HomeMy WebLinkAboutChapter 03 - EconomicsChapter 3: Economics
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
1
CHAPTER 3: ECONOMICS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................2
3.2 EMPLOYMENT....................................................................................................................................................2
HISTORICAL TRENDS .................................................................................................................................................2
HISTORICAL TRENDS BY INDUSTRY GROUP ...............................................................................................................3
FORECASTS BY INDUSTRY GROUPS............................................................................................................................5
3.3 COST OF LIVING................................................................................................................................................6
INCOME .....................................................................................................................................................................6
HOUSING COSTS ........................................................................................................................................................6
3.4 GOVERNMENT....................................................................................................................................................7
CITY AND TOWN ........................................................................................................................................................7
COUNTY ....................................................................................................................................................................7
CASELOAD AND COST OF STATE PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................8
GROWTH OF COUNTY PROPERTY TAX REVENUES .....................................................................................................8
COUNTY SALES TAX REVENUES ................................................................................................................................9
OTHER GOVERNING BODIES ....................................................................................................................................10
PRIVATE AND GOVERNMENTAL EFFORTS TOWARDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ....................................................10
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3-1 POPULATION, LABOR FORCE, AND EMPLOYMENT BUTTE COUNTY AND CALIFORNIA: 1983-2002..............2
TABLE 3-2 YEARLY LABOR FORCE, EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT BUTTE COUNTY AND CALIFORNIA: 1983-
2002 .....................................................................................................................................................................3
TABLE 3-3 HISTORICAL EMPLOYMENT BY STANDARD INDUSTRY CODE BUTTE COUNTY: 1983-2002..........................4
TABLE 3-4 MAJOR EMPLOYERS IN BUTTE COUNTY, 2002 .............................................................................................5
TABLE 3-5 FORECAST EMPLOYMENT BY STANDARD INDUSTRY CODE BUTTE COUNTY: 1999-2006.............................5
TABLE 3-6 INCOME AND POVERTY BUTTE COUNTY AND CALIFORNIA, 1999.................................................................6
Chapter 3: Economics
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
2
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents an overview of economic conditions in Butte County.
3.2 EMPLOYMENT
Historical Trends
Job growth rates in Butte County have closely paralleled those in California as a whole for the
last twenty years. Table 3-1 below shows the rate of population, labor force, and employment
growth in the Butte County and California between 1983 and 2002. As the table indicates, over
the past two decades the rate of employment growth in Butte County slightly exceeded that of
California. Population growth in both Butte County and California has lagged behind
employment growth. Butte County had an average annual growth rate (AAGR) in employment
of 2.1 percent from 1983 to 2002, but only had an AAGR of 1.6 percent for population. Some
reasons for this lag of population growth compared to employment growth include changes in the
composition of the work force, with more women in the workforce, and more households
required to have more than one jobholder.
TABLE 3-1
POPULATION, LABOR FORCE, AND EMPLOYMENT
BUTTE COUNTY AND CALIFORNIA: 1983-2002
Butte County California
Year Population Labor Force Employment Population Labor Force Employment
1983 153,800 65,400 56,400 25,076,000 12,281,200 11,094,600
1990 182,120 79,100 72,500 29,758,213 15,193,400 14,319,200
2000 203,100 86,800 80,700 33,753,000 16,884,200 16,048,900
2002 207,300 91,100 84,100 35,000,000 17,404,600 16,241,800
AAGR 1983 -
1990
2.4%2.8%3.7%2.5%3.1%3.7%
AAGR 1990 -
2000
0.9%0.8%0.9%1.1%0.9%1.0%
AAGR 2000 -
2002
1.0%2.4%2.1%1.8%1.5%0.6%
AAGR 1983 -
2002
1.6%1.8%2.1%1.8%1.9%2.0%
Sources: California Department of Finance, California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, Butte County
Historical Monthly Labor Force Data
Notes: figures are annual averages
1983 is earliest data available by county from EDD
Labor force figure is “civilian labor force”: sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not
members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing
homes.
Employment figure is “civilian employment”: includes all individuals who worked at least one hour for a wage or salary, or were self-employed,
or were working at least 15 unpaid hours in a family business or on a family farm, during the week including the 12th of the month. Those
who were on vacation, other kinds of leave, or involved in a labor dispute, were also counted as employed.
Table 3-2 below shows labor force, employment, unemployment, and unemployment rate figures
by year for Butte County and California for 1983 through 2002. As shown in the table, Butte
Chapter 3: Economics
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
3
County’s unemployment rate was higher than California’s for every year from 1983 through
2002. Butte County’s unemployment rate dipped below seven percent during only one year–
1999–during the last two decades. As of 2002, the population of Butte County was
approximately 207,300. The available work force was estimated at 91,100, and of that work
force, 7.7 percent were unemployed.
TABLE 3-2
YEARLY LABOR FORCE, EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT
BUTTE COUNTY AND CALIFORNIA: 1983-2002
Butte County California
Year Labor
Force
Employ-
ment
Unem-
ployment
Unemp.
Rate
Labor
Force
Employ-
ment
Unem-
ployment
Unemp.
Rate
County
Employment
as % of State
County
Employment
Growth as
% of State
1983 65,400 56,400 9,000 13.70%12,281,200 11,094,600 1,186,600 9.70%0.51%-
1984 66,100 58,400 7,700 11.60%12,610,800 11,631,000 979,800 7.80%0.50%0.37%
1985 65,700 58,600 7,100 10.90%12,981,400 12,047,800 933,600 7.20%0.49%0.05%
1986 66,900 60,400 6,500 9.70%13,332,300 12,442,500 889,800 6.70%0.49%0.46%
1987 69,100 63,600 5,500 7.90%13,737,600 12,946,500 791,000 5.80%0.49%0.63%
1988 73,300 67,500 5,800 7.90%14,132,000 13,383,800 748,200 5.30%0.50%0.89%
1989 76,800 70,800 6,000 7.80%14,517,400 13,780,000 737,400 5.10%0.51%0.83%
1990 79,100 72,500 6,600 8.30%15,193,400 14,319,200 874,200 5.80%0.51%0.32%
1991 79,300 71,600 7,700 9.70%15,176,600 14,004,200 1,172,400 7.70%0.51%0.29%
1992 82,300 72,600 9,700 11.80%15,404,300 13,973,300 1,431,000 9.30%0.52%-3.24%
1993 82,800 73,000 9,800 11.80%15,359,500 13,918,300 1,441,200 9.40%0.52%-0.73%
1994 83,700 75,200 8,500 10.20%15,450,000 14,122,100 1,327,900 8.60%0.53%1.08%
1995 82,900 74,600 8,300 10.00%15,412,200 14,202,800 1,209,400 7.80%0.53%-0.74%
1996 82,900 75,500 7,400 8.90%15,511,600 14,391,500 1,120,100 7.20%0.52%0.48%
1997 84,400 77,200 7,200 8.50%15,947,200 14,942,500 1,004,700 6.30%0.52%0.31%
1998 85,600 78,500 7,100 8.30%16,336,500 15,367,500 969,000 5.90%0.51%0.31%
1999 86,100 80,300 5,800 6.70%16,596,500 15,731,700 864,800 5.20%0.51%0.49%
2000 86,800 80,700 6,100 7.00%16,884,200 16,048,900 835,300 4.90%0.50%0.13%
2001 88,800 82,500 6,300 7.10%17,182,900 16,260,100 922,800 5.40%0.51%0.85%
2002 91,100 84,100 7,000 7.70%17,404,600 16,241,800 1,162,800 6.70%0.52%-8.74%
Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, Butte County Historical Monthly Labor Force
Data
Historical Trends by Industry Group
Most industry groups in Butte County follow the overall trend of county employment There are,
however, several notable exceptions. Table 3-3 below shows jobs by major Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code classifications for the period between 1983 and 2002. Since it shows
jobs by location, this data is not directly comparable to the labor force information above that
shows employment by residence.
Services, government, and retail trade accounted for 74.6 percent of the jobs in the Butte County
economy in 2002, compared to 66.6 percent in 1983. Most of this increase is due to the increased
share of service jobs in the local economy. Services include such diverse activities as hotels,
medical clinics, and beauty shops. Government includes federal, state and local offices and
agencies, special districts, and public schools. Retail trade includes all those businesses that are
open to the general public for the purchase of goods.
Chapter 3: Economics
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
4
As the table indicates, agriculture and transportation and public utilities jobs remained stable
between 1983 and 2000. However, there was a dramatic decrease in farm jobs from 2000 to
2002. Total manufacturing jobs declined slightly from 1990 to 2000 after significant growth
from 1983 to 1990, and then also declined dramatically from 2000 to 2002.
On the other hand, the FIRE (finance, insurance & real estate) and service sectors have
experienced the greatest and most consistent growth. Construction and mining, retail trade,
wholesale trade, and government jobs increased steadily, but at lower rates.
TABLE 3-3
HISTORICAL EMPLOYMENT BY STANDARD INDUSTRY CODE
BUTTE COUNTY: 1983-2002
1983 % of
Total
Wage
&
Salary
Emp.
1990 % of
Total
Wage
&
Salary
Emp.
2000 % of
Total
Wage
&
Salary
Emp.
2002 % of
Total
Wage
&
Salary
Emp.
AAGR
1983-
2002
AAGR
2000-
2002
Total Wage and Salary Jobs, All
Industries
45,500 100.0%60,700 100.0%72,900 100.0%75,800 100.0%2.7%2.0%
Total Farm Jobs 3,000 6.6%3,100 5.1%3,000 4.1%2,200 2.9%-1.6%-14.4%
Total Non-Farm Jobs 42,400 93.2%57,400 94.6%70,000 96.0%73,600 97.1%2.9%2.5%
Construction & Mining 1,400 3.1%2,900 4.8%2,500 3.4%2,900 3.8%3.9%7.7%
Manufacturing 4,100 9.0%5,900 9.7%5,700 7.8%4,300 5.7%0.3%-13.1%
Transportation & Public
Utilities
2,700 5.9%2,500 4.1%2,800 3.8%2,500 3.3%-0.4%-5.5%
Wholesale Trade 1,700 3.7%1,800 3.0%2,400 3.3%2,500 3.3%2.1%2.1%
Retail Trade 9,700 21.3%13,400 22.1%14,600 20.0%16,600 21.9%2.9%6.6%
Finance, Insurance & Real
Estate
2,200 4.8%3,000 4.9%4,100 5.6%4,800 6.3%4.2%8.2%
Services 10,100 22.2%14,900 24.5%21,600 29.6%22,700 29.9%4.4%2.5%
Government 10,500 23.1%13,000 21.4%16,300 22.4%17,300 22.8%2.7%3.0%
Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, Industry Employment & Labor Force - by
Annual Average, March 2001 Benchmark.
Notes: Industry employment data reflects jobs by “place of work.” Estimates are developed based on data collected directly from employers in
the Current Employment Survey (CES) or “establishment survey.” It does not include the self-employed, unpaid family workers, and
private household employees. Jobs that pay wages and salaries located in the county or the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) are
counted although workers may live outside the area. Jobs are counted regardless of full-time or part-time status. Individuals who hold more
than one job (i.e., multiple job holders) may be counted more than once.
Chapter 3: Economics
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
5
Table 3-4 below shows the major employers in Butte County in 2002.
TABLE 3-4
MAJOR EMPLOYERS IN BUTTE COUNTY, 2002
Employer Location Industry
Aero Union Corp Chico Aircraft & Parts
Butte Community College Oroville Colleges & Universities
Butte County Government Multiple Public Administration (Government)
CSU-Chico Chico Colleges & Universities
Enloe Medical Center Chico Hospitals
Feather Falls Casino Oroville Amusement & Recreation
Gold Country Casino Oroville Amusement & Recreation
Paradise Post Paradise Advertising
Pro Pacific Fresh Durham Groceries & Related Products
Roplast Industries, Inc.Oroville Plastics & Materials
Source: America’s Labor Market Information System (ALMIS) Employer Database, 2002 from infoUSA, provided by the California
Economic Development Department
Forecasts by Industry Groups
As discussed above, population growth rates have lagged behind employment growth rates in
Butte County. Table 3-5 below provides the most recent employment forecasts by industry from
the California Employment Development Department (EDD) through the year 2006.
TABLE 3-5
FORECAST EMPLOYMENT BY STANDARD INDUSTRY CODE
BUTTE COUNTY: 1999-2006
Industry Group 1999 2006 Change % Change AAGR
Mining & Construction 2,700 3,100 400 14.8%2.0%
Manufacturing 5,700 6,000 300 5.3%0.7%
Transportation & Public Utilities 2,900 3,000 100 3.4%0.5%
Wholesale Trade 2,200 2,400 200 9.1%1.3%
Retail Trade 14,400 15,300 900 6.3%0.9%
Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 3,900 4,600 700 17.9%2.4%
Services 21,800 22,600 800 3.7%0.5%
Government 15,100 17,400 2,300 15.2%2.0%
Total Nonfarm 68,700 74,400 5,700 8.3%1.1%
Source: California Employment Development Department, Industry Employment Projections, Butte County 1999-2006
Notes: March 2000 benchmark; data based on 1987 Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC)
As shown in the table above, Butte County was projected to have an overall average annual job
growth of 1.1 percent from 1999 to 2006. Based on historical trends, population growth rates
would be somewhat lower than this.
Mining and construction, FIRE, and government jobs were projected to grow at the fastest rates,
with the retail trade, FIRE, services, and government sectors projected to add the greatest
absolute number of jobs.
According to EDD’s County Snapshots: Butte County 2002, the occupations most likely to have
the most job gains for the three highest absolute-growth industries are as follows (by sector):
Chapter 3: Economics
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
6
• Government: office clerks, maintenance and repair workers, recreation workers, and patrol
officers.
• Retail trade: retail salespersons, cashiers, first-line supervisors/retail sales managers, and
waitpersons.
• Services: teacher’s aides, health care professionals, registered nurses, and computer support
specialists.
3.3 COST OF LIVING
Income
Table 3-6 below shows the per capita income, median household income, median family income,
and percentage of persons below the poverty level for Butte County and California in 1999 as
reported by the 2000 Census. Butte County had only approximately 77 percent of the per capita
income and median family income of California as a whole in 1999. Median household income
in Butte County was even lower comparatively, at 67 percent of the state’s figure.
The poverty rate in Butte County was higher than that for California as a whole. In 1999, 19.8
percent of the population was below the poverty line, including 12.2 percent of all families and
19.8 percent of all families with children. In California, 14.2 percent of the population was below
the poverty line, including 10.6 percent of all families and 15.3 percent of all families with
children.
TABLE 3-6
INCOME AND POVERTY
BUTTE COUNTY AND CALIFORNIA, 1999
Income in 1999 % Below Poverty Level in 1999
Per Capita
Income
Median
Household
Income
Median
Family Income
Families Families With
Related
Children
Under 18
Years
Individuals
Butte County $17,517 $31,924 $41,010 12.2%19.8%19.8%
Butte County as % of State 77.1%67.2%77.3%115.1%129.4%139.4%
California $22,711 $47,493 $53,025 10.6%15.3%14.2%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census
Housing Costs
Housing costs in Butte County are considerably lower than those for comparable housing in both
the Bay Area and Sacramento. The median value of Butte County owner-occupied housing in
Butte County, according to the 2000 Census, was $129,800. This lags far behind the median
value for California housing as a whole, which was reported as $211,500. However, recent
market conditions have been driving the price of housing sharply upwards in selected areas of
the county, and have also had a ripple effect in other areas of the county.
Chapter 3: Economics
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
7
3.4 GOVERNMENT
City and Town
In Butte County there are five jurisdictions governed by a city or town council. Four of these are
incorporated cities (Chico, Oroville, Gridley, and Biggs), and one is an incorporated town
(Paradise). The administration of each jurisdiction is headed by a council appointed manager or
administrator who is assisted by appointed department heads. The services they provide include
public safety, public works and parks and recreation.
County
By far the most significant single governing body is the County of Butte. The County is
governed by a board of supervisors that is composed of five members elected from five districts.
Department heads who are appointed or elected perform the administration of Butte County. The
Chief Administrative Officer is appointed by the board. He coordinates, mainly through the
budgetary process, activities of all the County departments.
In addition to providing planning, public safety, and public works, the County also provides
services to protect public safety, promote agricultural development, provide health care, care for
veterans, assess real estate, and collect taxes, among other activities. The 2001/2002 budget for
Butte County was approximately $275,000,000. This amounts to approximately $1,336 in
expenditures for each person in the county. The largest single component of the budget is
Employment & Social Services, comprising 2% of the total.
Butte County is under substantial fiscal stress, a situation that has received widespread attention
since 1990. In fiscal year 1989-90, the County seriously considered filing for bankruptcy under
Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code. This would have been the first such filing ever by a
California County. The State was forced to provide temporary relief in order to avert County
bankruptcy.
During this period, the State Legislative Analyst conducted a study of fiscal conditions in
California counties. Following this report, the California Counties Foundation commissioned a
study entitled California Counties on the Fiscal Faultline (November 1990) to examine County
financial problems and make recommendations. Much of the information presented in this
section is derived from these studies.
The broad conclusion of these reports was that California counties had a limited capacity to
respond to the substantial fiscal strain they experienced. While the problems of Butte County
were more severe than most other California counties, they were not unique.
Rather than discuss general problems of California counties, this section will focus upon the
primary sources of Butte County’s problems. Four key causes can be summarized as follows:
• After passage of Proposition 13, Butte County was locked into a very small relative share
of countywide property taxes
Chapter 3: Economics
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
8
• Caseloads and costs of state programs administered by the County increased dramatically
in the 1980s
• The County experienced slow growth of general property tax revenues
• County sales tax revenues failed to grow significantly primarily due to annexations of
commercial properties by cities.
Proposition 13 limited general property taxes to one percent of the assessed value of properties.
Assembly Bill 8, the Prop 13 implementing statute, determined how the one percent property tax
rate would be divided among property taxing jurisdictions. These property tax sharing ratios
(sometimes called Tax Apportionment Factors) were based on pre-Prop 13 property tax rates and
reliance by each local government.
Butte County had a long tradition of conservatism in spending and levying property taxes. As a
result, the County receives a small share of countywide property taxes. According to data from
the State Board of Equalization, Butte County received about 12.5% percent of general property
tax revenues collected within the county in fiscal year 2001-2002. In other words, the County
General Fund received 12.5 cents of each property tax dollar collected within the county. The
rest goes to cities, school districts and other special districts.
Caseload and Cost of State Programs
The County provides numerous services on behalf of the State and, as a result, is considered an
“arm” of the State. Many of these programs are driven by the need for these services, not by the
revenues necessary to fund them. As a result, the County invariably finds itself in the position of
having to meet state mandates without the necessary revenues to do so.
The State Legislature has begun to address the costs of state-required programs. For instance, the
Trial Court Funding program has changed responsibilities between the State and counties for
funding superior, municipal and justice courts. The state also made major changes in other
program areas in 2002. Often referred to as Realignment 91, these changes affected social
services, mental health and public health. Along with increased responsibility, the counties
receive funds from two newly dedicated sources: an increase in the statewide sales tax and an
increase in vehicle registration taxes. Many observers saw the realignment primarily as an effort
by the State to address its own fiscal problems. This cycle is replaying itself again for fiscal year
2003-04, given the State’s significant budget deficit, as elected officials once again consider a
realignment of programs.
Growth of County Property Tax Revenues
The primary reason for the slow growth of property tax revenues to Butte County is annexation
and redevelopment activities by cities within the county. Annexing unincorporated areas to a city
and designating parts of a city as a redevelopment area can significantly reduce the amount of
property tax revenue that flows to the County General Fund over a period of time.
The California Counties on the Fiscal Fault Line report noted that these problems occur
throughout the state and reflect indirect changes brought about by Proposition 13. Cities as well
Chapter 3: Economics
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
9
as counties lost a significant part of their property tax revenues and their ability to directly set tax
rates. However, cities are able to manipulate property tax revenues more effectively than
counties can. The report notes that since passage of Proposition 13, new incorporations and
annexations have increased substantially in California. Some transfer of property tax revenue is
determined by law; in other instances a county and city negotiate the proportion. Historically
these transfers have more often worked to the detriment of counties.
Redevelopment has also put counties at a disadvantage. When an area is declared a
redevelopment project area, the property tax base is “frozen” for the life of the redevelopment
project, often as long as 30 years. The redevelopment fund then collects the difference between
the property tax on the “frozen base” and the property tax on the current assessed value (referred
to as the “tax increment”). In the early years of a redevelopment project this is a relatively small
sum. Over time, as improvements are made and properties change hands, the property tax
increment can be quite substantial. By freezing the base, the County is deprived of increased
revenues from increases in assessed value in the project area.
Four of the five cities within Butte County have redevelopment agencies and projects. These
agencies use the revenues from the property tax increase to finance various public improvements
for which the redevelopment plan has called. The agency is also mandated to use 20 percent of
these revenues for low and moderate cost housing. While increased commercial and industrial
development within a city has a relatively small impact on many County services, residential
development within a city, particularly low- and moderate-income housing, significantly
increases demand for County services.
The County’s property taxes also suffered in 1992, when the State Legislature balanced
California’s books by transferring property tax revenue from cities, counties and local districts to
schools. In 1993, the Legislature transferred additional funds. In those two years alone, the State
shifted about $4 billion in property taxes to schools. This move in turn allowed the State to
decrease its use of the State’s general fund for schools. More than two-thirds of the shift came
from counties. In each county, these property taxes were deposited into a newly-created
countywide fund for schools, the "Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund" ("ERAF"). These
on-going shifts are commonly referred to as ERAF shifts. In Butte County, the amount shifted
thus far from Butte County to ERAF is approximately $81.1 million.
In 1993, in partial recognition of the ERAF shift impacts on local budgets, the Legislature
extended a temporary 1/2 cent sales tax allocated to counties and cities for financing local public
safety. In November 1993, the voters passed Proposition 172, a constitutional amendment,
permanently extending the program. The proceeds were allocated so that they offset an average
of 50% of each county’s 1993 ERAF shift statewide.
County Sales Tax Revenues
Sales tax is the County’s third largest source of discretionary revenue. The local portion of the
sales tax (one percent) is distributed to local jurisdictions based on the location of the transaction
that generates the tax. If the transaction takes place within a city, the city receives the revenue; if
Chapter 3: Economics
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
10
the transaction occurs within the unincorporated area, the County receives the revenue.
In 1980, the County received about $3.07 in sales tax per capita from the unincorporated area
(i.e., taxable transactions in the unincorporated area divided by population in the unincorporated
area). By 1990, this figure had declined to $2.58. In 2001, sales tax per capita from the
unincorporated area sits at just $2.07.
The County per capita figures contrast sharply with those in the cities within the county. In 1980,
the per capita sales tax revenues for all cities within the county combined were $7.21. By 1990,
this figure had increased to $12.35. The City of Chico receives the most sales tax revenue in
Butte County; as of 2003, it amounted to $20.40 per capita. City sales tax revenues per capita has
thus increased much faster than inflation, while County sales tax revenues per capita have
declined. This data indicates that a very large and increasing proportion of the total purchases of
unincorporated area residents are made within the cities.
Other Governing Bodies
Besides the elected governing bodies of the County, cities and town, there are 12 school districts
and 28 special districts with elected bodies. The special districts cover the spectrum from sewer,
water, recreation, and community college districts that cross county lines, such as Butte
Community College and Yuba Community College districts.
Private and Governmental Efforts Towards Economic Development
Several entities have attempted to stimulate economic growth in Butte County. Most of these
efforts have been regional, such as the establishment of special economic zones in the Chico and
Oroville areas and recruitment programs by the individual cities. In addition, each year Butte
County contributes a significant portion of its Transient Occupancy tax for tourism outreach
purposes. Besides these governmental bodies, the representatives of the private sector (the
various Chambers of Commerce, Tri-County Economic Development Corporation, Butte County
Economic Development Corporation, and the Oroville Industrial Development Corporation)
have been involved in developing economic strategies.
The County has worked with economic development entities and various stakeholders to develop
a countywide economic and job creation strategy. In 2001, the Butte County Chief
Administrative Office (CAO), in conjunction with the Tri-County Economic Development
Corporation and the Butte County Job Creation Team, conducted a business outreach program
for companies located within the unincorporated area. The CAO interviewed 50 companies and
built contacts with the agriculture, recreation, entertainment and manufacturing industries.
In the spring of 2003, the County was establishing a Micro-Enterprise Business Incubation
program. Target companies must have a maximum of five employees, be located within the
unincorporated area, and demonstrate high growth or high growth potential. This program
includes a business assistance component as well as access to capital for early stage financing.
Chapter 3: Economics
Final Draft August 8, 2005
Butte County General Plan Background Report
11
In addition, the following efforts were taking place: a Target Industry Study was conducted by
Tri-County Economic Development Corporation, designation of a Recycling Development Zone,
a cooperative effort between the City of Chico and the County, construction of a large movie
theater in Oroville using County Economic Development Block Grant funds, creation of the
Butte County Economic and Demographic profile by the Center for Economic Development at
Chico State, and a cooperative effort between the various Chambers and the County to develop
reasonable fees for the services provided by the County Environmental Health Department to the
private sector.