Arizona Supreme Court decision on gift clause could hinder cities' economic development deals
Arizona municipalities' and other entities' abilities to give financial incentives to businesses has come under fire in recent years.
By Corina Vanek – Reporter, Phoenix Business Journal
04/07/2021
An Arizona Supreme Court decision that the city of Peoria violated the state’s gift clause when courting a university could have wide-reaching effects on state municipalities' ability to do economic development deals, economic development leaders said in a panel discussion Tuesday.
The case, Schires v. Carlat, was decided in February, and hinged on the city agreeing to give $2.6 million in incentives to Huntington University and the university’s landlord to establish a satellite campus in Peoria. Out of that $2.6 million, $1.89 million would be paid over a three-year period as the university hit performance thresholds. The rest, about $737,569, would be reimbursed to the landlord for tenant improvements. The city of Peoria said the incentive would serve the public by diversifying the economic base and workforce and by revitalizing an underutilized area of the city.
The plaintiff, Darcie Schires, was represented by the libertarian think tank, the Goldwater Institute, which has sued other municipalities over incentives and other development strategies in the past.
The court ruled that anticipated economic impact from the university was an “indirect benefit” and therefore was not relevant to the measurable benefits cities must be able to demonstrate to justify an incentive.
In a forum hosted by the Arizona Association of Economic Development, NAIOP and the Arizona chapter of the Urban Land Institute, economic development experts said the ruling has created ambiguity in where cities can and cannot offer incentives.
Cathy Carlat, mayor of Peoria and forum panelist, said the decision to recruit a university to Peoria was part of the city’s economic development and business attraction goals. Before entering into the agreement, the city commissioned an economic impact analysis by Elliott D. Pollack & Co. which indicated the city would see significant economic impact from the university’s presence.
“Peoria brought a new asset to the state of Arizona,” she said, calling the Goldwater Institute’s interest in the case “surprising and very unfortunate.”
Cameron Artigue, a member of Gammage & Burnham in Phoenix, said he and his colleagues have been advising clients to make sure their development agreements have measurable and demonstrable direct benefits written into the agreement, but said the ambiguity created has caused confusion over whether the solution is simply writing agreements more clearly, or whether the decision represents a change in the law about cities’ ability to give incentives.
'Indirect benefits'Grady Gammage Jr., a founding member of Gammage & Burnham, said the usual reasons why cities want to incentivize development, like creating high-paying jobs and tax revenue, have now been called “indirect benefits” in the decision and do not count when weighing whether an incentive crosses the line for an undue subsidy.
“The very reasons why cities want to do these deals are now turned into indirect benefits and do not count,” he said. “The direct benefits are not what cities want or need.”
Chris Camacho, president and CEO of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, said the ambiguity in application of the decision has caused cities to take a wide variety of approaches to incentives, including not offering them at all for fear of litigation. That move, he said, kneecaps Arizona cities trying to compete against cities in other states that are able to offer more robust, straightforward incentives. “We are dealing with companies that have options,” he said.
Artigue said the ruling could affect all levels of government incentives in Arizona, including state and county level, which are also subject to the gift clause. There are some entities, however, including community facilities districts and other special taxing districts, which are not subject to the gift clause.
Potential challengesMembers of the panel pointed to the Goldwater Institute as the antagonist in the deal, but Carlat said even in hindsight she would not approach Goldwater to first see if they would intend to sue over an economic development deal.
“I do not believe they are the boss of the entire state of Arizona,” she said.
Gammage said he suspected the Peoria deal was targeted because it was relatively small scale, and while the ruling applies to all sizes of deals, he was not sure a larger deal with hundreds of millions of dollars hanging in the balance would be challenged. However, he said, the worry about a potential challenge could still hinder such deals.
“It’s a question of whether or not the employer would take a risk,” he said. “Do they do the deal, or do they go to Texas?”
The Goldwater Institute, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this article, previously touted the decision as a “major victory for taxpayers.”
“The Supreme Court struck down Peoria’s handouts to Huntington and Arrowhead because giving away money simply to entice private businesses to locate in town, with nothing else in return, is precisely the sort of thing the Gift Clause was written to prohibit,” Christina Sandefur, executive vice president of the Goldwater Institute wrote in a blog post about the decision.
Arizona municipalities' and other entities' abilities to give financial incentives to businesses has come under fire in recent years.
By Corina Vanek – Reporter, Phoenix Business Journal
04/07/2021
An Arizona Supreme Court decision that the city of Peoria violated the state’s gift clause when courting a university could have wide-reaching effects on state municipalities' ability to do economic development deals, economic development leaders said in a panel discussion Tuesday.
The case, Schires v. Carlat, was decided in February, and hinged on the city agreeing to give $2.6 million in incentives to Huntington University and the university’s landlord to establish a satellite campus in Peoria. Out of that $2.6 million, $1.89 million would be paid over a three-year period as the university hit performance thresholds. The rest, about $737,569, would be reimbursed to the landlord for tenant improvements. The city of Peoria said the incentive would serve the public by diversifying the economic base and workforce and by revitalizing an underutilized area of the city.
The plaintiff, Darcie Schires, was represented by the libertarian think tank, the Goldwater Institute, which has sued other municipalities over incentives and other development strategies in the past.
The court ruled that anticipated economic impact from the university was an “indirect benefit” and therefore was not relevant to the measurable benefits cities must be able to demonstrate to justify an incentive.
In a forum hosted by the Arizona Association of Economic Development, NAIOP and the Arizona chapter of the Urban Land Institute, economic development experts said the ruling has created ambiguity in where cities can and cannot offer incentives.
Cathy Carlat, mayor of Peoria and forum panelist, said the decision to recruit a university to Peoria was part of the city’s economic development and business attraction goals. Before entering into the agreement, the city commissioned an economic impact analysis by Elliott D. Pollack & Co. which indicated the city would see significant economic impact from the university’s presence.
“Peoria brought a new asset to the state of Arizona,” she said, calling the Goldwater Institute’s interest in the case “surprising and very unfortunate.”
Cameron Artigue, a member of Gammage & Burnham in Phoenix, said he and his colleagues have been advising clients to make sure their development agreements have measurable and demonstrable direct benefits written into the agreement, but said the ambiguity created has caused confusion over whether the solution is simply writing agreements more clearly, or whether the decision represents a change in the law about cities’ ability to give incentives.
'Indirect benefits'Grady Gammage Jr., a founding member of Gammage & Burnham, said the usual reasons why cities want to incentivize development, like creating high-paying jobs and tax revenue, have now been called “indirect benefits” in the decision and do not count when weighing whether an incentive crosses the line for an undue subsidy.
“The very reasons why cities want to do these deals are now turned into indirect benefits and do not count,” he said. “The direct benefits are not what cities want or need.”
Chris Camacho, president and CEO of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, said the ambiguity in application of the decision has caused cities to take a wide variety of approaches to incentives, including not offering them at all for fear of litigation. That move, he said, kneecaps Arizona cities trying to compete against cities in other states that are able to offer more robust, straightforward incentives. “We are dealing with companies that have options,” he said.
Artigue said the ruling could affect all levels of government incentives in Arizona, including state and county level, which are also subject to the gift clause. There are some entities, however, including community facilities districts and other special taxing districts, which are not subject to the gift clause.
Potential challengesMembers of the panel pointed to the Goldwater Institute as the antagonist in the deal, but Carlat said even in hindsight she would not approach Goldwater to first see if they would intend to sue over an economic development deal.
“I do not believe they are the boss of the entire state of Arizona,” she said.
Gammage said he suspected the Peoria deal was targeted because it was relatively small scale, and while the ruling applies to all sizes of deals, he was not sure a larger deal with hundreds of millions of dollars hanging in the balance would be challenged. However, he said, the worry about a potential challenge could still hinder such deals.
“It’s a question of whether or not the employer would take a risk,” he said. “Do they do the deal, or do they go to Texas?”
The Goldwater Institute, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this article, previously touted the decision as a “major victory for taxpayers.”
“The Supreme Court struck down Peoria’s handouts to Huntington and Arrowhead because giving away money simply to entice private businesses to locate in town, with nothing else in return, is precisely the sort of thing the Gift Clause was written to prohibit,” Christina Sandefur, executive vice president of the Goldwater Institute wrote in a blog post about the decision.
My View: Why Passing Prop 208 Would Hobble Arizona's Economy
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey
By Doug Ducey – Contributing writer
I urge all Arizonans to vote no on Proposition 208. It proposes a dramatic tax increase that will hobble the state’s recovery during one of the most challenging economic periods we’ve ever faced, and it will jeopardize the tremendous progress we’ve made on behalf of Arizona’s schools and teachers over the past six years.
This ballot measure, funded mostly by out-of-state special interest groups, represents a near doubling of Arizona’s income tax rate. Worse, it especially hits small businesses, who will bear an unfair burden from it.
Right now, Arizona’s small businesses are recovering from the economic harm done by the coronavirus pandemic. And yet this tax increase would have small businesses – many of which pay based on personal tax rates – paying substantially more than Arizona’s largest corporations, which pay a lower corporate rate. That’s not fair, nor smart.
Arizona’s top income tax rate is regionally and nationally competitive among states with an income tax. If Proposition 208 passes, our top rate will skyrocket, landing Arizona in the Top 10 nationally of states with the highest income tax rates. Arizona’s reputation for being welcoming to job creators and entrepreneurs will be at tremendous risk.
The drag on our economic development will be profound. The tax increase is estimated to cost taxpayers around $1 billion annually. That’s a whopping amount at a time when our citizens are confronted by the dual challenges of recession and high unemployment.
There’s no guarantee how much of this money will actually reach teachers. Normally when there’s a huge tax increase we know for certain what the money will be spent on. In this case, most of the money can be spent outside the classroom, which would be terribly wasteful.
Prop 208 contains nothing to improve academic outcomes, either. There’s nothing in the language about reading attainment, math skills or college readiness.
Arizona’s K-12 education needs more money. There is little debate about that. I’ve signed successive budgets into law that invested billions of dollars in new money into Arizona’s K-12 system. I was proud to lead the passage of Proposition 123, which is delivering $3.5 billion to schools over the course of a decade. Even during the budget uncertainty brought on by the pandemic, the Legislature and I delivered on our 20x2020 plan to increase teacher pay statewide by an average 20%, and my administration used federal CARES Act dollars to ensure that school funding wasn’t negatively affected by enrollment swings.
Arizonans want to do more for education, but they want to ensure their education tax dollars are spent in ways that benefit children and teachers, and not bureaucracy and overhead. Proposition 208 can make no such assurances.
This ballot measure isn’t the answer. It will do more harm than good to small businesses; will raise less money than promised; and will result in more waste in our education system, not less.
Arizona’s small business owners have sacrificed a lot this year. They have fought through the challenges of Covid-19, working hard to keep their doors open and protect the health and safety of their employees and customers. They deserve our support, not a massive tax increase.
Our teachers have stepped up in a major way, too, making the shift to remote and hybrid learning environments while continuing to deliver outstanding instruction. They deserve more than Proposition 208’s false promises.
We can do better than this ballot measure. Please join me in voting “No” on this crippling tax increase.
Doug Ducey is the governor of Arizona.
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey
By Doug Ducey – Contributing writer
I urge all Arizonans to vote no on Proposition 208. It proposes a dramatic tax increase that will hobble the state’s recovery during one of the most challenging economic periods we’ve ever faced, and it will jeopardize the tremendous progress we’ve made on behalf of Arizona’s schools and teachers over the past six years.
This ballot measure, funded mostly by out-of-state special interest groups, represents a near doubling of Arizona’s income tax rate. Worse, it especially hits small businesses, who will bear an unfair burden from it.
Right now, Arizona’s small businesses are recovering from the economic harm done by the coronavirus pandemic. And yet this tax increase would have small businesses – many of which pay based on personal tax rates – paying substantially more than Arizona’s largest corporations, which pay a lower corporate rate. That’s not fair, nor smart.
Arizona’s top income tax rate is regionally and nationally competitive among states with an income tax. If Proposition 208 passes, our top rate will skyrocket, landing Arizona in the Top 10 nationally of states with the highest income tax rates. Arizona’s reputation for being welcoming to job creators and entrepreneurs will be at tremendous risk.
The drag on our economic development will be profound. The tax increase is estimated to cost taxpayers around $1 billion annually. That’s a whopping amount at a time when our citizens are confronted by the dual challenges of recession and high unemployment.
There’s no guarantee how much of this money will actually reach teachers. Normally when there’s a huge tax increase we know for certain what the money will be spent on. In this case, most of the money can be spent outside the classroom, which would be terribly wasteful.
Prop 208 contains nothing to improve academic outcomes, either. There’s nothing in the language about reading attainment, math skills or college readiness.
Arizona’s K-12 education needs more money. There is little debate about that. I’ve signed successive budgets into law that invested billions of dollars in new money into Arizona’s K-12 system. I was proud to lead the passage of Proposition 123, which is delivering $3.5 billion to schools over the course of a decade. Even during the budget uncertainty brought on by the pandemic, the Legislature and I delivered on our 20x2020 plan to increase teacher pay statewide by an average 20%, and my administration used federal CARES Act dollars to ensure that school funding wasn’t negatively affected by enrollment swings.
Arizonans want to do more for education, but they want to ensure their education tax dollars are spent in ways that benefit children and teachers, and not bureaucracy and overhead. Proposition 208 can make no such assurances.
This ballot measure isn’t the answer. It will do more harm than good to small businesses; will raise less money than promised; and will result in more waste in our education system, not less.
Arizona’s small business owners have sacrificed a lot this year. They have fought through the challenges of Covid-19, working hard to keep their doors open and protect the health and safety of their employees and customers. They deserve our support, not a massive tax increase.
Our teachers have stepped up in a major way, too, making the shift to remote and hybrid learning environments while continuing to deliver outstanding instruction. They deserve more than Proposition 208’s false promises.
We can do better than this ballot measure. Please join me in voting “No” on this crippling tax increase.
Doug Ducey is the governor of Arizona.
Jobless rate drops, but not because more are working
09/21/2020
The state's jobless rate shrank by close to 45% last month. But the main reason for this is not what you think!
A good portion of the drop in the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate from 10.7% in July to 5.9% in August has nothing to do with a bunch of Arizonans suddenly finding work. It's because some gave up. A lot of them.
By contrast, the employment levels – the number of folks working – went up by just 32,109.
What makes all that significant is that the unemployment rate is a simple question of math.
Surveyors ask people if they're working and, if not, are they looking—those two figures combined to create the labor force.
Put, if the number of people who say they're looking drops sharply, that changes the whole ratio. And the unemployment rate goes down. And Doug Walls, director of research administration for the Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity, said the state's labor force participation in August – the number of people working or looking for work as a percentage of the total adult population – dropped to 58.5%. That's the lowest rate on records going back to 1976.
So, where did those people go? "There are a lot of different reasons why an individual might exit the labor force," he said. That can include not just retiring but the loss of a job and waiting for it to return.
"We're not able to dive into those and break those out at this time," Walls said, with no current data on people who the federal government classifies as "discouraged workers." And Walls said that there had been large fluctuations in the labor force in the past few months.
Other figures from Thursday's report also suggest that the 5.9% jobless rate is a continued weakness in Arizona's labor market.
There was a gain of 79,200 jobs between July and August. But 44,600 of those were in state and local education – usually folks not on contract like bus drivers, cafeteria staff and custodians – typical at this time of the year. And another 6,900 of the jobs gained were at private schools, largely postsecondary education institutions, also typical for August.
Factor those out and it puts the month-over-month job growth in the private sector at just 23,500. And it still leaves private sector employment in Arizona at 94,700 less than the same time a year earlier.
09/21/2020
The state's jobless rate shrank by close to 45% last month. But the main reason for this is not what you think!
A good portion of the drop in the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate from 10.7% in July to 5.9% in August has nothing to do with a bunch of Arizonans suddenly finding work. It's because some gave up. A lot of them.
By contrast, the employment levels – the number of folks working – went up by just 32,109.
What makes all that significant is that the unemployment rate is a simple question of math.
Surveyors ask people if they're working and, if not, are they looking—those two figures combined to create the labor force.
Put, if the number of people who say they're looking drops sharply, that changes the whole ratio. And the unemployment rate goes down. And Doug Walls, director of research administration for the Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity, said the state's labor force participation in August – the number of people working or looking for work as a percentage of the total adult population – dropped to 58.5%. That's the lowest rate on records going back to 1976.
So, where did those people go? "There are a lot of different reasons why an individual might exit the labor force," he said. That can include not just retiring but the loss of a job and waiting for it to return.
"We're not able to dive into those and break those out at this time," Walls said, with no current data on people who the federal government classifies as "discouraged workers." And Walls said that there had been large fluctuations in the labor force in the past few months.
Other figures from Thursday's report also suggest that the 5.9% jobless rate is a continued weakness in Arizona's labor market.
There was a gain of 79,200 jobs between July and August. But 44,600 of those were in state and local education – usually folks not on contract like bus drivers, cafeteria staff and custodians – typical at this time of the year. And another 6,900 of the jobs gained were at private schools, largely postsecondary education institutions, also typical for August.
Factor those out and it puts the month-over-month job growth in the private sector at just 23,500. And it still leaves private sector employment in Arizona at 94,700 less than the same time a year earlier.
Jobless Benefits Drop Today, Business are Bracing for Impact
09/14/2020
Beginning Monday, more than 430,000 Arizonans who have lost their job will have to live on no more than $240 a week.
Gov. Doug Ducey has no plans to revisit the cap on benefits which has not been altered since 2004 and which leaves Arizona jobless with less money to pay their bills than any state except Mississippi.
The announcement came Friday as the state Department of Economic Security reported it has been informed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that all the funds allocated for the Lost Wage Assistance program have dried up after six weeks.
DES Director Michael Wisehart had warned a week earlier that the $44 billion earmarked by President Trump had a limited life. And he doubted there would be enough for a Week 7.
The news comes as the most recent report from the state Office of Economic Opportunity shows the number of people out of work actually increased between June and July by 19,500.
And the biggest losses came in employment in bars and full- and limited-service restaurants. The already beleaguered industry shed another 8,900 jobs — 4.2% — meaning there are now 28,500 fewer people working there than a year ago.
09/14/2020
Beginning Monday, more than 430,000 Arizonans who have lost their job will have to live on no more than $240 a week.
Gov. Doug Ducey has no plans to revisit the cap on benefits which has not been altered since 2004 and which leaves Arizona jobless with less money to pay their bills than any state except Mississippi.
The announcement came Friday as the state Department of Economic Security reported it has been informed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that all the funds allocated for the Lost Wage Assistance program have dried up after six weeks.
DES Director Michael Wisehart had warned a week earlier that the $44 billion earmarked by President Trump had a limited life. And he doubted there would be enough for a Week 7.
The news comes as the most recent report from the state Office of Economic Opportunity shows the number of people out of work actually increased between June and July by 19,500.
And the biggest losses came in employment in bars and full- and limited-service restaurants. The already beleaguered industry shed another 8,900 jobs — 4.2% — meaning there are now 28,500 fewer people working there than a year ago.
State To Offer Bargain Basement Deals for Land
More than four square miles of state land is being auctioned off this coming month for what might seem like bargain-basement prices. Top officials at the Arizona Land Department say the minimum bid price is in the range of $25,000 an acre.
Foe more information on what appears to be the first-of-a-kind auction click here: Arizona Land Auction Department. Bids will be taking this month only!
More than four square miles of state land is being auctioned off this coming month for what might seem like bargain-basement prices. Top officials at the Arizona Land Department say the minimum bid price is in the range of $25,000 an acre.
Foe more information on what appears to be the first-of-a-kind auction click here: Arizona Land Auction Department. Bids will be taking this month only!
More than a quarter of major Valley roads in poor condition, report says
Just over 26% of the major roads in the area are in poor condition, according to a report analyzing federal highway statistics.
The analysis from automotive data company CoPilot ranked the Valley 25th for the worst roads out of 41 of the nation’s largest urban areas.
In the Valley, the worst problems were on arterial roads, with 29% of the arterial roads and 30% of the minor arterials in poor condition.
In contrast, only 0.8% of the Phoenix area interstates and freeways were in poor condition, according to the report. The data comes from the Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Statistics 2018 Series, which includes information on road quality using the International Roughness Index, rating roads as either good, fair or poor.
Just over 26% of the major roads in the area are in poor condition, according to a report analyzing federal highway statistics.
The analysis from automotive data company CoPilot ranked the Valley 25th for the worst roads out of 41 of the nation’s largest urban areas.
In the Valley, the worst problems were on arterial roads, with 29% of the arterial roads and 30% of the minor arterials in poor condition.
In contrast, only 0.8% of the Phoenix area interstates and freeways were in poor condition, according to the report. The data comes from the Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Statistics 2018 Series, which includes information on road quality using the International Roughness Index, rating roads as either good, fair or poor.
PPP Loans helped nearly 1,500 local businesses
A new Surprise Regional Chamber of Commerce report showed almost 1,500 small businesses in the Northwest Valley have received $155 million in PPP loan assistance.
Based the Chamber’s latest data, the PPP loans helped to retain 6,879 workers in the region (El Mirage, Sun City, Sun City West, Surprise, Waddell and Youngtown.) However, several small businesses in Surprise and surrounding areas are still suffering from the COVID-19 slowdown and waiting for Congress to act on additional bailout money.
“When the previous bailout programs were rolled out there was much confusion and turbulence, and small businesses did not initially fair well,” Chamber President and CEO Raoul Sada said. “The Chamber wants to do its part, making sure that does not happen again, and we are lobbying Capitol Hill for a packages that favor small businesses.”
Key Points:
•The SBA has just released a massive trove of data on PPP loans. This was a significant step forward in transparency by the government, prior to this the SBA resisted requests to share the recipients of the funds. This is why it is so important for the Chamber to hold government officials accountable, and for us to demand transparency at all levels of government (local, state and federal!)
•More than 81,000 Arizona businesses and nonprofits have received forgivable loans through the federal government's Paycheck Protection Program totaling $8.6 billion, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration.
•The Paycheck Protection Program, which was designed to avert mass layoffs during the Covid-19 pandemic.
•PPP loans are not made by SBA. PPP loans are made by lending institutions and then guaranteed by SBA.
•According to the data, 58 businesses in Arizona received between $5 and $10 million, the maximum amount allowed under the program. But the vast majority of loans, approximately 86%, are valued under $150,000.
•Close to 1500 small businesses received PPP loans in the six cities that make up the Chambers service territory. The amount of cash infused into our local economy was over $154 million dollars! Based on application data, the loans help to retain 6,879 workers in our region.
•Approximately 42 businesses were non-profits (2.8% of the recipients)
Based the Chamber’s latest data, the PPP loans helped to retain 6,879 workers in the region (El Mirage, Sun City, Sun City West, Surprise, Waddell and Youngtown.) However, several small businesses in Surprise and surrounding areas are still suffering from the COVID-19 slowdown and waiting for Congress to act on additional bailout money.
“When the previous bailout programs were rolled out there was much confusion and turbulence, and small businesses did not initially fair well,” Chamber President and CEO Raoul Sada said. “The Chamber wants to do its part, making sure that does not happen again, and we are lobbying Capitol Hill for a packages that favor small businesses.”
Key Points:
•The SBA has just released a massive trove of data on PPP loans. This was a significant step forward in transparency by the government, prior to this the SBA resisted requests to share the recipients of the funds. This is why it is so important for the Chamber to hold government officials accountable, and for us to demand transparency at all levels of government (local, state and federal!)
•More than 81,000 Arizona businesses and nonprofits have received forgivable loans through the federal government's Paycheck Protection Program totaling $8.6 billion, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration.
•The Paycheck Protection Program, which was designed to avert mass layoffs during the Covid-19 pandemic.
•PPP loans are not made by SBA. PPP loans are made by lending institutions and then guaranteed by SBA.
•According to the data, 58 businesses in Arizona received between $5 and $10 million, the maximum amount allowed under the program. But the vast majority of loans, approximately 86%, are valued under $150,000.
•Close to 1500 small businesses received PPP loans in the six cities that make up the Chambers service territory. The amount of cash infused into our local economy was over $154 million dollars! Based on application data, the loans help to retain 6,879 workers in our region.
•Approximately 42 businesses were non-profits (2.8% of the recipients)
Surprise Independent News Coverage
|
|
See What Businesses are Open and Their COVID-19 Safeguards Based on a self -reported survey, as on 05/11/2020. Information is subject to change without notice. The collection and dissemination of the data was a combined effort between the City of Surprise and the Surprise Regional Chamber of Commerce. ShopSurprise Receive Special Deals, Promotions and Community Messages from Local Merchants, and your Chamber of Commerce. All messages are sent Directly to Your Phone! Get advance notice of new restaurants, grand openings, community events and more. It's FREE! Enroll Now |
|
|
Chamber’s NW Valley COVID-19 Consumer Survey Results Are In
Survey Results Make the Paper-Click Here to Read the Article Consumers, not the government, will ultimately decide when the economy will open—that is why it is important for citizens and businesses to know what people are thinking. Please share your comments on our Facebook page! Government leaders and public health officials will make decisions, and issue guidance on when we return to work, but truly regaining some semblance of normalcy will be determined by how people feel and what motivates them to act or not act. The Chambers recent survey sheds more light about what consumers are thinking in the NW Valley . Share your comments on our Facebook page Take Our 1-Minute Survey |
Business COVID-19 Survey Results
Survey Makes Front Page of Surprise Independent- Read the Story
CEOs across the globe are coming to terms with the reality that business will be anything but normal over the coming months as the impact of the coronavirus pandemic continues to escalate.
But while revenues are set to suffer a short-term hit, the majority of leaders remain confident that their companies will be back on solid footing within the year, according to a new study on the business impact of the outbreak of COVID-19.
The survey results found that 82% of business leaders expect declines in revenues over the next six months, but more than half (54%) anticipate revenues will be back to normal in a year’s time. And 61% of CEOs expect their total fixed investments to remain unchanged year on year.
How Business Owners are Responding
Among the industries seeing the greatest impact from the fallout are hospitality and travel (89%), education (87%) and media and entertainment (80%). Meanwhile, production firms in agriculture, factories, mines and utilities reported some uptick in revenues.
Nevertheless, business leaders across the board (95%) said they’re taking new measures curb the impact of the virus. That includes communicating more regularly with employees (68%), adopting new health and safety procedures (67%), cancelling major events (64%) and halting business travel (53%).
Meanwhile, other respondents, when asked for their advice for business leaders, recommended the following:
Citation: The Survey was conducted by YPO a global leadership community of more than 29,000 chief executives in 130 countries. Full Press Release
Survey Makes Front Page of Surprise Independent- Read the Story
CEOs across the globe are coming to terms with the reality that business will be anything but normal over the coming months as the impact of the coronavirus pandemic continues to escalate.
But while revenues are set to suffer a short-term hit, the majority of leaders remain confident that their companies will be back on solid footing within the year, according to a new study on the business impact of the outbreak of COVID-19.
The survey results found that 82% of business leaders expect declines in revenues over the next six months, but more than half (54%) anticipate revenues will be back to normal in a year’s time. And 61% of CEOs expect their total fixed investments to remain unchanged year on year.
How Business Owners are Responding
Among the industries seeing the greatest impact from the fallout are hospitality and travel (89%), education (87%) and media and entertainment (80%). Meanwhile, production firms in agriculture, factories, mines and utilities reported some uptick in revenues.
Nevertheless, business leaders across the board (95%) said they’re taking new measures curb the impact of the virus. That includes communicating more regularly with employees (68%), adopting new health and safety procedures (67%), cancelling major events (64%) and halting business travel (53%).
Meanwhile, other respondents, when asked for their advice for business leaders, recommended the following:
- Focus on the facts
- Communicate regularly with employees and stakeholders/customers
- Stabilize supply chains
- Make short-term and long-term plans
Citation: The Survey was conducted by YPO a global leadership community of more than 29,000 chief executives in 130 countries. Full Press Release
USMCA AGREEMENT IS A WIN FOR THE NORTH WEST VALLEY
By any measure, the push to get the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) passed — which preserves and strengthens our economic ties with our neighbors and top two export markets — was a three-year-long process. And it did not happen by accident.
The U.S. Chamber, the Surprise Regional Chamber as well thousands of chambers from around the country put the full weight of our alliances behind this historic effort. A special thank you to all local businesses in our region who contacted their elected officials and encouraged them to support the agreement. The new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is expected to usher tangible benefits for the NW Valley including agriculture, technology, manufacturing, and other business sectors, industry analysts say.
Here’s a brief overview of what’s in it:
- Country of origin rules: Automobiles must have 75 percent of their components manufactured in Mexico, the US, or Canada to qualify for zero tariffs (up from 62.5 percent under NAFTA).
- Labor provisions: 40 to 45 percent of automobile parts must be made by workers who earn at least $16 an hour by 2023. Mexico agreed to pass new labor laws to give greater protection to workers, including migrants and women. Most notably, these laws are supposed to make it easier for Mexican workers to unionize.
- US farmers get more access to the Canadian dairy market: The US got Canada to open up its dairy market to US farmers, a big issue for Trump.
- Intellectual property and digital trade: The deal extends the terms of copyright to 70 years beyond the life of the author (up from 50). It also includes new provisions to deal with the digital economy, such as prohibiting duties on things like music and ebooks, and protections for internet companies, so they’re not liable for content their users produce.
- Sunset clause: The agreement adds a 16-year sunset clause — meaning the terms of the agreement expire, or “sunset,” after 16 years. The deal is also subject to review every six years, at which point the US, Mexico, and Canada can decide to extend the USMCA.
First-Ever Scorecard Released
Who Made the List? Our first-ever scorecard evaluates the votes of each state senator and representative and represents the positions of the West Valley Chamber Alliance that were communicated to our state lawmakers throughout the 2019 Regular Session. The scorecard helps the business community know where their elected officials stand on issues that affect us all. Click Here for Full Report
The Surprise Regional Chamber of Commerce (Districts 13, 21 and 22) would like to recognize Rick Gray, Frank Carroll, Tim Dunn and Joanne Osborne for having 100% scores in support of pro-business policies.
As a Chamber, we commend those elected leaders with scores above 80% and recognize them as Free Enterprise Champions for recognizing the vital role businesses play and supporting those businesses through common sense, pro-business, and growth-oriented public policy. All elected officials in Districts 13, 21 and 22 earned the Free Enterprise Champion designation which included Rick Gray, Ben Toma, Frank Carroll, Kevin Payne, Tony Rivera, David Livingston, Tim Dunn, Joanne Osborne and Sine Kerr.
Chamber1
TAKE THE SURVEY NOW
2020 Business Climate Census Survey
Many in our business community are experiencing both challenges and successes as our economy grows. As we work to secure the NW Valley's future, it is crucial that the Surprise Regional Chamber of Commerce understand what issues are most important to businesses. The purpose of the Business Climate Survey is to track trends and issues affecting businesses and to inform elected officials about the issues and concerns of the local business community.
Click Here Now, To Take Our Annual Business Climate Survey
2020 Business Climate Census Survey
Many in our business community are experiencing both challenges and successes as our economy grows. As we work to secure the NW Valley's future, it is crucial that the Surprise Regional Chamber of Commerce understand what issues are most important to businesses. The purpose of the Business Climate Survey is to track trends and issues affecting businesses and to inform elected officials about the issues and concerns of the local business community.
Click Here Now, To Take Our Annual Business Climate Survey
|
|
|