September 24, 2009

The Likely Economic Impact of a Chicago 2016 Summer Olympics
Scott D. Watkins Patrick L. Anderson
AEG Working Paper 2009-9. (c) 2009, AEG LLC. See copyright notice for limited reproduction rights.

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION Anderson Economic Group, LLC, is an economic consulting firm with offices in Chicago, Illinois; East Lansing, Michigan; and Los Angeles, California. We have prepared this independent analysis of the likely economic impact of the proposed 2016 Summer Olympics in Chicago, and are making it publicly available before the IOC announcement date of October 2, 2009. We are preparing this study to provide other Chicago-area businesses, as well as taxpayers and policymakers, a realistic assessment of the actual costs and benefits of hosting the games. Our analysis of past major events, and our past evaluations of the value of sports-related and other businesses, gives us a unique position to carefully examine this question. Boosters of large sporting events and stadium construction have sometimes claimed economic benefits that later proved far too good to be true. However, our analyses of both sports franchises, and cities in which sporting teams operate, show that some events can provide economic benefits that far exceed the costs. Given the scale of the Olympics, and the exposure it would give to Chicago on a world stage, it is certainly worth carefully considering the costs, risks, and benefits. We have used a rigorous methodology to estimate the likely economic impact of events like the 2016 Summer Olympics. Specifically, we have:
Avoided double counting expenditures
Anderson Economic Group, LLC http://www.AndersonEconomicGroup.com 444 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60611 Tel: (312) 670-6810 Fax: (312) 670-4391 East Lansing | Chicago | Los Angeles
Considered the fact that the Olympics will substitute for, and even displace,
some other economic activity Considered the sources of funds being used to pay for the games, and where games related expenditures will be directed. As a result of these precautions, our measure of economic impact excludes any spending that would have taken place even without the Olympics, and games-related expenditures that are directed to sources outside of Cook County. KEY FINDINGS If Chicago hosts the 2016 Olympic Games in a manner consistent with their bid, the City of Chicago and Cook County are likely to realize a net economic impact of more than $4.4 billion.
Summary of Economic Impact Estimates
Net New Visitor Expenditures Indirect Benefits from Visitor Expenditures Subtotal: Visitor Impacts Net New Local Operating Expenditures by OCOG Net New Local Infrastructure Expenditures, Non-OCOG Assumed Costs to City for Revenue Shortfalls, Non-financed Projects Assumed Opportunity Costs Indirect Benefits from Operating and Infrastructure Expenditures Subtotal: Operating and Infrastructure Impacts Total Likely Economic Impact Source: Anderson Economic Group, LLC $409,369,075 $286,558,353 $695,927,428 $1,970,526,427 $788,850,000 $(500,000,000) $(52,590,000) $1,544,750,499 $3,751,536,926 $4,447,464,354
Other findings from our analysis are:
The City of Chicago has the potential to stage a successful games, with significant long-run benefits to the entire region. The scale of the undertaking involves both substantial cost, and substantial risk. In recent decades, only large cities, national governments, and state or provincial governments have had the scale to stage such an event. The City of Chicago has the infrastructure, event space, attributes, and potential to attract future visitors and businesses that could allow it to both stage the games, and receive future benefits that at least match the costs of hosting. The expenditures of visitors, staff, and media as a result of the games is expected to produce a net benefit of nearly $696 million for Cook County. The net economic benefit from expenditures related to the games operations and infrastructure will have a positive benefit of about $3.8 billion for the city and county, assuming successful implementation of the plans set forth in the Chicago 2016 Bid Book.

This report is based on publicly available information, and regional, industry, and other information known to us that we deem, in our professional judgment, to be reliable or indicative at the current time. No confidential information has been obtained for use in this report. Anderson Economic Group completed this analysis on an independent basis, and has not been retained or otherwise influenced to present anything other than a straightforward analysis. Readers are advised that this report, like all reports analyzing the likely course of future events, contains analyses, projections, and conjectures based on limited and imperfect information. Therefore, the actual future course of events are certain to deviate in some manner from those anticipated in this report. We may revise this report without notice to past readers.
Chicago 2016: Initial Plans and Bid
In early 2009, Chicago 2016, the OCOG in the City of Chicago, released its Olympic Bid Book. This three volume document presents Chicagos plans for seemingly every aspect of hosting the games, from finance and immigration policies, to the athletic venues locations and the transportation infrastructure of the region. The document has been well received by the international and Olympic communities, and presents a clear and compelling case for bringing the Summer 2016 games to Chicago. Of particular interest to many who are evaluating the bid from Chicago and the other candidate cities is section 7 of the bid book, which addresses finances. Chicago 2016 has proposed a total budget of $3.78 billion (2008 USD) to organize and host the games. The OCOG, in accordance with IOC guidelines, can not include capital investments in its budget. As such, permanent infrastructure projects, such as stadia and new housing for Olympic officials and athletes, must be funded through other means if adequate facilities do not already exist. Chicago 2016s bid includes an additional expenditure of $1.03 billion by NonOCOG sources for such infrastructure, including the Olympic Village. Overall the OCOG budget appears thorough, though it does leave the city exposed to some financial risk, and is quite ambitious compared to other bids. IOC contracts with host cities require that the host cover any shortfall in revenues so that the IOC is not exposed to losses should either projected revenues not be realized, or projected expenditures be exceeded. If Chicago 2016 does not generate its estimated $705 million in ticket sales revenue, $246 million in donations, or $774 million in local sponsorships, the city will likely end up with a substantial bill should expenditures not be cut to offset the revenue shortfall.1 In addition to the OCOG budget, the city plans to privately finance most, if not all, of the nearly $1 billion in costs associated with the Olympic Village and other infrastructure improvements. The Bid Book does not provide cost estimates associated with infrastructure improvements involving transportation, telecommunications, or medical, stating simply that such improvements will occur as part of the citys planned natural growth. This creates some ambiguity as to what the actual cost to taxpayers might be, though given the significant infrastructure already in place in Chicago, it seems reasonable that no major new projects would be needed, and that careful planning can help avoid bridge to nowhere infrastructure projects that do not provide long-term returns to taxpayers.

1. Rio De Janeiro, with a $2.82 billion OCOG budget has ticket sales of only $361 million and donations of $30 million. Madrid has ticket sales of $507 million and donations of $4.2 million, and Tokyo assumes $76 million in donations and $719 million in ticket revenue.
The Problem of Exaggerated Economic Impact Claims
Unfortunately, the promoters of many large sporting events and stadium construction projects have claimed economic benefits that proved to be too good to be true. There are now a number of thorough examinations of the actual and claimed economic impact of such events that prove, to the extent possible with the available data, that the original claims of many such promoters were grossly exaggerated. Improper handling of substitution effects and economic multipliers are two common sources of such exaggerations.
Substitution Effects. To illustrate how a failure to account for the shifting of eco-
nomic activity can exaggerate an economic impact, consider the following. The expenditures of a family from Evanston attending a game at Wrigley Field rather than going to dinner and a movie do not have a net economic impact on the countytheir expenditures are simply a shift in economic activity away from another local activity. There would be a net economic impact, however, if they went to the game at Wrigley instead of going to one in Milwaukee. The true economic impact of an event only accounts for net benefits, that is, dollars spent in the area otherwise spent elsewhere or not at all.
Multipliers. Another source of exaggeration in other reports is the tendency to use multipliers that overstate the indirect impact of an event. One reason for this is a failure to consider how much of each dollar spent is transferred out of the local economy, such as profits from a restaurant or hotel chain going back to headquarters outside of the area.
However, there is no question that large events, and major construction projects, can and do provide significant economic benefits to a local region. Careful analyses of several sporting events and sports-related construction projects show that, in some cases, the economic benefits of such events far outweighed the local costs.
Chicago 2016: Tourism and Visitorship Impacts
We estimate that the Summer Olympics will generate an additional $695.9 million of economic activity in Cook County from 2015 through 2017. The majority of the benefit will occur in 2016, while some increases in visitorship will occur prior to and after the games, as visitors come for Olympic trials and related business, or to see the city in advance or after the games. Such visits, however, provide relatively small impacts, and are not likely to stretch to more than a year before or after the games. To arrive at this economic impact estimate we have assumed:

Attendance by Spectators. To estimate the number of visitors to the city and
county during the Olympics we reviewed the Chicago 2016 Bid Book, with particular attention to event attendance and accommodation availability. The bid book estimates 75,000 hotel rooms, plus 13,000 university beds will be available for visitors. We assumed two people per room at hotels, and one per university bed, bringing us to 163,000 visitors per day. We then increased this by 10 percent to account for visitors who may stay with friends, family, or in a rented private residence. This results in a total daily visitorship of 179,300 during the games. Some of these visitors, however, are likely to be from within the county, or crowding out residents. To account for this, we assume 90 percent of the total visitorship comes from outside of the county and does not crowd someone out. This results in a total daily visitorship of 161,370, which accumulates to 2.58 million total visitor days over the course of 16 days.
Attendance by Media. The Olympics draws a large global audience, thanks in
part to significant media coverage. Overall we estimate that, on average, there will be 19,350 media members in Chicago each day during the games. We reached this estimate based on hotel room (18,800 for media) and university bed (7,000 for media) availability data in the bid book. Assuming one media person per room and bed generates the estimate of 25,800 media visitors. This maximum level of staff and coverage is likely during the opening and closing of the games, and for major events, such as medal games in major sports. However, it is doubtful the entire media contingent will stay the entire 16 days. So, we assumed on average 75 percent of the total media will be present, thus the 19,350 estimate. Over 16 days this accumulates to 309,600 visitor days.
Attendance by Athletes and Officials. The other major group of visitors that will
descend on Chicago and Cook County for the Olympics is, of course, the athletes and officials. The Olympic Village is being designed to accommodate some 16,000 people, so we have used this as the basis for our estimate. We assume the 16,000 is a steady figure throughout the games, though some athletes may not stay the entire duration. Over 16 days this accumulates to 256,000 visitor days.

Visitor Substitution and Crowding Out Effects. Chicago is, with or without a
major event like the Olympics, a popular vacation spot, especially in summer months. Should the city host the Olympics in 2016, it is likely many who would have gone that summer as part of a regularly planned vacation may visit another destination to avoid the Olympic crowds and prices. It also seems likely that some who live in the area may leave town that week, or otherwise reduce their normal level of economic activity, as a result of the Olympic crowds. To account for this, weve estimated that approximately 60 percent of the total visitorship estimated during the Olympics (3.15 million visitor days including spectators, media, and athletes) would have occurred even if Chicago did not host the Olympics. As a result, our analysis identifies the new visitor days associated with the Olympics, for Cook County, as 1.26 million during the 16 days of the games.
Attendee Expenditures. We assume that each person attending the Olympics will
spend, on average, $256.50 per day, covering meals, accommodations, travel, and other purchases within Cook County. This does not, however, include event tickets or the purchase of official Olympic merchandise. Revenues from these are used by the IOC to pay for operating the games, and are thus accounted for in our analysis of the economic impact from games operations and infrastructure. Athletes and officials staying in the Olympic Village are likely to incur significantly lower costs while at the games, as we assume the International Olympic Committee (IOC) expenses associated with operating the Olympic Village covers accommodation, meal, and transportation costs for village residents. However, it is likely that athletes and officials will spend some time outside of the village, so weve assume they spend, on average, 25 percent of the amount spent by other visitors. This comes to an average of $64.13 per day.
Expenditure Substitution and Crowding Out Effects. Just as a significant
portion of the visitors are assumed to substitute for people that would otherwise be in Chicago, a significant share of the expenditures that are made will substitute for spending that also would have otherwise occurred, either by regular summer visitors or residents who leave the city to avoid the Olympic crowds. We assume 55 percent of the estimated total expenditures would have occurred even without the Olympics. This is slightly less that the visitorship substitution to account for the likelihood that visitors attending for the Olympics will spend more, on average, than visitors in town for a regular vacation.

Chicago 2016: Operations and Infrastructure Impacts
An event as large as the Olympic Games requires significant planning, financing, infrastructure, and careful execution. This, of course, creates significant costs, which are paid for by a number of sources. Any expenses paid for by monies from outside of Cook County, and that rely on Cook County service providers and sources, are those that generate true economic impacts in the County. Expenditures paid for by local sources, or funds paid to businesses outside of the County, do not generate an economic impact for Cook County or Chicago. To estimate the total expenditures related to the games that will generate net new economic impacts for Cook County, we first analyzed the Chicago 2016 budget, as presented in the Chicago 2016 Bid Book. This source shows a total budget of $3.78 billion (2009 dollars) for the OCOG, and another $1.05 billion in Non-OCOG expenditures for permanent infrastructure expenditures, including the Olympic Village ($976.6 million) and some stadia ($68.8 million). We performed our analysis of these expenditures on two levels, first assessing likely sources of revenues, and then focusing on where (geographically) the expended funds will initially flow.
OCOG Revenues. The Chicago 2016 Bid Book estimates OCOG revenues for
the games will be $3.78 billion, in 2009 dollars. This includes revenue from the IOC, ticket sales, sponsorships, and other sources, as outlined in Table 2. Each of these revenue categories will come from different sources, and only the nonlocal sources are counted as contributing to an economic impact, as it is assumed these sources would have stayed local with or without the games. Our overall estimate is that 74 percent of the total OCOG revenue, or $2.8 billion, will come from non-local sources. A detailed breakdown of our estimated revenue sources, by revenue category, is shown in Table 2 on page 18, in the Estimated Local Share column.
OCOG Expenditures. The $2.8 billion of non-local OCOG revenues that will be
spent to run the 2016 Olympic Games, if they are awarded to Chicago, will create an economic impact for Chicago and Cook County only if it is spent in the county. In reality, however, some of these dollars will not be spent in the county. For example, it is quite likely that vendors from around the world will provide up to half of the materials, labor, and other services, for stadia and venue construction. Other expenses, like advertising and catering, will have more of the total share, up to 90 percent in our estimates, spent within Chicago. Overall, we estimate that nearly $2.6 billion, or 70 percent of total OCOG spending, will be within Cook County. A detailed breakdown of our expense allocation is shown in Table 2, in the Estimated Local Spend column. The next step of our OCOG expenditure analysis was to calculate how much of the $2.6 billion in local spending is backed by non-local sources. Applying our

earlier finding that 74 percent of all OCOG revenue comes from non-local sources yields a local spending of non-local sources estimate of $1.97 billion.
Non-OCOG Revenues and Expenditures. The OCOG does not have access to revenue sources to support permanent infrastructure associated with the games. This leaves the host responsible for any required infrastructure upgrades, new stadia, and housing for athletes and officials. Chicago 2016s bid book estimates these costs will total over $1 billion, with most of the funds used for building an Olympic Village. The plan calls for most of this cost to be financed by private developers who would then be able to sell the units within the Olympic Village, after the games conclude, to pay off the debt and realize a return on their investment. There has, however, been some doubt that sufficient private funds will become available. There are also insurance and other costs that the city will face to host the games, and to account for these, and some degree of exposure on the Olympic Village, we assume a $500 million cost.
Just as with the OCOG expenditures, not all Non-OCOG spending will go to local businesses. Given that the city is likely to have more say over these expenditures, we assume a greater portion, up to 75 percent, will be allocated to local goods and service providers. With this, and after the $500 million allowance for cost exposures, Non-OCOG expenditures within Cook County are estimated to be $289 million. The plan also does not include an estimate of costs associated with transit, medical, telecom, or other such infrastructure that may be necessary to host the games. It is likely that some such costs will be necessary, though they may be incurred with or without the games, as investments in public transit are likely anyway, especially as demands increase in response to raising fuel and automotive transportation costs. Despite the fact that such spending is expected, the Olympics may result in some spending being rushed, and additional costs being incurred to meet tight deadlines. To account for this our analysis includes a 5 percent opportunity cost, bringing the direct economic impact of Non-OCOG spending to $236.3 million. TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT FROM OPERATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE The $1.97 billion in local spending of non-local sources by the OCOG, plus the $236.3 million of Non-OCOG spending impacts in Cook County, yields a total direct economic impact of $2.2 billion. Just as with the tourism related spending, we assume each of these dollars will create and additional $0.70 in indirect economic activity, yielding a total economic impact of nearly $3.8 billion from the operating and infrastructure costs that Chicago and Cook County will realize if the city hosts the 2016 Olympic Games in a manner consistent with their bid.

equivalent of some 70 Super Bowls at $49.3 million each. Further, the $7 billion is a spending estimate, and grows even larger once a multiplier is factored in, while our estimates include direct and indirect (multiplier) impacts.4 To validate our Super Bowl XL estimate, we turned to post-event data on sales and use tax collection in Wayne County (a very large county that encompasses both the City of Detroit and some suburban cities and townships), which provides some corroboration of one of these estimates. Sales and use tax would have been collected on retail sales of restaurant food and service; merchandise sales; and a large assortment of other goods (and some services) in the area. Thus, it would have presumably captured some, though not all, of the actual spending by attendees in the area. The data showed that sales and use tax collections in the county actually decreased slightly from the previous year. Although not directly confirming or disproving either estimate, it clearly indicates that the likely actual economic impact was much closer to the independent estimate, and probably lower than even that estimate.5
4. The cited report was authored by Dennis Tootelian, PhD and Sanjay Varshney, PhD (Tootelian & Associates) for the Chicago 2016 organizing committee. It is unclear from a review of their report how the $7 billion in incremental visitor spending was determined, so we can not be sure it is directly comparable with our estimate of visitorship impact. 5. Super Bowl's Impact in Michigan Scores Low, Detroit Free Press, May 2, 2006.
About Anderson Economic Group, LLC
Anderson Economic Group, LLC offers research and consulting in economics, finance, market analysis, and public policy. Our work in these fields is based on our core values of professionalism, integrity, and expertise. Since our founding in 1996, our work has helped clients including private firms, publicly traded companies, state & local governments, and non-profit organizations. Our experience includes research in markets throughout the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Anderson Economic Group is one of the few professional service firms in the United States that follows a quality assurance program based on ISO 9000 principles. We carefully document our methodology and sources; insist on high standards of organization, writing, and graphics in our reports; and manage projects efficiently. This approach results in work that consistently withstands the scrutiny of business leaders, investors, attorneys, lenders, government officials, and others. AEGs past clients include:

Governments, such as the states of Michigan, North Carolina, and
Wisconsin; the cities of Detroit, MI, Cincinnati, OH, Norfolk, VA, and Fort Wayne, IN; counties such as Oakland County, Michigan, and Collier County, Florida; and authorities such as the Detroit-Wayne County Port Authority. Corporations such as GM, Ford, Delphi, Honda, Metaldyne, Taubman Centers, The Detroit Lions, PG&E Generating; SBC, Gambrinus, Labatt USA, and InBev USA; automobile dealers and dealership groups representing Toyota, Honda, Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz, and other brands. Nonprofit organizations, such as Michigan State University, Wayne State University, Van Andel Institute, the Michigan Manufacturers Association, International Mass Retailers Association, American Automobile Manufacturers Association, Automation Alley, and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. For additional information, see the AEG web site at: www.AndersonEconomicGroup.com. ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Scott D. Watkins. Mr. Watkins is a Senior Consultant with Anderson Economic Group, LLC, with expertise in economic, industry, and market analyses, as well as public policy. He manages the firms market and industry analysis practice area, working with public and private sector clients to deepen understandings of their market and place in the economy, and to develop strategies to strengthen
their positions. In addition to his client focused work, Mr. Watkins is the firms Finance and IT Director. Among the clients for whom he has worked are the Project Management Institute, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Michigan Retailers Association, Collier County, Florida; Oakland County, MI; and the West Virginia High Technology Consortium Foundation. Recent reports by Mr. Watkins include: Economic Impacts from 2008 Detroit Tigers Game Attendance, Oakland Countys Healthcare and Life Science Industry and Benchmarking for Success: Education Performance among the American States. He has also provided testimony to the Michigan House of Representatives on matters of education finance, and is the editor of the annual The State Economic Handbook, as published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2008, 2009, and forthcoming for 2010. Prior to joining Anderson Economic Group in 2001, Mr. Watkins was an analyst in the automotive market and planning group at J.D. Power and Associates, and a marketing assistant with Foster, Swift, Collins, and Smith P.C. Mr. Watkins holds an M.B.A. from the Eli Broad College of Business at Michigan State University. He also has a B.A. in marketing from Eli Broad College of Business and a B.A. in international relations from the James Madison College, both at Michigan State University.

Patrick L. Anderson. Mr. Anderson founded Anderson Economic Group in
1996, and serves as a Principal and Chief Executive Officer in the company. He is a recognized authority on business valuation and commercial damages, and has provided expert testimony and consulting advice to organizations such as General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Honda, Kmart, SBC and Labatt USA; the states of North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin; the International Mass Retailers Association, American Automobile Association, Michigan Manufacturers Association, and University of Michigan; and franchisees of Anheuser-Busch, Molson, Coors, Miller, Harley-Davidson, Mercedes-Benz, Suzuki, and Avis products. Mr. Anderson has written over 100 published works, including the book Business Economics and Finance and the chapter on business valuation in the book Litigation Economics. He is also the executive editor of three editions of the State Economic Handbook, and his 2004 article Pocketbook Issues and the Presidency won the award for the best business economics paper from the National Association of Business Economics. Anderson's views on the economy are often cited by national news media including The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, National Public Radio, and Fox Business News.
Anderson is a graduate of the University of Michigan, where he earned a Master of Public Policy degree and a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science. He is a member of the National Association for Business Economics and the National Association of Forensic Economists. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce awarded Mr. Anderson its 2006 Leadership Michigan Distinguished Alumni award for his civic and professional accomplishments. OTHER AEG ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDIES FOR SPORTS EVENTS Anderson Economic Group has provided independent analyses of numerous large sporting events, including the below, which are available as white papers on our web site, www.AndersonEconomicGroup.com.
Net Economic Impact of Detroit Tigers Opening Day and Regular Season
Attendance, AEG Working Paper 2008-03, March 2008. Economic Impact of Big Ten Football Games in Michigan, AEG for Michigans University Research Corridor, October 2007. Economic Impact: Attendance for Cubs Playoff Games, AEG Working Paper 2007-10, October 2007. Economic Impact of Big Ten Football Games in Michigan, AEG for Michigans University Research Corridor, October 2007. Economic Impacts from 2006 Detroit Tigers Game Attendance, AEG Working Paper 2006-09 #2, October 2006. Likely Economic Impact to Ireland from the 2006 Ryder Cup, AEG Working Paper 2006-09, June 2006. Likely Economic Impact of Super Bowl XL, AEG Working Paper 200610, January 2006.

64.13 741,674,880 16,416,000

758,090,880

341,140,896
notes: *Revenues from ticket sales and official olympic merchindise are accounted for as revenues used to pay expenses related to conducting the games, and are thus exluded here so as to avoid diuble counting. ** Expenses associated with operating the Olympic Village, which are included in our analysis of expenses related to conducting the games, are assumed to provide for athlete and official accomadations, meals, and transportation
Likely Economic Impact of a 2016 Chicago Olympics (c) 2009 Anderson Economic Group, LLC 16
3) Total Net New Expenditures by Olympic Visitors (during games) Share of impact experienced in 2015, as increase in regular visitorship Share of impact experienced in 2017, as increase in regular visitorship Share of impact experienced in 2016, as increase before and after games

$ 5% $ 5% $ 10% $

341,140,896 17,057,045 17,057,045 34,114,090
Total Net New Expenditures by Visitors due to Olympics

Multiplier 1.70

409,369,075
Direct and Indirect Economic Impact from Visitors due to Olympics

695,927,428

Likely Economic Impact of a 2016 Chicago Olympics (c) 2009 Anderson Economic Group, LLC 17
Table 2. 2016 Chicago Olympics: Net Economic Impact from Operating and Infrastructure Expenditures
Amount 1) OCOG Sources of Revenues IOC Contribution TOP Sponsorship Local Sponsorships Official Suppliers Ticket Sales Licensing Merchandise Licensing - Coin Program Licensing - Philately (stamps) Donations Disposal of Assets U.S. Gov. Subsidies Other Total OCOG Revenues $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 675,000,000 335,000,000 773,800,000 474,200,000 705,000,000 150,000,000 17,000,000 4,000,000 245,700,000 11,800,000 68,700,000 320,400,000 3,780,600,000 Amount 2) OCOG Expenditures Facilities Operations - Sport venues Operations - Village IBC/MPC (int. broadcast and main press centers) Other Facilities Workforce Information Systems Telecom and Technology Internet Ceremonies and Culture Medical services Catering Transport Security Paralympics Advertising and Promo Administrative Pre-Olympic Events and Coordination Other Contingency Total OCOG Expenditures $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 162,200,000 777,500,000 217,500,000 44,700,000 24,000,000 509,100,000 341,400,000 87,800,000 34,000,000 122,500,000 21,000,000 62,400,000 225,600,000 41,100,000 187,700,000 75,400,000 272,600,000 34,400,000 89,000,000 450,700,000 3,780,600,000 Estimated "Local" Share 0% 0% 100% 10% 10% 15% 15% 15% 10% 70% 2% 10% Non-Local Revenue Sources $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 675,000,000 335,000,000 426,780,000 634,500,000 127,500,000 14,450,000 3,400,000 221,130,000 3,540,000 67,326,000 288,360,000 2,796,986,000 Local Expenditures $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 81,100,000 583,125,000 163,125,000 22,350,000 18,000,000 381,825,000 170,700,000 43,900,000 25,500,000 91,875,000 18,900,000 56,160,000 203,040,000 36,990,000 140,775,000 67,860,000 136,300,000 17,200,000 66,750,000 338,025,000 2,663,500,000 Local Revenue Sources $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 773,800,000 47,420,000 70,500,000 22,500,000 2,550,000 600,000 24,570,000 8,260,000 1,374,000 32,040,000 983,614,000

Non-Local Share of OCOG Revenue 74% Local Expend of Non-Local Sources $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 59,999,885 431,411,009 120,684,109 16,535,110 13,316,867 282,484,045 126,288,290 32,478,359 18,865,562 67,971,509 13,982,711 41,548,626 150,214,262 27,366,162 104,148,999 50,204,589 100,838,277 12,725,006 49,383,382 250,079,668 1,970,526,427
Estimated "Local" Spend 50% 75% 75% 50% 75% 75% 50% 50% 75% 75% 90% 90% 90% 90% 75% 90% 50% 50% 75% 75%
Non-Local Expenditures $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 81,100,000 194,375,000 54,375,000 22,350,000 6,000,000 127,275,000 170,700,000 43,900,000 8,500,000 30,625,000 2,100,000 6,240,000 22,560,000 4,110,000 46,925,000 7,540,000 136,300,000 17,200,000 22,250,000 112,675,000 1,117,100,000
Likely Economic Impact of a 2016 Chicago Olympics (c) 2009 Anderson Economic Group, LLC
Non-OCOG Expenditures City of Chicago Olympic Village Other Venues (perm) Environmental Mngt Systems Transit, Accomadations, Medical, Telecom, etc. Total Non-OCOG Expenditures Allowance for costs for insurance fees, interest, unfinanced projects* Allowance for opportunity costs (foregone value from other uses of funds) Total Non-OCOG Expenditures in area, less allowances

Amount

Estimated "Local" Spend

Local Expenditures

$ 976,600,000 $ 68,800,000 $ 6,400,000 zero, part of "planned natural growth" $ 1,051,800,000

$ $ $ $

788,850,000 (500,000,000) (52,590,000) 236,260,000
3) TOTAL NET NEW EXPENDITURES, OCOG + Non-OCOG multiplier

$ 1.70

2,206,786,427
TOTAL ECON IMPACT FROM GAME INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS

3,751,536,926

*The Chicago 2016 Bid Books, and other sources, indicate that Chicago will provide a gaurantee to cover up to $500 million in cost overruns. Our use of this figure here does not indicate we assume overruns will reach this level. However, the City may not be able to attract full financing by private lenders for the Olympic Village, and will have to pay fees associated with obtaining required insurance policies, and other costs associated with hosting the games. Such costs can not be estimate at this time, though we are comfortable using this as a reasonable estimate given it is the amount the City is prepared to gaurantee.

09200048

EXPRESS 191 -

EXPRESS 228 -

EXPRESS 223 -

EXPRESS - HOLLAND ELECTRO

EXPRESS 229 -

09200044

09200050 147

EXPRESS - FADI - FAGOR - FAKIR

EXPRESS 230 -

EXPRESS

EXPRESS 281 -

EXPRESS - HOLLAND ELECTRO - KRUPS

TYPE 0 0

09200051

09200099

EXPRESS 231 -

FADI 191 -

EXPRESS 232 -

FAGOR 440 -

FAGOR - SELECLINE - THERMOZETA

09200273

EXPRESS 233 -

FAKIR 109 - RO 41

A-KLASSE - C-KLASSE - SCKLASSE 400-450 - S-KLASS A 300 - S-KLASSE 200 - 250

2405805 - 2401805

EXPRESS 234 -

FAKIR 169 - VE 24

09720152 148

2181805 - 2180805

FAKIR 195 - DL 28

FAKIR 238 -

FAKIR - HOLLAND ELECTRO - NILCO - WIRBEL

SERIE E

09200058

3270805

FAKIR 207 - RO 51

FAKIR 239 -

3012805 - 3009805

0110805

FAKIR 208 - RO 50

FAKIR 283 -

2606805

FAKIR 235 -

FAKIR - NILCO

FAKIR 315 - PS 17

TYPE 10 2

09200056

2310805

FAKIR 236 -

FAKIR - FAM - MORS - NILCO

FAKIR 328 - MC 6

EXCLUSIV - FAKIR - IMETEC - LERVIA - SEVERIN - TAURUS - TRISTAR

09200057

2104805 - 2109805

09844796 149

2422805

FAKIR - FAM - FAR

FAKIR 398 - SA 2
FAKIR - HOLLAND ELECTRO - SAMSUNG

FAM 329 -

09795691

FAKIR 431 -

FAKIR - LIV - OMEGA - SEVERIN

FAM 432 -

FAM - HOOVER - TORNADO

E-REIHE

09026180

2001805

09200190

FAKIR 437 -

FAR 247 -

2011805

FAM 236 -

FAR 278 -

THEOTHEO 2

FAM 244 -

FAM - GRACIA - MORS

FAR 339 -

THEO JCV

09200064

09200154 150

FERSEN - FIRST LINE

FERSEN 240 -

FIRST LINE 131 - MX 59

FIRST LINE - KRUPS - MOULINEX

09844739

FIRST LINE - AR 12

ARIETE

FIRST LINE 143 - VO 6

9793829

FIRST LINE 102 - AE 18

ELETTRODELTA - MOULINEX
ALTO - BOOGY - COMPACT COMPACT / DELUXE ECONOMY - GREEN SWATCH

LUCILLA

A 82.01 A 82.03,250

09793530

MOULINEX 132 - MX 91

KRUPS - MOULINEX

MOULINEX 137 - MX 90

VECTRAL

FIDELIO

09719253

AW 5601

09184326 171

EE 5.01

MOULINEX 138 - MX 63

MOULINEX 174 - MX 50
POWER STYLE - POWER CLEAN

09790007

09719147

MOULINEX 148 - RO 56

MOULINEX 175 - MX 58

ALTO - GALEO - OPTIMO

COMPACT - SUPER COMPACT

A 26B0A

09719204

A 84602

MOULINEX 154 - MX 62

MOULINEX 176 - MX 61

SEAU WET-DRY - SYSTEM W&D

R 24.01

09719238

MOULINEX 172 - MX 55

MOULINEX 286 -

POWER JET - SUPER TRIO

09200104

MOULINEX 173 - MX 54

MOULINEX 287 - MX 57

GIRMI - KRUPS - MOULINEX

CLASSIC - CLEAN

09719162

09719196 172

B 45.03 - 847

MOULINEX - MULTICRAFT - NEUFUNK - NEVA - NILCO

MOULINEX 288 -

MOULINEX - PARIS-RHONE

MULTICRAFT 206 -

09200106

MOULINEX 290 -

NEUFUNK 182 -

09200107

MOULINEX 291 -

NEVA 191 -

09200108

MOULINEX 292 - MX 92

NILCO 235 -

ATMOSPHERE

09185067

AES 101

MOULINEX 435 - MX 53

NILCO 236 -

UPRIGHT - MAJOR

09719154

09200057 173

NILCO - NILFISK

NILCO 238 -

NILFISK 300 -

NILFISK

09200117

NILCO 239 -

NILFISK 301 -

09200118

81846000

NILCO 325 -

NILFISK 302 -

09200119

NILFISK 145 - PS 26

NILFISK 303 -

NEW LINE

09200120

82095000

NILFISK 151 - SA 95

NILFISK 355 - DW 1

09844721 174

22380900

NILFISK - NORGEX - NUMATIC - OMEGA

NILFISK 427 -

OMEGA 162 - AR 9

FORMAT

09200189

NORGEX 392 - OP 6

NORGEX - OPES

OMEGA 166 - VE 25

09719295

NUMATIC 304 -

OMEGA 167 - VE 30

OMEGA 113 - MC 2

OMEGA 183 -
DOMATIC - FERSEN - FUTURA

OMEGA 184 - AL 64

15 5010418009552
- SCOPA - BALAIS - HANDSTAUBSAUGER - HANDSTICK - TRAINO - TRAINEAU - BODENSTAUBSAUGER - SLEDGE - BIDONE - SEAU - KESSELSAUGER - TANK - BATTITAPPETO - BATEAUR - BUERSTSAUGER - UPRIGHT

TAURUS 339 -

TEAM INTERNATIONAL 329 -

EXPLORER - NEW GOLF

09200144 193
TEAM INTERNATIONAL - TEKVIS - TEMPO - TERMOZETA

TEAM INTERNATIONAL 339 -

TERMOZETA 165 - AR 2

TEAM INTERNATIONAL 340 -

TERMOZETA 189 - MZ 8
ALASKA - ATLANTIC - BAUKNECHT - BOREAL EXPRESS - HOLLAND ELECTRO - KREFFT MERRITT - MONTENZ - SHG - SINGER TERMOZETA

09200155

09200010

TEKVIS 430 -

TERMOZETA 190 - TE 72
COMPOWATT - ELECTRONIC TRONIMATIC

TEMPO 182 -

TERMOZETA 280 - TE 73

TERMOZETA 111 - SA 3

TERMOZETA 337 - MC 11

COMPACT

09200152 194
TERMOZETA - TERRACLEAN - THOMAS - TOKIWA - TORNADO

TERMOZETA 355 - DW 1

TERRACLEAN 283 -

FRAGOLINO - MAGGIOLINO

TERMOZETA 404 - TE 70

TERMOZETA

THOMAS 338 -

TYPE 18 0

09719881

TERMOZETA 417 - Y 10

TOKIWA 247 -

TERMOZETA 436 - PS 20

TORNADO 103 - AE 23

TYPE 15 0

AIRYS - COMPLYS - LUXOR STRATOS

TORNADO 110 - RO 49

MIDYJET - MULTY JET OURAGAN - PLEN AIR RAFALE - TURBOJET

TORNADO

TORNADO 111 - SA 3

TORNADO 154 - MX 62

MIDYJET - MULTYJE - TPLEN AIR - TURBOJET

TORNADO 114 - EL 17

TORNADO 155 - AE 24
BOLERO - CHIC - CIAO CLASSIC - DIPLOMAT PRESTIGE - SALSA (TO 1650) SAMBA - STUDIO - STYLO TANGO
BUTTERFLY - CAMALEON ROLFY

TORNADO 143 - VO 6

TORNADO 156 - EL 35
ART DCO - ELITELEC FRESCO - KART'AIR KART'ELEC - MAGIE NOIRE MINI MAX - PANT'AIR SCOUT'AIR - SPRINT'AIR

ELYPS - GLOBE TROTTEUR

TORNADO 146 - PH 41

TORNADO 157 - AL 68

BOLIDO - CALYPSO ESSENSIO - MODELYS

CROCODILLO

TORNADO 153 - EL 34

TORNADO 177 - VO 5

COMPACT LIGNE - SLALOM

09720210 196

TORNADO 178 - PS 11

TORNADO 317 - PR 1A

ECLAIR - FURET - ZEPHIR

ALIZE/ EL

TORNADO 179 - EL 7

TORNADO 318 -

MAGNUM - SERENYS

TORNADO 180 - AL 70

TORNADO 339 -

POPSYTX8

TORNADO 191 -

TORNADO 342 -

AQUADRY

FORMULE

TORNADO 247 -

TORNADO 343 -

09200158 197

TORNADO 344 - TF 1

TORNADO 351 -

HARMONY

AMADILLO

09719907

TORNADO 345 - VO 10