The Economic Impact of the Cherokee Nation: Fiscal Year 2016 Impact Report. April 3, 2017

Similar documents
Arkansas Issue 5: The Estimated Economic Impact of Casino Operations in Boone, Miller, and Washington Counties

The Economic Impact of Spending for Operations and Construction in 2013 by AZA-Accredited Zoos and Aquariums

Oklahoma Economic Trends October 6, 2009

Economic Impacts of the First 5 Placer Children & Families Commission s Funded Programs

Tulip Time 2015: Economic Impact and Attendee Profile

The Economic Impact of Travel on Oklahoma Counties

Economic Impact of the Commercial Construction Industry on the Economy of the State of Alabama

Tax Burden-Sales and Ad Valorem

Master Servicer. Purchase money and rate and term refinances of primary residences only. No cash out refinances. Fixed Rate Sections 203(b) & 234(c)

COLORADO FILM INCENTIVES

BUREAU OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF LOCAL PARKS FULL REPORT

REI is not QM/ATR exempt. All loans must be QM loans. Master Servicer

The Economic Impact Of Travel on Massachusetts Counties 2015

Prepared for Farm Services Credit of America

THE IMPACT OF OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND DRILLING ON THE OKLAHOMA ECONOMY

2016 Upstate Venture CEO Survey Economic Footprint

APPENDIX K ORANGE COUNTY IDA KPMG STUDY ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE OF REAL PROPERTY, PROPERTY VALUE IMPACT ANALYSIS

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Green County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MEDICAID EXPANSION

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Morgan County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Lawrence County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Daviess County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Jefferson County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Lyon County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Boone County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Hancock County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Woodford County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Caldwell County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Hardin County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Economic Impact. Naval Air Station. Patuxent River. Naval Surface Warfare Center. Indian Head. Analysis of the. of the. and the.

REGIONAL SNAPSHOT. Crossing Borders Region (CBR), Oklahoma

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Estill County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

The Economic Impact of Short-Term Rentals In the State of Texas 2018 Update

Economic Impact of The Bradley Center. Prepared by: Bret J. Mayborne Economic Research Director Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce

SANTIAGO CANYON COLLEGE

Steven C. Agee Economic Research and Policy Institute

Ohio Ethanol Producers Association

July The Economic Impact of The Children s Home of Cincinnati on the Greater Cincinnati Area,

CONTRIBUTION OF THE GREENVILLE HOSPITAL SYSTEM TO THE ECONOMIES OF GREENVILLE COUNTY AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA UPSTATE, 2000

2013 Payne County Economic Outlook

The Economic Contribution of Maine s Hospitals

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF A POULTRY OPERATION ON THE ECONOMY OF THE LE FLORE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA AREA

The Economic Value of San Diego & Imperial Counties Community Colleges Association

The Local Economic Impact of Short Term Rentals in Monterey County

The Economic Impact of Northern Virginia Transportation Authority Capital Investment

Analysis of the Economic Impact of Education and Return on Investment BERGEN COMMUNITY COLLEGE. March 2017 MAIN REPORT

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF AMAZON S MAJOR CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS

The Economic Impact of the Montana Board of Research and Commercialization Technology

Economic Impact Assessment Nova Scotia Highway Construction Program

The Economic Impact of the 2014 Alberta Winter Games

WOODS COUNTY PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL PARK AVARD, OK REVISED. Dave Shideler - Extension Economist, OSU, Stillwater (405)

5. DEMOGRAPHICS, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND LAND USE DATA

BBPA. Local impact of the beer and pub sector. A report for the British Beer and Pub Association

Just What the Doctor Ordered How Medicaid Stimulus Funding is Helping Iowa s Economic Recovery

The Economic Impact of Travel on Massachusetts Counties 2016

Economic impact, Cargill Fertilizer, Inc

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE ARKANSAS DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY VENTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT TRUST

The Economic Impact of Off-Highway Vehicles in Iowa

SNAPSHOT: Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System. Key Facts. Overview

The Ward Museum Economic Impact Study. Conducted by:

Economic Impact Analysis of Fort Steele National Heritage Town. Final Report. By:

Economic and fiscal impacts of the Michigan film tax credit

Community College. Analysis of the Return on Investment and Economic Impact of Education BROOKDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE. September 2016 MAIN REPORT

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE OKLAHOMA CAPITAL INVESTMENT BOARD S VENTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND OKLAHOMA CAPITAL ACCESS PROGRAM

REI is not QM/ATR exempt. All loans must be QM loans. Master Servicer

Economic Impact Of Ohio Aerospace Institute, FY

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS: A CASE STUDY APPROACH

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS: A CASE STUDY APPROACH

Message from the CEO and Board President

The Economic Impact of SoonerCare on Oklahoma s Economy

The Economic Contribution of Montana s Beer and Wine Distributors

REI is not QM/ATR exempt. All loans must be QM loans. Properties located within the State of Oklahoma. Master Servicer

SANTA ANA COLLEGE THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF. July 2018 ANALYSIS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT OF EDUCATION

Scottsdale Tourism Study - Visitor Statistics

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF OKLAHOMA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE VISITORS ON THE ECONOMY OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

Scottsdale Tourism Study - Visitor Statistics

County Sales, Use, and Lodging Tax Summary Report, FY 2013 Sherri Schieffer, Local Govt. Ext. Spec., and Notie Lansford, Extension Economist

The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of a Potential Pumped-Storage Hydroelectricity (PHS) Station in Southwest Virginia

Fiscal Impact Analysis of the North Carolina Rural Job Creation Fund

Running Head: Les Bois Park Page 1. Les Bois Park Economic Impact Analysis November 24, 2015

K-12 Spending and the Oregon Economy

LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA SMALL FILMS ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PREPARED BY LAFAYETTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Economic Impacts of Wait Times for Commercial Driver s Licenses Skills Tests

The Economic. Impact of Veteran-Owned. Franchise. August 30, 2011

Economic Impact of the Proposed CME North American Merchant Energy, LLC Gas-Powered Electric Power Plant on Berrien County

Evidence of Coverage. January 1 December 31, Generations Classic (HMO)

The ECONOMIC VALUE of the UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO. Main Report. Analysis of the Economic Impact & Return on Investment of Education

MAIN REPORT. The Economic Value of Northern Colorado Public Colleges and Universities. August 2017

Estimated State and Regional Economic Impacts of the Facilities for Rare Isotope Beams

DRAFT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED RINCON DEL RIO SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT IN NEVADA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MAY 28, 2009

SSE s Economic Contribution to the UK, Scotland, and the Republic of Ireland Financial Year 2014/15

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE PHYSICIAN SECTOR St. Joseph County, Indiana

The Economic Impact of Travel on Massachusetts Counties 2009

OKLAHOMA REGIONAL ECONOMIC YEARBOOK Edition. Release Date: February 8, 2016, 426 pages

Analysis of the Economic Impact and Return on Investment of Education. September 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Gigafactory #1 Employment Ramp

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF DOMINION ENERGY S CURRENT PROPOSAL TO COMBINE WITH SCANA

The Economic Value of San Bernardino Community College District MAIN REPORT

The Economic Impact of the UK Exhibitions Industry - February A FaceTime report by Oxford Economics

Transcription:

The Economic Impact of the Cherokee Nation: Fiscal Year 2016 Impact Report April 3, 2017 Prepared for: The Cherokee Nation Prepared by: Russell R. Evans, Ph.D. Partner, Economic Impact Group, LLC Assistant Professor of Economics Oklahoma City University And Kyle Dean, Ph.D. Managing Partner, Economic Impact Group, LLC Assistant Professor of Economics Oklahoma City University 1 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

Cherokee Nation Economic Impact: Summary and Key Findings Cherokee Nation s government and business operations provide substantial economic opportunities to northeastern Oklahoma counties. Some economic impacts are tangible and straightforwardly estimated. These include changes in regional employment, labor income, and local production of goods and services. Some economic impacts are less easily calculated but just as real and just as important. These include productivity gains from increasing education, improved health outcomes and social assistance. That this impact report focuses on the former set of impacts should not distract the reader from the reality and significance of the latter. Cherokee Nation s economic influence in northeastern Oklahoma has grown substantially since our last report from fiscal year 2014. Annual operations by the Cherokee Nation now support more than $2 billion in local production of goods and services, ranging from retail purchases to new construction and manufacturing to new demand for local health care and education. Production of the $2 billion of local goods and services requires support from 17,788 local jobs generating labor income payments of $786 million. The economic importance of the Cherokee Nation to northeast Oklahoma continues to grow with the expanding economic footprint of Cherokee operations. Since the fiscal year 2014 report, Cherokee Nation direct output (Cherokee Nation production plus Cherokee Nation purchases from local vendors) increased by 23 percent, Cherokee Nation direct employment increased by 5 percent and Cherokee Nation direct income payments to local labor increased by 12 percent. 2 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

The Cherokee Nation s economic influence is spread broadly across their 14-county jurisdiction. Output impacts were greatest in Tulsa County, supporting production of nearly $593 million in local goods and services. The significant economic impacts in Tulsa County have much to do with the structure of the regional economy. The density of the city concentrates local vendors in a single location, allowing Cherokee Nation operations in other counties to find support from Tulsa area vendors. Additionally, the robust local economy traps greater economic flows within the economy, offering larger multiplier effects in Tulsa County relative to rural county economies. In contrast, the Nation s largest relative economic influence is in its home and namesake Cherokee County, where operations support 5,910 jobs and generate income payment to local labor of $221 million per year. Total Economic Impact County Tulsa $ 592,845,564 2,626 $ 181,111,107 Rogers $ 386,392,526 2,923 $ 135,058,712 Cherokee $ 275,978,502 5,910 $ 220,939,602 Delaware $ 186,069,971 1,372 $ 56,055,469 Adair $ 67,944,105 902 $ 37,155,894 Sequoyah $ 152,134,970 1,200 $ 49,809,218 Muskogee $ 113,015,929 952 $ 40,345,024 Mayes $ 163,017,647 781 $ 24,841,632 Washington $ 48,875,255 475 $ 16,860,973 Nowata $ 26,440,135 263 $ 10,291,696 Craig $ 14,337,327 273 $ 10,529,663 Wagoner $ 6,697,953 48 $ 1,274,918 Ottawa $ 3,207,192 53 $ 989,474 McIntosh $ 1,856,758 13 $ 696,672 14-County Total $ 2,038,809,833 17,788 $ 785,960,054 The economic influence of the Cherokee Nation not only provides economic opportunity in each county, but serves more broadly as a single source that connects the regional economies together. This connectivity, combined with the development of regional amenities and expressions of creativity, are the cornerstones of successful regional economic development. 3 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

The Economic Footprint of the Cherokee Nation The direct economic footprint of the Cherokee Nation is an estimate of the Nation s economic influence before accounting for any multiplier, or spillover impacts. It is simply a description of what the Cherokee Nation does throughout the 14-county region and what they purchase directly from local vendors. No economic models are required to arrive at the measure of direct economic influence. Instead, measures of direct economic contributions represent a careful accounting of what the Cherokee Nation does and what they purchase within each county. As discussed previously, the concentration of local vendors in Tulsa County supports the largest Cherokee Nation influence over local production. Cherokee Nation operations and output solicited directly from Tulsa County vendors account for more than $360 million in Tulsa County production. Tulsa, Rogers, Cherokee, Delaware, Mayes, Sequoyah and Muskogee counties all enjoy a direct output impact in excess of $60 million. Cherokee Nation Output County Output Share Tulsa $ 360,136,108 24.0% Rogers $ 350,258,281 23.4% Cherokee $ 168,465,464 11.2% Delaware $ 165,235,068 11.0% Mayes $ 139,592,739 9.3% Sequoyah $ 123,216,770 8.2% Muskogee $ 75,060,727 5.0% Adair $ 42,298,559 2.8% Washington $ 37,743,210 2.5% Nowata $ 24,023,548 1.6% Craig $ 8,411,385 0.6% Ottawa $ 1,525,443 0.1% Wagoner $ 1,270,861 0.1% McIntosh $ 666,054 0.0% 14-County Total $ 1,497,900,216 100.0% The portion of the direct output impact that is vendor purchases serve as inputs to county-specific economic impact models. Purchases solicited from Cherokee Nation operators constitute new demand for a good or service from a local vendor. The vendor responds to the new demand by proportionately increasing their demand for inputs to their production process, including new purchases of supplies, materials, labor, etc. This vendor response is an important source of economic impact and is reported for each county in the body of this report. 4 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

Cherokee Nation employment is simply an estimate from internal documents and human resource reports of the annual employment levels of the Cherokee Nation by county. They do not include estimates of the employment required by the local vendors that support the Cherokee Nation these employment estimates are included as part of the economic impact calculations. For Cherokee Nation Businesses, direct employment is an estimate of the annual average employee counts for each CNB location aggregated at the county level. For the Cherokee Nation government, the best data-supported estimate of employment is a count of W-2 forms distributed by CN operations in each county. Cherokee Nation direct employment is greatest in Cherokee County, where they support 3,580 jobs in the local economy, accounting for 37.5 percent of the Nation s direct employment footprint. Similar important employment impacts are realized in Rogers, Delaware, Sequoyah, Adair and Muskogee counties, as these six counties account for nearly 90 percent of the Cherokee Nation direct employment footprint. Total direct employment of 9,551 jobs supported in the region fails to account for the estimated 1,682 contract workers, which are working throughout the U.S. and even globally. This number fails to account for turnover employment at Cherokee Nation Businesses that can provide valuable short run and transitory employment to individuals in the community. In total, Cherokee Nation's economic activities provide direct employment opportunities to more than 11,000 people. Cherokee Nation Employment County Employment Share Cherokee 3,580 37.5% Rogers 2,159 22.6% Delaware 1,039 10.9% Sequoyah 825 8.6% Adair 491 5.1% Muskogee 373 3.9% Tulsa 265 2.8% Mayes 245 2.6% Washington 213 2.2% Nowata 212 2.2% Craig 149 1.6% Wagoner - 0.0% Ottawa - 0.0% McIntosh - 0.0% 14-County Total 9,551 100.0% 5 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

Cherokee Nation income impacts are estimated and reported consistently with estimates of direct employment. Income estimates are pulled from internal payroll reports and W-2 distributions with adjustments made for benefits. As such, reported labor income estimates may be better construed as compensation impacts as they include the estimate value of benefits with matching FICA contributions, retirement benefits, health care benefits, paid vacation, etc. income impacts, like direct employment impacts, are greatest in Cherokee County. income in Cherokee County is estimated at more than $168 million, accounting for 35 percent of the Cherokee Nation direct income impacts. Income impacts are significant in Rogers, Delaware, Sequoyah, Tulsa, Adair and Muskogee counties, as these top seven counties Cherokee Nation Income County Income Share Cherokee $ 168,339,496 35.2% Rogers $ 117,109,043 24.5% Delaware $ 45,665,636 9.5% Sequoyah $ 38,181,840 8.0% Tulsa $ 30,537,748 6.4% Adair $ 21,800,056 4.6% Muskogee $ 19,775,489 4.1% Mayes $ 10,947,766 2.3% Washington $ 9,652,902 2.0% Nowata $ 9,266,342 1.9% Craig $ 7,267,870 1.5% Wagoner $ - 0.0% Ottawa $ - 0.0% McIntosh $ - 0.0% 14-County Total $ 478,544,188 100.0% account for 92 percent of the Cherokee Nation direct income impact. 6 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

Economic Impact Calculations: Key Concepts and Definitions Economic impact models estimate the total economic activity that results from a new source of economic influence. The new economic influence is often referred to as an economic stimulus. Consider as an example an existing regional economy operating at normal levels when a new economic influence is injected into the economy in the form of demand for a new home. The development of the new home serves as a regional economic stimulus, and the total economic activity that results from home construction likely exceeds the value of the new home. New home construction may require purchases from local lumberyards. The lumberyard, in turn, requires additional labor hours to fill the new order. The lumberyard requires, as well, new purchases from their wholesale provider to maintain inventory levels, which in turn require a trucking or distribution service to make the lumber delivery to the lumberyard. At each layer of activity, new income is generated as workers work extra hours to accommodate the new order, wholesale purchase and delivery. A portion of the extra income will be spent locally on restaurant meals, entertainment, clothing, health care and other industries. The spending starts a second wave of economic activity as these providers respond much as the lumberyard did to meet the new demand. By the end of the process, the total new production in the local economy and the total new employment and income generated in the local economy exceed that which was required simply to build the new home. The difference between the new economic influence and the total economic influence is referred to as the economic multiplier, or economic spillover effect. Estimating the total economic impact of the Cherokee Nation involves building models of the 14 counties operating at normal levels. Cherokee Nation purchases from local vendors in those counties serve as an economic stimulus in those counties, just as the original purchase from the lumberyard did in the illustration above. A second source of economic impacts stems from the change in local income as Cherokee Nation employees carry their paychecks home to their home counties to be spent in the local economy. 7 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

The process begins by identifying the Cherokee Nation direct economic footprint in each county. The direct impact to output (local production), employment and income was summarized and presented previously. The table below reviews and defines the components of the Cherokee Nation direct economic footprint as defined in this report. SOURCES OF DIRECT ECONOMIC FOOTPRINT CN and/or CNB production of goods and services: For CNB entities, total revenue serves as the measure of production; Output for CN operations, budget allocations serve as a proxy for production. Labor Income Employment Vendor Purchases Measure of labor compensation, including salary and benefits paid to Cherokee Nation employees; direct labor income is reported by the county in which the job is located. CN and/or CNB employees, both full- and part-time; direct employment is reported by the county in which the job is located. First-line purchases of inputs by CN and CNB operations; reported in this document as a source of direct output. The Cherokee Nation s direct economic footprint and total economic impact are reported for three broad measures of local economic activity. They are output (or local production of goods and services), employment (includes both full- and part-time employment) and labor income (includes the total value of compensation, including wage payments and benefits). The measures of economic activity are summarized and defined below, with all dollar measures reported in 2016 values. ECONOMIC IMPACT CONCEPTS Output Employment Income The value of all goods and services produced in the local economy. The number of jobs supported in the local economy; includes both fulland part-time employment and may represent either a new job or expansion of hours from an existing job. The value of compensation, including wages, salaries and benefits. 8 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

The economic impact concepts and sources of direct economic footprint are defined exactly as in previous reports. However, the impact methodology has changed considerably for the FY 2016 report, necessitating a brief overview of the process and the impact reported. Previous impact reports were estimated in a single-region framework. In this approach, a county s economy was stimulated by an initial bundle of vendor purchases and/or an initial increase in household income from Cherokee Nation labor payments. The impacts include all spillover, or multiplier activity, that stayed within the county. The impacts reported in previous studies omitted important spillovers that occurred outside the original county but within the Cherokee Nation jurisdiction. The impacts also omitted all feedback effects from spillovers back into the original county. These omitted impacts are estimated and reported for the first time in this study. To capture these previously omitted impacts, multiregional input-output models were developed for each county, explicitly linking via estimated trade flows the economy of one county with that of every other Cherokee Nation county. Consider as an example the relationship between Cherokee County and Rogers County in a simple two-region model. Cherokee Nation vendor purchases from vendors in Rogers County serves as a source of direct economic influence in Rogers County. As vendors respond to this new demand, additional economic activity is realized. A portion of this new economic activity will occur outside of Rogers County, with some of the activity realized in Cherokee County. These spillover impacts into Cherokee County are now estimated, recorded and reported with the impact estimates in Cherokee County. This newly captured activity may induce feedback effects supporting additional economic activity in Rogers County. These feedback effects are now estimated, recorded and reported with the Rogers County impacts. Thus, for both vendor purchases and household spending, there are two new sources of impacts captured feedback impacts and county spillover impacts that were not available using the single region models in previous reports. 9 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

The multiregional modeling approach brings to light economic impacts that were known to exist but were unaccounted for in previous reports. This methodological innovation advances the understanding of the importance of Cherokee Nation activity on the regional economy. ALL SOURCES OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY CN Contribution CN Vendor Purchases CN Vendor Response and Feedback Impacts CN Spillover Impacts from Outside County Vendor Purchases CN Employee & Vendor Spending and Feedback Impacts CN Spillover Impacts from Outside County Employee and Vendor Income Spend economic impact from operations; specifically includes production from internal operations, employment at the location of the job and income at the location of the job. Value of the goods and services purchased by a CN/CNB entity from a local vendor; measured at the location of the vendor. Measures indirect economic activity resulting from the change in activity by the vendor, including feedback effects; measured and reported for the county in which the vendor is located. Measures indirect economic activity in the reported county resulting from a vendor purchase in another CN county; measured and reported at the impact county. Measures the economic activity generated by households as they spend a portion of their income locally; measured at the county of residence of the employee. Measures the economic activity generated in the reported county from household spending originating in another CN county; measured and reported at the impact county. Total economic impacts are estimated and reported for each source of economic activity above. While the multiregional approach employed in this report disproportionately benefits counties that serve as regional trade hubs, all counties benefit from this more complete capture of economic activity. 10 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

County Specific Economic Impact Summaries Adair County Cherokee Nation Total Economic Impacts CN Contribution $ 25,110,942 491 $ 21,800,056 CN Vendor Purchases $ 17,187,617 CN Vendor Response and Feedback Impacts $ 5,515,687 249 $ 10,518,589 Vendor Purchases $ 441,730 6 $ 138,452 CN/Vendor Employee Spending and Feedback Impacts $ 19,446,175 154 $ 4,642,227 Impacts from Outside County $ 241,954 2 $ 56,570 Total $ 67,944,105 902 $ 37,155,894 Economic impacts in Adair County support nearly $68 million in county production of goods and services while supporting 902 jobs and $37 million in local income payments. Cherokee Nation government and business operations directly support 491 jobs in the county and purchase more than $17 million in goods and services from county vendors. 11 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

Cherokee County Cherokee Nation Total Economic Impacts CN Contribution $ 89,049,567 3,580 $ 168,339,496 CN Vendor Purchases $ 79,415,897 CN Vendor Response and Feedback Impacts $ 30,676,326 1,692 $ 32,647,728 Vendor Purchases $ 459,480 3 $ 79,120 CN/Vendor Employee Spending and Feedback Impacts $ 75,938,933 633 $ 19,792,411 Impacts from Outside County $ 438,299 3 $ 80,847 Total $ 275,978,502 5,910 $ 220,939,602 Cherokee County is home to the Cherokee Nation s largest employment base, with direct government and business operations supporting 3,580 jobs and $168 million in labor compensation payments. Cherokee Nation operations directly produce $89 million in goods and services while directly purchasing $79 million in additional goods and services from Cherokee County vendors. Cherokee County enjoys significant multiplier effects, with Cherokee Nation activity ultimately supporting $276 million in local production, 5,910 jobs and $221 million in local labor income. 12 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

Craig County Cherokee Nation Total Economic Impacts CN Contribution $ 2,470,343 149 $ 7,267,870 CN Vendor Purchases $ 5,941,042 CN Vendor Response and Feedback Impacts $ 2,242,934 95 $ 2,258,861 Vendor Purchases $ 402,287 3 $ 120,893 CN/Vendor Employee Spending and Feedback Impacts $ 3,149,286 25 $ 847,015 Impacts from Outside County $ 131,435 1 $ 35,024 Total $ 14,337,327 273 $ 10,529,663 Cherokee Nation operations directly support 149 jobs, $7 million in labor income and nearly $2.5 million in local production and directly purchase another $6 million in local goods and services from local vendors. Regional economic linkages generate multiplier effects sufficient to support total Craig County activity of $14 million in output, 273 jobs and $10.5 million in labor income. 13 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

Delaware County Cherokee Nation Total Economic Impacts CN Contribution $ 146,810,375 1,039 $ 45,665,636 CN Vendor Purchases $ 18,424,693 CN Vendor Response and Feedback Impacts $ 7,005,048 223 $ 6,919,891 Vendor Purchases $ 235,747 2 $ 57,751 CN/Vendor Employee Spending and Feedback Impacts $ 13,477,016 107 $ 3,383,945 Impacts from Outside County $ 117,092 1 $ 28,246 Total $ 186,069,971 1,372 $ 56,055,469 Delaware County enjoys a significant Cherokee Nation presence, with operations directly accounting for $147 million in county production and supporting 1,039 jobs. Additionally, Cherokee Nation entities directly purchase more than $18 million from Delaware County vendors. In total, Cherokee Nation operations support $186 million in county output, 1,372 jobs and $56 million in local labor income. 14 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

Mayes County Cherokee Nation Total Economic Impacts CN Contribution $ 120,696,028 245 $ 10,947,766 CN Vendor Purchases $ 18,896,711 CN Vendor Response and Feedback Impacts $ 7,612,770 415 $ 9,951,158 Vendor Purchases $ 1,887,176 12 $ 441,093 CN/Vendor Employee Spending and Feedback Impacts $ 13,049,363 102 $ 3,264,610 Impacts from Outside County $ 875,599 7 $ 237,005 Total $ 163,017,647 781 $ 24,841,632 Mayes County economic impacts continue to grow with Cherokee Nation business expansion in the county. Cherokee Nation operations now directly support 245 county jobs, $11 million in labor income and nearly $121 million in local production. Including multiplier, spillover and feedback effects, total economic impacts total $163 million in county goods and services production, 781 jobs, and $25 million in local labor compensation. 15 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

McIntosh County Cherokee Nation Total Economic Impacts CN Contribution $ 0 - $ 0 CN Vendor Purchases $ 666,054 CN Vendor Response and Feedback Impacts $ 221,919 6 $ 453,672 Vendor Purchases $ 385,245 2 $ 103,224 CN/Vendor Employee Spending and Feedback Impacts $ 269,802 2 $ 69,102 Impacts from Outside County $ 313,738 2 $ 70,674 Total $ 1,856,758 13 $ 696,672 While not home to direct Cherokee Nation operations, McIntosh County nonetheless enjoys a small economic impact by virtue of purchases from local vendors and county residents spending a portion of their Cherokee Nation income in their home county. In total, Cherokee Nation impacts support nearly $2 million in county production, 13 jobs and nearly $700,000 in local labor income payments. 16 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

Muskogee County Cherokee Nation Total Economic Impacts CN Contribution $ 53,261,369 373 $ 19,775,489 CN Vendor Purchases $ 21,799,358 CN Vendor Response and Feedback Impacts $ 8,916,020 358 $ 12,246,329 CN Spillover Impacts from Outside County Vendor Purchases $ 5,877,874 46 $ 1,666,743 CN/Vendor Employee Spending and Feedback Impacts $ 18,308,184 150 $ 5,594,439 CN/Vendor Employee Spending Spillover Impacts from Outside County $ 4,853,124 26 $ 1,062,024 Total $ 113,015,929 952 $ 40,345,024 Muskogee County experiences economic benefits both from a direct Cherokee Nation presence in the county as well as from direct vendor purchases from local suppliers. Cherokee Nation operations directly produce more than $53 million in local goods and services while directly purchasing nearly $22 million in additional goods and services from local vendors. The direct operations support 373 jobs while the vendor responses and feedback effects support an additional 358 jobs in the county. Including local household spending, feedback and spillover effects, Muskogee County enjoys an economic impact of $113 million in local production, 952 local jobs and $40 million in local labor income payments. 17 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

Nowata County Cherokee Nation Total Economic Impacts CN Contribution $ 21,949,292 212 $ 9,266,342 CN Vendor Purchases $ 2,074,256 CN Vendor Response and Feedback Impacts $ 629,972 37 $ 627,423 Vendor Purchases $ 61,626 1 $ 23,154 CN/Vendor Employee Spending and Feedback Impacts $ 1,702,413 12 $ 368,217 Impacts from Outside County $ 22,576 0 $ 6,560 Total $ 26,440,135 263 $ 10,291,696 Nowata County impacts have increased significantly with the expansion of Cherokee Nation operations in the county. Current reports indicate Cherokee entities directly account for 212 jobs, $9 million in local labor income and nearly $22 million in county production. Additionally, Cherokee Nation businesses and government operations purchase $2 million in locally produced goods and services. In total, Cherokee Nation operations, purchases and local household spending changes support 263 county jobs, $10 million in county income, and $26 million in county production of goods and services. 18 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

Ottawa County Cherokee Nation Total Economic Impacts CN Contribution $ 0 - $ 0 CN Vendor Purchases $ 1,525,443 CN Vendor Response and Feedback Impacts $ 620,545 46 $ 710,095 Vendor Purchases $ 215,047 1 $ 46,319 CN/Vendor Employee Spending and Feedback Impacts $ 744,306 6 $ 207,781 Impacts from Outside County $ 101,851 1 $ 25,279 Total $ 3,207,192 53 $ 989,474 While not home to direct Cherokee Nation activity, Ottawa County nonetheless feels the economic influence of the Cherokee Nation by way of $1.5 million in local vendor purchases and local spending of Cherokee Nation employees residing in Ottawa County. Total Ottawa County economic impacts support more than $3 million output, 53 jobs and nearly $1 million in county income. 19 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

Rogers County Cherokee Nation Total Economic Impacts CN Contribution $ 328,551,580 2,159 $ 117,109,043 CN Vendor Purchases $ 21,706,701 CN Vendor Response and Feedback Impacts $ 9,462,039 571 $ 11,619,083 Vendor Purchases $ 3,996,549 20 $ 847,240 CN/Vendor Employee Spending and Feedback Impacts $ 21,289,409 166 $ 5,214,149 Impacts from Outside County $ 1,386,248 7 $ 269,197 Total $ 386,392,526 2,923 $ 135,058,712 A strong Cherokee Nation business and employee presence in Rogers County continues to complement significant vendor purchases and exert a significant economic influence in the county. Cherokee Nation operations directly employ 2,159 jobs associated with $117 million in labor income and more than $328 million in local production. Combined with nearly $22 million in local vendor purchases, household spending and all multiplier effects, Cherokee Nation activity in Rogers County supports $386 million in local output, 2,923 local jobs and $135 million in local income. 20 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

Sequoyah County Cherokee Nation Total Economic Impacts CN Contribution $ 106,661,416 825 $ 38,181,840 CN Vendor Purchases $ 16,555,354 CN Vendor Response and Feedback Impacts $ 6,261,565 178 $ 5,661,428 Vendor Purchases $ 877,897 13 $ 312,838 CN/Vendor Employee Spending and Feedback Impacts $ 21,280,332 177 $ 5,485,881 Impacts from Outside County $ 498,406 7 $ 167,231 Total $ 152,134,970 1,200 $ 49,809,218 Cherokee Nation activities directly account for 825 Sequoyah County jobs associated with $38 million in local labor income and the local production of $107 million of goods and services. Cherokee Nation business and government operations combine to purchase an additional $16.5 million from local vendors. The vendor response, local household spending, feedback effects and outside county spillovers combine to support a significant multiplier process. In total, Cherokee Nation operations support 1,200 Sequoyah County jobs, nearly $50 million in local income and $152 million in county production of goods and services. 21 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

Tulsa County Cherokee Nation Total Economic Impacts CN Contribution $ 228,688,704 265 $ 30,537,748 CN Vendor Purchases $ 131,447,404 CN Vendor Response and Feedback Impacts $ 101,069,356 1,489 $ 104,813,033 Vendor Purchases $ 26,866,506 142 $ 9,247,773 CN/Vendor Employee Spending and Feedback Impacts $ 93,085,076 665 $ 32,292,323 Impacts from Outside County $ 11,688,518 65 $ 4,220,230 Total $ 592,845,564 2,626 $ 181,111,107 Tulsa County benefits from its status as a regional trade center, enjoying significant spillover impacts from activities that originated in outside counties in addition to their local impacts. Cherokee Nation operations are estimated to directly account for 265 jobs in the county, supporting $30.5 million in local income payments and $229 million in output. Tulsa also experiences a concentration of vendor purchases of more than $131 million. In total, Tulsa County economic impacts from Cherokee Nation operations support $593 million county output, 2,626 local jobs and $181 million in local labor income payments. 22 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

Wagoner County Cherokee Nation Total Economic Impacts CN Contribution $ 0 - $ 0 CN Vendor Purchases $ 1,270,861 CN Vendor Response and Feedback Impacts $ 310,551 14 $ 145,846 Vendor Purchases $ 536,818 4 $ 204,374 CN/Vendor Employee Spending and Feedback Impacts $ 4,270,617 27 $ 808,320 Impacts from Outside County $ 309,106 2 $ 116,378 Total $ 6,697,953 48 $ 1,274,918 Wagoner County economic impacts are the result of more than $1 million in local vendor purchases and significant local household spending of county residents from Cherokee Nation income earned in other counties. Impacts from all sources support 48 jobs, more than $1 million in labor income and nearly $7 million in county output. 23 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC

Washington County Cherokee Nation Total Economic Impacts CN Contribution $ 29,554,552 213 $ 9,652,902 CN Vendor Purchases $ 8,188,658 CN Vendor Response and Feedback Impacts $ 4,833,165 212 $ 5,203,275 Vendor Purchases $ 692,258 6 $ 251,038 CN/Vendor Employee Spending and Feedback Impacts $ 5,207,854 42 $ 1,616,403 Impacts from Outside County $ 398,768 3 $ 137,355 Total $ 48,875,255 475 $ 16,860,973 Cherokee Nation operations in Washington County directly support 213 jobs, $10 million in labor income and $30 million in local production. Cherokee Nation entities combine to purchase more than $8 million in output from Washington County vendors, while Cherokee Nation payrolls provide a significant source of household income to be spent in the local economy. The combined influence of Cherokee Nation operations, vendor purchases and household spending patterns support a total of 475 jobs, $17 million in local labor income and $49 million in Washington County output. 24 Cherokee Nation FY 2016 Economic Impact Report Economic Impact Group, LLC