Let's say that 15% of that is operations that's still $375m back into the economy in the form of wages.
Wages, to whom? Largely to people who move to the area. Yes, they will spend some of their money in the town, so there will be a trickle down effect to the current residents. But that's what we are talking about: a trickle.
Furthermore those people would probably want to eat somewhere while in town and maybe even visit a shop or two which would further boost the local economy.
Do you really think that those 1%-ers really want to eat in the restaurants that exist in the town today. So, perhaps some new retaurants will be opened and again, money will trickle down. But don't forget that the current residents are already paying higher rates of tax.
That's the fundamental problem with such calculations of economic benefit. They confuse revenue with actual income to the residents. Instead, the real calculation should be whether the investment by the town will lead to an increase in tax revenues that exceeds the investment. Otherwise, it's like a company proposing an investment on the basis of increased revenue, but ignoring what the effects on profits will be.