 23, 2001 ). The Economic Impact of Connecticut's Deepwater Ports: An IMPLAN and REM/ Analysis. Prepared for the Connecticut Coastline Port Authority. Georgia Department of Community Affairs & Georgia Department of Industry Trade and Tourism (FY 2003). Results from the Business Retention and Expansion Process (BREP) Survey. Hamilton, Gregory L., Rasmussen , David, and Zeng , Xiaogin (August 2000). Rural Inland Waterways Economic Impact Kit Analysis Manual. Institute for Economic Advancement, University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council (December 18, 2000). U.S. Economic Growth and the Marine Transportation System. Martin Associates (May 18, 1999). The Economic Impacts of the Port of Baltimore. Prepared for the Maryland Port Administration. Martin Associates (1999). The Economic Impact of the Port of Houston. Prepared for the Port of Houston Authority. Miller, Ronald E. & Blair, Peter D. (1985). Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Published by Prentice Hall, Inc. , London. Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. (April 1999) IMPLAN Professional Version 2.0: User's Guide, Analysis Guide, and Data Guide. Nachtmann, Heather (July 31, 2002). Economic Evaluation of the Impact of Waterways on the State of Arkansas. Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Arkansas. Ryan , Timothy P. (February 2001 ). The Economic Impacts of the Ports of Louisiana and the Maritime Industry. Published by the University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, USA. ------------------------------------ 50------------------------------------- - - - - - -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - BIBLIOGRAPHY U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (1999) . Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration (October 2000). MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit: Volume 1: Handbook for Undertaking Port Economic Impact Assessments. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration (October 2000) MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit: Volume II: A User's Guide. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Ports and Domestic Shipping (October 1998). A Report to Congress on the Status of the Public Ports of the United State 1996-1997. Websites: American Association of Port Authorities: www.aapa.ports.org Georgia Department of Industry Trade and Tourism: www.gditt.georgia.gov Georgia Department of Labor: www.dol. state.ga.us Georgia Department of Revenue: www.state.ga.us/departments/dor/index.html Georgia Ports Authority: www.gaports.com Maritime Administration , U.S. Department of Transportation: www.marad.gov Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.: www.implan .com PIERS : www.piers.com U.S. Bureau of the Census: www.census.gov U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis : www.bea.gov U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: www.bls.gov U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics: www.bts.gov U.S. Department of Commerce: www.commerce.gov U.S. Department of Labor: www.dol.gov -------------------------------------- 51 -------------------------------------- Georgia_ Ports AutliOrity Georgia's Ports for Georgia's People www.gaports.com