Performance Measure
Agency
Measure Name
Amount of new private investment in distressed communities as a result of enterprise zone incentives.
Measure Last Modified
Sep 09 2014 04:16
Measure Last Published
Jun 20 2017 04:26
Measure Status
Active
Data Source and Calculation
Amount of new private investment as reported on the Enterprise Zone Real Property Investment Grant applications. NOTE: Payments occur in June of the corresponding fiscal year. For example, payments for private investments made during taxable year 2014 will occur in FY 2015.
Enterprise Priorities and Strategies
Enterprise InitiativeEnterprise PriorityEnterprise Strategy
EconomyBusiness Climate and Economic DevelopmentPromote Virginia’s competitive business climate to maintain the designation as the best state for business.
EconomyPovertyDevelop a clear and consistent anti-poverty policy.
Associated Service Areas
SA CodeSA Name
53410Financial Assistance for Economic Development
Measure ID16553410.001.002
Measure ClassAgency Key
Measure TypeOutcome
Year TypeState FY
Preferred TrendIncrease
FrequencyAnnually
Statistical UnitMillions of Dollars in Private Investment
Baseline and Targets
Target NameDateResultNote
Baseline
Short Target 201806/30/2018300000000
Long Target 202006/30/2020325000000
Measure Results
YearResultExplanatory Note
200086.10Reported in the millions of dollars. Private investment was 28 percent below the projected level but is consistent with investment levels prior to the construction boom. The exceptionally high investment levels reported in 2009 and 2010 were most likely projects that had been started before the recession and were being placed in service in ’09 and ’10. The lower than projected level of private investment for FY ’11 reflects the lingering impact of the real estate bust and recession on the commercial construction market. Increased investment thresholds required by the 2009 legislation also affected smaller real property investments which were previously eligible for program incentives
200154.40Reported in the millions of dollars. Private investment was 28 percent below the projected level but is consistent with investment levels prior to the construction boom. The exceptionally high investment levels reported in 2009 and 2010 were most likely projects that had been started before the recession and were being placed in service in ’09 and ’10. The lower than projected level of private investment for FY ’11 reflects the lingering impact of the real estate bust and recession on the commercial construction market. Increased investment thresholds required by the 2009 legislation also affected smaller real property investments which were previously eligible for program incentives
200277.70Reported in the millions of dollars. Private investment was 28 percent below the projected level but is consistent with investment levels prior to the construction boom. The exceptionally high investment levels reported in 2009 and 2010 were most likely projects that had been started before the recession and were being placed in service in ’09 and ’10. The lower than projected level of private investment for FY ’11 reflects the lingering impact of the real estate bust and recession on the commercial construction market. Increased investment thresholds required by the 2009 legislation also affected smaller real property investments which were previously eligible for program incentives
2003100.80Reported in the millions of dollars. Private investment was 28 percent below the projected level but is consistent with investment levels prior to the construction boom. The exceptionally high investment levels reported in 2009 and 2010 were most likely projects that had been started before the recession and were being placed in service in ’09 and ’10. The lower than projected level of private investment for FY ’11 reflects the lingering impact of the real estate bust and recession on the commercial construction market. Increased investment thresholds required by the 2009 legislation also affected smaller real property investments which were previously eligible for program incentives
200467.60Reported in the millions of dollars. Private investment was 28 percent below the projected level but is consistent with investment levels prior to the construction boom. The exceptionally high investment levels reported in 2009 and 2010 were most likely projects that had been started before the recession and were being placed in service in ’09 and ’10. The lower than projected level of private investment for FY ’11 reflects the lingering impact of the real estate bust and recession on the commercial construction market. Increased investment thresholds required by the 2009 legislation also affected smaller real property investments which were previously eligible for program incentives
200582.10Reported in the millions of dollars. Private investment was 28 percent below the projected level but is consistent with investment levels prior to the construction boom. The exceptionally high investment levels reported in 2009 and 2010 were most likely projects that had been started before the recession and were being placed in service in ’09 and ’10. The lower than projected level of private investment for FY ’11 reflects the lingering impact of the real estate bust and recession on the commercial construction market. Increased investment thresholds required by the 2009 legislation also affected smaller real property investments which were previously eligible for program incentives
2006157.00Reported in the millions of dollars. Private investment was 28 percent below the projected level but is consistent with investment levels prior to the construction boom. The exceptionally high investment levels reported in 2009 and 2010 were most likely projects that had been started before the recession and were being placed in service in ’09 and ’10. The lower than projected level of private investment for FY ’11 reflects the lingering impact of the real estate bust and recession on the commercial construction market. Increased investment thresholds required by the 2009 legislation also affected smaller real property investments which were previously eligible for program incentives
2007246.90Reported in the millions of dollars. Private investment was 28 percent below the projected level but is consistent with investment levels prior to the construction boom. The exceptionally high investment levels reported in 2009 and 2010 were most likely projects that had been started before the recession and were being placed in service in ’09 and ’10. The lower than projected level of private investment for FY ’11 reflects the lingering impact of the real estate bust and recession on the commercial construction market. Increased investment thresholds required by the 2009 legislation also affected smaller real property investments which were previously eligible for program incentives
2008285.40Reported in the millions of dollars. Private investment was 28 percent below the projected level but is consistent with investment levels prior to the construction boom. The exceptionally high investment levels reported in 2009 and 2010 were most likely projects that had been started before the recession and were being placed in service in ’09 and ’10. The lower than projected level of private investment for FY ’11 reflects the lingering impact of the real estate bust and recession on the commercial construction market. Increased investment thresholds required by the 2009 legislation also affected smaller real property investments which were previously eligible for program incentives
2009410.00Reported in the millions of dollars. Private investment was 28 percent below the projected level but is consistent with investment levels prior to the construction boom. The exceptionally high investment levels reported in 2009 and 2010 were most likely projects that had been started before the recession and were being placed in service in ’09 and ’10. The lower than projected level of private investment for FY ’11 reflects the lingering impact of the real estate bust and recession on the commercial construction market. Increased investment thresholds required by the 2009 legislation also affected smaller real property investments which were previously eligible for program incentives
2010500.40Reported in the millions of dollars. Private investment was 28 percent below the projected level but is consistent with investment levels prior to the construction boom. The exceptionally high investment levels reported in 2009 and 2010 were most likely projects that had been started before the recession and were being placed in service in ’09 and ’10. The lower than projected level of private investment for FY ’11 reflects the lingering impact of the real estate bust and recession on the commercial construction market. Increased investment thresholds required by the 2009 legislation also affected smaller real property investments which were previously eligible for program incentives
2011271.40Reported in the millions of dollars. Private investment was 28 percent below the projected level but is consistent with investment levels prior to the construction boom. The exceptionally high investment levels reported in 2009 and 2010 were most likely projects that had been started before the recession and were being placed in service in 2009 and 2010. The lower than projected level of private investment for FY 2011 reflects the lingering impact of the real estate bust and recession on the commercial construction market. Increased investment thresholds required by the 2009 legislation also affected smaller real property investments which were previously eligible for program incentives.
2012178.40While the number of investors seeking the Real Property Investment Grant increased in FY 2012, actual private investment was 34 percent below the FY 2011 investment level. This was the second year with a decrease in investment from the pre-recession construction bubble of $500 million (projects started before recession; placed in service in 2009). Reported investment was 68 percent lower than the projected FY 2012 level. This is most likely a result of the strong contraction in capital availability immediately after the recession. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) reports that stalled projects due to financing problems almost doubled between 2008 and 2011. Investors may also be hesitant to make major investments ahead of the 2012 presidential election.
2013178.80Results are reported by businesses operating in the enterprise zones. (Reported in millions of dollars)
2014204.30Results are reported by businesses operating in the enterprise zones. (Reported in millions of dollars)
2015245.60Results are reported by businesses operating in the enterprise zones. (Reported in millions of dollars. FY 2015 reflects a 21+ increase over the FY 2014 private investment by enterprise zone investors. The increased investment tracks with an increase of 16+ in the dollar amount of qualified Real Property Investment Grants. The increase in the number of applications was only five percent, possibly reflecting a stronger lending environment and resurgence of commercial real estate development
2016300.50The increased private investment increase relates to the economy, not to any changes in the program. We gave out fewer RPIG grants this year (18 fewer than the previous cycle), but they were bigger projects. In general, we see that the level of investment for projects applying for RPIG are getting larger, which we take to mean that the construction industry is continuing to rebound post-recession, and that many of the large-scale projects delayed during the recession are now being completed. Investments went from $178M in FY13, to $204M in FY 14, to $242M in FY15, and finally up to $300M in FY16.
2017
- Run Date: 06/26/2017 06:27:22