USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

The economic contributions of the Florida State Fair Authority

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The economic contributions of the Florida State Fair Authority
Physical Description:
1 online resource (iv, 50 p.) : ;
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida -- Center for Economic Development Research
Publisher:
Center for Economic Development Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Agricultural exhibitions -- Florida -- Tampa   ( lcsh )
Fairs -- Florida -- Tampa   ( lcsh )
Economic conditions -- Hillsborough County (Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Statement of Responsibility:
an analysis performed by Center for Economic Development Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page (viewed Aug. 12, 2009).
General Note:
"October 2000."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002023887
oclc - 430199850
usfldc doi - C63-00097
usfldc handle - c63.97
System ID:
SFS0000364:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

The Economic Contributions of the Florida State Fair Authority An Analysis Performed by CENTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH College of Business Administration1101 Channelside Dr., 2nd Floor N., Tampa, Florida 33602 Office: (813) 905-5854 or Fax: (813) 905-5856October 2000

PAGE 2

iTable of ContentsPreface........................................................................................................................ .....................ii Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. .........iii I. Introduction................................................................................................................ ..................1 II. History, Organization and Function......................................................................................... ...3 III. Ec onomic Contributions of Fair Authority Operating Expenditures, Payroll, and Spending by Visitors to the Florida State Fair.........................................................................................6 IV. Economic Contributions of Events Held by Groups at the Fairgrounds ................................13 V. Conclusions................................................................................................................. .............18 Appendix A. Florida State Fair Authority Board of Directors...................................................20 Appendix B. List of Event Sponsors............................................................................................ 21 Appendix C. Event Sponsor Sample Questionnaire.....................................................................24 Appendix D. Models for Regional Economic Development Impact Analysis..............................25 Appendix E. Model Results Tables............................................................................................... 33

PAGE 3

ii Preface The Florida State Fair Authority is organized as a public body corporate and politic and is considered an instrumentality of the state. Located in Hillsborough County, Florida, the Florida State Fair Authority was statutorily created in Chapter 616.251 of the Florida Statutes by the Florida Legislature in 1975. Sources of operating funds for the Florida State Fair Authority include gate admissions, parking and campground fees, percentage of midway and concession sales, short-term lease income from event sponsors, and long-term lease income from recurring seasonal site uses. This study was commissioned by the Florida State Fair Authority and performed by the Center for Economic Development Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida. The purpose of the study is to quantify the Fair Authority’s economic contribution to Hillsborough County, the Tampa Bay region, and the state of Florida. The Center for Economic Development Research provides information and conducts research on issues related to economic growth and development in the Nation, in the state of Florida, and particularly in the central Florida region. The Center serves the faculty, staff, and students of the College of Business Administration, the University, and individuals and organizations in the University’s service area. Activities of the Center for Economic Development Research are designed to further the objectives of the University and specifically the objectives of the College of Business Administration. Robert Anderson, Dean, College of Business Administration (COBA), USF Kenneth Wieand, Director, Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR), COBA, USF Dennis G. Colie, Economist and Principal Investigator, CEDR, COBA, USF Alexander A. McPherson, Research Associate, CEDR, COBA, USF

PAGE 4

iiiExecutive SummaryThe purpose of this study is to quantify the Florida State Fair Authority’s economic contribution to Hillsborough County (county), the Tampa Bay region (region), and the state of Florida (state). Specifically, we quantify the economic contribution of the Fair Authority operational expenditures and payroll, spending by visitors attracted to activities at the fairgrounds, and operational expenditures and payroll of other users of the fairground facilities. Due to the circulation of funds within the area of interest, the impact of the spending activity associated with the Fair Authority and others is a multiple of the initial, or first, round of spending. Employment, personal income, and output measure the impact. The data used to estimate the Fair Authority’s economic contribution are from fiscal year 2000. The quantifiable impact is interpreted as the Fair Authority’s expected annual economic contribution to the county, region, and state, even if there were no further growth in activities. The quantifiable economic contributions of the Florida State Fair Authority to the county, region, and state are --Jobs. The activities directly pursued by the Florida State Fair Authority result in employment opportunities throughout the state. In addition to the 74 full-time-equivalent employees at the Fair Authority, the result of these activities is that 1,003 jobs are created in Hillsborough County. Another 147 jobs in the Tampa Bay region outside Hillsborough County and an additional 640 jobs elsewhere in the state of Florida as a result of Fair Authority’s existence. Thus, the Florida State Fair Authority contributes a total of 1,077 jobs to Hillsborough County, 1,224 jobs to the entire Tampa Bay region, and a grand total of 1,864 jobs to the state of Florida For every 10 jobs at the Fair Authority, another 136 jobs are supported in the county, an additional 20 jobs are supported in other areas of the Tampa Bay region, and another 86 jobs are supported elsewhere in the state. Personal Income. The Florida State Fair Authority’s gross annual payroll contributes $2,548,428 in personal income to employees. The $722,534 for salaries and wages of staff associated with the annual Florida State Fair, and $1,825,894 for salaries and wages of staff associated with activities other than the annual fair can be reduced for income and payroll taxes to provide $1,934,257 in disposable personal income to employees. An additional $40.03 million in personal income is earned annually by workers in the 1,003 jobs created in Hillsborough County. The 147 jobs created in other counties of the Tampa Bay region earn $6.07 million in personal income annually, while the 640 jobs created in other parts of the state earn $22.28 million in personal income. Thus, including the Fair Authority payroll, the activities of the Fair Authority result in a total of $42.58 million in personal income for workers in Hillsborough County, $48.65 million in the entire Tampa Bay region, for a grand total of $70.93 million in the state of Florida For every $1 the Fair Authority spends for payroll, another $15.70 in labor income is created for other workers in Hillsborough County, another $18.08 in labor income is created for other workers in Tampa Bay, and another $26.82 in labor income is created

PAGE 5

iv for other workers in Florida. Local Output The workers in the 1,003 jobs created in Hillsborough County produce goods and services valued at $64.87 million as a result of the existence of the Florida State Fair Authority. Including the $11.93 million of Fair Authority expenditures, total local output equals $76.80 million. Therefore, spending by the Fair Authority, their employees, event sponsors, and visitors to the fairgrounds annually generates $76.80 million of production in Hillsborough County. Each $1 spent by the Fair Authority results in $6.44 of production in Hillsborough County. Regional Output The workers in the 147 jobs created in the Tampa Bay region outside Hillsborough County produced goods and services valued at $11.89 million as a result of Fair Authority’s existence. Thus, a total of $76.76 million worth of goods and services is produced within the entire Tampa Bay region Including the $11.93 million of Fair Authority expenditures, total regional output equals $88.69 million. Therefore, spending by the Fair Authority, their employees, event sponsors, and visitors to the fairgrounds annually generates $88.69 million of production in the Tampa Bay region. Each $1 spent by the Fair Authority results in $7.44 of production in Tampa Bay. State Output The workers in the 640 jobs created in other parts of the state as a result of the Fair Authority’s existence produced goods and services valued at $42.94 million Thus, a total of $119.70 million worth of goods and services is produced within the entire state of Florida Including the $11.93 million of Fair Authority expenditures, total statewide output equals $131.63 million. Therefore, spending by the Fair Authority, their employees, event sponsors, and visitors to the fairgrounds annually generates $131.63 million of production in Florida. Each $1 spent by the Fair Authority results in $11.03 of production in Florida. In addition to the annually recurring contributions above, the Fair Authority has $2.2 million approved for fixed capital outlays plus about $80,000 carried forward from fiscal year 2000. The grand total of planned capital expenditures is $2.29 million. These funds will be used for projects such as new parking and admission gates.

PAGE 6

1I. Introduction.The purpose of this study is to quantify the Florida State Fair Authority’s economic contribution to the state of Florida, the Tampa Bay region, and Hillsborough County. If the Fair Authority activities ceased to exist, or even if its spending activities were decreased, the result would be loss of jobs, personal income and production within these areas. This study estimates the loss if the Fair Authority were to stop operations. In the parlance of economic impact analysis, the quantifiable estimate of loss is the Fair Authority’s economic contribution to the area .1We define the Tampa Bay region as the seven contiguous counties surrounding the Florida State Fairgrounds. These counties are Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, and Sarasota. The Tampa Bay region is considered the immediate service area of the Fairgrounds and the place of residence for the employees and most other users of resources at the Fair Authority. Specifically, we examine the quantifiable economic effects of operational expenditures, payroll, and spending by visitors attracted to activities promoted by the Fair Authority. We refer to the aforementioned as the Fair Authority’s spending activities. Due to the circulation of funds within the region, the impact of the Fair Authority’s spending activities results in a “multiplier effect.” That is, there are links among the various commercial elements of the Regional economy. Through these links, second and subsequent rounds of spending occur following the initial expenditures by the Fair Authority. For example, when the Fair Authority purchases locally produced signs, the manufacturer of the signs, in turn, must spend a portion of the funds received from the Fair Authority to hire workers, buy machinery, and pay for accounting services. The first-round or initial spending produces a direct effect on the area. The economic effects of subsequent spending by businesses, such as the purchase of the manufacturing machinery and accounting services, are called indirect effects. In addition, workers’ spending, which becomes possible due to their incomes motivated by first round expenditures, leads to induced effects. This cycle continues, round by round, until the initial expenditure by the Fair Authority has a multiple effect on employment, personal income, and production within the area. Subsequent rounds of spending continue within the area until the Fair Authority’s initial expenditures “leak” out of the area’s economy. Leaks occur due to taxes, savings, and spending to import goods and services from outside the area. 1See Appendix D, “Models for Regional Economic Development Impact Analysis,” for an explanation of the technique of economic impact analysis used for this study.

PAGE 7

2 In this study, we estimate the impact of annual spending by the Fair Authority. The impact is measured by employment, personal income, and production. The data used in the estimation process are from fiscal year 2000, which began July 1, 1999 and ended June 30, 2000. The impact on employment is measured in terms of jobs. Personal income, which is aggregated from all sources, including employment income and proprietors’ income, is denominated in nominal year 2000 dollars. Production, also called output, is measured at nominal year 2000 dollars. We purposefully include a year’s operating expenses, payroll, and visitors’ spending when analyzing the multiplier effect so that our quantifiable estimate of Fair Authority’s economic contribution may be measured and understood as an annual occurrence.2 That is, as long as Fair Authority’s doors remain open, we expect that the quantifiable contribution will continue from year to year. Appendix E includes a series of tables which indicate summary and component contributions to Hillsborough County, the Tampa Bay region, and the state of Florida. 2It is assumed that Fair Authority expenditures will continue indefinitely at the FY 2000 level.

PAGE 8

3II. History, Organization and Function.The first unofficial Florida State Fair took place in 1898, when railroad magnate Henry B. Plant hosted a series of horse races and exhibits. In 1904, the fair became somewhat more organized, and was known at various times as the South Florida Fair or the Mid-Winter Fair. Incorporated in 1915, the fair officially became known as the Florida State Fair. Early state fairs were held at a 2acre parcel in downtown Tampa. In 1975, the Florida State Fair Authority came into existence through legislative action, prompting the purchase and construction of a new facility. The downtown Tampa site served as a central showcase location for the fair until 1977, when the current location at the intersection of Interstate Highway 4 and U. S. Highway 301 began operations. Except for a 2-year hiatus during World War II, the fair has been held every year, rain or shine, since its inception. In 1995, the state legislature revised the structure of the Fair Authority to place it under the administration of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, with a 22-member Board of Directors. The current chairperson of the Board is Mr. Lee Roy Selmon, who also is employed with the University of South Florida. A list of Board members is included in Appendix A. The purpose of the Florida State Fair is primarily to promote awareness of the diversity of agricultural products produced in the State in addition to providing an activity for family education and entertainment. Use of the fairgrounds for events other than the Florida State Fair has become widespread. There are various activities at the fairgrounds almost every week throughout the year. Equestrian events are foremost of these activities. The variety of event sponsors is indicated in Appendix B, List of Event Sponsors. Late each calendar year, the Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey circus utilizes fairground facilities for approximately two months to train and practice new programs for the upcoming circus season. With operations supported primarily by income from events and an occasional grant from the State of Florida for capital improvements, the Florida State Fair Authority is organized as a public body corporate and politic under Chapter 616.251 of the Florida Statues. The Florida State Fair Authority is statutorily created to serve as an instrumentality of the state.Facilities.At present, the Florida State Fair Authority occupies approximately 319 acres immediately east of downtown Tampa. The site contains three large exhibition halls, used at various times throughout the year by different groups for events. These consist of the Charles M. Davis Special Events Center (40,000 s.f. usable space), Entertainment Hall (41,000 s.f. multipurpose), and Expo Hall (88,000 s.f. exhibition). Two areas are used as stables and showgrounds for equestrian and livestock activities. The Bob Thomas Equestrian Center contains a 9,000 s.f. pavilion, warm up and exercise rings, three show rings, and five horse barns with capacity for 471 horses and 800 additional animals. The Charlie Lykes Arena contains 72,000 s.f. of animal housing and show area under one roof with seating for 2,500 people. Cracker Country is an assortment of historical Floridian structures dating between 1870 and 1920 that form a community to give the

PAGE 9

4 visitor a sense of past life in Florida. Administration, maintenance and other appurtenant structures comprise the remaining building areas. Onsite parking is available for 16,000 vehicles, and campsites are available to event participants for a daily fee.Alternative Site Use Events.Throughout the year, a variety of events take place at the Florida State Fairgrounds. Categorized as Equestrian Events and Other-than-Equestrian Events, these activities offer substantial diverse usage of the fairgrounds facilities. Revenue from these events to the Florida State Fair Authority consists of lease income for usage of facilities onsite. In fiscal year 2000, the Florida State Fair Authority served 82 sponsors of events at the fairgrounds. About 34% of the sponsors served relate to equestrian events and about 66% of the sponsors served relate to other-than-equestrian events.3Future Growth.The Florida State Fair Authority is making great strides to increase usage of the state fairgrounds facilities. Marketing efforts are aimed to improve income levels by hosting more events throughout the year and by increasing visitor numbers to a variety of new types of events. Efforts to win the honor to host the Summer Olympics in 2012 center on use of the state fairgrounds as a central location for venues.Fair Authority Operations.Florida Statute 616.261 states that “Operation of the Florida State Fair, and custody and maintenance of the buildings and grounds, shall be financed from the revenues derived from the state fair and other exhibits and events, revenue bonds, and lease, rental, or other charges for the use of the buildings or grounds.” Operating funds for the Florida State Fair Authority come from gate admissions, a percentage of midway sales and food sales, parking fees, campground usage fees, special-event sponsor facility lease revenues, commissions on services, interest income, and private fair sponsor donations. For fiscal year 2001, the Florida Legislature passed and the Governor signed an appropriation for the Fair Authority of $1,000,000 for capital improvements. This state appropriation represents 7.8% of the Fair Authority’s total revenues of $12,879,954 for fiscal year 2000.4 3See Appendix B for list of event sponsors.4The Fair Authority organizes its financial accounting on the same fiscal year basis as the State of Florida. Fiscal year 2000 extends from July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000.

PAGE 10

5 The Fair Authority’s operating expenses for fiscal year 2000 were $9,321,049. The economic impact of the expenditures for the Florida State Fair and the impact of expenditures other than for the state fair is explained separately in Section III of this report. In fiscal year 2000, the Fair Authority’s payroll totaled $2,548,428, which was paid to a combination of 50 full-time employees and about 756 part-time employees.5 The economic impact of this payroll is also explained in Section III of this report, in terms of payroll attributable to fair and non-fair activities, respectively. In addition to the annually recurring contributions above, the Fair Authority plans $2.29 million in capital expenditures for fiscal year 2001. These funds are planned for the following projects:Electric Poles$ 90,000 Inner Grounds Paving 700,000 Parking and Admission Gates 900,000 Parking Lot Improvements 150,000 Paint Horse Barns/Replace Wood 125,000 Paint Exterior Expo Hall & Replace Doors 95,000 Replace Fire Alarm Cracker Country 12,000 Upgrade Electricity in Barns 50,000 Canopy at Cattle Barn 40,000 Contingency for Projects 128,000 Total$2,200,000 Total Fixed Capital Outlay, Including Portion Carried Forward from Fiscal Year 2000$2,290,000The Fair Authority offers facilities for rent to organizations interested in hosting educational programs, seminars, conferences, horse shows, craft shows, and other types of events each year. During fiscal year 2000, there were 82 such event sponsors, which hosted numerous events attended by more than 634,200 people. Approximately 165,600 of the attendees were visitors to the Tampa Bay region. The economic impact of spending by these visitors and spending by the sponsors of these events is examined in Section IV of this report. 5The Center for Economic Development Research uses the following categories of employees: full-time and part-time. Full-time employment is defined as 2,080 hours a nnually. A ratio of average income for part-time employees to average income for full-time employees is used to derive the number of full-time employee equivalents during the fiscal year.The conclusions of the study are presented in Section V.

PAGE 11

6III. Economic Contribution of Fair Authority Operating Expenditures, Payroll, and Spending by Visitors to the Florida State Fair.The Florida State Fair Authority purchases goods and services to produce the annual Florida State Fair and to provide a location for a variety of other event types to be hosted throughout the remainder of the year. This direct spending by the Fair Authority takes two forms: operating expenditures and payroll. Spending by visitors to the fair also makes a profound statement about the value of the Fair Authority’s activities, and is a subject covered later in this Section. The impact of spending by hosts and visitors to events other than the annual Florida State Fair is the subject of Section IV. All these forms of spending have an economic impact on Hillsborough County, Tampa Bay, and Florida. The economic impact is measurable in terms of increased employment, personal income and output. The Florida State Fair Authority’s operating expenses for fair and non-fair activities in fiscal year 2000 were $9,381,049. Additionally, a total of $2,548,428 was paid to employees as personal income. Considering reduction for income and payroll taxes, total disposable personal income originating directly from the Fair Authority amounted to $2,173,809.6As a result of the above operating and payroll expenditures, a total of 287 jobs are created in the state of Florida. Of these, about 141 jobs within Hillsborough County, 26 jobs throughout other parts of the Tampa Bay region, and 120 jobs throughout the remainder of the state depend on the Fair Authority’s activities. Annually, the workers in these 287 jobs earn more than $12.50 million of income, while producing an output valued at approximately $19.11 million. Of the total output generated by the Fair Authority expenditures, an estimated 47.5% was produced locally within Hillsborough County and another 10.7% was produced elsewhere in the Tampa Bay region. The remaining 41.8% was produced outside the Tampa Bay region.7The following Extent of Economic Contribution to Florida indicates the extent of the impact of the Fair Authority total expenditures for operations and payroll on employment, disposable personal income, and output: Extent of Economic Contribution to Florida 6Disposable personal income = 0.853 times payroll. According to the Florida Statistical Abstract 1999, total disposable personal income in Florida for 1998 was $329,106 million, while total personal income was $385,603 million. The disposable personal income factor is, therefore, $329,106/$385,603, or 0.853.7Identification of items produced outside the state of Florida and purchased by the Fair Authority was not undertaken during this study. It is therefore implied that the Fair Authority purchases all goods and services from producers within the state of Florida.

PAGE 12

7 LocationEmployment Personal Income Output Hillsborough County 141 jobs $ 7,243,845 $9,077,369 Other Tampa Bay counties 26 1,069,897 2,038,142 Remainder of Florida 120 4,187,487 7,997,650 T T o o t t a a l l I I m m p p a a c c t t 2 2 8 8 7 7 j j o o b b s s $ $ 1 1 2 2 , 5 5 0 0 1 1 , 2 2 2 2 9 9 $ $ 1 1 9 9 , 1 1 1 1 3 3 , 1 1 6 6 1 1 The following table summarizes the distribution of the Contribution of the Fair Authority Operating Expenditures and Payroll to Florida among business sectors by aggregating the effects at the 1-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code level.Contribution of the Fair Authority Operating Expenditures and Payroll to FloridaSectorEmployment Personal Income Output Agriculture 3 jobs$ 62,696$ 62,797 Mining 11,078 29,171 Construction 18 781,537 2,000,704 Manufacturing 8 492,095 1,396,297 Transportation & Public Utilities 5 351,434 1,088,774 Trade 46 1,374,743 3,024,553 Finance (FIRE) 10 496,874 1,972,501 Services 194 8,530,825 9,327,270 Government & Other 4 399,947 211,094 T T o o t t a a l l C C o o n n t t r r i i b b u u t t i i o o n n s s 2 2 8 8 7 7 j j o o b b s s $ $ 1 1 2 2 , 5 5 0 0 1 1 , 2 2 2 2 9 9 $ $ 1 1 9 9 , 1 1 1 1 3 3 , 1 1 6 6 1 1 = less than 1 full-time jobContribution of Fair Authority Due to Operating ExpendituresOut of the 287 total jobs indicated above, about 248 jobs depend on the Fair Authority’s spending for goods and services. Of these 248 jobs, 117 jobs are created within Hillsborough County, 17 jobs throughout other parts of the Tampa Bay region, and 114 jobs throughout the remainder of the state. Annually, the workers in these 248 jobs earn more than $8.88 million of income, while producing an output valued at approximately $15.85 million. About 136 of the 248 jobs, and approximately $4.87 million of personal income, are attributable to Fair Authority’s operating expenditures for the state fair which is conducted for a period of approximately 17 days each year. These 136 workers produced the $5,109,609 of goods and services purchased by the Fair Authority for fair activities while producing a total output of $8,666,914. Another 112 jobs and approximately $4.01 million of personal income are attributable to the Fair Authority’s operating expenditures for activities other than the state fair. These 112 workers produced $7,185,566 in total output.

PAGE 13

8Contribution of Fair Authority Payroll SpendingDuring fiscal year 2000, employees of the Florida State Fair Authority were paid labor income totaling $2,548,428. After income and payroll taxes, the employees had $2,173,809 in spending power. The employees have an economic impact on the region when they spend this disposable income to buy goods and services in the region. This impact is measurable in terms of increased employment, personal income and output. As a result of these payroll expenditures, 39 jobs out of the 287 total jobs indicated above are created, which earn almost $3.62 million of income, while producing output valued at approximately $3.26 million. Of these, about 25 jobs are created within Hillsborough County, 8 jobs throughout other parts of the Tampa Bay region, and 6 jobs throughout the remainder of the state.Contribution from Fair Attendance and Visitor SpendingThe Fair Authority performed an exit interview of fair attendees at the 1998 Florida State Fair. A sample of attendees was interviewed to obtain insight into their experience at the fair, history of attendance, location of origin, and spending patterns during their visit. This market survey forms a basis for determination of the impact of fair attendees at the 2000 Florida State Fair. The 1998 Florida State Fair Exit Poll showed that 78% of fair attendees that year were from inside the state, and 22% were from out of state. Considering the 2000 fair attendance given to be 545,202 it implies that 425,258 attendees were from Florida, and that 119,944 were from outside Florida. The exit poll also indicates the county of residence for those visitors from within Florida, showing that 44% were from Hillsborough County, 18% from Pinellas, 11% from Pasco, 6% from Polk, 5% from Manatee, 2% from Sarasota, and 0.4% (estimated) from Hernando County. The remaining 13.6% of attendees, who were from within Florida, came from outside the Tampa Bay region. The 1998 Florida State Fair Exit Poll also indicates that the average amount spent at the fair by a party of four was $104. Inflated to the current year,8 it could be expected that the average spent by a party of four in 2000 was $109. The following table, 2000 Florida State Fair Attendance and Spending Data shows this breakdown in terms of number of attendees and approximate amount spent at the fair by each group. The table enumerates the locational and spending patterns 8 The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the Consumer Price Index – Urban in February, 1998 was 161.9 and in February, 2000 was 169.7, therefore the inflation factor is 169.7/161.9, or 1.048 times the amount spent by 1998 fair attendees.

PAGE 14

9 anticipated of visitors to the most recent fair by extrapolating the patterns that occurred in 1998 to the most recent fair. The economic impact of this spending has been analyzed as a part of the total impact for Fair Authority activities. The significance of visitor spending is major. 2000 Florida State Fair Attendance and Spending DataSpending data from 1998 exit poll:Average amount spent by a party of 4 in 1998: $ 104.00 Inflated to 2000$ (see inflation calculation below): $ 109.01 2000 Fair Attendance: (data provided by Fair Authority)In-State (78%) Out-of-State (22%) 545,202 total attendees 425,258 119,944 445,361 paid admission 347,382 97,979 Note: For the purpose of this study, “Snowbirds” are considered out-of-state visitors since they typically reside for 6 months or less in Florida. 2000 Fair 2000 Fair % of# ofSpending by Spending by In-StateAttendeesAttendeesAttendees Attendees(based onfrom within areafrom outside area (which aretotal (based on (based on Location of Origin 78% of total)* attendance) total attendance) total attendance) Tampa Bay region: Hillsborough44%187,113 $ 5,099,330 $ 9,758,857 (spent by the Pinellas18 76,546 2,086,089 358,089 visitors from outside Pasco11 46,778 1,274,832 Hillsboro ugh County) Polk 6 25,515 695,363 Manatee 5 21,263 579,469 Sarasota 2 8,505 231,788 Hernando(estimated) 0.4 1,701 46,358 Inside T.B.Region 86.4%367,423 $10,013,230 Outside T.B.Region 13.6 57,835 $ 1,576,157 $ 4,844,958 (spent by the 100.0% (outside region, 177,779 visitor s from outside within state) the Tampa Bay region) Outside State 22% 119,944 $ 3,268,801 $ 3,268,801 (spent by the 119,944 visitors from outside Total In-State & Out-of-State 545,202 $ 14,858,187 the state of Florida) % Attendee data from 1998 exit poll Inflation: from CPI-U index for Feb., 1998 = 161.9** from CPI-U index for Feb., 2000 = 169.7** Inflation Feb., 1998 to Feb., 2000 = 169.7/161.9 = 1.048178 **US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC 20212 Consumer Price Index Urban US City Average, All Items, 1913-2000From attendance records at the 2000 Florida State Fair, data was extrapolated to imply the number of fair attendees originating from Hillsborough County, the Tampa Bay region outside

PAGE 15

10 Hillsborough County, the state of Florida outside the Tampa Bay region, and from outside the state of Florida. Attendees originating from within Hillsborough County do not add to this economic impact, because the effect of this group’s attendance at the Florida State Fair is considered a substitution for other forms of entertainment spending that would occur elsewhere within the county. Attendees originating from outside Hillsborough County, however, had an economic impact on the county by choosing to attend the fair. Visitors to the fair from within the Tampa Bay region were considered “daytrippers”, that is, this group lives within a short enough driving distance to visit the fair and return home within the same day. Visitors to the fair from outside the Tampa Bay region, but within the state, were considered to have spent overnight in Hillsborough County prior to returning home. In modeling terms, this group provided the county with one “visitor day” each, requiring overnight stay in a hotel or motel. The remaining group of visitors to the fair, originating from outside the state, were also considered to have provided the county with one “visitor day” each, but this group was modeled to require an overnight stay in a rental apartment or home. Whereas it is unusual for an individual to rent an apartment or home for one day, for the purpose of analysis, the one-day term of stay is the length of time that would reasonably be apportioned to the fair for non-Florida residents who spend part of the year in Florida. Approximately 500 total jobs, 359 within Hillsborough County, 44 jobs throughout other parts of the Tampa Bay region, and 97 jobs throughout the remainder of the state depend on spending by visitors to the Florida State Fair. Annually, the workers in these 500 jobs earn almost $17.37 million of income, while producing an output valued at approximately $35.58 million.9Total Contribution of the Florida State Fair and Other Fair Authority ActivitiesThe total contribution to the state of Florida of the Fair Authority’s expenditures for the state fair and other activities, including spending by visitors, is approximately 787 jobs, which provide the workers with about $29.87 million of income while producing $54.70 million in output each year. The following table summarizes the distribution of the Contribution of Expenditures to the state of Florida among business sectors by aggregating the effects at the 1-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code level.10 9 See Tables 5A, 6A, 7A, 11C, 12C, and 13C in Appendix E for summary impacts by the various groups of visitors.10 Refer to Tables 1-13C, inclusive, in Appendix E for individual and summary impacts by the various components of expenditure.

PAGE 16

11Contribution of Expenditures to the state of FloridaSectorEmployment Personal Income Output Agriculture 7 jobs $153,680 $151,218 Mining 31,246 83,780 Construction 49 2,097,857 5,300,939 Manufacturing 23 1,411,197 4,432,972 Transportation & Public Utilities 16 1,077,404 3,054,512 Trade 200 5,208,044 11,655,753 Finance (FIRE) 32 1,445,801 6,586,986 Services 451 17,357,805 22,867,636 Government and Other 9 1,089,368 562,892 T T o o t t a a l l I I m m p p a a c c t t 7 7 8 8 7 7 j j o o b b s s $ $ 2 2 9 9 , 8 8 7 7 2 2 , 4 4 0 0 2 2 $ $ 5 5 4 4 , 6 6 9 9 6 6 , 6 6 8 8 8 8 = less than 1 full-time job Service establishments within the state experience the largest gain in employment with an increase of 451 jobs with $17.36 in personal income. This spending also adds over $22.87 million to the annual output for the services sector of the state economy.Long Term ImpactsThe REMI11 economic model predicts immediate and prolonged impacts of the Fair Authority’s activities. The immediate impacts shown above are the result of assuming that the Fair Authority’s activities were to shut down for one year. The long-term effect is similar, were the Fair Authority to cease operations permanently. Over time, the economy would recover somewhat, but the term until full economic recovery is beyond modeling limits. In a 35-year period following a simulation of a permanent cessation of Fair Authority’s activities, the economy would only recover about half the jobs originally lost. The results indicate that disposable personal income would continue to decline throughout this recovery period. It is inferred that the jobs recovered would be characterized as lower paying and/or taxed at incrementally higher rates for subsequent years. The only sector that would experience increased employment resulting from elimination of the Fair Authority is the “durables manufacturing” sector. During the recovery period analyzed, output would slowly recover, similar to employment. In analyzing the effect of various components of expenditures, there appears an almost linear relationship between expenditures and employment. This linearity is an indication that most of 11 Refer to Appendix D for an explanation of the REMI program and comparison with other modeling techniques.

PAGE 17

12 the jobs that would be lost initially from cessation of fair activities are not directly employed by the Fair Authority. It appears that most of the lost jobs would be indirectly associated support and service personnel. This fact is important to understanding the overall impact of the Fair Authority. Not only would individuals immediately employed by the Fair Authority be affected, but also many other individuals employed in fields outside the immediate amusement and recreation service sector would become unemployed from a cessation of Fair Authority activities.

PAGE 18

13IV. Economic Contribution of Events Held by Groups at the Fairgrounds.During fiscal year 2000, a variety of equestrian, trade, retail, and fundraising events were held on the grounds operated by the Fair Authority. There were a total of 82 events hosted by various groups. Thirty-five groups were from Hillsborough County, 11 from the Tampa Bay region outside Hillsborough County, 21 from other parts of the state of Florida, and 15 from outside the state of Florida. Equestrian related events accounted for 28 events during fiscal year 2000. Ten of the sponsors of these events were from within Hillsborough County, 5 from other parts of the Tampa Bay region, 12 from other parts of the state of Florida, and one from outside the state. The remaining 54 other-than-equestrian related events represent an assortment of event types, such as trade, craft and hobby shows, educational programs, retail shows, and business promotional shows. The events that were sponsored at Fair Authority facilities attracted numerous visitors into the Tampa Bay region. The visitors to both equestrian type events and other than equestrian events amassed 7,875 visitor-days by attendees who originated from outside the Tampa Bay region and an estimated $10,461,370 of direct spending in the Region by attendees who originated from within the Tampa Bay region.12The winter activity of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus is another major contributor to local and regional economic impact. The circus utilizes Fair Authority facilities for an approximate two-month period at the end of each calendar year to train for the upcoming circus season. Feld Entertainment, Inc., with headquarters in Vienna, Virginia, manages the winter circus activities at the fairgrounds. Even though there is usually no public attendance at these activities, a significant sum of money is spent by the circus within the community each year to board actors and animals, for choreography, and to make other necessary preparations for the circus show. Visitors attracted into Hillsborough County by events hosted at the Fair Authority’s facilities add about 1,003 jobs to the state economy with aggregate earnings of $38.5 million, while producing $65.0 million of output. 12We define a visitor-day as a period including at least parts of two consecutive calendar days and an overnight stay in the region. We use the average amount reported for each event sponsor to estimate visitors’ direct spending in the region during fiscal year 2000.

PAGE 19

14Methodology for Event Sponsor AnalysisEach of the 82 event sponsors shown in Appendix B were contacted to participate in this study. Initial contact was made via U.S. Mail, which included a letter of introduction from the Fair Authority, a detailed letter from CEDR indicating the purpose of the data request, and a form for supplying information pertinent to the analysis (a copy of which is included in Appendix C). It was requested that the sponsor return the data form to CEDR within 10 business days in a postage-paid envelope provided. After 10 days, if CEDR had not received a response from the sponsor, a telephone call was made in an attempt to establish communication. If there was still no response after another 10 days, another follow-up telephone call was attempted. In many cases, response to the data request was promptly received within the initial 10-day period. However, in other cases, no response was garnered even after two follow-up telephone calls. About 32% of the sponsors of equestrian events ultimately responded to the data request, and almost 41% of the sponsors of other-than-equestrian events responded. In all cases, it was assumed that reported data represents typical expenditures, payroll, attendance, and visitor spending for the group as a whole. In the case of equestrian event analysis, reported operating expenditures totaled $461,678.41 from the eight respondents who answered the request for this data. A factor of 3.5 (28 / 8) was applied to the reported total to obtain operating expenditure data for the overall group. A grand total of $1,615,875 in operating expenditures is considered for this group. Similarly, reported payroll expenditures totaled $118,007.19 from the seven respondents who reported this item. A factor of 4.0 (28 / 7) was applied to the reported total to obtain $472,029 in total payroll expenditures for the group. This figure was reduced for personal and income taxes to $402,640 in disposable personal income for the group. A total of 4,799 attendees were reported by seven respondents. A factor of 4.0 (28 / 7) was applied to this amount to obtain the 19,196 total in attendance at the 28 events. Only one respondent recorded location of origin for attendees, indicating that about 39.9% were from Hillsborough County, another 33.5% were from other parts of Tampa Bay, and the remaining 26.6% originated from within Florida outside Tampa Bay. The effect of these groups of visitors is analyzed below. Similar to the above, in the case of analysis of other-than-equestrian events, reported operating expenditures totaled $2,181,618 from the 19 respondents who supplied this data. It is noted that a few of the respondents represent non-profit organizations, and these organizations are represented in the 22 total responses received. A factor of 2.842 (54 / 19) was applied to the total reported operating expenditures to obtain a grand total of $6,200,388 in operating expenditures for the group. Similarly, payroll expenditures totaled $217,545 from the 15 respondents who reported this item. A factor of 3.6 (54 / 15) was applied to the reported total to obtain $783,162 in total payroll expenditures for the group. This figure was reduced for personal and income taxes to $668,037 in disposable personal income for the group. A total of 216,390 attendees were reported by 19 respondents. A factor of 2.84 (54 / 19) was applied to this amount to obtain the 615,006 total in attendance at the 54 events. A few respondents recorded the location of origin for attendees, indicating that about 74.98% were from Hillsborough County, another 24.99%

PAGE 20

15 were from other parts of Tampa Bay, and the remaining 0.03% originated from outside Florida. The effect of these groups of visitors is analyzed below.Contributions of Equestrian GroupsAs mentioned in Section II, a number of facilities at the fairgrounds are dedicated to use for equestrian-related activities. The site is one of a few in the state, and is perhaps the only location in the immediate Tampa Bay area, with the quality and quantity of facilities for the types of equestrian activities hosted annually. The presence of stables, arenas, seating areas, and show areas at the Bob Thomas Equestrian Center form the heart of the infrastructure required to host such events. During fiscal year 2000, the 28 equestrian events hosted at the fairgrounds collectively cost the hosting groups $1,615,675 in operating expenses and $472,029 in labor income. After income and payroll taxes, employees of event sponsors had $402,641 in spending power. Forty percent of the visitors to these events were from Hillsborough County, and were therefore excluded from the impact for the same reason as those for fair attendees, in that the events presumably offered a substitution for other recreational activities that the visitors may have attended in the county. Of the remaining 60% of the attendees, 33.5% were from locations within the Tampa Bay region outside Hillsborough County. These 6,433 daytripper visitors were estimated to spend the average amount of $280.67 each while at the event. The resulting $1,805,550 was considered primary demand for the amusement and recreational services offered by the 28 events. The other 5,106 attendees to equestrian events were from outside the Tampa Bay region, but within the state of Florida, and as such were assumed to have spent a single night in a local hotel or motel while attending the event. The impact of these operating and payroll expenses and visitor spending is measurable in terms of increased employment, personal income and output. As a result of the expenditures mentioned above, a total of 126 jobs are created within the state of Florida, which earn labor income totaling $4.89 million while producing output valued at $6.29 million. Seventy jobs out of the 126 total jobs indicated above are created within Hillsborough County, 10 jobs throughout other parts of the Tampa Bay region, and 46 jobs throughout the remainder of the state.Contributions of Other-than-Equestrian GroupsDuring fiscal year 2000, the 54 other-than-equestrian events hosted at the fairgrounds collectively cost the hosting groups $6,200,388 in operating expenses and $783,162 in labor income. After income and payroll taxes, employees of event sponsors had $668,037 in spending power. Seventy-five percent of the visitors to these events were from Hillsborough County, and were therefore excluded from the impact because the events offered a substitution for other recreational activities that the visitors might have attended in the county. Of the remaining 25% of the attendees, almost all were from locations within the Tampa Bay region outside

PAGE 21

16 Hillsborough County. These 153,690 daytripper visitors were assumed to spend the average amount of $56.32 each while at the event. The resulting $8,655,820 in visitor spending was considered primary demand for the amusement and recreational services offered by the events. The other 369 attendees to other-than-equestrian events were from outside the state of Florida, and as such were assumed to have spent a single night’s worth of rent for a local home or apartment attributable to attendance of the event. The impact of these operating and payroll expenses and visitor spending is measurable in terms of increased employment, personal income and output. As a result of the expenditures mentioned above, a total of 447 jobs are created within the state of Florida, which earn labor income totaling $16.74 million while producing output valued at $28.79 million. Two hundred-twenty seven jobs out of the 447 total jobs indicated above are created within Hillsborough County, 33 jobs throughout other parts of the Tampa Bay region, and 187 jobs throughout the remainder of the state.Contributions of Feld Entertainment, Inc.During fiscal year 2000, Feld Entertainment, Inc. rented portions of the fairgrounds for a period of about two months during November and December of 1999. The expenditures for operations and payroll for the circus training activities also prompted spending in the form of temporary residents by the nearly 100 full-time circus employees who were here for the short time while training. These performers and other circus employees were considered to have rented an apartment or home during the 2 months of their training, resulting in the equivalent of 2,400 visitor days by persons from outside the state of Florida. The contribution of these operating and payroll expenses and visitor spending is measurable in terms of increased employment, personal income and output. As a result of the expenditures mentioned above, a total of 429 jobs are created within the state of Florida, which earn labor income totaling $16.87 million while producing output valued at $27.93 million. Two hundred-six jobs out of the 429 total jobs indicated above are created within Hillsborough County, 34 jobs throughout other parts of the Tampa Bay region, and 189 jobs throughout the remainder of the state.Total Event ContributionsThe total contribution to the state economy by hosts and visitors attracted to events at Fair Authority facilities is approximately 1,003 jobs, which provide the workers in those positions with $38.50 million of income while creating $65.01 million in output each year. As a result of event sponsor operating and payroll expenditures and spending by their visitors, about 503 jobs within Hillsborough County, 77 jobs throughout other parts of the Tampa Bay region, and 423 jobs throughout the remainder of the state depend on the activities of event

PAGE 22

17 sponsors. Of the total output generated by the event sponsor expenditures, an estimated 48% was produced locally within Hillsborough County and another 9.5% was produced elsewhere in the Tampa Bay region. The remaining 42.5% was produced outside the Tampa Bay region. The following Extent of Economic Contribution to Florida by Event Sponsors indicates the extent of the impact of the event sponsors’ total expenditures for operations and payroll and visitor spending on employment, disposable personal income, and output: Extent of Economic Contribution to Florida by Event SponsorsLocationEmployment Personal Income Output Hillsborough County 503 jobs $20,667,965 $31,064,902 Other Tampa Bay counties 77 3,179,401 6,148,424 Remainder of Florida 423 14,656,822 27,793,309 T T o o t t a a l l I I m m p p a a c c t t 1 1 , 0 0 0 0 3 3 j j o o b b s s $ $ 3 3 8 8 , 5 5 0 0 4 4 , 1 1 8 8 8 8 $ $ 6 6 5 5 , 0 0 0 0 6 6 , 6 6 3 3 5 5 The following table summarizes the distribution of the Contribution of the Event Sponsor Operating Expenditures, Payroll, and Visitor Spending to Florida among business sectors by aggregating the effects at the 1-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code level.Contribution of the Event Sponsor Operating Expenditures, Payroll, and Visitor Spending to Florida13SectorEmployment Personal Income Output Agriculture 11 jobs$ 215,408$ 215,744 Mining 36,249 96,139 Construction 57 2,498,102 6,294,104 Manufacturing 25 1,652,953 4,547,648 Transportation & Public Utilities 15 1,155,115 3,399,399 Trade 145 4,419,329 9,527,577 Finance (FIRE) 33 1,595,786 6,339,353 Services 705 25,532,483 33,846,640 Government & Other 12 1,398,763 740,031 T T o o t t a a l l C C o o n n t t r r i i b b u u t t i i o o n n s s 1 1 , 0 0 0 0 3 3 j j o o b b s s $ $ 3 3 8 8 , 5 5 0 0 4 4 , 1 1 8 8 8 8 $ $ 6 6 5 5 , 0 0 0 0 6 6 , 6 6 3 3 5 5 = less than 1 full-time job 13 Refer to Tables 7-9, inclusive, in Appendix E for summary impacts of components of event sponsor contributions.

PAGE 23

18V. Conclusions.The Florida State Fair Authority has 50 full-time employees and about 756 part-time employees throughout the year, which equate to 24 full-time employee equivalents, with a total annual payroll of $2.55 million. And, in fiscal year 2000, the Fair Authority spent $9.38 million to purchase locally produced goods and services for operations. In conjunction with the Fair Authority operations, numerous sponsors host events throughout the year, which attract additional visitors. The following table summarizes the quantifiable economic impacts of spending of their wages and salaries by Fair Authority’s employees, as well as operating expenditures, and spending by visitors attracted to activities at facilities owned by the Fair Authority. The impacts shown in the table reflect the additional jobs, income, and production created within the state of Florida, that are a result of Fair Authority’s existence.Impact to state of Florida14ActivityEmployment Personal Income Output Fair Authority Operating expenditures15 248 jobs $ 8,884,121$ 15,852,480 Fair Authority Employee spending 39 3,617,108 3,260,681 Fair Visitor spending 500 17,371,173 35,583,526 Event Sponsor Operating expenditures 608 21,741,993 38,754,574 Event Sponsor Employee spending 46 4,266,720 3,849,312 Event Visitor spending 349 12,495,475 22,402,750 T T o o t t a a l l i i m m p p a a c c t t s s 1 1 , 7 7 9 9 0 0 j j o o b b s s $ $ 6 6 8 8 , 3 3 7 7 6 6 , 5 5 9 9 0 0 $ $ 1 1 1 1 9 9 , 7 7 0 0 3 3 , 3 3 2 2 3 3 Hence, the quantifiable economic contributions of the Florida State Fair Authority to the state of Florida are: (1) Jobs. There are 74 full-time equivalent employee jobs at the Fair Authority, plus the 1,790 jobs created in the state as a result of the Fair Authority’s existence. Thus, the Fair Authority contributes 1,864 jobs to the state of Florida. The employment multiplier is 24.2 (1790 jobs in the state divided by 74 jobs at the Fair Authority) indicating that for every job at Fair Authority another 24.2 jobs are created in the state. (2) Personal Income. The Fair Authority’s annual payroll is $2.55 million for employees at the Fair Authority, plus the $68.38 million earned by workers in the 1,790 jobs created in the state. 14 See Appendix E, Table 1, for similar information relating to impacts in Hillsborough County and the Tampa Bay region.15Operating expenditures listed here are principally for the purchase of goods and services. Fair Authority employees’ spending out of their wages and salaries is treated separately in this report.

PAGE 24

19 Thus, Fair Authority contributes $70.93 million of personal income for workers in the state of Florida. The personal income multiplier is 26.8 ($68.38 million of personal income in state divided by $2.55 million for workers at the Fair Authority) indicating that for every dollar of personal income received by Fair Authority workers another $26.80 of income is created for other workers in the state. (3) Output The workers in the 1,790 jobs created in the state as a result of the Fair Authority’s existence produced goods and services valued at $119.70 million. Of these $119.70 million worth of goods and services produced in the state, the Fair Authority was directly responsible for purchases totaling $9.38 million for operations. The above quantities measure the activities of the Fair Authority during FY 2000 and reflect recurring activities. Thus, we interpret these quantities as the Fair Authority’s expected annual economic contribution to the state, even if there were no further growth in operating activities. The Florida State Fair Authority was created by the Legislature of the State of Florida to host an annual state fair and provide a location for other events and opened in 1975. Since then the Fair Authority has experienced growth and progress in carrying out its mission through the efforts of its employees and event sponsors. And, Florida’s legislators have continued to recognize and support the Fair Authority’s mission through the appropriation of funds for expanding the efforts and sustaining superb operations from year to year.

PAGE 25

20Appendix A. Florida State Fair Authority – Board of Directors Florida State Fair Authority Board MembersLee Roy Selmon – Chairman of the Board Gayle Andrews William E. Bowman Jack Butcher Doyle E. Carlton, Jr. Anthony Ciano Honorable Robert Crawford Edward P. De La Parte, Jr. Bernie Gellerman Ben Hill Griffin, IV Preston Henn Olin Mott John Nicolette Louis B. Parrish William Phares Lisa Rath Patricia Robbins Honorable Thomas Scott George M. Steinbrenner Robin Turner Joe Voskerichian

PAGE 26

21Appendix B. List of Event Sponsors. Equestrian Related Event Sponsors OrganizationCityState AHAFPalm Beach GardensFL Bay Area DressageLutzFL CFAppHCDundeeFL CFHJAHomasassa SpringsFL Crosspoint FarmsRiverviewFL Equine SportsHomasassa SpringsFL Dixie Paint Horse ClubSarasotaFL Florida Andalusian ClassicDade CityFL Florida Foxtrotter Assoc.SarasotaFL Florida Paso Fino Assoc.MiamiFL Florida Quarter Horse Assoc.NokomisFL Florida Walking and RackingDeBaryFL 4-H Area ESebringFL 4-H StateGainesvilleFL Gasparilla Horse ShowTampaFL GoldcoastTampaFL Harvest DaysTampaFL Lakeland Dressage Assoc.MulberryFL Monty RobertsSolvangCA Optimist Club Quarter Horse ShowNokomisFL PCHASeminoleFL Southcreek FoxhoundsTampaFL Southeastern Shetland Pony ClubRiverviewFL Stadium JumpingTampaFL Suncoast DressagePinellas ParkFL Special OlympicsKissimmeeFL Sunshine Quarter HorseOrlandoFL Tampa Charity Horse Show Assoc.TampaFL

PAGE 27

22 Other Than Equestrian Related Event Sponsors OrganizationCityState 5-Star RodeoPembroke PinesFL American Heritage PromotionsMidvaleUT Bay Area Apartment Assn.TampaFL Boys and Girls Clubs of Tampa Bay, Inc.TampaFL Central Florida Poultry Breeders Assn.St. PetersburgFL D.C. SalesHoustonTX Florida Concrete Products AssociationTampaFL Florida RV Trade AssociationBrandonFL Great American Train ShowLombardIL Greater Brandon Chamber of CommerceBrandonFL American Cancer SocietyTampaFL B & R FoodsDoverFL Bible Based Fellowship ChurchTampaFL Buckler PromotionsDeltonaFL Country Folk Art Shows, Inc.HollyMI Florida Gulf Coast Amateur Radio CouncilBrandonFL Florida Sportsman Fishing ShowsTampaFL Golo Enterprises, Inc.FullertonCA Greater Brandon Avian SocietyValricoFL Greenberg Shows, Inc.SykesvilleMD H.H.G. Corp.WindermereFL MarketplaceClearwaterFL Mini MadnessTampaFL National Street Rod AssociationLongmontCO National Junior Brahman ShowLake CityFL South Florida Rabbit Breeders AssociationLutzFL Suncoast Gun Collectors AssociationTwinsburgOH T & M Reptile ProductionsPlant CityFL Habitat for HumanityTampaFL Hillsborough County Public SchoolsTampaFL MarketPro Computer Shows, Inc.RockvilleMD Medipac InternationalOntarioCanada National Marine Manufacturing AssociationMiamiFL Odyssey ExpositionsOspreyFL Safari Club InternationalTampaFL Streetball Partners InternationalJacksonvilleFL Sweet Paper Co.TampaFL Tampa Bay Orchid SocietyTampaFL

PAGE 28

23 Other Than Equestrian Related Event Sponsors (continued) OrganizationCityState Tampa Antique ShowSpring HillFL Tampa Bay Wholesale Growers AssociationSeffnerFL Tampa Bay Auto Fair, Inc.ClearwaterFL The Herb Society of AmericaTampaFL Tampa Tribune ProductionsTampaFL U.S. Amusement AuctionBloomingtonIN Marques PromotionsEl PasoTX G.D.B EntertainmentMiamiFL Ultimate Sports ProductionsBoca RatonFL Tampa Bay Kennel ClubTampaFL The Woodworking ShowLos AngelesCA Train Collectors Association/Southern DivisionClearwaterFL Turner Exposition Corp.TampaFL Tampa Orchid ClubTampaFL Bates RV ExchangeVeniceFL Xental, Inc.FranklinTN

PAGE 29

24Appendix C. Event Sponsor Sample Questionnaire

PAGE 30

25Appendix D. Models for Regional Economic Development Impact Analysis

PAGE 31

26 Models for Regional Economic Development Impact Analysis REMI versus IMPLAN versus RIMS A layman's guide to understanding the models REMI, IMPLAN and RIMS are all economic impact models they are designed to estimate a region's reaction to a specified change(s) in its economy. All three models are generally recognized by professionals and academics as valid for their intended purpose which is primarily to help guide policy and spending decisions. The models (with identical inputs, i.e. the same specified change in a regional economy) ideally should generate roughly similar results, at least within the same order of magnitude. No model is particularly biased to show a higher or lower economic impact than another. However, like any computer program, the REMI and IMPLAN models are characterized by "garbage in = garbage out". (For the practitioner, the RIMS model is a table of multipliers previously computed at the US Department of Commerce. Because the practitioner selects which multiplier(s) to use, the "garbage in = garbage out" analogy remains apropos.) Estimated impacts will generally vary more due to the explicit and implicit assumptions employed by the practitioner rather than due to which model is used. Given a comprehensive and objective assessment of the specified change to a regional economy, many economists believe that few non-export-oriented events can generate an economic output or employment multiplier greater than 2. Multipliers between 2 and 3 are more common for export-oriented changes to a regional economy than non-export-oriented changes. The Regional Industrial Multiplier System (RIMS) model is produced by the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and consists of a set of multiplier tables that are applied directly to input data. Resulting outputs are then tabulated to generate a regional economic impact. The RIMS data is updated annually, and is based upon federal performance data for each industry sector. RIMS is particularly popular for its availability at low cost and for its ease in generating quick impact estimates. IMPLAN is produced and licensed by the Minnesota Implan Group, and is perhaps the most common and well-recognized model. Unlike RIMS, IMPLAN contains an internal database, that essentially models the existing economy without any changes. By introducing changes to the model, IMPLAN calculates the relationships between its economic variables (e.g., increasing sales requires a proportional increase in employment) to identify how its model of the economy changed. IMPLAN is popular due to its moderate price and complexity.

PAGE 32

27 REMI Policy Insight is produced and licensed by Regional Economic Models, Inc. Policy Insight (often referred to simply as "REMI") is generally, though not universally, considered the most complete economic model. Like IMPLAN, REMI has an internal database and econometrically derived coefficients to model an economy. Hence, REMI is the most complex of the models, measuring more economic variables and the relations between them. Importantly, REMI is "dynamic" the model simulates "feedback" reactions to new data. For example, the addition of increased sales may generate increased manufacturing, which may generate increased employment and construction, which may spur in-migration to the region and increased production capacity, etc. -which would not be modeled in IMPLAN or RIMS. REMI is not as widely used as IMPLAN due to higher licensing fees and relatively recent introduction. Somewhat more technical information about the IMPLAN and REMI models used at USF’s Center for Economic Development Research follows. The Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR), College of Business Administration, University of South Florida (USF), uses the IMPLAN ProfessionalTM Social Accounting and Impact Analysis Software (an input-output model) for economic impact analyses. Data (1997) for each county in the state of Florida are available. County-wide data may be aggregated to focus on a region, such as the 7-county region Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk and Sarasota of special importance to the USF community. The following article briefly explains the economic impact analysis and the assumptions upon which the analysis is based. Economic impact analysis is based on conditional, predictive models of the form: If ...then... An input-output model is one type of model used in impact analysis. Other generally accepted models are the economic base model and the income-expenditure model. Compared with the input-output model, both the economic base and income-expenditure models are limited in application to small economic regions in which the interdependencies (sales/purchase relationships) between producing sectors are insignificant. Interindustry relationships were first described in 1758 by the Frenchman Francois Quesnay, founder of the physiocratic or “natural order” philosophy of economic thought. The physiocrats depicted the flow of goods and money in a nation, and thus made the first attempt to describe the circular flow of wealth on a macroeconomic basis. Wassily Leontief was born in Russia in 1906 and first studied economic geography at the University of St. Petersburg before moving to Berlin and China. He came to the United States in 1931 and, after a brief 3-month stint at the National Bureau of Economic Research in New York, he was hired by Harvard University. At Harvard, Professor Leontief undertook a research project that encompassed a 42-industry input-output table showing how changes in one sector of the economy lead to changes in other sectors. From this research, he developed the concept of multipliers from input-output tables, and was subsequently awarded the Nobel prize in economics in 1973 for his development of input-output (I-O) economics.

PAGE 33

28 The historical transactions data in the I-O model represent the sales and purchases between sectors that occurred over an estimation period. These data describe each sector’s “purchases” and “sales” linkages with the rest of the economy. For each productive sector the transaction data take into account all sales revenue and costs, with the difference between revenue and costs being profit, which is a part of value added. (Total value added to a product at each stage of its production is the sum of wages and salaries, rents, profits, interest, and dividends.) The historical transaction or descriptive data are used to create the descriptive model of information about local economic interactions called regional economic accounts. These accounts, or transaction tables, describe a local economy in terms of the flow of dollars from purchasers to producers within the defined region. For example, an increase in government purchases (first round) of output from the “manufacturing” sector of a region may require the “manufacturing” industry, in order to expand output, to purchase (second round) factor inputs from other sectors of the regional economy. In turn, these other sectors may have to purchase (third round) inputs to deliver the supporting production of factors to the “manufacturing” sector. The rounds of spending will continue with each round becoming increasingly weaker in its impact because of leakages from the region attributable to imports, savings, and taxes. The first round is called the direct effects of the change in final demand (consumption) in a sector(s) of the economy. The second and subsequent rounds are collectively referred to as the indirect effects of interindustry purchases (reduction in purchases) in response to direct effects. The open I-O model just described does not take into account changes in spending in the region, in response to the direct effects, for household consumption. Changes in spending from households as income or population increases (decreases) due to changes in the level of production are called induced effects. Induced effects are incorporated into the I-O descriptive model by forming a closed model. That is, transactions of the household sector are made endogenous to the model by treating households as a producing sector. The household sector sells its labor to the other producing sectors and purchases factor inputs, i.e. consumption expenditures, in order to maintain its labor. There are two steps in impact analysis using the I-O model. First, the descriptive model is created; then, the predictive model is derived from the descriptive model. The descriptive model contains information about interindustry transactions called the regional economic accounts The information describes the flow of dollars from purchasers to producers within the region. In addition to the regional economic accounts, the descriptive I-O model includes the social accounts Social accounting data include, for example, taxes paid by businesses and households to government, and transfer payments from government to businesses and households. Trade flows also are a part of the social accounts.

PAGE 34

29 Trade flows describe the movement of goods and services between the region and the rest of the world, that is imports and exports. The analyst must choose between regional purchase coefficients (RPCs) or supply/demand pooling. RPCs are econometrically derived to predict local purchases based upon a region’s characteristics. In contrast, supply/demand pooling presumes everything than can be purchased locally, will be. Hence, it will lead to larger multipliers than RPCs, because the leakages for imports are less. (The analyst also decides if local purchase coefficients LPCs are to be applied to an event during impact analysis. If the LPCs were to be applied, the model’s RPCs are used to determine how much of the first-round expenditure is used to purchase local products and how much is for imported items. Otherwise, the RPCs are applied to second and subsequent rounds of spending only.) The regional economic accounts and social accounts are used to build multipliers The multipliers are the predictive I-O model. A set of multipliers are expected changes in output for each industry in the model given a one dollar change in final demand for any particular industry or commodity. A multiplier measures the effects of a change in final demand(s) in a region. The change in economic activity is called the impact The impact is essentially the expected or predicted consequence of a change in final demand(s) within the region due to a single event or a group of events. A group of related events may be referred to as a project. A Type I multiplier measures the direct and indirect effects of a change in economic activity. It only captures interindustry effects within the region. In addition to the direct and indirect effects, a Type II multiplier captures the induced effects of changes in household income and expenditures. A Type III mu ltiplier also captures direct, indirect, and induced effects. However, the Type III mu ltiplier estimates the induced effects based upon changes in employment. It assumes the region is at full employment, then each job added or subtracted by the impact is associated with the region’s average expenditures per person. A Type II multiplier is most commonly used in impact analyses. Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) are spending by households and are strongly related to total personal income. Total personal income is income from all sources, including employment income and transfer payments that are based on place of residence. Because of commuting patterns, PCE in a region may not be strongly related to employment income in that location. Hence, the income based induced effects of the Type II multiplier are normally adjusted so that a regional average amount of transfer payments is associated with a change in employment income. Such multiplier is called a Social Accounting Matrices (SAM) Income multiplier. However, suppose that an increase (decrease) in employment income is not anticipated to be associated with a corresponding change in regional transfer payments. For instance, it may be believed that an increase in final demand will only generate low paying jobs. Then, it is likely that the underemployed will be hired and transfer payments will not increase in the region. Accordingly, a Specific Disposable Income may be applied to the Type II multipliers. That is, the change in household consumption expenditures is estimated by disposable income, which is defined as a specified (by the analyst) percentage of employment income.

PAGE 35

30 A change in final demand may be applied to an industry or to a commodity. Industries are businesses producing goods and services; commodities are the goods and services being produced. An industry can make more than one commodity. An industry usually is named for the primary, by value, commodity it produces. Commodities produced by an industry, other than its primary commodity, are called secondary commodities or by-products. An industry applied change in final demand has a direct effect on the selected industry only. A commodity applied change in final demand directly affects all industries that produce the commodity, whether as a primary or secondary commodity. The analyst chooses between an industry or commodity applied change in final demand. The choice is appropriately based on the circumstance for the change in final demand. The choice will affect the predicted impact. As an alternative to estimating the economic impact of a change in final demand (“at the factory door”), the analyst may estimate the impact of a change in sales and employee payroll for a particular institution, e.g. state/local government education, or business sector. Then, a typical expenditure pattern for the institution or industry is generated to assess the economic impact of the change in sales and payroll. (If the event under study is believed to have an atypical expenditure pattern, this alternative approach is inappropriate. Instead the analyst should specify the expenditure pattern of the institution or industry in detail.) Using this alternative approach, the direct effect on final demand, i.e. output, in the region will be less than the change in sales. This happens because the model includes the institution’s or industry’s production function and final demand is an estimate of the value, in producer prices, of the factor inputs needed to generate the specified change in level of sales. The difference between the estimated change in final demand and the change in sales is total value added. Also, with this approach, the induced effects are interpreted as resulting from a change in household spending by the suppliers of the institution’s or industry’s factor inputs (first round) as well as subsequent rounds of interindustry sales/purchases. Margins are used to convert purchaser prices to producer prices. Margins depend on the consumer. For example, households pay the full retail margins, but government may pay little or no retail margins because it has more buying power than individual households. Margins split a purchaser price into appropriate producer values, each value impacting a specific industry. For example, the purchaser price of a tire at an automotive retailer includes the producer price at the factory door plus transportation costs, the wholesaler’s markup, and the retailer’s markup. Unless edited by the analyst, margins used in impact analysis are national averages. A deflator may be used to convert expenditures to the base year (estimation period) used to calculate predictive multipliers and to inflate the reports of impact analysis to the current year. Deflators are associated with commodities, and are also used to adjust margin values. A predicted regional impact may be gauged in terms of output (a change in production measured in dollars), of employment (a change in employment measured by number of jobs), or of personal income (a change in income from all sources, including employment and transfer payments, for

PAGE 36

31 persons residing in the region). The following are the implicit assumptions of the I-O model. First, it is assumed that the proportions in which each sector purchases its inputs from all other sectors are invariant over the period of analysis. The implications of this assumption are unchanged technology, constant relative prices, no shift in the mix of production activities within sectors, and no new significant firm has moved into or out of the region. Second, the I-O model assumes linear production functions, that is a sector’s inputs remain in proportion to its output. This implies that no industry enjoys economies of scale. Third, each sector of the regional economy is assumed to be homogeneous. An increase (decrease) in a sector’s final demand will always have the same impact on the economy. And fourth, in the closed I-O model, it is assumed that the household sector’s marginal propensity to consume equals its average propensity to consume. The Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR), College of Business Administration, University of South Florida (USF), uses the REMI Policy InsightTM model to estimate economic and demographic effects that policy initiatives or external events may cause on a regional economy. Data the last available historical year is 1997 for each of USF’s seven county economic development region, Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk and Sarasota; a consolidated Orlando metropolitan area (Lake, Orange, Seminole, and Volusia counties); and a consolidation of the remaining 56 Florida counties are available. USF’s secondary site license for this model is maintained by the Office of Economic Development and funded by the Office of the Provost; the primary site license is held by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, located in St. Petersburg, Florida. The REMI software is managed by CEDR and available to the USF community for research and teaching purposes. The following article briefly explains the policy insight model. REMI Policy Insight is a dynamic model which predicts how changes in an economy will occur on a year-by-year basis. (The traditional input-output type of economic impact models are static models.) To induce a change in an economy the model is sensitive to a wide range of policy and project alternatives as well as interactions between regional economies and the national economy. The REMI model is a structural model, meaning that it clearly includes cause-and-effect relationships. The model shares two key underlying assumptions with classical economic theory: households maximize utility and producers maximize profits. In the model, businesses produce goods to sell to other firms, consumers, investors, governments and purchasers outside the region. The output is produced using labor, capital, fuel and intermediate inputs. The demand for labor, capital and fuel per unit of output depends on their relative costs, because an increase in the price on any one of these inputs leads to substitution away from that input to other inputs. The supply of labor in the model depends on the number of people in the population and the proportion of those people who participate in the labor force. Economic migration affects population size.

PAGE 37

32 People will move into an area if the real after-tax wage rates of the likelihood of being employed increases in a region. Supply and demand for labor in the model determines the wage rates. These wage rates, along with other prices and productivity, determine the cost of doing business for every industry in the model. An increase in the cost of doing business causes either an increase in price or a cut in profits, depending on the market for the product. In either case, an increase in cost would decrease the share of the local and US market supplied by local firms. This market share combined with demand determines the amount of local output. The model brings together many fundamental economic elements, such as those mentioned in the previous two paragraphs, to determine a baseline forecast for each year. The model includes all the inter-industry relationships that are in an input-output model, like IMPLAN ProfessionalTM and goes beyond the input-output model by including added relationships with population, labor supply, wages, prices, profits, and market shares. Prepared September 2000 by: Dennis G. Colie, Ph.D. Economist E-mail: DCOLIE@coba.usf.edu

PAGE 38

33Appendix E. Model Results Tables

PAGE 39

34 List of Tables Table Description Page 1 Summary Contributions.................................................................................................. ....................35 2A Fair Authority Operating Expenditure Contributions – Hillsborough County....................................36 2B Fair Authority Payroll Expenditure Contributions – Hillsborough County.........................................36 2C Combined Fair Authority Operating & Payroll Expenditure Contributions – Hillsborough County..36 3A Fair Authority Operating Expenditure Contributions – Tampa Bay region........................................37 3B Fair Authority Payroll Expenditure Contributions – Tampa Bay region.............................................37 3C Combined Fair Authority Operating & Payroll Expenditure Contributions – Tampa Bay region.......37 4A Fair Authority Operating Expenditure Contributions – state of Florida..............................................38 4B Fair Authority Payroll Expenditure Contributions – state of Florida..................................................38 4C Combined Fair Authority Operating & Payroll Expenditure Contributions – state of Florida............38 5A Fair Attendee Contributions – Hillsborough County........................................................................ ..39 5B Total of Fair Authority Contributions – Hillsborough County............................................................39 5C Grand Total of Fair Authority and Event Contributions – Hillsborough County................................39 6A Fair Attendee Contributions – Tampa Bay region........................................................................... ...40 6B Total of Fair Authority Contributions – Tampa Bay region................................................................4 0 6C Grand Total of Fair Authority and Event Contributions – Tampa Bay region....................................40 7A Fair Attendee Contributions – state of Florida........................................................................... .........41 7B Total of Fair Authority Contributions – state of Florida................................................................. ....41 7C Grand Total of Fair Authority and Event Contributions – state of Florida..........................................41 8A Feld Entertainment Total Contributions – Hillsborough County........................................................42 8B Equestrian Event Total Contributions – Hillsborough County............................................................42 8C Other-than-Equestrian Event Total Contributions – Hillsborough County.........................................43 8D Combined Total Contribution of All Event Forms – Hillsborough County........................................43 9A Feld Entertainment Total Contributions – Tampa Bay region............................................................44 9B Equestrian Event Total Contributions – Tampa Bay region................................................................44 9C Other-than-Equestrian Event Total Contributions – Tampa Bay region.............................................45 9D Combined Total Contribution of All Event Forms – Tampa Bay region............................................45 10A Feld Entertainment Total Contributions – state of Florida................................................................. .46 10B Equestrian Event Total Contributions – state of Florida................................................................... ..46 10C Other-than-Equestrian Event Total Contributions – state of Florida...................................................47 10D Combined Total Contribution of All Event Forms – state of Florida..................................................47 11A Event Sponsor Operating Expenditure Contributions – Hillsborough County...................................48 11B Event Sponsor Payroll Expenditure Contributions – Hillsborough County........................................48 11C Event Attendee Contributions – Hillsborough County........................................................................ 48 12A Event Sponsor Operating Expenditure Contributions – Tampa Bay region........................................49 12B Event Sponsor Payroll Expenditure Contributions – Tampa Bay region............................................49 12C Event Attendee Contributions – Tampa Bay region........................................................................... .49 13A Event Sponsor Operating Expenditure Contributions – state of Florida.............................................50 13B Event Sponsor Payroll Expenditure Contributions – state of Florida..................................................50 13C Event Attendee Contributions – state of Florida........................................................................... ......50

PAGE 40

35Table 1 Summary Contributions Impact to Hillsborough CountyComponentEmployment Personal Income Output Fair Authority Operating expenditures 117 jobs $ 4,223,893$ 7,016,749 Fair Authority Employee spending 25 3,019,952 2,060,620 Fair Visitor spending 359 12,119,391 24,727,876 Event Sponsor Operating expenditures 285 10,317,089 17,143,788 Event Sponsor Employee spending 29 3,571,466 2,442,822 Event Visitor spending 189 6,779,409 11,478,292 T T o o t t a a l l M M u u l l t t i i p p l l i i e e r r E E f f f f e e c c t t 1 1 , 0 0 0 0 3 3 j j o o b b s s $ $ 4 4 0 0 , 0 0 3 3 1 1 , 2 2 0 0 1 1 $ $ 6 6 4 4 , 8 8 7 7 0 0 , 1 1 4 4 7 7 F F a a i i r r A A u u t t h h o o r r i i t t y y D D i i r r e e c c t t E E f f f f e e c c t t 74 2,548,428 11,929,477 T T o o t t a a l l C C o o n n t t r r i i b b u u t t i i o o n n s s 1 1 , 0 0 7 7 7 7 j j o o b b s s $ $ 4 4 2 2 , 5 5 7 7 9 9 , 6 6 2 2 9 9 $ $ 7 7 6 6 , 7 7 9 9 9 9 , 6 6 2 2 4 4Impact to Tampa Bay regionComponentEmployment Personal Income Output Fair Authority Operating expenditures 134 jobs $ 4,913,717$ 8,371,596 Fair Authority Employee spending 33 3,400,025 2,743,915 Fair Visitor spending 403 13,942,927 28,426,182 Event Sponsor Operating expenditures 327 12,005,466 20,458,858 Event Sponsor Employee spending 40 4,017,985 3,246,771 Event Visitor spending 214 7,823,914 13,507,700 T T o o t t a a l l i i m m p p a a c c t t s s 1 1 , 1 1 5 5 0 0 j j o o b b s s $ $ 4 4 6 6 , 1 1 0 0 4 4 , 0 0 3 3 4 4 $ $ 7 7 6 6 , 7 7 5 5 5 5 , 0 0 2 2 2 2 F F a a i i r r A A u u t t h h o o r r i i t t y y D D i i r r e e c c t t E E f f f f e e c c t t 74 2,548,428 11,929,477 T T o o t t a a l l C C o o n n t t r r i i b b u u t t i i o o n n s s 1 1 , 2 2 2 2 4 4 j j o o b b s s $ $ 4 4 8 8 , 6 6 5 5 2 2 , 4 4 6 6 2 2 $ $ 8 8 8 8 , 6 6 8 8 4 4 , 4 4 9 9 9 9Impact to state of FloridaComponentEmployment Personal Income Output Fair Authority Operating expenditures 248 jobs $ 8,884,121$ 15,852,480 Fair Authority Employee spending 39 3,617,108 3,260,681 Fair Visitor spending 500 17,371,173 35,583,526 Event Sponsor Operating expenditures 608 21,741,993 38,754,574 Event Sponsor Employee spending 46 4,266,720 3,849,312 Event Visitor spending 349 12,495,475 22,402,750 T T o o t t a a l l i i m m p p a a c c t t s s 1 1 , 7 7 9 9 0 0 j j o o b b s s $ $ 6 6 8 8 , 3 3 7 7 6 6 , 5 5 9 9 0 0 $ $ 1 1 1 1 9 9 , 7 7 0 0 3 3 , 3 3 2 2 3 3 F F a a i i r r A A u u t t h h o o r r i i t t y y D D i i r r e e c c t t E E f f f f e e c c t t 74 2,548,428 11,929,477 T T o o t t a a l l C C o o n n t t r r i i b b u u t t i i o o n n s s 1 1 , 8 8 6 6 4 4 j j o o b b s s $ $ 7 7 0 0 , 9 9 2 2 5 5 , 0 0 1 1 8 8 $ $ 1 1 3 3 1 1 , 6 6 3 3 2 2 , 8 8 0 0 0 0


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200301Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 002023887
005 20090928183114.0
006 m d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 090812s2000 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C63-00097
035
(OCoLC)430199850
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
049
FHMM
090
S555.F6 (ONLINE)
0 4 245
The economic contributions of the Florida State Fair Authority
h [electronic resource] /
an analysis performed by Center for Economic Development Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
b Center for Economic Development Research,
2000.
300
1 online resource (iv, 50 p.)
500
Title from PDF of title page (viewed Aug. 12, 2009).
"October 2000."
2 610
Florida State Fair Authority.
650
Agricultural exhibitions
z Florida
Tampa.
Fairs
Florida
Tampa.
651
Hillsborough County (Fla.)
x Economic conditions.
710
University of South Florida.
Center for Economic Development Research.
1 8 773
t Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR) Collection
856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c63.97