Policy Brief February 2018

Utah's Olympic Economic Legacy By: Natalie Gochnour, Juliette Tennert, Jennifer Leaver, and Meredith King | Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute

Introduction Regional Economic Impact

The 2002 Olympic Winter Games enlarged the Utah econ- Regional economic impacts are changes in the size and omy and left a lasting economic legacy. This legacy contin- structure of a region’s economy when goods and services ues to grow and change as the Utah economy matures in are purchased from businesses within the region using each subsequent year since the Games. money generated from outside of the region. The Salt The initial impact includes the injection of outside funds Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC) spent an estimated that paid for the operation of the Games, new infrastruc- $1.9 billion, in constant 2018 dollars, between 1996 and ture, visitor spending, and other benefits. In the years fol- 2003 on the 2002 Winter Games, including wages, venue lowing the Salt Lake City Olympics, other economic bene- construction and enhancements, broadcasting expenses fits take hold as the infrastructure from that time remains and general operational purchases. Adding additional in- in service to residents and visitors alike, the surplus/en- frastructure investments financed outside of the SLOC dowment from the Games is spent, the travel and tourism budget, visitor spending during the Games, and federal- industry expands, and Utah’s sports’ industry grows. In a ly-funded security expenses to SLOC expenditures, direct like manner, many intangible benefits foster additional expenditures totaled an estimated $3.5 billion. After ad- economic growth as Utah develops as a winter sports cap- justing for purchases from out-of-state companies, in- ital, attracts businesses related to the Olympics, and other state revenue sources, and the displacement of regular intangibles such as increased visibility and awareness. skier visitation, net-new direct expenditures total an esti- mated $2.5 billion. This policy brief provides Utah decision-makers with a high-level summary of Utah’s living economic Olympic Net-new direct expenditures spur additional economic ac- legacy and considers the economic prospects of a poten- tivity in the region as they stimulate purchases from local tial 2026/2030 Olympic Games. Should Utah decide to suppliers, who in turn hire employees and make purchases pursue another bid, we recommend an in-depth econom- from other local businesses. These rounds of activity pro- ic study that builds upon this research and provides com- duce indirect economic effects and then direct and indi- prehensive and detailed modeling of the economic im- rect employees spend a portion of their wages in the local pacts, including costs and benefits. economy, further generating “induced” effects. The total economic impact of an event is the sum of these net-new Economic impact of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games direct, indirect, and induced effects.

The economic impacts of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games All told, between 1996 and 2003, the 2002 Olympic Winter include the regional economic impact (direct, indirect, Games created total economic impacts in Utah equivalent and induced effects1 of new money spent in the state), to approximately $6.1 billion in economic output, the val- new infrastructure that remains in place after the Games ue of every transaction in the economy supported by the and serves residents and visitors, the surplus leftover from Games, 45,700 job-years of employment, and $3.0 billion 2 the Games that benefits the local economy, travel and in personal income. tourism impacts, and intangible impacts, most noticeably, the positioning of Utah as a winter sports capital, business development, and increased visibility and awareness about Utah.

Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute I 411 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 I 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS Olympic infrastructure and operate Olympic facilities. The remaining funds were used for charity ($11.2 million), Olympic legacy plazas 2002 Olympic Winter Games’ infrastructure includes the ($10.2 million), and United States Organizing Committee Utah Olympic Park (freestyle, freeride and Nordic jumps, business credits ($7.0 million).5 The surplus continues to along with sliding sports track), Olympic Oval (speed skat- pay dividends to the state’s economy as the state has ing oval and two multi-sport ice rinks), Soldier Hollow (a maintained its Olympic facilities and hosts world class new access road, ski lodge, trail system, and snowmaking/ competitions that further contribute to the Utah econo- water systems), four new or improved ice rinks (located in my. Murray, Ogden, Provo, and West Jordan), and University of Utah facilities (Olympic Village 3,500 student housing ca- TABLE 1 pacity and Rice-Eccles Stadium expansion). Allocation of 2002 Olympic Winter Games Surplus In addition, many infrastructure investments were acceler- (2002 dollars) ated to accommodate the Olympic Winter Games, includ- Use Amount ing transportation investment (I-15 enhancements, I-80 Taxpayer repayment $59.0 million Silver Creek and Kimball Junction exits, Trappers Loop Road, and light rail transit), lodging expansion, and ski re- Endowment to maintain $76.0 million sort expansion.3 facilities These infrastructure enhancements not only helped ser- Charitable contributions $11.2 million vice the 2002 Olympic Winter Games, but have provided Olympic legacy plazas $10.2 million expanded opportunities for residents and visitors in each US Olympic Committee $7.0 million year since the Games. All venues remain in place and part credits of a vision for sport, community, and physical activity. TOTAL $163.4 million Endowment/Games surplus Source: Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation The 2002 Olympic Winter Games produced a surplus of $163.4 million, $59.0 million of which was paid back to the Travel and tourism: Before, during and after state of Utah per agreements between the SLOC and state The Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute evaluated visitation and local governments made in the 1990s.4 The largest data before, during and after the Games. The analysis con- portion of the surplus ($76.0 million) was placed in an en- firms the positive post-Olympics trajectory of the Utah dowment for the Utah Athletic Foundation to maintain travel and tourism industry. Possible explanations for

INFORMED DECISIONSTM 2 gardner.utah.edu these increases include the increased exposure from the TABLE 3 Olympics, global/national economic conditions, Estimated Skier Visit Displacement in 2002 non-Olympic marketing efforts, tourism infrastructure in- Skier % Difference % Difference vestment, and other factors. Visits from 2001 from 2003 Table 2 provides a summary of travel and tourism perfor- 2000-2001 3,278,291 mance indicators before and after the 2002 Olympic Win- 2001-2002 2,984,574 -8.96% -4.99% ter Games. 2002-2003 3,141,212 TABLE 2 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of Ski Utah data. Travel and Tourism Performance Before and After the National park visits – Utah’s national parks experienced a 2002 Olympic Winter Games 25 percent increase in the average number of annual rec- Percent change in average tourism indicators, 1988-2001 vs. reation visits in the 14 years after the 2002 Olympic Winter 2003-2016 Games compared to the 14 years before the Games. Visita- Difference tion to Utah’s national parks during the first quarter of Skier days + 43% 2002 was 30 percent higher than during the first quarter National park recreation + 25% of 2001. In fact, visitation at Utah’s five national parks re- visits mained, on average, higher than the year prior and the year after the Games through the spring of 2002. Likewise, Taxable accommodation + 60% all Utah visitor centers reported increased visitation in sales February 2002 compared to February 2001. SLC Int’l Airport passen- + 25% National park recreation visits accelerated from 2014 gers through 2016. Many attribute this to the success of the Leisure and hospitality em- + 47% Utah Office of Tourism’s Mighty 5® ad campaign, providing ployment one more indication of the impact of visibility and market- Visitor spending + 59% ing on Utah’s travel and tourism industry. Source: Analysis prepared by the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute based on Ski Accommodation sales – Utah experienced a 60 percent Utah, National Park Service, Utah State Tax Commission, Salt Lake City Interna- tional Airport, U.S. Travel Association, and Utah Department of Workforce Ser- increase in the average annual taxable accommodation vices data sales in the 14 years after the 2002 Olympic Winter Games compared to the 14 years before the Games. Taxable ac- Highlights of the visitation analysis include the following: commodation sales during the first quarter of 2002 were Skier days – Utah experienced a 43 percent increase in 21 percent higher than the same time period during the the average number of annual skier days in the 14 years prior year, and 30 percent higher than the first quarter of after the 2002 Olympic Winter Games compared to the 14 the following year. In February 2002, lodging room rates years before the Games. across northern Utah were over 50 percent higher com- We also observe a clear displacement effect as the nearly pared to February 2001 and lodging occupancies were be- 7 three-week Olympic events (including Olympic and tween 10 to 30 percent higher as well. Paralympic Games) “crowds out” visitors who would other- Airport passengers – The Salt Lake City International Air- wise visit the state. Original estimates by the Governor’s port experienced a 25 percent increase in its average an- Office of Planning and Budget predicted 3.8 million skier nual (enplaned and deplaned) passengers in the 14 years visits during the 2001/2002 ski season, with a 20 percent after the 2002 Olympic Winter Games compared to the 14 displacement of ski visitors, for an estimate of 3.1 million years before the Games. However, in the first quarter of visits.6 2002, total passenger numbers were down six percent 8 As shown in Table 3, we estimate skier visit displacement compared to the first quarter of 2001. effects in 2002 at Utah ski resorts of five to nine percent Leisure and hospitality employment – Utah’s average fewer visits. Alternatively, national park visits, accommo- annual private leisure and hospitality employment base dation taxable sales, airport passengers, and private lei- was 47 percent higher in the 14 years after the 2002 Olym- sure and hospitality employment were higher in 2002 pic Winter Games compared to the 14 years before the than 2001. Games; the average annual base for all other private-sec-

INFORMED DECISIONSTM 3 gardner.utah.edu tor jobs was 42 percent higher in 14 years after the Games Visibility and awareness compared to the 14 years prior. In the first quarter of 2002, The 2002 Olympic Winter Games created an unprecedent- Utah Department of Workforce Services reported an aver- ed opportunity to share Utah with the world. The Utah Di- age of 6,926 more direct private leisure and hospitality vision of Travel Development11 estimated the following jobs, a seven percent increase over the first quarter of 2001 visibility and awareness benefits: five percent higher than the first quarter of 2003. Specifi- cally, private arts, entertainment, and recreation jobs were • TV viewership – 2.1 billion viewers in 160 countries and up nearly 25 percent during the first quarter of 2002 com- territories amassed 13.1 billion viewer hours. The U.S. audi- pared to the previous year, while accommodation and ence included 187 million viewers who watched 27 hours restaurant jobs were up four percent. of Olympic cover age. Visitor spending – Consumer Visa card spending between • Visitors – 220,000 total visitors (90,000 domestic, 15,000 February 1 and 24 of 2002 was up 31 percent from the international, 64,000 sponsors and guests, 15,000 Olympic same time frame during the previous year.9 Average annu- organizations, 15,000 media representatives, 15,000 secu- al taxable leisure and hospitality sales were up 59 percent rity personnel, and 6,000 VIPs.) 1.5 million tickets were sold in the 14 years after the 2002 Olympic Winter Games com- to Olympic events. pared to the 14 years before the Games; all other average • Print media exposure – The estimated value of tourism- annual taxable sales (non-leisure and hospitality) were up print media exposure from the Games is $22.9 million. 38 percent in comparison. Total taxable leisure and hospi- • Ad campaign – Television ads promoting Utah tourism tality sales in 2002 were four percent higher than both aired in select markets reaching an estimated 6.1 million 2001 and 2003; all other 2002 taxable sales (non-leisure people the week of the Games. Follow-up ads reached an- and hospitality) were three percent lower than 2001 and other estimated 7.6 million. two percent higher than 2003. • Delta Air Lines promotion – An estimated 2.2 million Intangibles Delta Air Lines passengers viewed the 27-minute Bud In addition to the quantifiable benefits, the hosting of an Greenspan film Discover Utah! Olympic Games brings with it many difficult to quantify, • VIP visitors – The US President, George W. Bush, as well as but important benefits. These include, but are not limited leaders from 77 countries and eight Presidential Cabinet 10 to, the following : Members visited Utah. - Intercultural experiences • State hosting – State hosting efforts included 96 recep- - Popular memory tions involving trade delegations from 21 countries and - Production of ideas 18,400 participants. Ten receptions were hosted by the - Collective effort and volunteerism state in large cities along the torch relay route. - New sport practitioners - Notoriety on a global scale • Corporate guests – Business leaders welcomed 350 ven- - Experience and know-how ture capitalists and 600 corporate guests to Utah during 12 - Reputation the Games. These, and many other, difficult to pin down and less rec- Taken together, these exposure, marketing, hosting, and ognized benefits still have economic value. Some intangi- visitation opportunities created visibility for Utah that is ble benefits lead to increased income and employment in without precedent. the region; others contribute to life quality, which further Winter sports capital – Marquee events improves economic outcomes. Some intangibles may Since the 2002 Olympic Winter Games, the Olympic facili- even detract from the economy, as is the case of increased ties and slopes remain world class. They have been used to congestion or impacts on cost of living and housing. host over 165 national and international competitions in- Three prominent intangible benefits from the 2002 Olym- cluding more than 60 World Cup events, seven world pic Winter Games include the following: championships and many high-attendance sporting 13 1) visibility and awareness, 2) winter sports capital, and 3) events. Table 4 provides a sampling of major Olympic-re- business development. We provide examples and lists of lated World Cups and Championships hosted in Utah since these benefits as an expression of their importance and 2002. contribution.

INFORMED DECISIONSTM 4 gardner.utah.edu TABLE 4 Select Olympic-Related World Cups and Champion- ships Hosted in Utah Since 2002 Year Event 2016 IBSF Para Bobsled & Skeleton World Cup 2002 FIS Alpine World Cup 2016 US Speed Skating Championships 2003 FIS Freestyle World Championships 2016 Liessman Luge World Cup & BMW Sprint 2003 Luge World Cup World Cup 2003 Luge Junior World Cup 2017 Grand Prix Skicross & Snowboardcross 2003 Essent ISU World Cup Speed Skating, 2017 IBSF Bobsled & Skeleton World Cup Spring Competition 2017 FIS Nordic Junior and U23 World Cup Ski 2003 World Cup Short Track Speed Skating Championships 2004 VISA Jumping World Cup 2018 U.S. Olympic Team Trials 2004-2017 Freestyle World Cup 2018 Curling Arena Championships 2004 FIS Ski Jumping World Cup 2019 Freestyle and Snowboard FIS World Championships 2005 ISU World Sprint Speed Skating Champi- onships 2020 U.S. Speed Skating World Single Distance Championships 2005 FIL World Luge Championships Source: Compiled and estimated by the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute based on 2005 FIS Freestyle World Cup conversations with the Utah Olympic Exploratory Committee. 2005 U.S. Cross Country Skiing Champion- ships Winter sports capital – Athlete involvement 2005 Essent ISU World All Distance World Cup Additionally, Utah has become a training center for many world-class athletes and Olympians, as well as two USOC 2005 Speed Skating Olympic Trials National Governing Bodies and several national sport or- 2006 U.S. Cross Country Skiing Champion- ganizations. They include the following: ships 2006 FIS Freestyle World Cup • US Ski and Snowboard Association (USSA) • US Speedskating 2006 Luge Junior Nationals • Women’s Ski Jumping USA 2007 U.S. Cross Country Junior Olympic Cham- • USA Nordic (USANS) pionships 2007 International Skating Union Single Utah possesses ideal conditions for Olympic athletes to Distances Speed Skating World Champi- train for upcoming competitions. Utah is also home to onships many Olympians. Examples of the extent of athlete en- 2007-2012 NBC Sports Dew Tour gagement include, but are not limited to, the following: 2008 U.S. Freestyle Championships • 77 athletes competing in the 2018 PyeongChang Olym- 2008 Samsung ISU World Cup Speedskating pic Games are native to Utah, train primarily in Utah, or have been educated in Utah and will be representing Team 2009 Ski Halfpipe World Cup USA, Ghana, Ireland, Great Britain, Hungary, and Australia 2012 USA Hockey High School Champion- • 12 athletes with ties to University of Utah are competing ships in the PyeongChang Olympic Games 2012 USA Volleyball U.S. Open Championships • 40 percent of the Olympians who participated in the 2012-2019 U.S. International Figure Skating Classic 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games live in Utah 2013-2014 U.S. Cross Country Championships • Since 2005, 130 USSA athletes have taken classes at West- 2014, ‘17 U.S. Speedskating Olympic Trials minster College in Salt Lake City, Utah with 14 qualifying 2015-2016 Luge World Cup for the 2010 Olympics 2015 U.S. Speedskating National Champion- • 10 percent of all U.S. Olympic team members competing ships Short Track in the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games were attending West- 2015 U.S. Figure Skating Nationals minster College

INFORMED DECISIONSTM 5 gardner.utah.edu • If Utah were competing as its own country at the Sochi thon, Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative, and a preferred vendor Olympic Games, it would have finished 10th in overall for Nike.14 medal count (5 Gold, 4 Silver, 2 Bronze) • Skullcandy – The idea for the brand was born on a chair- • The historic, first Women’s Ski Jumping team to compete lift, and took off at the conclusion of the Olympics. Skullca- in the Sochi Olympic Games were all Park City, Utah na- ndy made the slopes of the mountains in Utah their head- tives quarters, honing in on the fusion of winter sport and • USSA constructed a $22 million Center of Excellence na- music. Skullcandy frequently supports athletes and three- tional training and education center, providing world-class time Olympian Emily Cook is the manager of the compa- 15 training facilities and educational resource for athletes, ny’s Sport and Human Potential. coaches and officials in Park City, Utah • LDD Partners – Ron Heffernan left Utah after college for • Between 2014 and 2017, the Utah Office of Tourism’s win- New York City where he founded consulting firm LDD Part- ter ad campaigns have featured local Utah Olympians and ners. It was not until the 2002 Winter Olympics pushed Salt Paralympians (Sage Kotsenburg, Karl Malone, Chris Wad- Lake City to improve their infrastructure that LDD Partners dell), as well as a local Olympic hopeful (Brolin Mawejje) opened an office in Utah. “Salt lake City is a soft landing city for international companies that are looking to launch Business development their businesses because we have the infrastructure, re- Utah has become a more appealing place for businesses sources and… this is directly attributable to the Olym- because of the success of the 2002 Winter Olympic After pics.”16 the 2002 Games, prominent polling firm Wirthlin World- • Cuisine Unlimited – Maxine Turner, founder, describes the wide surveyed Fortune 1000 executives who watched the impact of the Olympics in this way: “The impact on our lo- 2002 Olympic Winter Games and asked if they were more cal company is one that we have felt for more than a de- or less likely to move to Utah for a job or business oppor- cade since the Salt Lake Games. It has taken us to Beijing, tunity. The data showed a six percent increase in those Vancouver, London, Sochi, and Rio now having been in- who were “total likely” to move to Utah for an opportunity volved with seven Olympics. It has given our company un- after viewing the 2002 Games. paralleled experiences and a legacy rich in cultures, inter- national cuisines and certainly catering opportunities. A variety of Utah companies have their roots in Utah’s Without a doubt, it has changed the face of our company hosting of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. Some exam- and resulted in national recognition. Best of all, we keep in ples include the following: touch with people from across the globe.”17 • Fusion Imaging – Awarded the largest graphics contract • Infinite Scale - The Company was founded following the for the 2002 Olympic Winter Games, it was “THE job that 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City. The compa- put Fusion Imaging on the map.” Fusion Imaging now has ny’s three partners all relocated to Salt Lake to work on the multiple high profile clients such as The New York Mara- Games and following the completion of the Games, chose

FIGURE 1 Impact of 2002 Olympic Winter Games on Moving Preferences of Fortune 1000 Executives 2003 Fortune 1000 Executives: How likely would you be to move to Utah if you had a good business opportunity or were offered a job you wanted at the time?

Source: Wirthlin Worldwide

INFORMED DECISIONSTM 6 gardner.utah.edu to stay in Salt Lake and start Infinite Scale. Recent projects TABLE 5 include the PAC-12 Championship Game, NHL All-Star Estimated Economic Reach Comparisons Game, and the Little Caesars Arena in Detroit.18 2002 and 2030 Olympic Winter Games • Vista Outdoor – After Vista Outdoor spun off from Alliant (2018 constant dollars) Techsystems Inc., it chose to establish its headquarters in 2002 2030 % Difference Clearfield, Utah, creating 90 high-paying, high-skilled jobs Organizing $1.53 $1.29 for the community. “The state takes advantage of its four Committee -15.7% billion billion season environment,” said Chairman and CEO, Mark budget DeYoung. “It has great infrastructure, including facilities Tickets 1.525 1.641 7.6% built for the 2002 Winter Olympics… Utah focuses on out- million million door recreation as a market segment, so it has welcomed us as a producer of equipment for hunting, skiing, golf and Event days 119 160 34.5% 19 Visitor $178 $255 other outdoor activities.” 43.2% spending million million • Winter sport companies – A variety of winter sport com- Television panies have established a presence in Utah since the 2002 2.1 billion 2.5 billion 19.1% Olympic Winter Games. These include Amer Sports, De- viewers scente North America, Kahuna Creations, Goode Ski Tech- Note: All dollar figures reflect direct, in-state expenditures. Source: Compiled and estimated by the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute based on nologies, Scott USA, SnowSports Interactive, and Rossign- conversations with the Utah Olympic Exploratory Committee. ol.20 Additionally, based on our analysis of Utah’s travel and III. ECONOMIC PROSPECTS FOR A POTENTIAL 2030 tourism industry before and after the 2002 Olympic Winter OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES BID Games, we expect skier visits, national park recreation vis- From an economic perspective, there are two major differ- its, accommodation taxable sales, airport passengers, and ences between the 2002 Games and the 2030 Games. private leisure and hospitality employment to continue a positive growth trajectory after another Olympic Winter 1) More winter sports – Since 2002, the Winter Olympics Games. A growth trend of 25-60 percent over 14 years, de- have added sports, which means more athletes and view- pending on the indicator, would be consistent with past ers. We estimate the 2030 Olympic Winter Games will be experience. approximately eight percent larger than 2002 in terms of Given these comparisons, we conservatively estimate the tickets sold and, with more attendees and increases in 2026/2030 Olympics will create at least as large an eco- spending patterns, visitor spending is estimated to be nomic impact as the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. This im- over 40 percent higher (inflation-adjusted dollars). We also pact will occur as new money is brought into the state expect the number of event days and television viewer- (host broadcaster, visitor spending, sponsors, federal funds ship to be 19-35 percent larger. Other things being equal, and other sources) and then circulates throughout the this growth in sports, events and viewers will create a larg- economy creating indirect and induced economic effects. er economic footprint in Utah than the 2002 Games. Further, Utah’s travel and tourism industry will benefit from infrastructure investment and the increased visibility 2) More Efficient Games – A Salt Lake City bid for the Olym- from hosting the Olympic Games. The five to nine percent pics Winter Games in 2030 will have a smaller budget, oth- skier visit displacement observed in 2002 could be miti- er things being equal, than 2002 because most of the facil- gated with advanced marketing and planning. ities are already in place. This means Salt Lake City can host extremely efficient Games from a budgeting perspective. Finally, the intangible benefits of Utah’s continuing ascen- We estimate the organizing committee budget to be 9.8 sion as a winter sports capital (home to world class events percent less in 2030 than in 2002 because of less infra- and elite athletes), business development opportunities, structure spending (inflation-adjusted dollars). While in- increased visibility and awareness, and other intangibles vestment in the Olympic speed skating oval, bobsleigh further strengthens the economic impact of hosting an- tracks, ski jumping facilities, cross-country track, athlete other Olympic Games. housing, and other facilities will still be needed, the invest- If Utah pursues another Olympic Games, decision makers ment will be much less than 2002 and much less than in would be wise to commission a detailed economic study other potential host cities. Other things being equal, this that builds upon this research and comprehensively mod- efficiency will create a smaller economic footprint in Utah els the economic impact of another Games, including ben- than the 2002 Games. efits and costs.

INFORMED DECISIONSTM 7 gardner.utah.edu APPENDIX A 3. Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation Regional Economic Impact Analysis Methods and 4. Dollar amounts in this paragraph are 2002 dollars. Limitations 5. Based on discussions and data from the Utah Olympic The Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute used the REMI PI+ Legacy Foundation. model to update the economic impact analysis of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games originally completed by the Utah 6. 2002 Olympic Winter Games Economic, Demographics, Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB) in 2002. and Fiscal Impacts report by the Utah Governor’s Office of REMI is a dynamic model that incorporates input-output, Planning and Budget: https://governor.utah.gov/DEA/ economic geography, econometric, and general equilibri- Publications/Backup/Old/oly/tob.htm um components. 7. Research Evaluation of the Salt Lake City 2002 Winter We derived direct effect model inputs using final expendi- Olympics presentation by Jon Kemp of the Utah Division ture information provided by the Utah Exploratory Com- of Travel Development. mittee, original GOPB data input tables, and a November 8. Ibid. 2001 Government Accountability Office report on federal 9. Research Evaluation of the Salt Lake City 2002 Winter 21 expenditures for Olympics Games. Our limited scope re- Olympics presentation by Jon Kemp of the Utah Division view did not allow for a precise accounting of the alloca- of Travel Development. tion of the portion of SLOC purchases that did not cover compensation, broadcasting, and construction, actual 10. See “Provisional Remarks, Conclusions and Recom- non-SLOC infrastructure investments, or the timing of ex- mendations,” International Symposium on Legacy of the penditures; we used the original GOPB work to develop Olympic Games, 1984-2000. assumptions where actual data was unavailable. Further, 11. The Utah Division of Travel Development is now called since no visitor survey research was done during the the Utah Office of Tourism as of 2005 Games, we used the visitor spending inputs developed by 12. Salt Lake Chamber GOPB. This analysis does not contemplate the additional economic impacts associated with allocation of surplus 13. Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation funds, including the Olympic Legacy Foundation endow- 14. Fusionimaging.com, 2017 ment. Because of these limitations, the results of this anal- 15. TSE Consulting, 2016 ysis should be viewed as signaling an economic impact of a significant magnitude and not necessarily an exact enu- 16. U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “How the 2002 Olympics meration of impacts. Sparked Salt Lake City’s Economic Revival” August 05, 2017 17. Email with Maxine Turner, December 27, 2017 APPENDIX B 18. Email with Matt Caldwell, Managing Director at Infinite Endnotes Scale, December 27, 2017 1. In the case of this analysis, direct effects are visitor and 19. Forbes, Burnell, Susan H., “Utah: Business Elevated” SLOC spending at Utah businesses. Indirect effects are the June 29, 2015 value of inputs these local businesses purchase from other local businesses, and induced effects are the impacts asso- 20. Salt Lake Chamber, 2017 ciated with the expenditure of wages derived from direct 21. “Olympic Games: Costs to plan and stage the Games in and indirect effects (i.e. household purchases of goods the United States,” United States General Accounting Of- and services). Total economic impacts are presented in fice, Nov. 2001. terms of employment, earnings, state GDP, and economic output. 2. Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute January 2018 updated analysis of Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB) estimates of the economic impacts of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. The original GOPB study was com- pleted in November 2000. This new analysis incorporates final budget, visitation, and other economic indicator esti- mates from the 2002 Games and updated economic im- pact modeling methodologies. See Appendix A for a de- scription of methods and limitations. All financial figures are presented in constant 2018 dollars.

INFORMED DECISIONSTM 8 gardner.utah.edu

PARTNERS IN THE COMMUNITY KEM C. GARDNER POLICY INSTITUTE ADVISORY BOARD The following individuals and entities help support the research mission of the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. Conveners Kem C. Gardner Vicki Varela Christian Gardner Ruth V. Watkins Michael O. Leavitt Matthew S. Holland Ted Wilson Legacy Partners Executive Partners Mitt Romney Clark Ivory Natalie Gochnour, The Gardner Company The Boyer Company Ron Jibson Director Intermountain Healthcare Ivory Homes Board Mike S. Leavitt Larry H. & Gail Miller Mark and Karen Bouchard Scott Anderson, Co-Chair Vivian S. Lee Ex Officio Family Foundation Salt Lake Chamber Gail Miller, Co-Chair Kimberly Gardner Martin Mountain America Sorenson Impact Center Senator Orrin Hatch Doug Anderson Ann Millner Credit Union WCF Insurance Governor Gary Herbert Deborah Bayle Sterling Nielsen Salt Lake City Corp. Speaker Greg Hughes Lane Beattie Cristina Ortega Salt Lake County Sustaining Partners Senate President Wayne Cynthia A. Berg Jason Perry University Health Care Niederhauser Clyde Companies Roger Boyer Taylor Randall Utah Governor’s Office of Representative Brian King Dominion Energy Wilford Clyde Jill Remington Love Economic Development Senator Gene Davis Staker Parson Companies Sophia M. DiCaro Brad Rencher Zions Bank Cameron Diehl Mayor Ben McAdams Josh Romney Mayor Jackie Biskupski Lisa Eccles Charles W. Sorenson Spencer P. Eccles James Lee Sorenson Matt Eyring

KEM C. GARDNER POLICY INSTITUTE STAFF AND ADVISORS

Leadership Team Staff Natalie Gochnour, Director Samantha Ball, Research Associate Jennifer Robinson, Associate Director Mallory Bateman, Research Analyst Dianne Meppen, Director of Survey Research DJ Benway, Research Analyst Pamela S. Perlich, Director of Demographic Research Cathy Chambless, Senior Research Associate Juliette Tennert, Director of Economic and Marin Christensen, Research Associate Public Policy Research Mike Christensen, Scholar-in-Residence James A. Wood, Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow John C. Downen, Senior Research Analyst Dejan Eskic, Senior Research Analyst Faculty Advisors Emily Harris, Demographic Analyst Adam Meirowitz, Faculty Advisor Michael T. Hogue, Senior Research Statistician Matt Burbank, Faculty Advisor Mike Hollingshaus, Demographer Senior Advisors Thomas Holst, Senior Energy Analyst Jonathan Ball, Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst Meredith King, Research Associate Gary Cornia, Marriott School of Business Colleen Larson, Administrative Manager Dan Griffiths, Tanner LLC Shelley Kruger, Accounting and Finance Manager Roger Hendrix, Hendrix Consulting Jennifer Leaver, Research Analyst Joel Kotkin, Chapman University Sara McCormick, Senior Research Associate Darin Mellott, CBRE Angela Oh, Senior Economist Derek Miller, World Trade Center Utah Levi Pace, Research Analyst Chris Redgrave, Zions Bank Joshua Spolsdoff, Research Associate Bud Scurggs, Cynosure Group Nicholas Thiriot, Communications Director Wesley Smith, 24NINE Natalie Young, Research Analyst

Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute I 411 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 I 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS