HomeMy WebLinkAbout[05d] SCSU Study1
The Economic Impact of
the College of St. Benedict
St. John's University
on the City of St. Joseph
and
Collegeville Township
Prepared by
Mary E. Edwards, Yotiaud Vivien Apoutou, Reeta Ale Magar,
St. Cloud State University
14 August 2009
z
Table of Contents
Highlights ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................4
Basic Goals of the Study ..................................................................................................................... 4
Data Collection and Analysis .............................................................................................................. 4
Economic Impact on Local Businesses ............................................................................................... 4
Economic Impact on Local Government ............................................................................................ 5
Impact of the College and University over and above spending ........................................................ 5
Impact of Proposal to Require Most Students to Live On-Campus .................................................... 5
Alternate Scenarios ............................................................................................................................ 5
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 7
The current impact of the College of St. Benedict and St.lohn's University on the city of St.loseph
and Collegeville Township ............................................................................................................................ 7
Data collection and analysis ............................................................................................................... 7
College-Related Local Business Volume .............................................................................................8
College and University purchases ................................................................................................... 8
Faculty and staff spending .............................................................................................................. 8
Student expenditures ..................................................................................................................... 8
Visitor disbursements .....................................................................................................................8
Categorizing the expenditure components ....................................................................................9
Impact on the Local Government .....................................................................................................10
Effect on the total number of local jobs and personal income ........................................................10
Impact of the College and University over and above spending ......................................................10
Impact of a decision to have all students live on.campus ....................................................................11
Changes in local business volume and government revenues due to the change in policy ............11
Alternate Scenarios ..........................................................................................................................14
List of References .................................................................................................................................16
Appendix A: Expenditures by students, faculty and staff ....................................................................17
Appendix B: Surveys .............................................................................................................................14
Highlights
• The study was completed by SCSU Economic Development Center by Graduate Program Interns
with oversight by Development Center Director, Dr. Mary Edwards, using two economic models:
the Caffrey-Isaacs Model and an input-output analysis program (IMPLAN).
• The goal was to determine how the economies of St. Joseph and Collegeville Township would
change in the event the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University vanished. We adjust the
model to estimate the economic impact after a potential change in residence policy.
• CSB -SJU students, faculty, and staff were surveyed as were student rental property landlords.
The College and the University disclosed information significant financial information.
• The cumulative local business volume generated by CSB-SJU in St. Joseph and Collegeville is
$16.6 million annually. Of that, student spending accounts for $7.5 million, faculty/staff
spending $2.5 million, the two institutions $1.1 million, and visitors around $200,000. The
remaining $5.3 million stems from. businesses purchasing inputs necessary to provide the
products needed by students and the two institutions, as well as spending by their employees.
• Visitor spending only includes spending by visitors to faculty, staff and students. It ignores
spending by the 75,000 known visitors to the Admissions Departments, fine arts programs, and
sporting events.
• The economic impact of CSB-SJU on local government totals $3.7 million received by the City of
St. Joseph, Collegeville Township, and the St. Cloud Public School District 742. The revenue
includes real estate property taxes paid the city/township by the institutions, faculty/staff, and
college-related businesses and state aid to Kennedy Community School. At the same time, local
jurisdictions pay $1.4 million to provide public goods and services to support the two
institutions.
• A total of 1,115 jobs would be lost if CSB-SJU were not present.
• In Spring 2009, at least 334 students from St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud Technical College
and Rasmussen College claimed their local zip codes as 56321 or 56374. This represents about
40% of total students renting within these two zip codes.
• If we assume that more St. Cloud students do not move into student housing within the city, the
policy to require 208 more students to live on campus would result in an estimated decline in
business volume by $ 1.3 million. Landlords' revenues would fall by $0.5 million. However, if 208
more St. Cloud students will rent student housing in St. Joseph, then local economic activity may
increase by $7.1 million.
• Spending is only one aspect of the influence of an institution of higher education on a local
economy. The College of St. Benedict and St. John's University also add to the intellectual vitality
of the area, students volunteer or add to the local labor force, and spouses of faculty and staff
provide needed services and demand higher quality public schools than might otherwise exist.
4
Executive Summary
The study was commissioned by both the College of St. Benedict/St. John's University and the St.
Joseph Economic Development Authority. Colleges and universities are vital parts of a community's
economy. It is essential to know what type of impact a college or university has on the local economies
to account for various ways that the colleges and universities can interrelate with the locality. What
follows is an analysis of the economic impact of the College of St. Benedict (CSB) and St. John's
University (SJU) on the economy of the city of St. Joseph and Collegeville Township under various
scenarios.
Basic goals of the stu
When one does an impact study one needs to compare the current situation with some type of
baseline scenario. Economic Impact studies generally compare the current impact to a baseline scenario
that the entity under study did not exist-yet nothing else is in place to use the land and labor
resources. Essentially, one must imagine that some type of giant laser gun suddenly eliminates both the
College and University, and all students, faculty and staff are immediately "beamed" elsewhere to
"rematerialize" and continue with their work. By measuring the change in economic activity if this
happened, we come to the impact that these campuses have on the community. Lower revenues for
local businesses and governments are the easiest impact of that scenario to measure, but we also
discuss some impacts not related to expenditures later. Second, we estimate the impact of a residency
requirement on the local community under several different scenarios.
Data collection and analysis
In April, we surveyed students, faculty and staff from the College of St. Benedict, St. John's
University, asking for the amounts that they spent off-campus but in zip codes 56321 and 56374, as well
as local landlords. We also obtained the exact amounts sent to entities within the zip codes 56321 and
56374 from the College and University. A total 10.2% of the on-campus students and 5.49'0 off-campus
students responded. Faculty response rates for CSB and SJU were 29.5% and 25%, respectively. In
addition, we mailed surveys to 72 landlords and 289'o responded. The responses were weighted by
college and location of housing (on or off campus for students and in St. Joseph or Collegeville Twp for
faculty and staff) to reflect the spending habits of the entire population.
Economic impact on local businesses
The cumulative college-related local business volume generated by the College and University is
$16.6 million: $11.3 million from College and University related local expenditures, $1.3 million in local
purchases by local businesses who provide goods and services to the two institutions and students
(indirect impact) and $4 million from spending by faculty, staff and employees of the businesses that
produce goods for the campuses and students (induced effect) (Model 6.1). Student spending
dominates the college-related local expenditure (direct effect) at $7.5 million; the College and University
spend a total of $1.1 million, and visitors spend about $0.2 million. The estimate of visitor spending is
extremely conservative because we did not account for visitors to the Admissions Departments of the
College or University (3,466). We also left out visitors to campuses to attend lectures, fine arts
programming (55,300) or sporting events (16,138).
Economic impact on local government
Concerning the impact on the local government (Model G-1), the college-related revenues received
by the City of St. Joseph, Collegeville Township and Kennedy Community School total $3.7 million. These
revenues come from both property taxes and state aid to Kennedy Community School. At the same
time, the local jurisdictions pay $1.4 million (Model G-2) to provide public goods and services to support
the two institutions.
Impact of the College and University over and above spending
The College of Saint Benedict, founded in 1913, and Saint John's University, founded in 1857, have
grown to be nationally recognized Catholic, liberal arts colleges adding stature and name recognition to
the community. In addition to revenues generated by expenditures, they add to the intellectual vitality
of the community by hosting plays, lectures and sporting events. These events, plus visitors of
prospective students and their families add an additiona175,000 people annually who may not
otherwise come to the City of St. Joseph. Because we have no data on the spending of these visitors, we
entirely eliminated their contributions from the model.
Impact of proposal to require most students to live on-campus
To attempt to isolate the impact of the residential policy change, we will estimate the impact that
change would have had on our scenario if it were implemented in FY2008-2009. The first scenario
assumes that the campuses already had their proposed 208 new beds in place and that there will be no
additional building of dorms in the near future.
Under this scenario, if we could re-run FY 2008-2009 with 208 students moving from off-campus to
on-campus, total business volume will decrease by $1.3 million. Landlords' revenues will fall current
estimated revenues from student spending of $2 million down to $1.5 million. Given an estimated local
business volume of $253 million, a $1.6 million drop is small enough that it does not impact local
government revenues. Unfortunately, even with the input-output analysis that allows a potential
evaluation of 528 sectors, the detail is not fine enough to calculate the drop in property tax revenues if
all student housing were to be razed. In addition, requiring students to live on campus will also not
decrease local government expenses. While campus security will be more involved in specific incidents,
they do not have the authority to make arrests so the same number of police officers is still necessary.
The anticipated drops in enrollments will add to the impact of 208 fewer students living off-campus
By 2013, the total impact of the College and University will drop by $6.2 million from the FY2008
estimates. This drop is over and above any change in economic activity due to 208 more students
moving to campus.
Alternate scenarios
We end the study with two more scenarios. First, what if all CSB/SJU students purchase goods and
services as if they all lived on campus? Second, what would be the impact of all student housing were to
be banned in St. Joseph and Collegeville Twp?
Local landlords can house 908 students, and 794 of these units are rented. We incorporate 452
students from CSB/SJU renting locally. According to the Registrars Offices at St. Cloud State University,
St. Cloud Technical College and Rasmussen College, 335 students reported zip codes of 56321 or 56374.
These two groups account for 786 of the 794 total students renting locally. If we impose the same
spending habits of off-campus CSB/SJU students onto the 335 students who commute to St. Cloud, we
estimate the local impact of student housing on the local economy as $10.4 million. This is the amount
of expenditures that would be lost if all such housing were banned within the two zip codes.
The fact that 40% of students who rent locally commute to classes in St. Cloud suggests that
something in the ambiance of St. Joseph or Collegeville is attractive to students. During recessions,
demand for public education increases. If landlords succeed in attracting students from St. Cloud to
replace the 208 students who will be moving to campus, the City of St. Joseph and Collegeville Township
may gain $7.1 million in additional economic activity.
Introduction
The goal of this study is twofold: First, we estimate the economic Impact of the College of St.
Benedict and St. John's University on the City of St.loseph and Collegeville Township. Second, we
estimate the change in this impact once the proposal to increase the number of students housed on
campus is realized. The latter will be done under various scenarios.
When we calculate the economic impact of a college or university, we need to ask ourselves what
the area would be like if that facility suddenly vanished, possibly with a Star Trek type of laser gun.
Nothing is allowed to use the land or other resources that were used by the facility. Atl faculty, staff and
students are immediately sent to a teleportation device and beamed elsewhere to continue their work
and study.
The current impact of the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University on the city
of St. Joseph and Collegeville Township
Caffrey-Isaacs (1971) developed a template with which one can estimate the impact of a college or
university on a local community. Theirs is the standard template that most institutions of higher
education use to determine the amount of total economic activity generated because of their presence.
We also use an input-output analysis program (1MPLAN) to estimate the total amount of goods and
services that firms will purchase locally to be able to provide their output to support spending directly
caused by the College and University. IMPLAN also allows us to estimate the amount that employees of
these local firms spend in the community.
The Caffrey-Isaacs template consists of three basic models. The first estimates local business volume
generated by the presence of the college or university. The second calculates the fiscal impact of the
university on local government revenues and expenditures. The third model summarizes the impact in
terms of local jobs and personal income attributed to the presence of the college or university.
The models assume a perfectly elastic demand for individual products, so prices of goods and
services, rents and housing do not change. This assumption translates into a conservative estimate of
the total impact, but the alternative would provide a less reliable estimate than the static model we use
here.
Data collection and analysis
To do this study, we surveyed the students as well as-the faculty and staff from the College of St.
Benedict and St. John's University as to the amount that they spent off-campus but in zip codes 56321
and 56374. These surveys were open on Survey Monkey during the last two weeks in April. (See surveys
in Appendix B). We only dropped one student's survey where the respondent claimed to single-handedly
drop $51,344,556 annually into the local economy. Everyone else seemed to take the survey quite
seriously. We also mailed 72 surveys to individual landlords who rented housing within these two zip
codes. The City of St. Joseph provided us with the contact information.
In total, 306 students living on-campus and 59 off-campus students responded, out of 2,998 and
1,100, respectively. The response rate was thus 10.2% and 5.49'0. Faculty response rates for CSB and SJU
were 29.5% and 25%, respectively. In addition, we mailed surveys to 72 landlords and 28% responded.
College-related local business volume
To estimate the amount of local business volume that depends on the spending related to CSB and
S1 U, we add the amount spent by the institutions themselves, by faculty and staff, by students and by
visitors to the college (Model B-1.1 in Appendix C). To this we add local purchases of intermediate goods
by local businesses among one another to be able to provide these goods (Model a-1.2). Finally, we
estimate the spending the employees of the local firms (Model B-1.3).
Co]le~e and University purchases
The Business Office at CSB/SJU provided us with the total amount spent between May 2008-May
2009 within the two zip codes 56321 and 56374. The total spent by both campuses approximated $1.1
million from the two institutions (Model B-1.1.1). Add to this spending of faculty and staff equal to $2.5
million, students of $7.5 million (Model B-1.1.2) and visitors of around $0.2 million (Model B-1.1.4) we
calculate that total expenditures related to the College and University amount to over $11.3 million
(Model B-1.1).
Faculty and staff snendi
Faculty and staff expenditures that we account for include the amount of rents and other spending
by faculty and staff who live within the two zip codes as well as expenditures by faculty and staff who
commute to work. Faculty and staff spending totals about $2.5 million. Those who rent housing locally
pay an estimated $81,000 per year in rents (Model B-1.1.2.1). Those who live within the two zip codes
spend about $1.2 million for goods and services other than housing (Model B-1.1.2.2) and those who
commute spend an additional $1.2 million to businesses within these two zip codes (Model B-1.1.2.3).
Student expenditures
Likewise, student spending (Model B-1.1.3) is subdivided into three groups: spending by on-campus
students, spending by students living off-campus for housing and for goods and services other than
housing. The amount spent by the 3,251 students who live on-campus totals $2 million over the nine-
month school year (Tables A-A3 and A-A4 in Appendix A.) On the other hand, the estimated 682
students who live off campus but within either zip code 56321 or 56374 spend approximately $3.3
million for rental housing (Model B-1.1.3.2), and all off-campus students (including those living outside
the immediate area) report that they spend about $2.2 million for other goods and services. The number
of off-campus students in the estimate of rental housing expenditures (Model B-1.1.3.2) only includes
those who are renting locally. Model B-1.1.3.3 estimates the amount of off-campus spending for
students who live off-campus, not necessarily in these two zip codes.
Students attending the College of St. Benedict, and who live off-campus spend an average of $1,353
annually for non-housing goods and services, while those living on-campus spend $300 per month
(Model B-1.1.3.3 and Table A-Al). Similarly, students who attend SJU and live off-campus spend an
average of $2,397 per year at local businesses; those who live on-campus report spending $1,764
annually (Model B-1.1.3.3 and Table A-A2).
~~isitor disbursements
Model B-1.1.4 offers a conservative estimate of visitor spending around $0.2 million. The model
accounts for spending by visitors to students as well as faculty and staff. The bottoms of Tables A-A1 and
9
A-A2 list the average amount of spending for on- and off-campus students from each college. These
estimates are conservative for three reasons:
First, we have no idea how much the families spend when they scout out campuses with
their prospective students. Some will make an appointment with an admissions office (3,466
in FY 2008-2009)-others may just drive up for a weekend without telling anyone.
Second, we have no idea how much people spend in the City of St. Joseph when they visit
the campuses for cultural events. Fine Arts programming drew in 55,300 visitors during FY
2008-2009. In addition, Athletic events (basketball, hockey, volleyball and football games)
pulled 16,138 visitors. Since we don't know how much these visitors spent while here-or
whether they purchased something in St. Joseph instead of the Waite Park/St. Cloud Area,
we impose an amount of $0 for these two groups as is standard procedure for this type of
analysis.
Third, one question on faculty/staff and student surveys asked the respondent to estimate
the average amount that their visitors spent in the City of St. Joseph or Collegeville
Township. For one thing, this question is a challenging one to answer for anyone who
receives visitors. Secondly, some responded with estimates of daily expenditures. Others
seemed to give annual estimates. We took each amount given as if it was an annual
estimate, thus again providing a conservative estimate of local visitor spending.
Categorizing t1~e expenditure components
The amount that the College, the University, the students and visitors to students and faculty spend
is called the direct effect. This is the amount that comes to everyone's attention first. Firms notice more
sales and the students and visitors congregate in their establishments. However, this is not the entire
impact. Local businesses must buy goods and services to provide the goods and services demanded from
them. This is called the Indirect effect. According to IMPLAN (using the 2007 dataset), businesses would
spend about 15C of every dollar to other local enterprises to purchase the inputs needed to provide the
goods and services to the College and University as well as to students and visitors. The indirect portion
of the local business volume totals $1.3 million (Model B-1.2).
Finally, not only do the faculty and staff of the College and University spend money locally, but
employees of the intermediary firms also spend money locally. This is called the induced effect and it is
estimated in Model B-1.3. Since IMPLAN already accounts for employee spending, we subtract spending
by faculty and staff from all other College and University-related spending to estimate the total amount
of spending by non-university or college employees of about $4 million.
As mentioned, an economic impact analysis provides the changes that would occur if the facilities
suddenly vanish, In addition to the loss of $16.6 million in business volume, the locality would realize
changes to the amount of developed real property, inventories, and other business assets totaling $27.3
million (Model B-2). The estimate of the amount of real. property required to support the increase in
business volume totals about $2.5 million (Model B-2.1). Assuming that inventory-to-business volume
and equipment and software-to-business volume ratios in St. Joseph are similar to the U. S. average,
local businesses have invested in an additional $23.9 million in inventories (Model B-2.2) and almost
$0.8 million in equipment and software (Model B-2.3).
10
Impact on the local government
The G-Series of models calculate the difference in revenues and expenditures to the city as well as
Kennedy Community School if the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University were to disappear. In
spite of these two entities being essentially non-profit institutions, the City of St. Joseph and Collegeville
Township would realize $3.7 million lower revenue (G-1) and about $1.4 million less in costs (G-2).
The revenue decrease would come from $12,000 less from property taxes paid by the College of St.
Benedict, $0.25 million taxes paid by faculty and staff (Model G-1.1.2), and about $1.3 million less
collected from commercial taxes (Model G-1.1.4).
Besides property taxes, Kennedy Community School receives a specific amount of state aid per
student. Approximately 80 children of faculty and staff attend Kennedy Community.' Because of these
students, the in-state aid to local public schools is about $0.6 million higher (Model G-1.4). In addition,
the College and University paid an additional $0.24 million in licenses and permits to the city (Model G-
1.5).
The government operating costs due to the two campuses total $1.4 million, calculated by
apportioning the Budget of the City of St. Joseph to the daytime and the resident populations that are in
the locality only because of the College and University (Model G-2.1) totals $0.6. The portion of the
school's operating cost due to the presence of the 80 students of the faculty and staff, $0.8 million, is
that share of the budget of District 742 (Model G-2.2).
Effect on the total number of local jobs and personal income
The final set of models estimates the number of local jobs and local income attributable to the
existence of the College and University. In addition to the 1,115 employees of these two institutions,
their presence adds an additional 131 jobs within the city (Model I.1) thus totaling 1,231 positions
dependent on these two campuses. In addition, an estimated $10.3 million in total personal income to
local residents of the City of St. Joseph and Collegeville Township stems from the presence of these two
campuses.
Impact of the College and University over and above spending
The College of Saint Benedict, founded in 1913, and Saint John's University, founded in 1857. From
their modest beginnings, the College and the University have grown to be nationally recognized
Catholic, liberal arts colleges and ranked as two of the top three Catholic colleges in the nation. The
College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University have many significant, positive impacts on the
community of St. Joseph. The College of St. Benedict and St. John's University also add to the intellectual
vitality of a locality by hosting concerts, plays, lectures and sporting events. Students volunteer or add to
the local labor force facilitating firms' abilities to expand production during upturns in the economy. In
addition, spouses of faculty and staff also provide needed services and demand higher quality public
'One off-campus students claimed to be the mother of 5 children attending local public school, and another
student claimed one child. We are not willing to attribute 53 children (13% of total enrollment in Kennedy
Community School) to children of CSB students. If the survey results are indeed accurate, our omission will not
drastically change the revenue/cost estimates for the public schools attributable to CSB. Nor would it in any
measureable way affect the impact of the residency requirement as student mothers would assuredly live off-
campus.
11
schools than might otherwise exist. While we acknowledge these added benefits to a community, it is
nearly impossible to assess these benefits in monetary terms. If we assume that such activities will not
change once the residence policy is in place, they wilt not affect our estimation of the cost of that policy
on the local economy.
Impact of a decision to have 208 more students live on campus
The differential impact is calculated in Appendix D. To estimate this impact, we make a few more
assumptions. First, while not all students will be living on-campus, the College and University assume
that about 95% of them will. Since the size of the survey sample is too small to partition further, so we
cannot determine the spending differences of those who will be moving to campus from the few who
probably will not, (students with their own families, students living with their parents, etc.) Thus, this
part of the study assumes that all students will live on-campus.
Second, we assume that the student population will not decline in subsequent years. This
assumption flies in the face of current forecasts of enrollments at private universities during recessions.
However, if we were to impose new enrollment predictions, we would needlessly intensify the
estimates of the impact of this policy change.
Third, while this section notes the changes in spending of students and businesses, it does not
address the obvious changes in spending for construction of dormitories by the campuses. It also
ignores the increases in food purchases by the two campuses that will be needed to feed a greater
number of on-campus students. It also ignores the need for the campuses to hire additional staff to
accommodate the larger number of on-campus students. To the extent that the purchases will take
place in the City of St. Joseph, we can multiply the amount spent locally to build new, on-campus
housing by 2.349 to adjust the total amount of economic activity in terms of both indirect and induced
spending in the community that would be needed to support the local construction project. To the
extent that the campuses purchase food and beverages locally, we can multiply the amount that they
spend by 1.98 to estimate the increase in local economic activity necessary to provide for these
purchases. Finally, additional staff will adopt somewhat the spending habits of the current employees.
Changes in local business volume and. government revenues due to the change in policy
Columns 2, 3 and 4 of Table 1 summarize the changes that the localities will experience when the
two campuses increase the number of beds on campus by 208. Currently, local business volume
attributable to the two campuses is $16.6 million. But we predict this figure to drop by $1.3 million.
Landlords' revenues will fall current estimated revenues from student spending of $2 million down to
$1.5 million.
Given an estimated local business volume of $253 million, a $1.3 million drop is small enough that it
does not impact local government revenues perceptibly. In addition, the transfer of 208 students from
off-campus housing toliving on-campus will not decrease local expenses. While campus security will be
more involved in specific incidents, they do not have the authority to make arrests. According to Judy
Weyrens (2009), almost all of the cost to the city due to students comes through the police officers.
There would be no perceptible decrease in city expenses with any number of students moving on-
campusfrom off-campus.
12
Columns 5 through 9 of Table 1 estimate the impact of the projected enrollments from FY 2009
through FY 2013 on the city.Z These scenarios assume that on-campus housing will continue to be filled
and only students in excess of 3,459 per year will rent off-campus. The numbers of study abroad
students are taken as constant as are the proportions from each campus that live outside of the 56321
and 56764 zip codes. Changing these last two assumptions will not significantly change the impact. The
impact on the forecasted changes in enrollments affects not only the private businesses but also the
operating costs of government because fewer students reside locally. When students merely switch to
living on-campus, government costs are not affected.
Based on the landlord survey and estimates from IMPLAN, the local industries that will be affected
indirectly include banks and tending institutions, firms that specialize in maintaining and repairing
residential properties and state and local government.
2 Details available upon request.
M
a~+
C ° G
'O Y~~ ~
_O G
_O C
O C
O G
O
O
M
~
0
~ ~ .~
~ .~
.~
.
-1 n
i
0
1l ~
~ N
^ m ~
~ p 00
O
C Qt N ~--~
N .--1 ~O
~
dJ ~ yn ~ ~ ~
++ O
u N
OJ
O
n ~ O G
m ~
~ C
O C
O
O
c G
O C
O
` "O N y C m
V1 _ - ~ -
.~
w
p y~ u ~ _
E _
.~
~
~~ _
~~
~O ~ } '0 ~ I N 01 N
n fr1 111
" C LL a ~ 01 ~ ~ N M r-1 \C
1
i1
7
-p Gl
~ ~ ~ 'i
.-1 V1 VT +~ ~ N
1v -
0
°
a c
y ~ v
o c
c
c
c
c
~
a
v m~
?
O c
O
0
0
~
O '~ LL O~~ 10 ~ p n M 00
a a°pO0 ~ N rn
.-i
n
F, C
~
~
c
d _u
~o ,~ -°
° c
c
c
c
a p~; m~
N o
- o
- c c
o
- °
-
N
O .p > O ~ ~ 01 ~ n ^ M Q1
LL n O N 00 M N ~ ~-1 OG
N
N
~ `~`
O
`-'
7
' u
Ci
~«
w 'd
0
d -.
.
w O C
d~ m? C
0 C
0
c C
0 C
0
rn
~ N d ~ u ^ ~ ~ ~~ .~
m LL °- O~~ 'i N fr1
~ ~ M
CNj ~ r`i N ~ ~ ~
>
L
`~- ~
3 rr1 0 N O
p
p Lf1 O
a
a 0
Q O ~ ~.E ~.~ ~.~
-
i ~
N
L v
i
~
w
o G
~
~
3 d c
"
~ O . G
a v ~ N
~ 3 C E
~
° .~-1 . N .O ~ ~ O
`n ' N
a
~
E ~ v 1a
v
~ o ° r
~
u an ~ r/f ~ n ~ £
r
n
d
t U W
N~ L O ~M/f
a+
~
C to
y
~p C
O
M C
O
C
I~ O
C
a O
N C
O
~ ` C ~ ~ _
N _ M ~ ri _- t0 _-
i:
+
W
~ ~ 000
~ `~ a0+
O
~
00 N
O ~ of
~ ~ ~
°
~ d
~
C 3 u
~ 4J
N N 7 'p
'O d
f0 ~..~ ~
~ ~ ~ a
+ a
+
~ u C
~ ~ ~
N
~
L
u u
'i O +3,, 'p !~
N ~ 41 0J > > C
'~ d L ~ u C
~ d0 W `1 ~
C u y~ 61 y ~ 'O 01 C O ~' C O C
r0
00
d
L N C!
'p " Cl
~ d
'p p a ~ N C
E-
~ +' ~ N ~
y
M ~ N W ~ v1
t0
~ O
%
~ ~' j
O~ O
~
a °
$ O N N>
~
° q Q> 0~
~
' O m
° r
~
a o
u
~ ~ ~ o
o u
~+
a+
C
61
3
N
L
a
h
O
OJ
t
O
C
3
0
v
0
O
C
0
C
O
io
u
a
d
t~6
'O
C
O
V
N
H
i+
O
a
O
u
H
a
7
0
m
d
L
O
C
10
O
a+
C
d
'O
0
'O
C
fp
01
L
a.+
m
L
'O
C
f0
d
Y
f0
C
h ~
~" 'V1
O
L
14
Alternate scenarios
Two assumptions seem to cause consternation given the scenario presented in the report so far.
Table 2 shows the estimates of the unlikely assumption that all CSB/SJU students switch to living
somewhere on campus whether or not they have bed space. We also estimate the impact on the city of
eliminating all student housing.
One question is the total number of students studying abroad. fn the first part of this study, we
assumed 1,538 CSB students and 1,460 SJU students lived on-campus. In addition, we are not counting
in the total number of students studying abroad those include students who take classes overseas over
break. The 156 and 97 students classified as study abroad come from the 10`h day enrollment figures for
students who chose to study abroad in Fall. These will thus correspond to the total enrollment figures
we were given. Since more students who study abroad prefer to do so in Spring rather than in Fall (at
CSB, SJU and SCSU). This is because students prefer to spend Christmas at home with their family.
Pursuing a study abroad program in Spring allows students to spend extra time traveling and exploring.
Using Fall term study abroad figures underestimates the yearly average of these students, thus
underestimating the actual number of students buying goods and services in St. Joseph or Collegeville.
A second question is where students actually live when they report a zip code that is not local. The
Student Development Residential life Office ran the zip codes of all students living off-campus. Ninety-
sixand ninety-three percent of students from CSB and SJU live within a 30 minute drive. If we assume
that students living over 90 miles from campus (past the Twin Cities) are actually renting in Collegeville
or the City of St. Joseph, the estimated figures from the study are potentially overestimating the impact
on landlords.
The local landlords can provide space for 908 students, and 794 of these units are rented. In Spring
2009, 335 students of St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud Technical College and Rasmussen College in
St. Cloud reported addresses with 56321 or 56743 zip codes according to the Registrar Offices.3 Some of
these students, as well as a smattering of students from CSB and SJU do live with their parents, and
there may be some extraordinarily ambitious students taking classes at two separate campuses, but if
we add the 452 CSB/SJU students living off campus in Spring 2009, we can account for 786 of the
estimated 794 renters by including students from St. Cloud campuses.
We know nothing about spending habits of the 334 students of St. Cloud colleges and universities
who live in St. Joseph. Central Place Theory suggests that much of their purchases should be in St. Cloud
or Waite Park, but then, using the Central Place Theory one would predict these students wouldn't live
in St. Joseph to start with unless they prefer the local ambiance. Thus for Table 2, we attribute the same
expenditure habits to these students as to the students who live off-campus at CSB and SJU. `
A summary of the calculations of the economic impact under these scenarios are as follows. In Table
2. In Column 2, we forced all CSB/SJU students to live somewhere on campus and adopt on-campus
spending rather than off-campus spending habits. Again, no students from St. Cloud post-secondary
campuses move in rent in St. Joseph. The resulting impact of the university would plummet from $49
million to $33 million. Columns 3, 4 and 5 allow us to estimate the total impact on Column 3 attributes
the spending habits of CSB/SJU students to the 335 students who commute to classes in St. Cloud. This
results in a decrease of $7.1 million in local economic activity.
3 I checked with two beauty colleges as well, but they were not able to query number of students by zip code.
15
Column 5 nets out the impact of the College, University and faculty spending (Column 4) to estimate
the impact of the entire population of students who rent housing locally. If private student housing were
banned, the area would be out about $10.4 million in economic activity.
Table 2. Final Scenarios: No student housing in zip codes 56321 and 56374.
All (non-study Less the impact of
abroad) C56/SJU
335 students who Net out college-
Total for 786
students mimic commute to St. impact totals students living in
on campus Cloud campuses with zero
students St. Joseph
spending live elsewhere'
Model B-1. College-
related local $10.6 million $2.7 million $4.3 million $3.6 million
expenditures
Model B-2. Value of
local real business
property, inventories,
and equipment
$17.5 million
$4.5 million
$7 million
$7 million
committed to college-
related business
Model G-1. College-
related revenues
received by local
$3.7 million
No change
$3.7 million
^'0
governments
Less Model G-2.
Operating costs of
government due to -$1.3 million -$0.1 -$1 million
-$0.2 million
College-related
influences
Totals $30.5 million $7.1 million $14 million $10.4 million
Given that enrollments in public colleges and universities increase during recessions, and that
preliminary Fall 2009 enrollment figures for SCTC show an increase of 11%, for example, there may be
excess students in St. Cloud looking for student housing. Given that about 40% of students who rent
within the city of St. Joseph and Collegeville Twp go to school in St. Cloud, the College of St. Benedict
and St. John's University may well be allowing 208 more students to move to the city, causing a $7.1
million boost in local economic activity if local landlords can successfully market to students of post-
secondary institutions in St. Cloud.
16
List of references
Bureau of Economic Analysis. Wage and salary disbursements and proprietors' income. CAO5N series,
http://www.bea.ROV/regional/reis/default.cfm?sellable=CA05.
Caffrey, John, and Herbert H. Isaacs. (1971). Estimating the Impact of a College or University on the
local Economy. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. ERIC ED 252100
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. St. Joseph Community Profile.
http://www.meyercommercial.com/listins pdfs/245 St.%20Joseph%20Community%20Profile.p
df.
St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank Series: ISRATIO, Inventory to Sales Ratio: Total Business;
http://research.stlouisfed.ors/fred2/series/ISRATIO.
U.S. Census Bureau. Population Estimates, 2007. http://www.census.gov/popest/estbygeo.html.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Section 15. Business Enterprise. Table 753. Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) Equipment and Computer Software Expenditures: 2005 and
2006. Statistical Abstract of the U.S. 2009. 128th ed. p. 502,
http://www.census.sov/prod/2008pubs/09statab/business.pdf.
Weyrens, Judy. Telephone interview. 20 July, 2009.
17
Appendix A: Expenditures by students, faculty and staff
Table A-Al. Expenditures of CSB Students
On-Campus
Groceries
Clothing, Accessories
Furniture, Household & Hardware
Beauty and Barber
Automobile Rent/Lea
Auto Insurance
Legal Services
Charitable Donations
Dining out
Auto Dealers, Service Stations
Doctors, dentists and hospitals
laundry, Dry cleaning, Shoe Re
Household repairs
Movies, Theater
Night Life
Other
Rent
~, home insurance
Taxes
Telephone
Electricity
Gas & Oil
Water/garbage
Other
TOTAL
Visitors to CSB Students
Day visitors
Average spent
Overnight visitors
Monthly ~ Yearly / ~ Total
/ Person Person Yearly
$3.02 $27.16 $45,837.93
0.69 6.21 10,485.56
0.07 0.67 1,122.56
2.45 22.03 37,194.21
3.25 29.26 49,392.71
0.01 0.10 166.31
0.56 5.05 8,523.15
6.75 60.74 102,527.29
10.28 92.54 156,210.68
2.95 26.58 44,860.89
1.05 9.49 16,015.21
2.19 19.75 33,344.24
33.29 299.57 505,680.73
On-Campus
0.41
1.57
0.38
2.10
Off-Campus
Monthly
/ Person Yearly /
Person Total
Yearly
$24.59 $295.08 $93,716
0.34 4.10 1,302.97
0.44 5.23 1,661.29
4.49 53.85 17,101.54
20.26 243.08 77,201.23
34.36 412.31 130,949
27.74 332.82 105,704
2.29 27.52 8,740.79
4.87 58.46 18,567.38
0.34 4.10 1,302.97
3,000 952,800
11.54 138.46 43,975.38
19.08 228.92 72,705.97
150.33 4,804 1,525,729
0.37
1.33
0.51
2.64
18
Table A-A2. Expenditures of SJU Students
On-Campus Off-Campus
Spending by Categories Monthly /
Person Yearly /
Person
Total Yearly Monthly
/Person Yearly
/Person
Total Yearly
Groceries 6.6 59.77 90,726.29 57.3 688.24 275,94
Clothing, Accessories 5.73 51.55 78,258.0 -
1=urniture, Household & Hardware 0.6 6.12 9,284.85 2.3 28.2 11,320.9
Beauty and Barber 3.0 27.0 40,986.0 9.71 116.47 46,698.8
Transportation 6.65 59.85 90,858.93 33.2 398.82 159,90
Automobile Rent/Lease
Auto Insurance 11.65 104.85 159,168.93
Legal Services - -
Charitable Donations - -
Dining out 12.2 110.45 167,657.94 60.8 730.59 292,929.3
Auto Dealers, Service Stations 102.1 919.75 1,396,176.82 29.7 356.8 143,084.12
Doctors, dentists and hospitals 12.5 112.72 171,106.6 2.6 31.37 12,578.82
Laundry, Dry cleaning, Shoe
epair
-
-
Household repairs - -
Movies, Theater 2.7 24.9 37,935.2 21.4 257.65 103,303.5
Night Life -
Other 31.8 287.0 435,724.95 7.4 89.8 36,006.8
Monthly Rent - 3,000.0 1,202.850.0
Mortgage, home insurance
axes
elephone
Electricity - -
Gas & Oil - -
Water/garbage - 38.53 462.35 185,380.4
Other - - 2.94 35.2 14,151.1
TOTAL 196.01 1,764.09 2,677,884.64 266.31 6,195.69 2,484,160.41
isitors to SJU Students On-Campus Off-Campus
Day visitors 0.31 0.59
Average spent 1.82 2.06
Overnight visitors 0.36 1.05
Average spent 3.44 7.16
19
Table A-A3. Expenditures of CSB Faculty and Staff Living in the City of St. Joseph or
Collegeville Twp
Spending by Categories Monthly /Person Yearly/Person Total Yearly
Water 15.42 185.04 20,354.40
Garbage 14.32 171.84 18,902.40
Other 6.67 80.04 8,804.40
Groceries 74.58 894.96 98,445.60
Dining Out/Beverages 82.89 994.68 109,414.80
Entertainment (movies, sporting events,
etc) 12.64 151.68 16,684.80
Hardware Store 16.53 198.36 21,819.60
Transportation 29.44 353.28 38,860.80
Other Auto Expenses .84.58 1,014.96 111,645.60
Other expenditures (haircuts, flowers,
etc.) 43.89 526.68 57,934.80
Clothing, Accessories 3.87 46.39 5,102.90
Vehicle Purchase (do not include monthly
loan payments)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vehicle Expenses/Maintenance 5.05 60.56 6,661.60
Vehicle Fuel/Oil 32.81 393.75 43,312.50
Health Care (doctor, hospital, etc) 22.62 271.39 29,852.90
Insurance (auto, home) 7.41 88.89 9,777.90
Consumer Durables (Electronics,
Appliances, etc)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Other Annual Expenditures 17.36 208.33 22,916.30
Total 470.07 5,640.83 620,491.30
Auto loan to local lender 43.89 526.68 57,934.80
Other loans to local lenders 10.42 125.04 13,754.40
Visitors to local CSB employees
Day visitors 26.65
Average spent 1.48
Overnight visitors 13.10
Average spent 0.84
20
Table A-A4. Expenditures of CSB Faculty and Staff who commute from outside the City of St.
Joseph or Collegeville Twp
Spending by Categories Monthly /Person Yearly/Person Total Yearly
Water 0.00 0.00 0.00
Garbage 0.17 2.04 848.64
Other 1.31 15.72 6,539.52
Groceries 17.87 214.44 89,207.04
Dining Out/Beverages 27.25 327.00 136,032.00
Entertainment (movies, sporting events,
etc. ) 2 69 32.28 13,428.48
Hardware Store 2.99 35.88 14,926.08
Transportation 11.40 136.80 56,908.80
Other Auto Expenses 12.33 147.96 61,551.36
Other expenditures (haircuts, flowers,
etc.) 10.20 122.40 50,918.40
Clothing, Accessories 0.74 8.92 3,710.72
Vehicle Purchase (do not include monthly
loan payments) 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vehicle Expenses/Maintenance 1.65 19.79 8,232.64
Vehicle Fuel/Oil 13.51 162.07 67,421.12
Health Care (doctor, hospital, etc) 3.04 36.48 15,175.68
Insurance (auto, home) 0.14 1.69 703.04
Consumer Durables (Electronics,
Appliances, etc.) 43.47 521.64 217,002.24
Other Annual Expenditures 1.70 20.42 8,494.72
0.00 0.00
Total 150.46 1,805.53 751,100.48
Auto loan to local lender 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other loans to local lenders 0.00 0.00 0.00
Visitors to commuting CSB employees
Day visitors 4.13
Average spent 3.00
Overnight visitors 5.22
Average spent 20.08
21
Table A-A5. Average and Total Expenditures of SJU Faculty and Staff Living in the City of St.
Joseph or Collegeville Twp
Spending by Categories Monthly /Person Yearly/Person Total Yearly
Water 11.59 139.08 15,159.72
Garbage 13.39 160.68 17,514.12
Other 7.55 90.60 9,875.40
Groceries 152.07 1,824.84 198,907.56
Dining Out/Beverages 51.39 616.68 67,218.12
Entertainment (movies, sporting events,
etc) 12.39 148.68 16,206.12
Hardware Store 11.17 134.04 14,610.36
Transportation 54.39 652.68 71,142.12
Other Auto Expenses 24.51 294.12 32,059.08
Other expenditures (haircuts, flowers,
etc. ) 22 07 264.84 28,867.56
Clothing, Accessories 2.08 25.00 2,725.00
Vehicle Purchase (do not include monthly
loan payments) 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vehicle Expenses/Maintenance 14.82 177.80 19,380.20
Vehicle Fuel/Oil 47.73 572.80 62,435.20
Health Care (doctor, hospital, etc) 19.98 239.76 26,133.84
Insurance (auto, home) 10.83 130.00 14,170.00
Consumer Durables (Electronics,
Appliances, etc.)
0.42
5.00
545.00
Other Annual Expenditures 4.74 56.92 6,204.28
Total 461.13 5,533.52 603,153.68
Auto loan to local lender 7.31 87.72 9,561.48
Other loans to local lenders 39.33 471.95 51,442.68
Visitors to local SJU employees
Day visitors 19.69
Average spent 2.92
Overnight visitors 12.26
Average spent S.34
22
Table A-A6. Expenditures of S1U Faculty and Staff who commute from outside of the City of
St. Joseph or Collegeville Twp
Spending by Categories Monthly /Person Yearly/Person Total Yearly
Water 0.00 0.00 0.00
Garbage 0.14 1.67 800.64
Other 0.32 3.89 1,866.24
Groceries 7.87 94.44 45,331.20
Dining Out/Beverages 20.64 247.68 118,886.40
Entertainment (movies, sporting events,
etc.) 3.84 46.08 22,118.40
Hardware Store 1.76 21.12 10,137.60
Transportation 12.80 153.60 73,728.00
Other Auto Expenses 9.77 117.22 56,263.68
Other expenditures (haircuts, flowers,
etc. ) 4.48 53.76 25,804.80
Clothing, Accessories 0.34 4.07 1,953.60
Vehicle Purchase (do not include monthly
loan payments) 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vehicle Expenses/Maintenance 1.74 20.93 10,046.40
Vehicle Fuel/Oil 11.52 138.29 66,379.20
Health Care (doctor, hospital, etc) 5.88 70.50 33,840.00
Insurance (auto, home) 3.33 40.00 19,200.00
Consumer Durables (Electronics,
Appliances, etc.) 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Annual Expenditures 0.49 5.88 2,822.40
Total 84.93 1,019.12 489,178.56
Auto loan to local lender 12.05 144.60 69,408.00
Other loans to local lenders 0.00 0.00 0.00
Visitors to commuting SJU employees
Day visitors 6.66
Average spent 2.11
Overnight visitors 4.11
Average spent 6.75
23
Appendix B: Surveys
Student Survev
Please answer the following questions. All responses are CONFIDENTIAL and will only be used in an
aggregate form combined with data from other students. Please respond to the questions in reference
to yourself and your expenditures. We encourage you to use your best estimates! This survey has been
reviewed by and has received approval from the Institutional Review Board.
1. !n which college or university are you enrolled?
~ College of St. Benedict
~ St. John's University
2. Are you a
~' Are you a First-year student
~ Sophomore student
~ Junior student
~ Senior student
3. What is the zip code of your
What is the zip code of your School-year residence
Permanent residence (Use 99999 if you are an
international student)
4. What is your current school-year living situation?
~ I live on campus (go to question 5 if "yes")
~ I rent/lease off-campus
~ I own off campus
~ I live with parents/guardians/relatives
~ I live within 15-miles of CSB/SJU (city of St. Joseph or Collegeville Township)
~ Do other CSB/SJU students live with you?
5. If you live off-campus, how many children in your household currently attend a public school in St.
Joseph, MN?
6. If you live off-campus, how much do you pay monthly for the following to business in the city of St.
Joseph or Collegeville Township? (Please give your best estimate)
Water
24
Garbage
Other
7. Please estimate your off-campus MONTHLY expenditures ONLY WITHIN the city of St. Joseph or
Collegeville Township for the following. (Please use your best estimates)
Groceries
Dining Out/Beverages
Entertainment (movies, sporting events,
etc. )
Hardware Store
Transportation
Auto Loan (please leave blank if lender is
not located in the city of St. loseph or
Collegeville Township)
Other Auto Expenses
Other Loans to the city of St. loseph or
Collegeville Township Lenders
Other expenditures such as haircuts,
flowers, etc. (average per month)
8. Please estimate your average ANNUAL expenditures ONLY WITHIN the city of St. Joseph or
Collegeville Township for the following. Please use your best estimates.
Clothing, Accessories
Vehicle Purchase (do not include monthly
loan payments)
Vehicle Expenses/Maintenance
Vehicle Fuel/Oil
Health Care (doctor, hospital, etc)
Insurance (auto, home)
Consumer Durables (Stereos, Appliances,
etc.)
Other Annual Expenditures (do not
include tuition)
9. Did you have or do you anticipate any visitors this year in the city of St. Joseph or Collegeville
Township?
~ Yes
25
~ No
10. The following questions pertain to non-Iota! visitors (they live outside the city of St. Joseph or
Collegeville Township) you anticipate throughout the year.
Number of visitors you expect throughout
the year (number of visitors = number of
people x number of times they visit).
Of these visits, approximately what percent
will be overnight?
Of these visits, approximately what percent
will be day only?
Average number of nights the overnight
visitors will stay in the city of St. Joseph or
Collegeville Township
11. Below are questions pertaining to the overnight visitors you identified above. Please estimate the
dollar amounts that they spent in the city of St. Joseph or Collegeville Township.
Hotel
Retail
Food/Beverage
Entertainment/Recreation
Other
Total
12. Below are questions pertaining to the day visitors you identified above. Please estimate the dollar
amounts that they spent in the city of St. Joseph or Collegeville Township.
Retail
Food/Beverage
Entertainment/Recreation
Other
Total
Thank you for filling out the survey. If you have questions about the survey please call Dr. Edwards at
(320) 308-3742.
26
Faculty and Staff Survev
Please answer the following questions. All responses are CONFIDENTIAL and will only be used in an
aggregate form combined with data from other students. Please respond to the questions in reference
to yourself and your expenditures. We encourage you to use your best estimates! This survey has been
reviewed by and has received approval from the Institutional Review Board.
1. Are you
~ Faculty
~ Staff
2. On which campus to you primarily work?
~ College of St. Benedict
~ St. John's University
3. Do you rent or own?
~ Rent
~ Own
4. Do you live in the city of St. Joseph or Collegeville Township?
~ Yes
No
5. What is the zip code?
6. How many children from your household attend public school in the city of St. Joseph?
7. How much do you pay monthly for the following to business in the city of St. Joseph or Collegeville
Township? (Please give your best estimate)
Water
Garbage
Other
8. Please estimate your MONTHLY expenditures ONLY WITHIN the city of St. Joseph or Collegeville
Township for the following. (Please use your best estimates)
Groceries
Dining Out/Beverages
z~
Entertainment (movies, sporting events, etc.)
Hardware Store
Transportation
Auto Loan (please leave blank if lender is not
located in the city of St. Joseph or Collegeville
Township)
Other Auto Expenses
Other Loans to the city of St. Joseph or
Collegeville Township Lenders
Other expenditures such as haircuts, flowers, etc.
(average per month)
9. Please estimate your average ANNUAL expenditures ONLY WITHIN the city of St. Joseph or
Collegeville Township for the following. Please use your best estimates.
Clothing, Accessories
Vehicle Purchase (do not include monthly loan
payments)
Vehicle Expenses/Maintenance
Vehicle Fuel/Oil
Health Care (doctor, hospital, etc)
Insurance (auto, home)
Consumer Durables (Stereos, Appliances, etc.)
Other Annual Expenditures (do not include
tuition)
10. Did you have or do you anticipate any visitors this year?
~ Yes
~ No
2s
11. The following questions pertain to non-local visitors (they live outside the city of St. Joseph or
Collegeville Township) you anticipate throughout the year.
Number of visitors you expect throughout the
year (number of visitors =number of people x
number of times they visit).
Of these visits, approximately what percent will
be overnight?
Of these visits, approximately what percent will
be day only?
Average number of nights the overnight visitors
will stay in the city of St. Joseph or Collegeville
Township
12. Below ore questions pertaining to the overnight visitors you identified above. Please estimate the
dollar amounts that they spent in the city of St. Joseph or Collegeville Township.
Hotel
Retail
Food/Beverage
Entertainment/Recreation
Other
Total
13. Below ore questions pertaining to the day visitors you identified above. Please estimate the dollar
amounts that they spent in the city of St. Joseph or Collegeville Township.
Retail
Food/Beverage
Entertainment/Recreation
Other
Total
Thank you for filling out the survey. If you have questions about the survey please call Dr. Edwards at
(320) 308-3742.
29
Landlord Survev
Please answer the following questions. All responses are CONFIDENTIAL and will only be used in an
aggregate form combined with data from other businesses. Please respond to the questions in reference
to yourself and your expenditures. We encourage you to use your best estimates! This survey has been
reviewed by and has received approval from the Institutional Review Board
1. Did you lease an apartment to one or more CS8/SJU students within the last two years?
~' Did you lease an apartment to one or more CSB/SJU students within the last two years? Yes
~ No
2. How many housing units do you own in the City of St. Joseph or Collegeville Township?
How many housing units do you own in the City of St. Joseph or Collegeville Township?
3. How many of your units located in St. Joseph or Collegeville Township were rented by students
from the College of St. Benedict or St. John's University last year?
How many of your units located in St. Joseph or Collegeville Township were rented by students from the
College of St. Benedict or St. John's University last year?
4. !s your home office in the city of St. Joseph or Collegeville Township?
~ Is your home office in the city of St. Joseph or Collegeville Township? Yes
~ No
5. !s your leasing office in the city of St. loseph or Collegeville Township?
~ Is your leasing office in the city of St. loseph or Collegeville Township? Yes
~ No
6. If you answered "yes" to question 1, please indicate your average ANNUAL expenditures only
within the city of St. Joseph or Collegeville Township for the following.
If you answered "yes" to question 1, please
indicate your average ANNUAL expenditures
only within the city of St. Joseph or Collegeville
Township for the following. Advertising
Car and Truck Expenses
Commissions and Fees
Insurance (other than health)
Mortgage Interest (paid to financial institution
within the city of St. Joseph)
Other Interest (paid to financial institution
30
within the city of St. Joseph)
Legal and Professional Services
Office Expenses
Rent or Lease for Vehicles, Machinery and
Equipment
Rent or Lease for Other Business Properties
Repairs and Maintenance
Supplies
Taxes and Licenses
Utilities
Other Expenses
Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions regarding this survey, please call Dr.
Edwards at (320) 308-3742.
31
Appendix. C: Caffrey Isaac Model for Base Analysis
Please note: We conform to the numbering from the traditional model even though some of the
components of their original model do not fit CSB/SJU. Students here do not live in fraternities or
sororities, for instance. Also, Minnesota's tax system differs from the one assumed in the series of G-
models in the original so we needed to alter some of the traditional equations. Finally, where we see the
term "College" in these tables, we refer to both the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University. We
report the impacts of these two institutions separately under the CSB and SJU column headings.
From the total students living off-campus, we subtracted from rental property estimates those 20%
and 19% respectively who attend CSB and SJU but report home zip codes other than 56321 and 56374.
We used the number of students who studied abroad for the entire Semester in Fall 2008 from the
analysis.
Model B.1. College-related Iota! business volume BVcR=(E~kR + (P~)cR + ( BV,)~
BVcp CSB SJU Total
College-related local expenditure (Model B-1.1) (Ei)cR 4,190,594 7,067,172 11,257,767
Purchases from local sources by local
businesses in support of their college-related (P~e)cR 420,371 890,970 1,311,341
business volume (Model B-1.2)
Local business volume stimulated by the
expenditure of college-related income by
(BVi)~R
1,292,594
2,739,634
4,032,228
local individuals other than faculty, staff, or
students (Model B-1.3)
Total 5,903,560 10,697,776 16,601,336
Model B-1.1 College-related local expenditure (E~)cR = (E~) c + (EL)F + (E~)S+ (E~)v
(E~)cR CSB SJU Total
Local expenditure by the college
(E~)c
559,221
506,302
1,065,523
(Model B-1.1.1)
Local expenditure by the faculty and staff
(EL)F
1,397,432
1,147,108
2,544,541
(Model B-1.1.2)
local expenditure by students (Model B-1.1.3) (EM)S 2,151,215 5,311,997 7,463,212
Local expenditure by visitors to students and (E~)„ 82,726 101,765 184,491
faculty (Model B-1.1.4)
Total 4,190,594 7,067,172 11,257,767
Model B-1.1.1 Local expenditures by the college ( E~)c
(E~)c CSB SJU Total
Total college expenditures E~ 559,221 506,302 1,065,523
Total 559,221 506,302 1,065,523
32
Model B-1.1.2 Local expenditures by faculty and staff (EL)F = (EH)F + (ENH)F + (FE)NCE
(EL)F CSB SJU Total
Expenditures by faculty and staff for local rental (EH)F 25,841 54,777 80,619
housing (Model B-1.1.2.1}
Local non-housing expenditures by local faculty (ENH)F 620,491 603,153 1,223,644
and staff (Model B-1.1.2.2)
Local expenditures by faculty and staff who
(E~)NLF
751,100
489,178
1,240,278
commute (Model B-1.1.2.3)
Total 1,397,432 1,147,108 2,544,541
Model B-1.1.2.1 Expenditure by faculty and staff for local rental housing (EH)r= (f~) (fH) (DI E) (e„)
(EN)F CSB SJU Total
Proportion faculty residing locally f~ 0.21 0.19 0.20
Proportion of faculty and staff who rent housing f„ 0.03 0.06 0.05
Total disposable income of faculty and staff DIF 19,755,366 22,355,825 42,111,191
Proportion of tenant's total expenditures likely
to be spent for rental housing (taken from
study)
e„
0.19
0.22
0.21
Total 25,841 54,777 80,619
Model B-1.1.2.2 Local non-housing expenditure by faculty and staff (ENN)i = (f~) (e~) (DIF) ( ENH)F
CSB SJU Total
Proportion faculty residing locally f~ 0.21 0.19 0.20
Proportion of total non-housing expenditure
that an individual is liking to make in his local
environment (from survey)
e~
0.186
0.186
0.186
Total disposable income of faculty and staff DIF 19,755,366 22,355,825 42,111,191
Proportion of consumer's total expenditures
spent on non-housing items (from survey} (ENH)F 0.806 0.782 0.794
Total 620,491 603,153 1,223,644
Model B-1.1.2.3 Local expenditure by faculty and staff who commute (E~)N~=(1-f~) (F) (E,)F
CSB SJU Total
Proportion of faculty and staff residing locally f~ 0.21 0.19 0.20
Total number of faculty and staff F 526 589 1,115
Estimated average local expenditure by each
non local faculty and staff (E,)F 1,806 1,019 1,412
Total 751,100 489,178 1,240,278
33
Model B-1.1.3 Local expenditure by students (EL)S=(EH)S + ((ENH)S + (EL) NLS
(EL)S CSB SJU Total
Local expenditures by on-campus students
(ENH)s
938,400
1,108,080
2,046,480
(survey)
Expenditure by students for local rental housing (EH)s 507,478.17 2,746,684.05 3,254,162
(Model B-1.1.3.2)
Local expenditure by off-campus students (E~)N~ 705,337 1,457,233 2,162,570
(survey)
Total 2,151,215 5,311,997 7,463,212
Model B-1.1.3.2 Expenditure by students for loca l rental housing: (EH)s=(SH )(En)s
(EH)s CSB SJU Total
No. of students renting local housing (Students
living off-campus less those studying abroad
less those who reported zip codes other than
56321 or 56374)) SH 313 369 682
Average non housing expenditure per student
spent locally (Enh)s 3,000 3,000 3,000
Total 938,400 1,108,080 2,046,480
Model B-1.1.3.3 Local non housing expenditures f or off-cam pus students ( ENH)s = (SH) (E~n)s
(ENH)s CSB SJU TOTAL
No. of students renting local housing • Students 391 456 847
living off-campus less those studying abroad S„
Average non housing expenditure per student 1,804 3,196 2,553
spent locally (Enh)s
Total 705,337 1,457,233 2,162,570
34
Model B-1.1.4 Local expenditure by visitors to the college
(EL)V = (Vl) (E3)V + (V2) (E2)V+....+ (Vn) (En)v
(EL)V CSB SJU Total
Estimating number of visits to the college by
(Vi)
day visitors of on-campus students 6,229.80 5,683.13 11,913
Estimated local expenditure by each visitor of
day visitors to on-campus students during (E1)V
each visit to the college 1.57 1.82 1.69
Estimating number of visits to the college by
(V2)
overnight visitors of on-campus students 5,811.99 6,433.96 12,246
Estimated local expenditure by each visitor of
overnight visitors to on-campus students (E2)V
during each visit to the college 2.10 3.44 2.80
Estimating number of visits to the college by
(V3)
day visitors of off-campus students 1,284.78 2,423.77 3,709
Estimated local expenditure by each visitor of
day visitors to off-campus students during (E3)V
each visit to the college 1.33 2.06 1.81
Estimating number of visits to the college by (V4)
overnight visitors of off-campus students 1,783.07 4,308.93 6,092
Estimated local expenditure by each visitor of
overnight visitors to off-campus students (E4)V
during each visit to the college 2.64 7.16 5.83
Estimating number of visits to the college by
(V5)
day visitors of faculty/staff residing locally 2,931.19 2,146.37 5,078
Estimated local expenditure by each visitor of (E5)V
day visitors to faculty/staff residing locally 1.48 2.92 2.09
Estimating number of visits to the college by
overnight visitors of faculty/staff residing (V6)
locally 1,441.31 1,336.31 2,778
Estimated local expenditure by each visitor of
overnight visitors to faculty/staff residing (E6)V
locally 0.84 5.34 3.01.
Estimating number of visits to the college by
(V7)
day visitors faculty/staff who commute 1,717.15 3,196.28 4,913
Estimated local expenditure by each visitor of
(E7)V
day visitors to faculty/staff who commute 3.00 2.11 2.42
Estimating number of visits to the college by (V8)
overnight visitors faculty/staff who commute 2,170.18 1,972.61 4,143
Estimated local expenditure by each visitor of
overnight visitors to faculty/staff who (E8)V
commute 20.08 6.75 13.73
Total 82,725.73 101,764.94 184,491
35
Model B-1.2 Purchases from local sources by local businesses (indirect effect)
(PLB)CR = (mp) (EL-ELF)CR
(PLB)CR CSB SJU Total
Coefficent representing the degree to which
local businesses purchase goods and services 0.1505 0.1505 0.1505
from local sources (IMPLAN) m
College-related local expenditures (Model 8-
1.1)
(E~)cR 4,190,594 7,067,172 11,257,767
Less faculty-related spending (EL)F 1,397,432 1,147,108 2,544,541
Total 420,371 890,970 1,311,341
Model B-1.3 Local Business Volume Stimulated by the Expenditure of College-Related Income by
Local Individuals Other Than Faculty, Staff, or Students (BVI)CR = (Mi) [(EL)CR-(EL)F)] + (EL)F
(Bw)ca C5B SJU Total
Coefficient representing the degree to which
individual income received from local business (E~)cR 0.462771 0.462771 0.462771
activity is spent and re-spent locally (IMPLAN)
College-related local expenditures less
faculty/staff spending (Model B-1.1) 2,793,162 5,920,064 8,713,226
Total 1,292,594 2,739,634 4,032,228
Model B-2 Value of local business property committed to college-related business
(PRg)ce = (RPg)cn + (lg)cR + (OPg)cn
(PRg)cR C5B SJU Total
Value of local business real property
committed to college-related business (RPg)~R 898,258 1,627,723 2,525,981
(Model B-2.1)
Value of local business inventory
committed to college-related business (Ig)cR 8,501,126 15,404,797 23,905,923
(Model B-2.2)
Value of local business property ,other than
real property and inventory, committed (OPg)cR 294,819 534,239 829,058
to college-related business (Model B-2.3)
Total 9,694,203 17,566,759 27,260,962
36
Model B-2.1 Value of local business real property committed to college-related business
(RPe)cR = (BVcR / BV~) (Va)
(RPB)~R CSB SJU Total
College-related local business volume BVcR 5,903,560 10,697,776 16,601,336
(Model B-1)
Local Business Volume BV~ 252,573,984 252,573,984 252,573,984
Assessed valuation of local business real VB 38,430,467 38,430,467 38,430,467
property (St. Joseph Community Profile)
Total 898,258 1,627,723 2,525,981
Model B-2.2 Value of local business inventory committed to college-related business
(IB)CR = (ibv) (BVcR)
C56 SJU Total
Inventory-to-business-volume ratio (Series:
ISRATIO, Inventory to Sales Ratio: Total ibv 1.44 1.44 1.44
Business; St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank)
College-related local business volume (Model
B-1) gVCR 5,903,560 10,697,776 16,601,336
Total (IB)CR 8,501,126 15,404,797 23,905,923
Model B-2.3 Value of local business property, other than real property and inventory committed to
college-related business (VOP)UR = (ebv) BVUR
CSB SJU Total
Equipment and software-to-business volume
ratio (Siaiistica/ Abstract of the U.S. 2009. ebv 0.05 0.05 0.05
128th Ed. Table 753, p. 502)
College-related local business volume BVUR 5,903,560 10,697,776 16,601,336
(Model B-1)
Total (VOP)UR 294,819 534,239 829,058
Model G-1 College-related revenues received by local governments
RCR = (RRE)CR + (RNRE)CR + (RC~CR
RCR CSB SJU Total
College-related real estate taxes paid to /
\RRE)CR
1,453,485
1,436,540
2,890,025
local governments (Model G-1.1)
State Aid to Local Public Schools Allocable to
Children of College-Related Families (RNRE)CR 246,668 370,621 617,289
(Model G-1.4)
Other college-related revenues
collected by local governments (Model (RQ)~R 235,437 64 235,501
G-1.5)
Total 1,935,590 1,807,225 3,742,815
37
Model G-1.1 College-related real estate taxes paid to local governments
(RRE)CR = (RRE)C + (RRE)F + (RRE,B)CR
(RRE)CR CSB SJU Total
Real estate taxes paid to local governments (RRE)c 12,075 0 12,075
by the college (Model G-1.1.1)
Real estate taxes paid to local governments (RRE)F 127,050 122,181 249,231
by local faculty and staff (Model G-1.1.2)
Real estate taxes paid to local governments
by local businesses for real property
BICR
IRRE
1,314,360
1,314,360
1,314,360
allocable tocollege-related business ,
(Model G-1.1.4)
Total 1,453,485 1,436,540 1,575,666
Model G-1.1.1 Real estate taxes paid to local governments by the college
(RRE)C CSB S1U Total
Real estate taxes paid to local governments
by the college
12,075
0
12,075
Total 12,075 0 12,075
odel G-1.1.2 Real Estate Taxes Paid to Local Governments by Local Faculty and Staff
M
//
IRRE)F = ((FL) (i-fH)) [(pt) (amv) (vPR/ NPR )
(RpE)F CSB 51U Total
Number of faculty and staff residing locally Fi 110 109 219
Proportion of local faculty and staff who
f„
0.03
0.06
0.046
rent housing (Model B-1.2.1)
Local property tax rate pt 48.41% 48.41% 48.41%
Local ratio of assessed value to market value amv 1.75% 1.75% 1.75%
of taxable real property
Total assessed valuation of all local private VPR 158,778,600 158,778,600 158,778,600
residences
Total number of local private residences NPR 1,127 1,127 1,127
Total 127,050 122,181 249,231
38
Model G-1.1.4 Real estate taxes paid to local governments by local businesses for real property
allocable to College-related business (RqE g)cq = (pt) * (amv) * (BVcq/BV~) *Vg
(RqE g)cq CSB SJU Total
Local property tax rate (Model G1.1.2) pt 48°'a 48% 48%
local ratio of assessed value to market
amv
1.089'0
1.08%
1.08%
value of taxable real property
College-related local business volume BVcq 5,903,560 10,697,776 16,601,336
(Model B-i)
Local business volume (Model B-2.1) BV~ 898,258 1,627,723 2,525,981
Assessed valuation of local business real Vg 38,430,467 38,430,467 38,430,467
property (Model B-2.1)
Total 1,314,360 1,314,360 1,314,360
Model G-1.4 State Aid to Local Public Schools Allocable to Children of College-Related Families
(Ra)cM = A-rs* ((CHrs)c + (CHvs)s /GNPs)
(RA)cH CSB SJU Total
Total state aid to District 742 APS 72,120,975 72,120,975 72,120,975
Number of faculty and staff children
(CHPS)F
32
48
80
attending local public schools (G-2.2)
Number of students' children attending
(CHPS)S
0
0
0
public school (Model G-2.2)
Total number of children in District 742 CHPS 9,320 9,320 9,320
Total 246,668 370,621 617,289
Model G-1.5 Other college-related revenues collected by l ocal governments (RQ)cq
(RQ)cq CSB SJU Total
Fees for licenses and permits taken out by
the college
(Rn)cR
235,437
64
235,501
Total 235,437 64 235,501
Model G-2 Operating costs ofgovernment-provided municipal and public school services allocable to
college-related influences (OCM Ps)cq = (OCM)cn + (OCps)cq
(OCM pS)cq CSB SJU Total
Operating cost of local government-provided
municipal services allocated to college- (OCM)cq 296,553 302,882 599,435
related influences (Model G-2.1)
Operating cost of local public schools
allocated to college-related persons (C1Cp5)CR 302,830 455,005 757,835
(Model G-2.2)
Total 599,384 757,886 1,357,270
39
Model G-2.1 Operating cost ofgovernment-provided municipal services allocable to college-related
influences (OCM)cR=((F+S)/PPOip+(FH~+SH~)/PPOiR)/2] *(BM)
(OCm)ca CSB SJU Total
Total number of faculty and staff F 526 589 1,115
Total number of students (less students
who are studying abroad) 5 1,694 1,557 3,251
Total local daytime copulation PPO~p 18,141 18,141 18,141
Total number of persons in local faculty
and staff households FHA 301.4 298.66 600
Total number of persons in local student
households SHE 313 369 682
Total resident population PPOiR 5,085 6,085 6,085
Total sovernments' operating budgets
for all municipal services except public BM 2,655,960 2,655,960 2,655,960
school
Total 296,553 302,882 599,435
Model G-2.2 Operating Cost of Local Public Schools Allocable to College-Related Persons
(OCvs)cn = ((CHvs)F + (CHvs)s) ~ CHns] (Bvs)
(OC~)~ CSB SJU Total
Number of faculty and staff children
(CHPS)F
32
48
80
attending public schools
Number of students' children attending
public school (CHPS)S 0 0 0
Total number of children attending public
schools CHPS 9,320 9,320 9,320
Local governments' operating budgets for
public schools B~ 88,541,673 88,541,673 88,541,673
Total 302,830 455,005 757,835
Model I-1 Number of Local Jobs Attributable to the Presence of the College
J~ = F + (j) [(E~)cR + (OCv, ns)cn]
J~ CSB SJU Total
Total number of faculty and staff F 526 589 1,115
Full-time jobs per dollar of direct
expenditure in the local environment j 0.000009 0.000009 0.000009
(IMPLAN)
College-related local expenditure (Model B-
1.1) (E~)ca 4,190,594 7,067,172 11,257,767
Operating cost of government-provided
municipal and public school services
allocable to college-related influences (OCnn•PS)ca 599,384 757,886 1,357,270
(Model G-2)
Total 570 661 1,231
40
Model I-2 Personal Income of Local Individuals from College-Related Jobs and Business Activities
PIcR = Ifs) (Wr) + (P) (E~1cR
PIcR CSB SJU Total
Proportion of faculty and staff residing f~ 0.21 0.19 0.20
locally (Model 8-1.1.2.1)
Gross compensation to faculty and staff WF 24,560,184 27,416,558 51,976,742
Payrolls and profits per dollar of local direct
p 0.004207 0.004207 0.004207
expenditures°
College-related local expenditures (Model B- (E~)ca 4,190,594 7,067,172 11,257,767
1.1)
Total 5,153,788 5,103,420 10,256,241
° Sum the wage and salary disbursements 2,994,149 and Proprietors' income $286,535 from BEA: CA05N series of
the REIS data for Stearns County for 2007. Divide the sum of these figures by the amount of Local Business
Volume Model reported in Model B-1.
41
Appendix D: Model using FY 200$ enrollments, assuming 20$ more students live on-
campus
Model B.1. College-related local business volume BV~R=(E~)cR + (P~B)~R + ( BV,)~R
BV~R CSB SJU Total
College-related local expenditure (Model B-1.1) (E~)ca 3,604,432 6,838,642 10,443,074
Purchases from local sources by local
businesses in support of their college-related (P~B)CR 332,153 856,576 1,188,729
business volume (Model B-1.2)
Local business volume stimulated by the
expenditure of college-related income by
(BVi1cA
1,021,335
2,633,877
3,655,212
local individuals other than faculty, staff, or
students (Model B-1.3)
Total 4,957,920 10,329,095 15,287,015
Model B-1.1 College-related local expenditure (E~)~R = (E~) ~ + (EL)F + (E~15+ (E~)h,
(E~)~R CSB S1U Total
Local expenditure by the college
(E~)c
559,221
506,302
1,065,523
(Model B-1.1.1)
local expenditure by the faculty and staff
(EL)F
1,397,432
1,147,108
2,544,541
(Model B-1.1.2)
Local expenditure by students (Model B-1.1.3) (EM)S 1,565,562 5,088,024 6,653,586
Local expenditure by visitors to students and
(E~)„
82,216
97,208
179,424
faculty (Model B-1.1.4)
Total 3,604,432 .6,838,642 10,443,074
Model B-1.1.1 Local expenditures by the college ( E~)~
(E~)~ CSB SJU Total
Total college expenditures E~ 559,221 506,302 1,065,523
Total 559,221 506,302 1,065,523
Model B-1.1.2 Local expenditures by faculty and staff (EL)F = (EH)F + (ENH)F + (EL)NLF
(EL)F CSB S1U Total
Expenditures by faculty and staff for local rental (EH)F 25,841 54,777 80,619
housing (Model B-1.1.2.1)
Local non-housing expenditures by local faculty
(ENH)F
620,491
603,153
1,223,644
and staff (Model B-1.1.2.2)
Local expenditures by faculty and staff who
(EL)N~F 751,100 489,178 1,240,278
commute (Model B-1.1.2.3)
Total 1,397,432 1,147,108 2,544,541
42
Model B-1.1.2.1 Expenditure by faculty and staff for local rental housing (EH)F= (f~) (fH) (DIF) (eH)
(EH)F CSB SJU Total
Proportion faculty residing locally f~ 0.21 0.19 0.20
Proportion of faculty and staff who rent housing fH 0.03 0.06 0.05
Total disposable income of faculty and staff DIF 19,755,366 22,355,825 42,111,191
Proportion of tenant's total expenditures likely
to be spent for rental housing (taken from
study)
eH
0.19
0.22
0.21
Total 25,841 54,777 80,619
Model B-1.1.2.2 Local non-housing expenditure by faculty and staff (ENH)F = (f~) (e~) (DIF) ( ENH)i
C58 SJU Totat
Proportion faculty residing locally f~ 0.21 0.19 0.20
Proportion of total non-housing expenditure
that an individual is liking to make in his local
environment (from survey)
e~
0.186
0.186
0.186
Total disposable income of faculty and staff DIF 19,755,366 22,355,825 42,111,191
Proportion of consumer's total expenditures
spent on non-housing items (from survey) /
1ENH)F
0.806
0.782
0.794
Total 620,491 603,153 1,223,644
Model B-1.1.2.3 Local expenditure by faculty and staff who commute (E~)N~=(1-f~) (F) (E,)F
CSB SJU Total
Proportion of faculty and staff residing locally f~ 0.21 0.19 0.20
Total number of faculty and staff F 526 589 1,115
Estimated average local expenditure by each
non local faculty and staff (Ei)F 1,806 1,019 1,412
Total 751,100 489,178 1,240,278
Model B-1.1.3 Local expenditure by students (EL)S=(EH)S + ((ENH)S + (EL) NLS
(EL)S CSB SJU Total
Local expenditures by on-campus students
IENH)S
578,400
967,140
1,545,540
(survey)
Expenditure by students for local rental housing
IEH)s
552,414.26
2,849,001.12
3,401,415
(Model B-1.1.3.2)
Local expenditure by off-campus students
(E~)N~s
434,748
1,271,883
1,706,631
(survey)
Total 1,565,562 5,088,024 6,653,586
43
Model B-1.1.3.2 Expenditure by students for loca l rental housing: (EN)s=ISN )lEn)s
(EN)s CSB SJU Total
No. of students renting local housing (Students
living off-campus less those studying abroad
less those who reported zip codes other than 193 322 515
56321 or 56374)) 5„
Average non housing expenditure per student
3,000
3,000
3,000
spent locally (Enh)s
Total 578,400 967,140 1,545,540
Model B-1.1.3.3 Local non housing expenditures f or off-cam pus students ( ENN)s = (SN) (E~n)s
(ENN)s CSB SJU TOTAL
No. of students renting local housing * Students
living off-campus less those studying abroad
S„ 241 398 639
Average non housing expenditure per student
spent locally (Enh)s 1,804 3,196 2,671
Total 434,748 1,271,883 1,706,631
44
Model B-1.1.4 Local expenditure by visitors to the college
(EL)V = (Vi) (E3)V + (V2) (E2)V+....+ (Vn) (En)v
(EL)V CSB SJU Total
Estimating number of visits to the college by
(V1)
6,781.43
5,683.13
12,465
day visitors of on-campus students
Estimated local expenditure by each visitor of
day visitors to on-campus students during (E1)V 1.57 1.82 1.69
each visit to the college
Estimating number of visits to the college by (V2) 6,326.63 6,433.96 12,761
overnight visitors of on-campus students
Estimated local expenditure by each visitor of
overnight visitors to on-campus students (E2)V 2.10 3.44 2.78
during each visit to the college
Estimating number of visits to the college by
(V3)
791.90
2,115.49
2,907
day visitors of off-campus students
Estimated local expenditure by each visitor of
day visitors to off-campus students during (E3)V 1.33 2.06 1.86
each visit to the college
Estimating number of visits to the college by (V4) 1,099.03 3,760.87 4,860
overnight visitors of off-campus students
Estimated local expenditure by each visitor of
overnight visitors to off-campus students (E4)V 2.64 7.16 6.13
during each visit to the college
Estimating number of visits to the college by (V5) 2,931.19 2,146.37 5,078
day visitors of faculty/staff residing locally
Estimated local expenditure by each visitor of
(E5)V
1.48
2.92
2.09
day visitors to faculty/staff residing locally
Estimating number of visits to the college by
overnight visitors of faculty/staff residing (V6) 1,441.31 1,336.31 2,778
locally
Estimated local expenditure by each visitor of
overnight visitors to faculty/staff residing (E6)V 0.84 5.34 3.01
locally
Estimating number of visits to the college by (V7) 1,717.15 3,196.28 4,913
day visitors faculty/staff who commute
Estimated local expenditure by each visitor of
(E7)V
3.00
2.11
2.42
day visitors to faculty/staff who commute
Estimating number of visits to the college by (V8) 2,170.18 1,972.61 4,143
overnight visitors faculty/staff who commute
Estimated local expenditure by each visitor of
overnight visitors to faculty/staff who (E8)V 20.08 6.75 13.73
commute
Total 82,216.48 97,207.80 179,424
45
Model B-1.2 Purchases from local sources by local businesses (indirect effect)
(PLB)CR = (mp) (EL)CR
(PLB)CR CSB SJU Total
Coefficent representing the degree to which
local businesses purchase goods and services 0.1505 0.1505 0.1505
from local sources (IMPLAN) m
College-related local expenditures (Model B-
1.1)
(E~)cR 3,604,432 6,838,642 10,443,074
Less faculty-related spending (EL)F 1,397,432 1,147,108 2,544,541
Total 332,153 856,576 1,188,729
Model B-1.3 Local Business Volume Stimulated by the Expenditure of College-Related Income by
Local Individuals Other Than Faculty, Staff, or Students (BVI)CR = (Mi) [(EL)CR-(EL)F)] + (EL)F
(Bw)cR CSB SJU Total
Coefficient representing the degree to which
individual income received from local business (E~)cR 0.462771 0.462771 0.462771
activity is spent and re-spent locally (IMPLAN)
College-related local expenditures less
faculty/staff spending (Model B-1.1) 2,206,999 5,691,534 7,898,533
Total 1,021,335 2,633,877 3,655,212
Model B-2 Value of local business property committed to college-related business
(PRe)tR = (RPe)cR + (Is)cR + (OPBICR
(PRs)~p CSB S1U Total
Value of local business real property
committed to college-related business (RPe)ca 754,374 1,571,626 2,326,000
(Model B-2.1)
Value of local business inventory
committed to college-related business (le)cR 7,139,405 14,873,897 22,013,302
(Model B-2.2)
Value of local business property ,other than
real property and inventory, committed (OPB)cR 247,595 515,827 763,422
to college-related business (Model B-2.3)
Total 8,141,374 16,961,350 25,102,724
46
Model B-2.1 Value of local business real property committed to college-related business
(RPe)cR = (BVcR / BV~) (Ve)
(RPB)~R CSB SJU Total
College-related local business volume
(Model B-1) BVcR 4,957,920 10,329,095 15,287,015
Local Business Volume BV~ 252,573,984 252,573,984 252,573,984
Assessed valuation of local business real VB 38,430,467 38,430,467 38,430,467
property (St. Joseph Community Profile)
Total 754,374 1,571,626 2,326,000
Model B-2.2 Value of local business inventory committed to college-related business
(IB)CR = (ibv) (BVcR)
CSB SJU Total
Inventory-to-business-volume ratio (Series:
ISRATIO, Inventory to Sales Ratio: Total ibv 1.44 1.44 1.44
Business; St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank)
College-related local business volume (Model
B-1) gVCR 4,957,920 10,329,095 15,287,015
Total (IB)CR 7,139,405 14,873,897 22,013,302
Model B-2.3 Value of local business property, other than real property and inventory committed to
college-related business (VOP)UR = (ebv) BVUR
CSB SJU Total
Equipment and software-to-business volume
ratio (Statistical Abstract of the U.S. 2009. ebv 0.05 0.05 0.05
128th Ed. Table 753, p. 502)
College-related local business volume BVUR 4,957,920 10,329,095 15,287,015
(Model B-1)
Total (VOP)UR 247,595 515,827 763,422
Model G-1 College-related revenues received by local governments
RCR = (RRE)CR + (RNRE)CR + (RQ)CR
RCR CSB SJU Total
College-related real estate taxes paid to
IRRE)CR
1,453,485
1,436,540
2,890,025
local governments (Model G-1.1)
State Aid to Local Public Schools Allocable to
Children of College-Related Families (RNRE)CR 246,668 370,621 617,289
(Model G-1.4)
Other college-related revenues
collected by local governments (Model (RQ)cR 235,437 64 235,501
G-1.5)
Total 1,935,590 1,807,225 3,742,815
47
Model G-1.1 College-related real estate taxes paid to local governments
(RRE)CR = (RRE)C + (RRE)F + (RRE,B)CR
(RRE)CR CSB SJU Total
Real estate taxes paid to local governments (RRE)C 12,075 0 12,075
by the college (Model G-1.1.1)
Real estate taxes paid to local governments (RRE)F 127,050 122,181 249,231
by local faculty and staff (Model G-1.1.2)
Real estate taxes paid to local governments
by local businesses for real property B)cR
(RRE 1,314,360 1,314,360 1,314,360
allocable to college-related business ,
(Model G-1.1.4)
Total 12,075 0 12,075
Model G-1.1.1 Real estate taxes paid to local governments by the college
(RRE)C CSB S1U Total
Real estate taxes paid to local governments
by the college 12,075 0 12,075
Total 12,075 0 12,075
Model G-1.1.2 Real Estate Taxes Paid to Local Governments by Local Faculty and Staff
(RRE)F = [IFS) Il-fN)l [Ipt) lame) (voR/ NPa
IRRE)F CSB S1U Total
Number of faculty and staff residing locally F~ 110 109 219
Proportion of local faculty and staff who
rent housing (Model B-1.2.1) f„ 0.03 0.06 0.046
Local property tax rate pt 48.41% 48.41% 48.41%
Local ratio of assessed value to market value
of taxable real property amv 1.75% 1.75% 1.75%
Total assessed valuation of all local private
residences VPR 158,778,600 158,778,600 158,778,600
Total number of local private residences NPR 1,127 1,127 1,127
Total 127,050 122,181 249,231
48
Model G-1.1.4 Real estate taxes paid to local governments by local businesses for real property
allocable to College-related business (RRE e)cR = (pt) * (amv) * (BVcR/BV~) *VB
(RRE B)CR CSB $~U Total
Local property tax rate (Model G1.1.2) pt 48% 48% 48%
Local ratio of assessed value to market
amv
1.08%
1.08%
1.089'0
value of taxable real property
College-related local business volume
BVcR
5,903,560
10,697,776
16,601,336
(Model B-1)
Local business volume (Model B-2.1) BV~ 898,258 1,627,723 2,525,981
Assessed valuation of local business real
VB
38,430,467
38,430,467
38,430,467
property (Model B-2.1)
Total 1,314,360 1,314,360 1,314,360
Model G-1.4 State Aid to local Public Schools Allocable to Children of College-Related Families
(Rn)cn = Aos* I(CHvs)F + (CHvs)s ~CHvs)
(RA)cH CSB S1U Total
Total state aid to District 742 APS 72,120,975 72,120,975 72,120,975
Number of faculty and staff children
(CHPS)F
32
48
80
attending local public schools (G-2.2)
Number of students' children attending
(CHPS)S
0
0
0
public school (Model G-2.2)
Total number of children in District 742 CHPS 9,320 9,320 9,320
Total 246,668 370,621 617,289
Model G-1.5 Other college-related revenues collected by local governments (Rq)cR
(RQ)cR CSB SJU Total
Fees for licenses and permits taken out by
the college
(Rn)cR
235,437
64
235,501
Total 235,437 64 235,501
Model G-2 Operating costs of government-provided municipal and public school services allocable to
college-related influences (OC,~ Ps)cR = (OCnn)cR + (OC~)cR
(OCM vs)cR CSB SJU Total
Operating cost of local government-provided
municipal services allocated to college- (OCM)cR 281,345 296,875 578,220
related influences (Model G-2.1)
Operating cost of local public schools
allocated to college-related persons (OCPS)cR 302,830 455,005 757,835
(Model G-2.2)
Total 584,175 751,879 1,336,055
49
Model G-2.1 Operating cost of government-provided municipal services allocable to college-related
influences (OCM)cn=[(F+S)/PPO~o+(FHi+SH~)/PPO~p)/2J •(BM)
(OCM)cR C56 SJU Total ,
Total number of faculty and staff F 526 589 1,115
Total number of students (less students
who are studying abroad) S 1,844 1,615 3,459
Total local da ime o ulation PPO~p 18,141 18,141 18,141
Total number of persons in local faculty
and staff households FHA 301.4 298.66 600
Total number of persons in local student
households SHE 193 322 515
Total resident o ulation PPO~a 6,085 6,085 6,085
Total governments' operatine budgets
for all municipal services exceat public BM 2,655,960 2,655,960 2,655,960
school
Total 281,345 296,875 578,220
M
odel G-2.2 Operating Cost of Local Public Schools Allocable to College-Related Persons
//
\~Cns)CR - I(CHVS)F + (CHvs)s) / ~Hrs) (Brs)
(OCPS)cp CSB SJU Total
Number of faculty and staff children
(CHPS)F
32
48
80
attending public schools
Number of students' children attending
(CHPS)S
0
0
0
public school
Total number of children attending public
schools CHPS 9,320 9,320 9,320
Local governments' operating budgets for
public schools BPS 88,541,673 88,541,673 88,541,673
Total 302,830 455,005 757,835
Model I-1 Number of Local Jobs Attributable to the Presence of the College
J~ = F + U) IIEJCR + IoM os)CR)
J~ CSB 5JU Total
Total number of faculty and staff F 526 589 1,115
Full-time jobs per dollar of direct
expenditure in the local environment j 0.000009 0.000009 0.000009
(IMPLAN)
College-related local expenditure (Model B-
1.1) (E~)cR 3,604,432 6,838,642 10,443,074
Operating cost of government-provided
municipal and public school services
(OCM
PS)cR
584,175
751,879
1,336,055
allocable to college-related influences ,
(Model G-2)
Total 565 659 1,224
50
Model I-2 Personal Income of local Individuals from College-Related Jobs and Business Activities
Plca = (F~) (WF) + (P) lEilca
PIcR C56 SJU Total
Proportion of faculty and staff residing f~ 0.21 0.19 0.20
locally (Model B-1.1.2.1)
Gross compensation to faculty and staff WF 24,560,184 27,416,558 51,976,742
Payrolls and profits per dollar of local direct
P
0.004207
0.004207
0.004207
expenditures5
College-related local expenditures (Model B- (E~)ca 4,190,594 7,067,172 11,257,767
1.1)
Total 5,153,788 5,103,420 10,256,241
s Sum the wage and salary disbursements 2,994,149 and Proprietors' income $286,535 from BEA: CA05N series of
the REIS data for Stearns County for 2007. Divide the sum of these figures by the amount of Local Business
Volume Model reported in Model B-1.