|
| Year | Result | Explanatory Note |
|---|
| 2000 | 86.10 | Reported 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 |
| 2001 | 54.40 | Reported 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 |
| 2002 | 77.70 | Reported 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 |
| 2003 | 100.80 | Reported 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 |
| 2004 | 67.60 | Reported 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 |
| 2005 | 82.10 | Reported 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 |
| 2006 | 157.00 | Reported 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 |
| 2007 | 246.90 | Reported 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 |
| 2008 | 285.40 | Reported 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 |
| 2009 | 410.00 | Reported 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 |
| 2010 | 500.40 | Reported 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 |
| 2011 | 271.40 | Reported 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. |
| 2012 | 178.40 | While 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. |
| 2013 | 178.80 | Results are reported by businesses operating in the enterprise zones. (Reported in millions of dollars) |
| 2014 | 204.30 | Results are reported by businesses operating in the enterprise zones. (Reported in millions of dollars) |
| 2015 | 245.60 | Results 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 |
| 2016 | 300.50 | The 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 | 275.70 | There was a decline in private investment due to three (3) large JCG recipients rolling off of their 5-year grant eligibility. |
| 2018 | 241.30 | There was a decline in Real Property Investment Grant (RPIG) applications. |
| 2019 | 281.70 | Increase in EZ investment was spurred by a strong economy. Grant requests outpaced the appropriation by more than $2.2 million. |
| 2020 | 347.80 | 2020 was a year of unprecedented events around the world, as the global COVID-19 pandemic affected every aspect of our lives. While the pandemic affected many sectors, construction continued, as zone investors throughout the Commonwealth completed Real Property Investment projects in their communities. Grant requests exceeded the amount of funding by just over $1.6 million. |
| 2021 | | |
| 2022 | | |
| 2023 | | |