2016 Report on the Economic Impacts of the Moscow Farmers

A Collaborate Project from the City of Moscow

Steven Peterson Research Economist and Clinical Assistant Professor, Economics

College of Business and Economics – University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho

Stephen Pool

Research Economist Moscow, Idaho

September 28, 2016

2016 Report on the Economic Impacts of the Moscow Farmers Market

i | P a g e

ExecutiveSummary ThisreportisaneconomicassessmentoftheMoscowFarmersMarket.Itwassponsoredby

theCityofMoscowandcompletedinSeptember2016.TheauthorofthestudyisStevenPeterson1,ResearchEconomistandClinicalAssistanceProfessor,Economics,CollegeofBusinessandEconomics,UniversityofIdahoandStephenPool,ResearchEconomist.TheMarket’scurrentlocationisMainStreetbetween3rdStreetand6thStreet,everySaturday,May1sttoOctober30th,8amto1pm,averagingsixmonthsor26weeksperyear(1/2year).

KeyConclusions:

TheMoscowFarmersMarketisavibrant,vital,39yearoldinstitutionfoundedin1977. TheMoscowBrand:TheMoscowFarmersMarket’smostimportantcontributionto

MoscowandLatahCountyeconomyisthecontributiontothebrandingofMoscowasaplacetolive,shop,dine,raisechildren,attendcollege,andwork.ThiswasidentifiedintheCommunityUniversityStrategicPartnershipprojectspearheadedbytheMoscowChamberofCommerceindeterminingauniquebrandingapproachforthecommunityofMoscow.iTheMoscowFarmersMarket:

o Actsasasocialgluethathelpsholdthediverseelementsofthedowntowncommunitytogether.

o Worksasakeypartnerwiththelocalfoodsmovement,andisanimportantcomponentoftheMoscowbrandasidentifiedintheCUSPbrandingprojectsfornotonlyMoscowbutLatahCountyproducersaswell.

o Helpsvendorssellapproximately$300,000annuallyoflocalagriculturalproductsfromLatahCounty.

o PartnerswithMoscow’sannualArtwalk,RenaissanceFair,RendezvousinthePark,andtheMoscowartisticcommunity.

o PartnerswiththeMoscowFoodCO‐OP,whichproduces$11millioninrevenues(2015),employs145full‐timeandpart‐timeemployeesandannuallybuys$556,602ofproductsfrom197localandregionalfirms.

IncubatorforEntrepreneurs:TheMoscowFarmersMarketfunctionsasakeycommunityincubatorfor67currentLatahCountystart‐upfirmsandentrepreneurs:

o 11vegetable,poultry,nursery,dairy,andotherplantandanimallocalfirms.o 32craft,artistic,pottery,andotherfirmsengaginginlocalproduction.o 10eatinganddrinkingestablishments.o 14“value‐added”enterprisesincludingwineries,bakedgoods,honey,andothers.

BrickandMortar/Spinoffs:Approximately20‐25firmshavespun‐offfromtheMoscowFarmersMarketincubatorandestablishedbrickandmortarestablishmentsorpermanentproductionfacilities.Examplesinclude:

1 This analysis as well as its conclusions is solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the University of Idaho or any other individuals or organizations.

ii | P a g e

o PanhandleBread,Tapped,CowgirlChocolates,SistersCookies,HumbleBurger,LodgePoleRestaurant,BrushCreekCreamery,Colter’sCreekWinery,Patti’sKitchen,andmanyothers.

BeerandWineEconomicCluster:TheMarkethasbeenakey“ingredient”intheemergingregionalcraftbeerandwineryregionaleconomicclusternowcountingoverfifteenregionallyproducedwinesandcraftbeers.

o TheMarkethasbeenapartnerindevelopingacraftbeerdistrictinMoscowthatnowincludesMoscowBrewingCompany,RantsandRavesBrewery,andHungaDungaBrewery.Inaddition,thereareseveralMoscowrestaurantsandbarsthatspecializedinservinglocalandregionalcraftbeers.

RapidMarketGrowth:164,892estimatedannualvisitorstotheMarketin2013,upfrom84,084in2003;a96%cumulativeincreaseanda7.0%averageannualgrowthrate.Marketvisitorsandshoppersare:

o 4.4timesthepopulationofLatahCounty(37,244)in2015or6.7timesthepopulationofMoscow(25,060).

o Approximately35%out‐of‐townvisitors(57,712)bringingnewmoneytotheMoscoweconomy.

o Approximately89,232people(64%)whovisittheMarketbefore11am,creatingawaveofshopperseveryMarketSaturdayatthestartofthebusinessdayforMoscowfirms.

o By2016theMarketvisitorsmayreach176,380,employingthehistoric7%averageannualgrowthrate.

AnnualMarketVendorSalesExceed$1Million:EstimatedFarmersMarketreportedvendorsalesiiwere$1,177,391in2015(FigureA):

o 49%Agricultural(plant)products($594,738)o 27%Preparedfood($329,888)o 16%Craft($195,850)o 5%ValueAdded($67,878)o 3%Agriculture(PoultryLivestock)($33,604)

AnnualVisitorSpending:Rangesfrom$4.1Million(Low)to$8.2Million(High)DependingontheAssumedSurveyMethodology

o TherehavebeenatleastfourrecentsurveysofFarmersMarketvisitorspending(2003,2009,2011,and2013).TheyreportsubstantialMarketspending,averaging$6.5millionannuallyafteradjustingforinflation,visitorestimates,andsurveymethodology.

o Themostrecent2013surveyresults(thebasisforthisanalysis): TotalvisitorspendinginsideiiitheMarket:$2.5million(low)to$5.0million

(high) TotalvisitorspendingoutsidetheMarketinlocaldowntownfirms:$1.6

million(low)to$3.2million(high) AnnualEconomicImpactsoftheMarketIncludingMultiplierEffects(FigureB):iv

o Range‐$3.94millionto$5.46million(inoutput)o Range‐94localjobsto128jobs

VendorExpenditures‐15jobs

iii | P a g e

BrickandMortar/Spinoffs‐54jobs NetadditionalvisitorMarketspending(range)‐12jobsto33jobs Additionaldowntownvisitorspending(range)‐13jobsto26jobs

AnnualStateandLocalTaxContributionsoftheMarketRangefrom$288,029to$405,035PerYear:v

o LocalPropertyTaxesRange‐$92,865to$131,692o StateSales,Excise,andIncomeTaxesRange‐$195,164to$273,343

TheMoscowFarmersMarketisReachingFinancialSustainabilityo PropertytaxesannuallygeneratedbytheMarket’seconomicimpactsrangefrom

$92,865(low)to$131,692(high).o DirectoperatingMarketdeficithasdecreasedfrom$27,041in2013to$4,193

(2015).o TotalMarketdeficit(includingindirectcityserviceexpenses)hasdeclinedfrom

$36,946(2013)to$17,955(2015).o TheMarketmaybeself‐sustainingwithin3years(notincludingtheeconomic

impacts).FactoringintheeconomicimpactstheMarketisalreadyself‐sustainingandproducingpositivenetpropertytaxrevenues.

DowntownisanImportantStrengthtoMoscow’sEconomyo DowntownMoscowhasbeencomparedtoagreattidalbasin:Eachdaythetideof

workersandstudentsflowoutwardtotheirjobsandstudiesandeachnighttheyflowbackwithnutrients(i.e.income)tothedowntowneconomy.

o DowntowniscentrallylocatedneartheUniversityofIdahocampusandnearthemajorresidentialdistrictoftown.Downtownstorefrontshavefewvacancies.

o Thereareatleast344firmsindowntownwithanapproximate3,691workers.DowntownMoscow’seconomicclusters: Healthcare–753jobs Eatinganddrinking–632jobs Retail–586jobs Other–387 Government–385jobs Finance/insurance/realestate–291jobs Engineeringandtechnologyservices–233jobs Manufacturing/CraftIndustries–243workers Professionalservices–140jobs PrivateEducation–41jobs

TheMoscowFarmersMarkethasreceivedsubstantialcommunitysupport,encouragement,andassistancefromtheCityofMoscow.OngoingsuccessfulcommunityenterprisessuchastheMarketneedtobemonitoredandsupportedonacontinuousbasis.TheUniversityofIdaho’sLionelHamptonJazzFestivalmayserveasawarningoftheconsequencesofinadequateattentionorbenignneglecttoasuccessfulcommunityenterprise.Thejazzfestivalwasbeguninthelate1960sandby2002itboasted18,000visitingK‐12studentseveryFebruaryand16,000concertattendees,supporting125localjobsincludingthemultipliereffects.By2014itattendeeshaddroppedto3,800studentswithonly7,257inconcertattendance,asharpdeclinethatmaythreatenitsfuture.

iv | P a g e

Communitysupportandencouragementisvitalforcommunityenterprisestogrowandprosper.

Figure B

Economic Impacts of Moscow Farmers Market (Low Estimate)

Includes the Direct, Indirect, and Induced Impacts

Category Jobs Wages/Salaries Output

Vendor Expenditures 15 266,434$ 557,787$

Brick and Mortar/Spinoffs 54 944,643$ 2,278,578$

Visitor Spending Market (Net) 12 221,977$ 518,194$

Visitor Spending Downtown 13 251,538$ 585,701$

Total 94 1,684,591$ 3,940,260$

Economic Impacts of Moscow Farmers Market (High Estimate)





Visitor Spending Market (Net) 33 624,164$ 1,454,681$

Visitor Spending Downtown 26 503,075$ 1,171,401$

Total 128 2,338,316$ 5,462,447$

Tax Impacts Local State Total

Low Scenario $92,865 $195,164 $288,029

High Scenario $131,692 $273,343 $405,035

Figure A: 2015 Market Vendor Sales of $1,177,391

v | P a g e

Table ofContents

PurposeofStudy.......................................................................................................................................1OverviewoftheFarmersMarket........................................................................................................1StudyApproach:DataandMethodology.........................................................................................5Results..........................................................................................................................................................13OverviewoftheMoscowEconomy..................................................................................................16ConclusionsandaWarning.................................................................................................................20Sources.........................................................................................................................................................22Terminology...............................................................................................................................................24TablesandFigures..................................................................................................................................25Notes.............................................................................................................................................................26

Table ofFigures

Figure1:EstimatedAnnualFarmersMarketVisitorsSurveyYears2003‐2013..........1Figure2:MarketGeographicRegion.................................................................................................2Figure3:DailyandAnnualEstimatedVisitorsMoscowFarmersMarketbySurvey..2Figure4:2015MarketVendorSalesof$1,177,391...................................................................3Figure5:TotalVendorCountandWalk‐Ons.................................................................................4Figure6:MarketSpaceVendorFees.................................................................................................4Figure7:Market2013‐2015Budget.................................................................................................5Figure8:SurveyResultsofMoscowFarmersMarketAnalysis............................................7Figure9:AdjustedVendorFarmersMarketSales2011‐2016..............................................8Figure10:EconomicImpactsofMoscowFarmersMarket...................................................15Figure11:NetIncomeInjectionsandLeakagesforLatahandWhitman.......................17Figure12:QuadCountyRetailTradeJobs2001‐2016..........................................................18Figure13:QuadCountyTotalEmployment2001‐2025........................................................19Figure14:FarmersMarket2011Location...................................................................................26Figure15:FarmersMarket2016Location...................................................................................26

1 | P a g e

2016ReportontheEconomicImpactsoftheMoscowFarmersMarket

PurposeofStudyThisreportisaneconomicassessmentoftheMoscowFarmersMarket.Itwassponsored

bytheCityofMoscowandcompletedinSeptember,2016.TheauthorsofthestudywereStevenPeterson,ResearchEconomistandClinicalAssistanceProfessor,Economics,CollegeofBusinessandEconomics,UniversityofIdaho,andStephenPool,ResearchEconomist.vi

ThereportincludesananalysisoftheFarmersMarket,abrieflookatlocalfoodsproduction,andanexaminationofthedowntowneconomiccorridor.

FarmersMarketRoleintheBrandingofMoscowThefocusofthisstudyincludestheroleoftheMarketinthebranddefinitionofMoscow,

itsroleinattractingnewvisitorsandshopperstoMoscow,makingMoscowamoredesirableplacetoliveandwork,retentionandattractionofworld‐classuniversityemployees,encouragingandfacilitatingentrepreneurshipandnewbusinesscreation,anditsroleasasocialgluethatholdsdowntownMoscowtogether.

OverviewoftheFarmersMarket

MarketDescriptionTheMoscowFarmersMarketisavitalMoscowinstitutionwhichis39yearsoldandwas

foundedin1977.TheMarketishostedonMainStreetbetween3rdStreetand6thStreet,everySaturdaybetweenMay1standOctober30th,8amto1pm,averaging26weeksperyear.VisitorstotheMarketwereestimatedtobe164,892during2013,upfrom84,084in2003.Thiscumulativeincreaseof96%is4.4timesthepopulationofLatahCounty(37,244)in2003or6.7timesthepopulationofMoscow(25,060)(Figure1).It’simportanttonotetheMarketmovedfromtheJacksonStreetlotparkinglot2012toMainStreetin2012.

Figure 1: Estimated Annual Farmers Market Visitors Survey Years 2003‐2013

84,084

130,442 138,554

164,892

‐

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

2003 2009 2011 2013

Source: Moscow Farmers Market Value 2015

2 | P a g e

TheMoscowFarmersMarkethasanadvisorycommissionwith7activemembersandone

vacancy.Thecurrentmembersare:ErinCaroll(chair),BertoCerillo(vicechair),LindaHeath,MarciMiller,JoannMuneta,DavidPierce,JeremyRitter,GinaTaruscio,andCindaWilliams.TheMarketregionrepresentsa200mileradiusaroundMoscow(Figure2),upfroma100milelimitin2014.viiMarketRankedNumberOneinIdaho

TheFarmlandTrustrankedtheMoscowFarmersMarketasthenumberoneMarketinIdahoforthefifthyearinarowandrateditasoneofthetoptwenty‐fiveMarketsintheU.S.TheMarketwasrankedonfivecategories:People'sChoice(Rank13),FocusonFarmers(Rank15),HealthyFoodforAll(Rank13),PillaroftheCommunity(Rank12),andChampionfortheEnvironment(Rank15).viii

MarketVisitorsTheMoscowFarmersMarketaverages6,342visitorseverySaturday(basedonthe2013

StickyEconomyEvaluationDevice‐SEEDsurvey)andaverages5,325visitorsacrossallrecent

Figure 3: Daily and Annual Estimated Visitors Moscow Farmers Market by Survey

8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. Daily Annually

9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. 1:00 p.m.

2003 RMA 624 936 888 786 ‐ 3,234 84,084

2009 RMA 869 1,379 1,685 1,084 ‐ 5,017 130,442

2011 RMA 806 1,252 1,484 1,267 520 5,329 138,554

2013 SEED 730 1,362 1,713 1,679 858 6,342 164,892

Average 757 1,232 1,443 1,204 689 5,325 138,450

% Daily 14% 23% 27% 23% 13% 100% ‐

Annually 19,689 32,039 37,505 31,304 17,914 ‐ 138,450

Source: Farmers Market Value 2015

Time

Figure 2: Market Geographic Region

3 | P a g e

Marketsurveys.ixApproximately14%ofallvisitorsattendtheMarket8amto9am;23%between9amto10am,27%between10amto11am,23%between11amto12pm,and13%between12pmand1pm.Approximately64%ofthecustomersvisittheMarketbefore11am,whenmostoftheretailbusinessestoMoscowarejustopeningtheirdoors,supplyinga“wave”ofpotentialcustomersavailabletoallbusinessesinMoscow.TheMarketattractsacumulativeof89,232visitorsannuallytodowntownMoscowatthestartofthe“shoppingday”onMarketdaySaturdays(Figure3).

Figure3reportstheestimatecustomercountsbyhourandbyMarketsurveyyear(whichisdiscussedinthemethodologysectionofthisreport).The“Average”rowrepresentsanaverageacrossallsurveyyears.Theannualtotalsarecalculatedbymultiplyingthesurveybythe26weeksoftheMarketyear.

TheSEEDsurveyestimatedthat48%oftheMarketcustomerswereMoscowresidents,5%LatahCountyresidents,19%residentsofWhitmanCounty,and11%out‐of‐areacustomers.Thus69%oftotalcustomerswerefromLatahCountyand31%werenonresidentcustomers.AninformalsurveyofvendorsinMay,2016foundthatapproximately35%ofMarketrevenueswerefromnonresidentcustomers.xNonresidentrevenuesrepresentsnewmoniestotheLatahCountyeconomy.MarketVendors

TheFarmersMarkethasapproximately56permanent(i.e.season)vendorsonanygivenweekandover70potentialwalk‐onvendors,foratotalof126totalvendorpopulation.In2015,thevendorsreported$1,177,391sales(thefirstfullyearoftherequirementthatvendorsreporttotalsales).Approximately49%ofallsaleswereproduceandnursery($573,089),preparedfood27%($317,880),Craft16%($188,722)value‐added5%($65,319),andLivestock/poultry3%($32,381)(Figure4).

Figure 4: 2015 Market Vendor Sales of $1,177,391

4 | P a g e

Ofthetotalnumberofvendors,about44%arepermanentorseasonvendorsand56%are

walk‐onsortemporaryvendors.Ofthetotalnumberofvendor,46%arecraftvendors(58),Produce/nursery24%(30),17%valueadded(22),preparedfood10%(13),andlivestock/poultry3%(4).xiThesecanbeseeninFigure5.MarketFeesandRevenues

Figure6outlinesthefeeschedulefortheFarmersMarket.TheMarketcollected$45,487in2015,ofwhich$22,138werecollectedfrom55SeasonVendorsand$23,350from74walk‐Onvendors.Thefeesarecollectedforvendors,truckspaces,children’sspaces,performingartists,electricalhook‐ups,andotherservices(Figure6).

TheMoscowFarmersMarketisrelativelyclosetobeingself‐sustaining.Revenueshaveincreased36%from2013($33,475)to2015($45,487).TheCityofMoscow’sdirectsubsidyoftheMarkethasdecreasedfrom$27,041in2013to$4,194in2014.Directcostsincludesalaries

Figure 5: Total Vendor Count and Walk‐Ons

Total All Regions Latah County

Product Season Walk‐Ons Total % Total %

Craft 17 41 58 46% 32 55%

Livestock 3 1 4 3% 2 50%

Prepared Food 6 7 13 10% 10 77%

Produce/Nursery 22 8 30 24% 9 30%

Value‐Added 8 14 22 17% 14 64%

Total 56 71 127 100% 67 53%

Figure 6: Market Space Vendor Fees APPENDIX 2 MARKET

SPACE FEES

SPACE / LOCATION PRICE PER DAY PRICE PER SEASON

REGULAR MARKET VENDOR SPACES

SEASON VENDOR $294.00 11’ X 15’ TABLE/TENT

ANNUAL MANAGE

MY MARKET

REGISTRATION FEE

$15.00

SURCHARGES

ELECTRICAL HOOKUP $6.00 $139.00 PER UNIT / OUTLET

TRUCK PARKING $11.00 $260.00

CORNER SPACES PER SEASON FEE AS STATED ABOVE PLUS $105

FOR WALK-ON MARKET VENDORS, CHILD MARKET VENDORS

DAY FEES WITH TRUCK SPACE

ANNUAL

MANAGE MY MARKET

REGISTRATION FEE

CHILD VENDORS ARE EXEMPT FROM

MANAGE MY MARKET

REGISTRATION AND FEE

$15.00

WALK-ON FEE (11’ X 15’) $32.00 ADDITIONAL $ 32.00 PER DAY

HALF SPACE $19.00TABLE SPACE (3’ X 3’) $13.00

CHILD VENDOR (5’ X 5’) $ 6.00PERFORMANCE ART

MAXIMUM LIMIT 4 PER MARKET

DAY

$ 7.00

5 | P a g e

anddirectprogramexpenses.IndirectcostsincludecityservicestosupporttheMarketincludingpolicy,water,streetdepartment,etc.Thecityisstillsubsidizingindirectcoststotaling$13,761in2015.Totaldirectandindirectsubsidytotals$17,955.IftheMarketcontinuestogrow,thesubsidyshouldcontinuetodeclineoverthenextseveralyears,perhapseventurningpositive(Figure7).xii

StudyApproach:DataandMethodology

AvailableSurveyData

OverthelastfifteenyearstherehavebeenalargevarietyofsurveysandanalysesoftheMarket.xiiiTherehavebeenthreeRapidMarketAssessments(RMAs),thefirstbyLarryLevandJohnPotter(2003),followedbyCindaWilliams(UniversityofIdahoExtension,Moscow,Idaho)in2009and2011.Inadditiontothese,the2012MoscowFarmersMarketStrategicPlanauthoredwasbyArronZaretsky,PublicMarketDevelopment,Waterville,NC.Therehavealsobeenthreeanalysesdevelopedbymarketumbrella.org:1)2013StickyEconomyEvaluationDevice(SEED),2)2013NeighborhoodExchangeEvaluationDevice(NEED),and3)2014FoodEnvironmentEvaluationDevice(FEED),allimplementedandauthoredbyAmandaArgona,AmeriCorpsVolunteerCoordinator.Inall,therewerevendorsurveysin2012,2013,and2014.Communitysurveysoccurredin2003,2009,2011,2012,2013,and2014.Businesssurveysoccurredin2012and2013.

Acrossthevariousanalyses,avarietyofsurveytechniqueswereemployedfortargetingMarketparticipantsandMarketdecisionmakers.ThesurveymethodsincludedMarketdaysurveys,onlinesurveysdeliveredatsurveymonkey.comandmanagemymarket.com,mailsurveys,andinterviews.ThetargetaudienceincludedMarketshoppers,vendors,localbusinesses,andotherorganizationsanddecisionmakers.Thenumbersurveyedrangesfrom11to967,dependingonthetechniqueandvenue.

Figure 7: Market 2013‐2015 Budget

Market Farmer Summary Budget 2013‐20152013 2014 2015

Farmers Market Revenue $33,475.00 $39,148.10 $45,487.25 MFM Staff Expenses $44,992.45 $37,707.00 $37,244.00 MFM Program Expenses $15,524.00 $12,073.01 $12,436.94 Subtotal Revenue over Expenses ($27,041.45) ($10,631.91) ($4,193.69)

Police $1,814.00 $1,458.12 $1,400.90 Water Department (8 Hours ) $300.00 $200.00 $200.00 Engineering Services (14.5 Hours ) $200.00 $270.00 $270.00 Parks & Recreation Support $1,634.00 $1,711.00 $1,711.00 Street Department (26 Sweeper Hours $5,644.00 $3,954.00 $3,954.00 & 58 Man Hours )

Fire Department $312.00 $521.20 $525.00 Contracts (Backyard Harvest & AmeriCorps) $ $5,700.00 $5,700.00

Total Annual Indirect MFM Cost $ $9,904 $ $13,814.32 $ $13,760.90

Total City Expenses $70,420.45 $63,594.33 $63,441.84

Total Revenue over Expenses ($36,945.45) ($24,446.23) ($17,954.59)

MFM Indirect Cost to MFM

6 | P a g e

VisitorandMarketCustomerSurveys

The2003RMAsurveyestimateddailyattendanceat3,234,average“group”insidespending($15.80),andaveragegroupoutsidespending($21.69)forthosegroupsdoingadditionalshopping.ThetotalinsidesalesfortheMarketwere$25,500.00,outsidesales($19,360),foragrandtotalof$44,909.InsidespendingrepresentsvisitorspendinginsidetheMarket.OutsidespendingrepresentsadditionaldowntownspendingoutsidetheMarket.

The2009RMAsurveyestimateddailyattendanceat5,017,average“group”insidespending($19.05),andaveragegroupoutsidespendingwasnotreportedforthosegroupsdoingadditionalshopping.ThetotalsalesfortheMarketwere$47,754.

The2011RMAsurveyestimateddailyattendanceat5,329,average“group”insidespending($19.92),andaveragegroupoutsidespending($13.11)forthosegroupsdoingadditionalshopping.TotalinsidesalesfortheMarketwere$53,067,outsidesales($34,925),foragrandtotalof$87,992xiv.

The2013SEEDsurveyestimateddailyattendanceat6,324.Fortheiranalyses,theyassumedanaverageattendanceof5,000,“individual”insidespending($29.58),andaverage“individual”outsidespending($18.50),forthoseindividualdoingadditionalshopping.TotalinsidesalesfortheMarketwere$147,900,outsidesales$92,481,foragrandtotalof$240,381.xv

ThesesurveyresultsarepresentedinthefirsttableofFigure8.Threetablesarepresented:1)OriginalDataand,2)2013Visitorsin2016Dollars,and3)2013Visitorsin2016DollarsandadjustedtoPerVisitorSpending.Fortheoriginaltabledata:

Column1:Thefirstcolumnreportstheyearofthesurvey.Column2:Theestimatedvisitordatamultipliedby26weeksoftheMarketperiod.Column3:Theestimatedinside‐the‐Market“per‐party”averagespendingfromthesurveys

takeninthe2003,2009,and2011,andtheaverageper‐personspendingfor2013.Column4:Theestimatedoutside‐the‐Market“per‐party”averagespendingfromthe

surveystakeninthe2003,2009,and2011,andtheaverageper‐personspendingfor2013.

Column5:Totalannualinsidespending.Column6:Totalannualoutsidespending.Column7:GrandtotalofallMarket‐relatedestimatedannualspendingbyvisitorstothe Market.Inordertocomparethesesurveysadjustmentsweremadetoaccountforthreefactors:1)

Thesurveysweremadeindifferentyears,2)Theannualestimatednumberofvisitorsdiffer,and3)Someofthesurveytechniquesweredifferent.Theestimatesofvisitorspendingareadjustedforinflation,themostrecentannualvisitornumberswereemployed,andthesurveytechniqueswerenormalizedforcomparison.Table2andTable3inFigure8reflecttheseadjustments.

7 | P a g e

ThesecondtableofFigure8(2013Visitorsin2016Dollars)makestwoadjustmentstothe

originaltable:1)The2013annualizedcustomercountsareemployedintheestimates.2)AllspendingnumbersareadjustedforinflationusingtheConsumerPriceIndex.xvi

ThethirdtableofFigure8(2013Visitorsin2016DollarsandadjustedtoPerVisitorSpending)incorporatesalloftheadjustments.Theresultsareadjustedforcurrentvisitorcounts(164,892annually),forinflation(2016dollars),andfordifferencesinsurveymethodology.The2003to2011surveysweremadewithassumptionsof2visitors’per‐walletorper‐group.Incontrast,the2013surveyswerebasedonpervisitor(orcustomer)basis.Tablethreeadjustsallofthesurveystoaper‐customervalue.Aftertheseadjustments,thedifferencesbetweenthesurveyresultsissubstantiallyreduced.TotalannualestimatedMarketspendingwas$6.02millionin2003,$3.5millionin2009(outsidespendingwasnotreported),$5.9millionin2011,and$8.1millionin2013.VendorSurveys

InadditiontoMarketcustomerandvendorsurveys,therehavebeenseveralvendorsurveys(2011to2015)toestimatevisitorMarketspending:$462,384(2011),$303,962(2012),$563,647(2013),$1,162,432(2014),and$1,177,391(2015).TheMarketnowrequiresthe

Figure 8

Survey Results of Moscow Farmers Market Analyses

Original Data

Estimated AVG AVG Total Total Grand

Year Visitors Spending Spending Inside Outside Total

Study 26 Weeks Inside Outside Spending Spending

2003 84,084 15.80$ 21.69$ 664,264$ 503,360$ 1,167,624$

2009 130,442 19.05$ ‐$ 1,242,460$ ‐$ 1,242,460$

2011 138,554 19.92$ 13.11$ 1,379,998$ 908,221$ 2,288,219$

2013 130,000 29.58$ 18.50$ 3,845,400$ 2,405,000$ 6,250,400$

2013 Visitors in 2016 Dollars




2003 164,892 20.82$ 28.58$ 1,716,228$ 1,295,807$ 3,012,035$

2009 164,892 20.97$ ‐$ 1,728,996$ ‐$ 1,728,996$

2011 164,892 21.65$ 14.25$ 1,785,132$ 1,174,854$ 2,959,986$

2013 164,892 30.54$ 19.10$ 5,035,200$ 3,149,128$ 8,184,328$

2013 Visitors in 2016 Dollars Adjusted to Per Visitor Spending




2003 164,892 21 29 3,432,456 2,591,613 6,024,069$

2009 164,892 21 ‐ 3,457,992 ‐ 3,457,992$

2011 164,892 22 14 3,570,264 2,349,707 5,919,971$

2013 164,892 31 19 5,035,200 3,149,128 8,184,328$

8 | P a g e

vendorstoreporttheirsalesandvendorreportinghasincreasedfrom29%in2012to96%in2015.Adjustedforthepercentagereportingandforinflation,theestimatedadjustedvendorsalesrangedfrom$1.15millionin2011to$1.22millionin2015(Figure9).xviiMethodology:EconomicModelandDefinedGeography

AneconomicimpactassessmentwasconductedonthevariouscomponentsoftheMoscowFarmersMarket.ThefocusofthisstudyistheimpactoftheMarketontheMoscow,IdahoandLatahCountyeconomies.ALatahCountyIMPLAN(Impacts‐for‐PLANning)modelwascreatedtomeasuretheseimpacts.xviiiMethodology:MarketCustomerSpendingPatternsandRetailMargins The2003to2013RMA/SEEDsurveysdidnotfullyaddressthecompositionofconsumerspending.ThesurveyofMarketvendorsprovidesinsightastothecompositionofMarketsalesandconsumerspending.Approximately52%oftotalsalesareproduce,farmproducts,andmeat/poultry.Approximately27%ofreportedvendorsalesarepreparedfood,craft(16%),andvalue‐added(6%).Incalculatingtheeconomicimpacts,thecustomerspendingcategories/ratiosreflectedinthevendorsurveyswereappliedtotheRMA/SEEDsurveybasedspending.

TheMarketregionisa200mileradiusaroundMoscowwhilethedefinedeconomicregionisLatahCounty.AconsiderableportionofMarketagriculturalproductsoriginatesoutsideLatahCountyasdoesothervalue‐addedproductsaswell.Basedonthe2016vendorsurveyapproximately$300,000or50%oftheagriculturesalesreportedbyvendorsisproducedinLatahCountyand50%outsidethecounty.xixAnyproductproducedoutsideLatahCounty,was

Figure 9

$1.15 $1.09

$1.03

$1.25 $1.22

$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

$1.40

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Millio

ns

Adjusted Vendor Farmers Market Sales‐2011 to 2016 Millions (in Constant 2016 Dollars)

9 | P a g e

“margined”ineconomictermsandthecostofgoodssoldisnotcountedintheeconomicimpacts.Mostofthecraftandvalue‐addedproductsweremargined.Methodology:OrganizationofEconomicImpactAnalysesFourcategoriesofeconomicimpactswereestimated:

1) Marketcustomerspendingbasedonthevendorsurveys2) BrickandmortarandotherspinoffsfromtheMarket3) MarketcustomerspendingbasedonRMA/SEEDsurveys(spendingfromthevendor

surveys(1above)isnettedouttoavoiddouble‐countinga. Highestimateb. Lowestimate

4) MarketcustomerspendingoutsidetheMarketindowntownMoscow.a. Highestimateb. Lowestimate

Thefollowingdiscussionexpandsonthesefourcategories.

1) Estimatedcustomerspendingbasedonvendorsurveysisthemostconservativemeasure

ofMarketeconomicimpactsemployedinthisstudy.ThevendorsarenowrequiredtoreporttheirannualsalestotheMarketbuttheyarelikelytobeunderreportedforseveralreasons.Notallvendorsreporttheirsalesandthequalityoftherecordkeepingvariesgreatlybyvendor.Thereisalsotheimplicitprivacyconcernsbyvendorsthatcanleadtounderreporting.

Approximately$300,000ofthereportedvendoragriculturesales(50%)areestimatedtobeproducedinLatahCounty.About$100,000areincludedinthevendorcategoryandtheremaining$200,000arereportedunderthebrickandmortarspinoffscategory(2above).Theremainingagriculture,craft,andvalueaddedproductsweremargined.Totalvendorsalesfor2015was$1,177,391.

2) ThereisarichinteractionbetweentheMarketandnew“brickandmortar”start‐upfirmsinMoscow.ThereisalsoacloselinkbetweentheMoscowFarmersMarketandsmalllocalagricultureproducers.TheMarketisagreatcommunitybusinessincubatorencouragingentrepreneurshipandfosteringnewbusinessinnovation.ManylocalfirmsgottheirstartintheMarketandthereareover25individualfirmswithcloseconnectionstotheMarketincludingSt.Mary’sKitchen,BushCreekCreamery,CamasWinery,HumbleBurger,LodgePoleRestaurant,MelaIndianFood,PanhandleBread,Patti’sKitchen,SistersCookies,Tapped,Young’sFood,Cowgirl’sChocolate,andmanyothers.SomeofthesefirmsmightnotexistifitwerenotfortheMarket.Weincludeanimpactassessmentforthesefirmsinouranalyses.Theinputsfortheeconomicimpactassessmentwerebasedonasummer2016surveysenttothesefirmsandpersonalinterviews.Itisassumedthat50%oftherevenuesofthesefirmsarebasic(i.e.newmoniestoMoscow)fromnonresidentcustomers(i.e.Pullmanandelsewhere)andMoscowresidentswhowoulddineelsewhere

10 | P a g e

intheabsenceofthesefirms.Theremaining50%isnon‐basicorsubstitutableandnotcountedinthecalculationofeconomicimpacts.xx

3) ThethirdeconomicimpactcomponentistheMarket(inside)customerspendingcapturedbytheRMA/SEEDsurveys.Specificallythisanalysisisbasedonthe2013SEEDanalysisadjustedfor2013visitorcountsandinflation,totaling$5.035millionofcustomerMarketspending.Twoalternativemethodologiesareemployed(discussedearlier)creating“high”rangeand“low”rangeestimatesrespectively:1)Theassumptionofper‐individualcustomerspendingestimateand2)Theassumptionofper‐walletorper‐group.Theassumedspendingpatterntakenfromthevendorsurveyis52%retailagriculturalproducts,27%eatinganddrinking,and22%craftandvalue‐addedretail.Theseresultsarenetofthevendorimpactsreportedin(1)abovetoavoiddouble‐counting.

4) ThefinalcomponentmeasurestheimpactofadditionaldowntownspendingoutsidetheMarketwhichwasestimatedat$3.15millionafteradjustingforinflationand2013customercounts.Thesametwoalternativemethodologiesareemployedcreatinghighrangeandlowrangeestimatesrespectively.

Methodology:SummarizedApproachofAnalyses

ThefocusofthisstudyistoexaminetheroleoftheMarketinitscontributiontothebrandofMoscow,itsroleinattractingshopperstoMoscow,makingMoscowamoredesirableplacetoliveandwork,andfacilitatingentrepreneurshipandnewbusinesscreation.

TheroleoftheMarketinthelocalfoodsindustrywasincludedinthisanalysisbutitwasnotthefocusofthestudy.

TotalannualdirectcommunityMarketcustomerspendingwas$8.184milliono ThetotaldirectannualsalesofbrickandmortarandrelatedMarketspinoffsis

$1.65million.o TotaldirectannualgrosssalesrelatedtotheMarketis$9.83million.

DirectLatahCountyagriculturalproductionincludedintheanalysisis$300,000.xxiExceptforeatinganddrinking,allotherdirectexpendituresismargined(i.e.thecostofgoodssoldisnotincludedintheimpactanalysis).xxii

ExceptforLatahCountyMarketagriculturalproduction,itwasassumedthatallotherMarketactivityis50%basicandincludedintheeconomicimpactanalysis;and50%non‐basicandnotincludedintheeconomicimpacts.Ofthebasicactivity,itisassumedthat35%originatedfromnonresidents,andthebalanceof15%representedMoscowpatronswhowouldhavespenttheirmoniesoutsideofMoscow(i.e.importsubstitution)foratotalof50%.

Thespendingpatternsorcategoriesintheimpactassessmentisbasedonthevendorsurveys:52%retailagriculturalproducts,27%eatinganddrinking,and22%craftandvalue‐addedretail.

11 | P a g e

Methodology:EconomicBaseAssessmentThisanalysisisfoundedoneconomicbasetheory.Alocalorregionaleconomyhastwo

typesofindustries:baseindustriesandnonbaseindustries.Anyeconomicactivitythatbringsmoneyintothelocaleconomyfromtheoutsideisconsideredabaseindustry.Abaseindustryissometimesidentifiedasanexportindustry,whichisdefinedasanyeconomicactivitythatbringsnewmoniesintothecommunityfromoutside.Forexample,baseindustriescanincludehigh‐technologycompanies,medicalservices,retailtradeservices,federalgovernmentoperations,aswellasothermanufacturingandservicefirms.Firmsprovidingservicestoindividualslivingoutsidetheregion’stradecenter,suchasmedicalandlegalservices,areincludedintheregion’sbase.Paymentsfromstateandfederalgovernments(includingSocialSecurity,Medicare,universityfunding,andwelfarepayments)aresourcesofoutsideincometobusinessesandresidents.Thesearecountedaspartoftheeconomicbase.

Nonbaseindustriesaredefinedaseconomicactivitywithinaregionthatsupportlocalconsumersandbusinesseswithinthebasesector.Theyre‐circulateincomesgeneratedwith‐intheregionfromthebaseindustries.Suchactivitiesincludeshoppingmallsthatservethelocalpopulation,businessandpersonalservicesconsumedlocally,medicalservicesconsumedlocally,andlocalconstructioncontracts.Nonbaseindustriessupportthebaseindustries.

Baseindustriesaresometimesconfusedwithnonbaseindustries.Forexamplesomecountyeconomieshavealargeretailtradesectorsthatproduceaparadox:theyemployasubstantialpercentageoftheworkforcebutactuallycontributelittleeconomicimpactsbecausemostoftheretailsalesarelocal.Theybringlittlenewmoneyintothecommunity.Thusitappearsfromthesizeeffectthattheretailtradesectorcontributesalargeamountofemploymentandearningstotheeconomy.Inreality,mostofthisemploymentandearningactivityisallocatedorattributedtootherlocal“export”industriesthatbringrevenuesintothecommunityfromoutsidesales.Froma“size”perspective,theretailtradesectorappearslarge.However,fromaneconomicbaseperspectivewhichdeterminestheeconomic“drivers”oftheeconomy,theretailtradesectorisactuallymuchsmaller.Onlytheretailtradeactivitiesservingvisitorsfromoutsidetheareacanbecountedaseconomicbaseactivityandemployment.

Economicbaseanalysisisimportantforidentifyingthevitalexportindustriesofaregion.Nonbaseindustries,ontheotherhand,areimportantforkeepingmoneywithinaregionandstimulatinglocaleconomicactivityforresidents.Inthisrespect,nonbaseindustriescanfunctioninthesamemannerasanexportindustry.Forexample,supposeanIdahopatientelectssurgeryatalocalhospitalinsteadoftravelingtoamedicalcenterinSpokane,Washington.

Thesubstitutionoflocalservicesforanimportedservicerepresentsanincreaseinthedemandforlocalbusinessservices.Keepingincomeinthecommunityenhancesthemultipliereffectsoftheexportindustries.Theoveralleffectofimportsubstitutioncanbeviewedasananalogousin‐creaseindemandforanexportindustry.Oureconomicmodelsarefoundedoneconomicbasetheory.ThusFarmers’MarketcustomersfromoutsideLatahCountyarecountedasbaseaswellaslocalcustomerswhowouldhavetraveledoutsidetheregionaleconomyintheabsenceoftheMarket.

12 | P a g e

Methodology:DefiningandExplainingEconomicImpactsEconomicimpactsmeasurethemagnitudeorimportanceoftheexpendituresofbasic

(export)industries.Oureconomicmodelestimatesmultipliersforeachindustrialandservicesector.Supposeyouhavea(hypothetical)output(sales)multiplierof1.25.Everydollarofdirectexpenditurescreates$1.25dollarsoftotalnewspendinginthecommunityeconomy.Impactsareapportionedintotwolevels.ThefirstlevelisthedirectimpactofthemarketexpendituresontheLatahCountyeconomy–thejobs,payrollandearnings,value‐added,andsalesthataredirectlycreatedbytheMarketasanexportorbasicbusiness.

Thesecondiscomprisedoftwoparts:a)theimpactsonotherregionalbusinessesthatprovidegoodsorservicestotheMarket–theindirectimpacts‐andb)theeffectofemployeeandrelatedconsumerspendingontheeconomy‐‐theinducedimpacts.Theindirectandinducedimpactsaretheso‐called“ripple”ormultipliereffectsoftheMarketintheeconomy.Themultiplierorrippleeffectsaredrivenbytheexportsofaneconomy.Exports,thenewmoneycomingintoaneconomy,setoffaweboftransactionsaseachbusinessseekstofulfillthedemandsoftheircustomers.AMarket’simpactupontheeconomyisthuscomprisedofthemagnitudeofthemultiplier(s)andthemagnitudeoftheexports.Thesumofthedirect,indirect,andinducedeffectsmeasuresthetotalimpactofanindustrytoaneconomy.

Methodology:MarketCustomerVisitationandSpending‐WhatStickstoMoscow?

TheMarketattractedanestimated164,892customersin2013,upfrom84,084in2003,acumulative96%increaseoranaverageannualgrowthrateof7%.Thenumberofcustomersrepresents4.4timesthepopulationofLatahCounty(37,244)in2015or6.7timesthepopulationofMoscow(25,060).

By2016theMarketvisitorsmayreach176,380employingthe7%historicaverageannualgrowthrate.Approximately35%ofthevisitorsliveoutsideofLatahCounty(excludingcollegestudents)or57,712customersforyear2013.Thisisbasedonthe2003‐2013surveysofMarketcustomersanda2016surveyofMarketvendors.xxiiiInaddition,itisassumedthatapproximately15%oftheLatahCountycustomerswouldhavetraveledoutsideMoscowforSaturdayshoppingopportunities(importsubstitution).

OnethebenefitsoftheMarketisprovidinglocalshoppingandfamilyentertainmentopportunitiesonsummerandfallSaturdays,keepinglocalspendinginMoscowinsteadofleakingoutsidetheregionaleconomy.Overallitisassumedthat50%or82,446oftheMarketcustomersrepresentbaseactivityornewspendingtoMoscow.

AkeychallengeinanalyzingthelargeflowofMarketcustomersisassessingaverageMarketspendingandcommunityspending.TheMarket2003to2013RMA/SEEDstudiessurveyedconsumerspending,reportedinFigure8.Theresultsareemployedasthebasisoftheconsumerspendingestimatesinthisreportadjustedto2013estimatedMarketvisitors(164,892)andinflation.

TheaverageMarket(inside)spendingwas$31andtheaveragespendingdowntown(outsidetheMarket)was$19.The2013SEEDspendingsurveywasbasedonindividualper‐

13 | P a g e

customerspending.TheearlierRMAstudieswerebasedona“per‐wallet”orpergroupspendingconsistingoftwoindividualsperwalletorpergroup.Theneteffectisa50%reductionoftheimpactsoftheper‐walletsurveysascomparedtotheperindividualsurveytechnique.Thedifferencebetweenthesurveymethodologiesprovidedthebasisbetweenthe“high”and“low”economicimpactestimatesinthisstudy.Italsorepresentsthechallengesindetermininghowmuchoftheconsumervisitationandspending“sticks”inthelocaleconomy.

ResultsSummaryResults

ThestateeconomicimpactsarereportedinFigure10.TheseimpactsincludethedirectimpactsofMarket‐relatedexpendituresandthebackwardlinkagesofthatspendingasitcirculatesthroughouttheeconomy,i.e.themultipliereffects.Italsoincludestheimpactsofconsumerspendingrelatingtothiseconomicactivity.Thefollowingeconomicmodeloutputswerereported:

1) Sales–reflectsthetotaltransactionsfromallsourcesindollarsbydirect,indirect,andinducedeconomicactivity(i.e.includingthemultipliereffects).

2) Earnings(payroll)–includeswage,salary,andotherincomepaymentsincludingfringebenefitstoworkers(includingthemultipliereffects).

3) Employment–representsthetotalemploymentresultingfromeconomicactivity(includingthemultipliereffects).

4) Indirectbusinesstaxes–includesalltaxesexceptpersonalincometaxesandcorporateincometaxes.Atthelocalleveltheyprimarilyincludepropertyandsalestaxes(includingthemultipliereffects).

Theprimaryindicatorsofeconomicactivitymostrelevantareearnings(payroll),jobs,andindirectbusinesstaxes.

Theresultsarepresentedintwocategories:Thelowestimatewherevisitorspendingwasbasedona“perwallet”measureandahighestimatebasedonaper‐individualspendingmeasure.Forbothimpactmeasuresthevendorexpendituresandbrickandmortar/spinoffscategoriesarethesame.Thedifferencebetweenthetwomeasuresarisesfromthevisitorspending(Market)andvisitorspendingdowntowncategories.

Forthelowestimate,theMarketcreatestotaleconomicimpactsof94annualjobs,wageandsalarypaymentsof$1,684,591,andtotaloutput(sales)of$3,940,260.Output(sales)isthebroadestmeasureofimpactsofwhichwagesandsalaryimpactsareasubcomponent.Figure10includestheimpactsofeachindividualcategory.Theseimpactsincludethedirect,indirect,andinducedimpacts(i.e.themultipliereffects).

Forvendorexpenditurescategory,theimpactsare15annualjobs,$266,434inwagesandsalaries,and$557,787inannualoutput.

Forbrickandmortar/spinoffscategory,theimpactsare54annualjobs,$944,643inwagesandsalaries,and$2,278,578inannualoutput.

14 | P a g e

ForvisitorMarket(net)category,theimpactsare12annualjobs,$221,977inwagesandsalaries,and$518,194inannualoutput.

Forvisitorexpendituresdowntowncategory,theimpactsare13annualjobs,$251,538inwagesandsalaries,and$585,701inannualoutput.

ThetotaltaxesgeneratedbytheMarketinthelowestimateare$92,865peryearinlocalpropertytaxesand$195,164statesales,excise,andincometaxes,foratotalof$288,029.

Forthehighestimate,theMarketcreatestotaleconomicimpactsof128annualjobs,wageandsalarypaymentsof$2,238,316,andtotaloutput(sales)of$5,462,447.Figure10includestheimpactsofeachindividualcategory.

Forvendorexpenditurescategory,theimpactsare15annualjobs,$266,434inwagesandsalaries,and$557,787inannualoutput.

Forbrickandmortar/spinoffscategory,theimpactsare54annualjobs,$944,643inwagesandsalaries,and$2,278,578inannualoutput.

ForvisitorMarket(net)category,theimpactsare33annualjobs,$624,164inwagesandsalaries,and$1,454,681inannualoutput.

Forvisitorexpendituresdowntowncategory,theimpactsare26annualjobs,$503,075inwagesandsalaries,and$1,171,401inannualoutput.

ThetotaltaxesgeneratedbytheMarketinthehighestimateare$131,692peryearinlocalpropertytaxesand$273,343statesales,excise,andincometaxes,foratotalof$405,035.xxiv

AretheTaxEstimatesReasonable?

Theeconomicmodel(IMPLAN)hasataxmodulethatestimatesawidearrayoflocal,state,andfederaltaxes.ThemodelallocatestaximpactsproportionallytotheeconomicdriversoftheMarketinlong‐runequilibrium.Taxrevenuesarecreatedbycommunityeconomicactivityandlocalindustrieseitherdirectlyorindirectly.Thusanyeconomic(basic)activitythatcreatesjobsandincomealsocreatestaxrevenuesthatcanbeestimatedwiththeeconomicmodel.xxvAretheresultsreasonable?OnetestistocomparetheseresultsofthemodeltotheaveragetaxpaymentsperjobinLatahCounty.Total2015LatahCountypropertytaxpayments(alltaxingdistricts)were$35,358,560.xxviTotalcountyemploymentis20,942whichequatesto$1,688inpropertytaxperjob.The94jobscreatedbytheMarketintheloweconomicimpactestimateequals$158,709ofannualpropertytaxgeneratedforthelowestimateand$216,116forthehighestimatebasedon128jobs.Thepropertytaxpaymentsestimatedbytheeconomicmodelforthelowestimateis$92,865peryearand$131,692onthehighestimate,suggestingthemodelresultsarereasonable.xxvii

15 | P a g e

AretheEconomicImpactsReasonable? Aretheeconomicimpactsreasonable?Thejobsimpactsrangefrom94jobsto128jobs(lowandhighscenarios)includingthemultipliereffects.ThisstudycastsawidenetacrossalloftheimportantactivitiesandfunctionsoftheMarketwhicharereflectedintheresults.Wereporttheimpactsbycategoriessothattheindividualcomponentsoftheimpactscanbeseenandmeasured.

Averagingacrossthetwoscenarios(lowandhigh),approximately50%ofthejobsimpactsarisefromthebrickandmortarspinoffsandrelatedlocalfarmproducers.Over25firmshaveincubatedintheMarketororiginatedwiththeMarket.Manyarewellknowneatinganddrinksestablishmentswithasubstantialnumberofdirectemployees.Aportionoftheiractivity(50%)isincludedintheseeconomicimpacts.

Thesecondlargestcomponentoftheimpactsisthevisitorspendingarising(36%)fromtheRMA/SEEDsurveys.Over164,892customersvisittheMarketannuallyofwhich57,721visitorsor35%arenonresidents.Giventhehighvolumeofvisitors,evenarelativelysmallamountof

Figure 10

Economic Impacts of Moscow Farmers Market (Low Estimate)





Visitor Spending Market (Net) 12 221,977$ 518,194$

Visitor Spending Downtown 13 251,538$ 585,701$

Total 94 1,684,591$ 3,940,260$

Economic Impacts of Moscow Farmers Market (High Estimate)





Visitor Spending Market (Net) 33 624,164$ 1,454,681$

Visitor Spending Downtown 26 503,075$ 1,171,401$

Total 128 2,338,316$ 5,462,447$

Tax Impacts Local State Total

Low Scenario $92,865 $195,164 $288,029

High Scenario $131,692 $273,343 $405,035

16 | P a g e

spendingcanhavelargeeconomicimpacts.Thekeyquestionishowmuchofthatspending“sticks”inthecommunityandcontributestotheeconomicimpacts.Thisstudyestimatesthat25to59jobsarecreatedbythesevisitorsfromtheirspendingintheMarketanddowntownMoscow(netofthevendorrevenueestimates).

Finallythemostconservativeestimateofjobsimpacts(15jobsor15%ofthetotal)isbasedonreportedvendorrevenues.Eventhis15annualjobsimpactissignificantandwouldrepresentastrongcottageindustryinMoscowinitsownright.

OverviewoftheMoscowEconomyLatahCountyissituatedinnorthernIdahoonIdaho‐Washingtonborderadjacentto

WhitmanCounty.Idaho’seconomyisdividedintothreeintegratedregionaleconomicareasthatspillintosix

surroundingstates.TheregionaleconomicareaforNorthernIdahoandmuchofEasternWashingtoniscenteredintheCoeurd’Alene,Idaho‐Spokane,Washingtoncorridor,whichincludesNorthernIdaho,EasternMontana,andaportionofSouthernCanada.ThedominantgeographicallocationinthetradehierarchyisSpokane,Washington,whichisfollowedbytheregionaltrade“hub”ofLewiston,Idaho,andthelocalhubsofMoscowandPullman.ThelocalintegratedeconomicregionistheQuadCountyregion:LatahCounty,NezPerceCountyinIdaho;andWhitmanCountyandAsotinCountyinWashington.TheprimarytradeandcommutingpatternsonthePalouseandintheLewis‐ClarkValleyrunEast‐West.TheeconomiesofPullmanandMoscowarewoventightlytogetherasaretheeconomiesofLewistonandClarkston.xxviii

East‐WestTradeLinkagesandRetailTrade

Commutingpatternsandeconomiclinkagesrunprimarilyeast‐westbetweenPullmanandMoscow,andEast‐WestbetweenClarkstonandLewiston.WhitmanCounty(primarilyPullman)isanetjobexporterasresidentsfromsurroundingcountiescommutedailytotheirjobsinWhitmanCountymostlytotheregion’stopemployers‐SchweitzerEngineeringandWashingtonStateUniversity(WSU).Onaverage(net),approximately2,171individualscommuteintoWhitmanCountyforwork.LatahCounty(primarilyMoscow)isanetjobimporter.

Approximately(net)2,152residentscommuteoutofthecountytoemploymentelsewhere(primarilyPullmanandLewiston).Moscowisthe“home”ofthePalouseandasignificantnumberofresidentsworkinPullmanorelsewhereandout‐commuteeachday.TheyliveinMoscowforthehighqualityoflifeeventhoughtheyarerequiredtopayIdahoincometaxesontheirout‐of‐statejobs.

17 | P a g e

Thecommutingpatternscreateincomeflowsthroughouttheregion.LatahCountyhasa(positive)netincomeinflowof$152.3million(2014)whereasWhitmanCountyhasa(negative)netoutflowof$138.7million.xxixThisinterdependencehasbeenincreasingoverthelasttwodecadesasmeasuredbythepositiveandnegativeresidents’adjustment(i.e.incomeflowsfromcommuting)(Figure11).

Thenet$152.3millioninflowtoLatahCountyfromothercounties(primarilyWhitmanCounty)createsincomeandjobs:818LatahCountyjobs,$77.7millioninsalestransactions,$21.6millionintotalcompensation,$1.6millioninlocaltaxesand$3.1millioninstatetaxes,includingthemultipliereffects.xxxTheMoscowFarmersMarketenhancesthequalityoflifethatmakesMoscowadesirableplacetoliveandindirectlycontributestothoseincomeandjobflows.

RetailtradeisanimportcomponenttotheregionaleconomyandespeciallytotheLatahCountyeconomy.Overall,NezPerceCountyhasapproximately$705millioninretailsales,LatahCounty($368million),WhitmanCounty($344million),andAsotinCounty($295million).LatahCountyhasbeenthedominantlocaltradehubbutWhitmanCountyiscatchingup..xxxiMoscowisaverydesirablelocationforshoppingandeating‐and‐drinkingonthePalousewhichisimportantforfuturecommunitygrowth.TotalretailtradeemploymentispresentedinFigure12.In2016NezPerceCountyhad3,237retailtradejobs,LatahCounty(2,400),WhitmanCounty(1,923),andAsotinCounty(1,398).

PopulationandEmploymentGrowthThemajorgrowthenginesofthePalousehavebeentheincreasedstudentenrollmentat

WSU,over3,000studentsoverthelast15yearsandthegrowthofSchweitzerEngineeringLaboratoriesthathasaddedover1,000employeesoverthesametimeperiod.TheUniversityofIdaho.

Figure 11

‐$200,000

‐$150,000

‐$100,000

‐$50,000

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

2008

2011

2014

Rea

l RI $

1,00

0)

Year

Net Income Injections and Leakages for Latah and Whitman County, 1969‐2014 in Constant 2014 Dollars ($1,000)

(from BEA Residence Adjustment)

Latah County

Whitman County

Source: BEA

18 | P a g e

ThePalouseandtheQuadCountyregionshavehistoricallybeenslow‐growingbutstableeconomicregionssituatedintworelativelyfastgrowingstates.WhitmanCountytransformedoverthelasttwentyyearsfromoneoftheregion’sslowestgrowingcountiestooneofthefastestgrowingcounties.MoscowhasbenefitedfromthatgrowthinWhitmanCountybecausemanyofthenewworkersinPullmanliveinMoscowandshopinMoscow.In2015WhitmanCountyhadapopulationof47,311,NezPerceCounty(40,211),LatahCounty(38,688),andAsotinCounty(22,331).TheQuadCountypopulationwas148,542in2015andby2025isexpectedtoreach152,893.

Totalfullandpart‐time2015QuadCountyemploymentwas80,383jobsofwhich25,975jobsinNezPerceCounty,WhitmanCounty(25,677),LatahCounty(20,194),andAsotinCounty(8,537).WhitmanCountyemploymentgrew20%cumulativelyfrom2001to2015,AsotinCounty(9.6%),LatahCounty(6.4%),andNezPerceCounty(3.1%)Figure13illustratestheactualjobgrowthbycountyandregionfrom2001to2015;andpresentsforecastsfrom2015to2025.xxxiiWhitmanCountyisexpectedtosurpassNezPerceCountyintotalemploymentin2017.

Figure 12

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Retail Trade Jobs 2001 to 2016 Quad County Region

Nez Perce County, ID Latah County, ID Whitman County, WA Asotin County, WA

Source: EMSI

19 | P a g e

Universities:OurLargestCoreIndustriesThethreeuniversitieshad35,302regionalstudentsinthe2015academicyearwhich

constitutedabout25%oftheregion’spopulation.Theimportanceofstudentgrowthontheregionaleconomycannotbeunderstated:Everycollegestudentcreatesabout$56,000insales,$33,000inwageandsalaryearnings,and0.71ofajobintheregion,assumingthatinthelong‐runalluniversityactivitiesandexpendituresaredependentonstudentenrollments.xxxiiiTheregion’slargestandmostimportantindustriesareitsuniversitysystem(WSU,UI,andLCSC),whichdirectlyemploy13,946peopleregionallyandcreate25,935jobsincludingthemultipliereffects.Theycontribute$2.0billionintotalsalestransactions,$1.6billioningrossregionalproduct,and$1.2billioninregionalpayrolls.xxxiv

TheUniversityofIdahoenrollmentsaredownapproximately12%cumulativelysince2001(about700students)andarelikelydownanadditional1%to2%overallintheFall2016.xxxv

WithoutthepositivespillovergrowthfromWhitmanCounty,LatahCountywouldbeinaeconomicrecession.TheMoscowFarmersMarkethasbeeninstrumentalinenhancingthequalityoflifefactorsthatmakeMoscowanattractiveplacetoliveandshop.HighTechnologyServices

Moscowhasseveraldozenemergingsmallhightechnologymanufacturingandservicecompaniessuchas,AlturasAnalytics,AnatekLabs,ComtechEFData,andfirmsthroughoutMoscow.

EMSI(aneconomicdataandconsultingfirm)has130employeesandislocatedinthedowntownMoscowcorridor.Otheremergingtechnology‐relatedfirmsinthedowntowncorridorincludePopuli(15employees), Hodge&Associates(20jobs),TerraGraphics(20jobs),Wovax(12jobs),RomanRoads(10jobs),MoscowWorks(10jobs)andBiketronics(5jobs).

Figure 13

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Total Employm

ent

Year

Total Employment 2001‐2025Asotin, Latah, Nez Perce, and Whitman Counties

Whitman Asotin Nez Perce Latah County

Source: EMSI and BEA

20 | P a g e

DowntownMoscow

DowntownMoscowhasbeencomparedtoagreattidalbasin:Eachdaythetideofworkersandstudentsflowoutwardtotheirjobsandstudiesandeachnighttheyflowbackwithnutrients(i.e.income)tothedowntowneconomy.DowntowniscentrallylocatedneartheUniversityofIdahocampusandnearthemajorresidentialdistrictoftown.Downtownstorefrontshavefewvacancies.

Thereareatleast344firmsinthebroaderdowntowncorridorrunningfromthebordernorthoftowntothesouthernborderandrunningeasttotheLatahCountyCourthouseandwesttoaboutAshburyStreet,employinganapproximate3,691workers.Thereareavarietyofeconomicclustersxxxvi:

Healthcare–753jobs Eatinganddrinking–632jobs Retail–586jobs Other–387 Government–385jobs Finance/insurance/realestate–291jobs Engineeringandtechnologyservices–233jobs Manufacturing/CraftIndustries–243workers Professionalservices–140jobs PrivateEducation–41jobs

DowntownMoscowhasanimportanthealthcareclusterledbyGritmanMedicalCenteranda

varietyofphysicianofficesandrelatedservices.Eatinganddrinkingfirmsemploy632people;retailestablishmentsincludingtheMoscowFoodCo‐op(586jobs);cityandcountygovernment(385jobs);insurance;realestate;andfinancesectors(291jobs);engineeringandtechnologyservices(233jobs);manufacturing/professionalcraftindustriesincludingNorthwestRiverSupply(243workers);professionalservices(140jobs);privateeducationincludingNewSt.AndrewsCollege(41jobs)andvarietyofotherfirms(387jobs).

TheMarket’sRoleinDowntownMoscow

TheMoscowFarmersMarketisthesocialgluethathelpsholdthediverseelementsofthedowntowncommunitytogether.

TheMoscowFarmersMarket’smostimportantcontributiontotheLatahCountyeconomyistheuniqueattractionitoffersthecommunityofMoscowaswellastourists,students,familiesofstudentsandpotentialeconomicinterestsofMoscowasaplacetolive,shop,dine,raisechildren,attendcollege,andwork.TheMarketattracts57,721nonresidentvisitorsannually

TheMarkethasbeenakey“ingredient”intheemergingregionalcraftbeerandwineryregionaleconomicclusternowcountingoverfifteenregionallyproducedwinesandcraftbeers.

21 | P a g e

Locally,theMarkethasbeenapartnerindevelopingacraftbeerdistrictinMoscowthatnowincludesMoscowBrewingCompany,RantsandRavesBrewery,andHungaDungaBrewery.Inaddition,thereareseveralMoscowrestaurantsandbarsthatspecializedinservinglocalandregionalcraftbeers.

TheMoscowFarmersMarketisakeypartnerwiththelocalfoodsmovement,animportantandnotablereferencelabelforMoscowandLatahCountyproducers.TheMarketpartnerswiththeMoscowFoodCO‐OP,whichproduces$11millioninrevenues(2015),employs145full‐timeandpart‐timeemployeesandannuallybuys$556,602ofproductsfrom197localandregionalfirms.Marketvendorssellapproximately$300,000annuallyoflocalagriculturalproductsfromLatahCounty.

TheMarketpartnerswithMoscow’sannualArtwalk,RenaissanceFair,RendezvousinthePark,andtheMoscowartisticcommunity.

ConclusionsandaWarningTheMoscowFarmersMarketisavibrant,vital,39yearoldinstitutionfoundedin1977that

hasdevelopedstronglinkagesinvirtuallyallindustriesofthedowntowneconomy.TheMoscowFarmersMarket’smostimportantcontributiontotheLatahCountyeconomy,asnotedintheCUSPBrandingProject,istheMarket’svaluetoMoscowandtheregionasaplacetolive,shop,dine,raisechildren,attendcollege,andwork.ThiscontributiontotheMoscowbrandhasprovidedmostoftherecenteconomicgrowthtoMoscowandhelpedoffsettheeconomiceffectsofenrollmentdeclinesattheUniversityofIdaho,theregion’slargestemployer.TheMoscowFarmersMarketactsasasocialgluethathelpsholdthediverseelementsofthedowntowncommunitytogether.

TheMarketprovidesasteadyflowofannualvisitorstodowntownMoscow‐164,892in2013,upfrom84,084in2003;a96%cumulativeincreaseandwhichrepresentsa7.0%averageannualgrowthrate.Approximately35%areout‐of‐townvisitors(57,712),bringingnewmoneytotheMoscoweconomy.About89,232people(64%)visittheMarketbefore11am,creatingawaveofshopperseveryMarketSaturdayatthestartofthebusinessdayforMoscowfirms.In2016,visitorsareprojecttoreachapproximately176,380visitors.

EstimatedFarmersMarketreportedvendorsaleswere$1,221,867in2015.Annualvisitorspendingrangesfrom$4.1million(low)to$8.2million(high)dependingontheassumedsurveymethodology.

EconomicimpactsoftheMarketincludingmultipliereffectsrangefrom$3.94millionto$5.46million(inoutput)and94localjobsto128jobs.AnnualstateandlocaltaxcontributionsoftheMarketrangefrom$288,029to$405,035peryearincludinglocalpropertytaxes(range‐$92,865to$131,692)andstatesales,excise,andincometaxesrange($195,164to$273,343).TheMarketbudgetisnearlyself‐sustainingandexpectedtobeproducingpositivenetrevenuesinthenearfuture.Factoringinthemultipliereffects,thenetpropertytaxcontributionsarepositive.

22 | P a g e

TheMoscowFarmersMarkethasreceivedsubstantialcommunitysupport,encouragement,andassistancefromtheCityofMoscow.OngoingsuccessfulcommunityenterprisessuchastheMarketneedtobemonitoredandsupportedonacontinuousbasis.TheUniversityofIdaho’sLionelHamptonJazzFestivalmayserveasawarningoftheconsequencesofinadequateattentionorbenignneglecttoasuccessfulcommunityenterprise.In2002,PetersonandDiNotoconductedaneconomicimpactassessmentontheJazzFestival,whichthenboasted18,000visitingK‐12studentseveryFebruaryalongwithworld‐classmusiciansandconcertswhichattracted16,000attendees.Theannualeconomicimpactintermsofjobswasestimatedat125localjobsincludingthemultipliereffects.

By2014,theArgonautreportedthevisitingstudentshaddroppedto3,800andtheconcertattendancehaddroppedto7,257,adeclinethatmaythreatenitsfuturexxxvii.WhiletherearemanycomplexreasonsforthedeclineoftheJazzFestival,benignneglectisaplausibleingredient,aconcernheldbytheauthorsofthe2002JazzFestivalStudy.ToomuchattentionmayhavebeenfocusedonJazzFestivalrevenuesinsteadofthebroaderuniversityandcommunityimpactsandbenefitsofthefestival.ThefestivalwasanimportanttoolinrecruitingandretentionoffutureUniversityofIdahostudents.UIstudentenrollmentspeakedaroundthistimeperiod(2002)andhasdeclinedabout12%cumulativelyxxxviii. TheCityofMoscowhasanawardwinningFarmersMarketthatisgrowingrobustlyandcontributingeconomicbenefitstothedowntowncommunity.Communitysupportandencouragementisvitalforcommunityenterprisestogrowandprosper.

23 | P a g e

Sources AssociatedTaxpayersofIdaho.StateofIdaho2015PropertyTaxLevies”Boise,Idaho.(2015).http://www.ati‐taxinfo.com/.AmericanFarmlandTrust'sFarmersMarketCelebration.“MoscowFarmersMarket.”(2016).http://markets.farmland.org/market/moscow‐farmers‐market/Argona,Amanda.“ApplyingvalueoftheMoscowFarmersMarket.”PublishedbytheCityofMoscow.(2013).https://www.ci.moscow.id.us/records/Publications/SEED‐NEED‐Study.pdfArgona,Amanda.“MoscowFarmersMarketValue2015,”PublishedbytheCityofMoscow.(2015).https://www.ci.moscow.id.us/records/Publications/MFM‐Value‐Report‐2015.pdfBHW1Advertising,“UncoveringtheMoscowMystique”(2015)http://www.ci.moscow.id.us/records/Publications/Moscow%20Mystique%20Book.pdfChey,Scott.“MoscowFarmersMarketnamedIdaho'sbest;localmarketseasonwrapsupsoon.”(2015).http://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2015/10/02/moscow‐farmers‐market‐named‐idahos‐best‐local‐market‐season‐wraps‐up‐soonCityofMoscow.“FarmersMarketAnnualReport2015.”(2015).https://www.ci.moscow.id.us/records/Publications/FM‐Report.pdf.EconomicModelingSpecialists,International(EMSI),http://www.economicmodeling.com/IMPLANDatabaseandDocumentation.IMPLANGroupLLC.(2015).http://implan.com/Jenson,Andrew.“Increasingthescope—MoscowCityCouncilvotestoexpandFarmersMarketradius.”(2015).https://www.uiargonaut.com/2014/02/10/increasing‐the‐scope‐moscow‐city‐council‐votes‐to‐expand‐farmers‐market‐radius/McCarthy,Richard“EvaluatingtheSocial,FinancialandHumanCapitalImpactsofFarmersMarkets.”(2012).Marketumbrella.orgMcFadden,DawnThilmany,DavidConner,StevenDeller,DavidHughes,KenMeter,AlfonsoMorales,ToddSchmit,DavidSwenson,AllieBauman,MeganPhillipsGoldenberg,RebeccaHill,BeccaB.R.Jablonski,andDebraTropp.“TheEconomicsofLocalFoodSystems:AToolkittoGuideCommunityDiscussions,Assessments,andChoices.”U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,AgriculturalMarketingService,Web.(2016).Peterson,Steve.EconomicDrivers:TheEconomicImpactsoftheHigherEducationandHealthCareSectors,PresentedtoInlandNorthwestPartners,2014SummerMeeting,(2014).Peterson,Steve.“The2015EconomicImpactsofthePullman‐MoscowAirportandRealignmentProject,”SponsoredbythePUWAirport.(2016).Peterson,Steve,andMichaelDiNoto.“EconomicImpactoftheLionelHamptonJazzFestival.”SponsoredbytheLionelHamptonJazzFestival.(2002).

24 | P a g e

“Thewaningsoundofmusic–TheLionelHamptonJazzFestivallacksfunds,attendees”Argonaut,UniversityofIdaho.(2014).https://www.uiargonaut.com/2014/02/13/the‐waning‐sound‐of‐music‐the‐lionel‐hampton‐jazz‐festival‐lacks‐funds‐attendees/U.S.DepartmentofCommerce,U.S.CensusBureau,OntheMap,http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/.U.S.DepartmentofCommerce,BureauofEconomicAnalysis,RegionalEconomicAccounts.http://www.bea.gov/regional/U.S.DepartmentofLabor,BureauofLaborStatistics,ConsumerPriceIndex.http://www.bls.gov/cpi/U.S.DepartmentofLabor,BureauofLaborStatistics,QuarterlyCensusofEmploymentandEarnings.http://www.bls.gov/cew/Watson,Philip,DavidKay,GregoryAlward,StephenCookeandAlfonsoMorales.“EvaluatingtheExtentandEconomicContributionofaLocalFoodSystemthroughanImportSubstitutionFramework,”DepartmentofAgriculturalEconomicsandRuralSociology,UniversityofIdaho.(2015).Williams,Cinda,et.al.“2011MoscowFarmers’MarketRapidMarketAssessment.”(2011).https://www.ci.moscow.id.us/arts/Documents/fm_rma_2011.pdf

25 | P a g e

Terminology

• Exportactivity:Anyproductorservicewhosesalesbringmoneyintoacommunityfromtheoutside.

• Salesofproductstofirmsorconsumersinotherstatesareexamplesofexportactivity.Otherexamplesincludenonresidenttouristspending,federalgovernmentpayments,andincometransfers.

• Sales:Totaldollartransactionsfromdirect,indirect,andinducedeconomicactivity.• Earnings:Wage,salary,andotherincomepaymentsincludingfringebenefitsto

individuals.• Value‐added(value‐output):Thisisameasureofgrossdomesticproductatthelocalor

regionallevel.Valueaddedisameasureoftotalnetproductionandactivity.• Jobs:Totalemploymentresultingfromeconomicactivity.Theeconomicmodelreports

theseasfull‐timeandpart‐timejobs.• Indirecttaxes:Alltaxesgeneratedfromeconomicactivityexcludingpersonaland

corporateincometaxes.Theseconsistofmostlysalestaxesandpropertytaxes.• Baseindustries:Anyeconomicactivitythatbringsmoneyintothelocaleconomyfromthe

outsideisconsideredabaseindustry.Forexample,AdaCountybaseindustriesincludehigh‐technologycompanies,medicalservices,retailservices,federalgovernment,andothermanufacturingandservicefirms.

• Nonbaseindustries:Anyeconomicactivitywithinaregionthatsupport’slocalconsumersandbusinessesre‐circulatingincomesgeneratedwithintheregion.Theseactivitiesincludeshoppingmallsthatservethelocalpopulation,businessandpersonalservicesconsumedlocally,andlocalconstructioncontracts.Nonbaseindustriessupportthebaseindustries.

• Economicimpacts:Economicimpactsmeasurethemagnitudeorimportanceoftheexpendituresofbase(export)industries.Oureconomicmodelestimatesmultipliersforeachindustry.Ifyouhaveamultiplierof1.61,forexample,everydollarofbaseexpenditurescreates$1.61dollarsofnewspendinginthecommunity.Thetotalmultiplierhasthreecomponents:directeffects,indirecteffects,andinducedeffects.

• Directeffects(spending):Thisrepresentstheactualsales,income,andjobsfromhospitaloperations.

• Indirecteffects:Thesearethedownstreameconomiceffectsonsales,payroll,jobs,andindirecttaxesthatresultsfromdirectspendingintheregionaleconomy.Forexample,amedicalcenterpurchasescommunitygoodsandserviceswhichsupportsotherareabusinesses.Thesefirms,inturn,purchaseevenmoregoodsandservicesastheeffectsripplethroughouttheeconomy.Theyarepartoftheoverallmultipliereffects.

• Inducedeffects:Thesearedownstreameconomiceffectsofemployeeandconsumerspendingontheeconomy.Theyarepartofthemultipliereffects.

26 | P a g e

FiguresandTables

Figure 14: Farmers Market 2011 Location (Source: Moscow Farmers Market Value) 2015)

Figure 15: Farmers Market 2016 Location (Source: Moscow Farmers Market Value) 2015)

27 | P a g e

Notes i Moscow Mystique – Process and Research behind the CUSP Moscow Brand. Developed by BHW1 Sponsored by Moscow Chamber of Commerce, City of Moscow, University of Idaho. http://www.ci.moscow.id.us/records/Publications/Moscow%20Mystique%20Book.pdf ii The vendor sales are self‐reporting and likely understate total “true” actual vendor sales and should be viewed as a lower bound for estimated Market visitor spending. iii The Market surveys of visitor spending inside the Market implicitly includes the reported annual Market vendor sales. These are netted out in our analysis to avoid double‐counting. iv The economic impact analysis: 1) Measures the economic impacts on Latah County instead of the 200 mile defined Market region radius (i.e. most of the agricultural and craft products are margined). 2) Measures net new monies to the Latah County (non‐substitutable spending) or about 50% of total Market visitor spending. 3) The impacts include the direct, indirect, and induced impacts (i.e. multiplier effects) 4) An IMPLAN input‐output model was created for the Latah County economy. v Including the multiplier effects. vi This analysis as well as its conclusions is solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the University of Idaho or any other individuals or organizations. vii : Andrew Jenson. “Increasing the scope — Moscow City Council votes to expand Farmers Market radius.” https://www.uiargonaut.com/2014/02/10/increasing‐the‐scope‐moscow‐city‐council‐votes‐to‐expand‐farmers‐market‐radius/. 02/10/2014. viii American Farmland Trust's Farmers Market Celebration. Moscow Farmers Market. http://markets.farmland.org/market/moscow‐farmers‐market/. Accessed 7/10/16. See also: Chey, Scott. “Moscow Farmers Market named Idaho's best; local market season wraps up soon.” http://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2015/10/02/moscow‐farmers‐market‐named‐idahos‐best‐local‐market‐season‐wraps‐up‐soon. 10/2/15. ixAmanda Argona, Volunteer Coordinator & AmeriCorps member. “Moscow Farmers Market Value 2015,” Published by the City of Moscow. https://www.ci.moscow.id.us/records/Publications/MFM‐Value‐Report‐2015.pdf. x From June 2016 visits to the Farmers Market and personal interviews with vendors. These nonresident revenue averages were also confirmed by a survey of spinoff Market firms conducted in June, 2016. xi Vendor data varies by year and by monthly status. Officially in 2015 there were 55 season vendor and 74 walk‐On vendors. xii City of Moscow, Farmers Market Annual Report 2015. https://www.ci.moscow.id.us/records/Publications/FM‐Report.pdf. xiii Amanda Argona, Volunteer Coordinator & AmeriCorps member. “Moscow Farmers Market Value 2015,” Published by the City of Moscow. https://www.ci.moscow.id.us/records/Publications/MFM‐Value‐Report‐2015.pdf. xiv Cinda Williams, et.al. 2011 Moscow Farmers’ Market Rapid Market Assessment. https://www.ci.moscow.id.us/arts/Documents/fm_rma_2011.pdf. July 30, 2011. xv Amanda Argona. “Applying value of the Moscow Farmers Market.” https://www.ci.moscow.id.us/records/Publications/SEED‐NEED‐Study.pdf. 2013. xvi U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index. http://www.bls.gov/cpi/. xvii The adjustment for 2012: Actual reported vendor revenues = $303,962 / 28.85% = $1,053,593/0.9675 = $1,088,947. The 2011 sales estimate was divided by the percentage reporting and then divided by the Consumer Price Index. A weighed average was used to estimate the percentage reporting for 2011. xviii IMPLAN Database and Documentation. IMPLAN Group LLC (2015). xix An informal survey of vendors was conducted in June‐July 2006 as a component of this study. xx The 50% assumption is based on the 2016 survey sent to the brick and mortar firms and interviews with owners of some of the firms. xxi Technically the calculation of economic impacts for Latah County agriculture production included in the analysis was treated as a shock to exports rather than creating a formal import substitution model, given the relatively small proportion of these agriculture production impacts to the total Market economic impacts. The likely net outcome of this approach is a slight understatement of the true economic impacts. See Philip Watson, David Kay, Gregory Alward, Stephen Cooke and Alfonso Morales, “Evaluating the Extent and Economic Contribution of a Local Food System through

28 | P a g e

an Import Substitution Framework,” Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Idaho, 5/23/15. xxii The analysis of local foods production is complex. The actual costs of production (i.e. cost of goods sold) are not included in the impact analysis for these products but all other costs (i.e. the margins) are included in the analysis such as the marketing, selling costs, returns to entrepreneurship, etc. For firms located outside of Latah County even this approach can overstate the economic impacts because some of the remaining returns leak out and return home with the vendors. However, it was found that many nonresident vendors hire local Moscow employees and have a considerable long‐term economic presence in the city. Since the estimate of local Latah County agriculture production is likely understated, there is some offsetting effects. This issue will be revisited in the future update of this study. xxiii This is based on the average nonresidents across all RMA/SEED surveys of 33% and a survey of vendors (summer 16) which estimated about 35% of the visitors as nonresidents. xxiv The model tax estimates includes the direct tax payments from the firms and entities, and the taxes generated from backward linkages of downstream business and firms benefiting from the new economic activity, and the induced impacts of employee and consumer spending. xxv The tax module is not a tax forecast model and the results should be interpreted carefully. xxvi Associated Taxpayers of Idaho, “State of Idaho 2015 Property Tax Levies” Boise, Idaho, http://www.ati‐taxinfo.com/. xxvii Average property taxes per homeowner or other related measures would lead to similar or higher magnitudes in comparison. Note that renters indirectly contribute to property taxes through their rent payments. xxviii The regional analysis results were reported in: Peterson, Steve, “The 2015 Economic Impacts of the Pullman‐Moscow Airport and Realignment Project,” Sponsored by the PUW Airport, 3/16/2016. xxix Residents Adjustment is from the BEA regional accounts and were adjusted for inflation to 2014 dollars using the Consumer Price index. http://www.bls.gov/cpi/. The commuting patterns comes from the Bureau of the Census, On‐the‐Map application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/. xxx The residents’ adjustment income economic impacts were estimated using an IMPLAN model of Latah County and measured as an increase in regional household income. The inputs were adjusted from taxes and savings (20% of the total). xxxi The Economic Census produced by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, is conducted every five years and includes estimates of retail trade and the components of retail trade. These are 2012 estimates adjusted to 2015 numbers by the Consumer Price Index. xxxii Forecasts are derived from EMSI forecasts. xxxiii Steve Peterson (2014). Economic Drivers: The Economic Impacts of the Higher Education and Health Care Sectors xxxiv These results were reported in: Peterson, Steve, “The 2015 Economic Impacts of the Pullman‐Moscow Airport and Realignment Project,” Sponsored by the PUW Airport, 3/16/2016. xxxv The fall 2016 are very preliminary numbers and unofficial that will not be verified until November 2016. xxxvi The jobs estimates are taken from a variety of sources, secondary sources and databases, personal interviews, and phone surveys. These estimates should be view with caution as employment numbers can fluctuate greatly and there can be errors in some of the reporting sources. xxxvii “The waning sound of music– The Lionel Hampton Jazz Festival lacks funds, attendees” (2/13/2014). Argonaut. https://www.uiargonaut.com/2014/02/13/the‐waning‐sound‐of‐music‐the‐lionel‐hampton‐jazz‐festival‐lacks‐funds‐attendees/. See also: Steve Peterson and Michael DiNoto (2002). “Economic Impact of the Lionel Hampton Jazz Festival”, Sponsored by the Lionel Hampton Jazz Festival. xxxviii Obviously university enrollments are complex and the recruitment of new students by the festival is just one factor among many for UI enrollment challenges.