1

AE-12006

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE MUSKOGEE REGIONAL JUNIOR LIVESTOCK SHOW

ON THE ECONOMY OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

Dr. Dave Shideler – Economic Development Specialist, Stillwater (405) 744-6170

Tesfaye Woldesenbet – Graduate Assistant, OSU, Stillwater

Virginia Stanley – Muskogee County Extension Director, Muskogee

(918) 686-7200

Jack Frye – Area Community Development Specialist, Ada (580) 332-4100

February 2012

2

The Economic Impact of the Muskogee Regional Junior Livestock Show on the Economy of Muskogee County, Oklahoma

Dave Shideler Economic Development Specialist 323 Ag Hall Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74078 dave.shideler@okstate.edu

Tesfaye Woldesenbet Graduate Research Assistant 506 Ag Hall Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74078 tesfaye.woldesenbet@okstate.edu

Virginia Stanley Muskogee County Interim Extension Director 1440 S. Cherokee Muskogee, OK 74403-7017 virginia.stanley@okstate.edu

Jack Frye Area Community Development Specialist 314 S. Broadway, Suite 101 PO Box 1378 Ada, OK 74821-1378 jack.frye@okstate.edu

ABSTRACT

This paper provides an impact study of the Muskogee Regional Junior Livestock Show on the economy of Muskogee County, Oklahoma. Information provided includes population, employment, income, and sales tax data for Muskogee County.

"Oklahoma State University, in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 as amended, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other federal laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, disability, or status as a veteran in any of its policies, practices or procedures. This includes but is not limited to admissions, employment financial aid, and educational services."

"Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means."

3

The Economic Impact of the Muskogee Regional Junior Livestock Show on the Economy of Muskogee County, Oklahoma

The Muskogee Regional Junior Livestock Show attracts 5,300 persons annually. These individuals

generate retail sales tax collections for the city and county as well as create demand for local goods and

services. The overall objective of this study is to measure the economic impact of the Muskogee Regional

Junior Livestock Show (MRJLS) on the economy of the community. The specific objectives of this report are

to:

1. Provide basic economic data for Muskogee County;

2. Review concepts of community economics and multipliers; and

3. Estimate the direct and secondary impacts of the MRJLS.

This report was requested by the Muskogee Chamber of Commerce’s Agriculture Committee.

No recommendations will be made in this report.

Basic Economic Data

Basic economic data for Muskogee County are presented in Tables 1 through 8. This information

will aid decision makers as they attempt to evaluate the impact of the Muskogee County Regional Junior

Livestock Show (MRJLS) on the community. Table 1 presents population estimates for Muskogee County

and the municipalities within it. The county population was 68,078 in 1990, and has increased modestly to

70,990 in 2010. The population of the city of Muskogee, where the Regional Junior Livestock Show is

located, was 37,708 in 1990, and it has also increased to 39,223 in 2010. Population by age and gender for

Muskogee County is shown in Table 2. Almost 28% of the total population are under 19, and 15% are 65

years and over. The median age in the county is 37.6. Approximately 51% of Muskogee County’s population

is female.

The data in Table 3 shows there are 47,546 whites, 9,408 African Americans, 17,454 American

Indians, 542 Asians, and 2,152 of other race. Whites account for 67% of the total population, African

Americans 13.3 % percent, American Indians 24.6%, and Asians 0.8%. Over 5.2% of the population is

Hispanic. Table 4 shows 2010 data pertaining to households in Muskogee County. There were a total of

4

27,054 total households with 58.5% being owner occupied households, 29% being renter occupied

households and the remaining 12.5% being vacant households. For Muskogee County there is an average

of 2.5 persons per household.

Employment and income data are presented in Tables 5 through 7. The labor force in Muskogee

County has steadily increased slightly over the 20 years presented in Table 5, peaking in 1999 at 31,844

people. The number of employed persons peaked in 1999, when 30,411 persons were employed; 28,602

were employed in 2010. Unemployment has fluctuated over the period presented, falling to 1,131 in 2000

and rising to 2,579 in 2010. The unemployment rate in 2010 was 8.3% as a result of the recent recession,

which is only 0.1% lower than the highest unemployment rate realized over this period in 1994. From Table

6, one will note that state and local government, manufacturing, retail trade, accommodation and food

services, and construction represent the top 5 industries by employment in Muskogee County for 2009.

Most industries have seen declines in employment since 2001. There are some exceptions, however. Mining

has more than doubled its employment, from 209 to 481; real estate and rental and leasing has added

almost 200 jobs; federal civilian government employment increased by nearly 500 jobs. Accommodation

and food services, other services, and state and local government have all realized modest employment

growth.

Total personal income has increased every year between 2001 and 2009, from $1,483,681,000 in

2001 to $2,112,020,000 in 2009 (Table 7). The per capita personal income has also increased each year over

this period, rising from $21,346 in 2001 to $29,575 in 2009. The fastest growing category was personal

current transfer receipts, and it grew 83% over the period. This category includes government transfers to

individuals and non-profit organizations such as medical payments (e.g., Medicare and Medicaid), income

maintenance payments, unemployment insurance, Social Security payments, etc. The second fastest

growing category was supplements to wages and salaries (i.e., benefits), and it grew by 61% over the

period.

Sales tax collections, which reflect retail trade activity, have increased over the years for the City of

Muskogee from $12,961,510 in 2001 to $21,235,529 in 2010 (Table 8); however, sales tax collections

peaked in 2007 at $23,660,656 when the 4.25% sales tax rate was in effect. Also presented in Table 8 are

5

estimates of the corresponding retail sales in the city of Muskogee. Despite the changes in sales tax rates

between 2001 and 2010, retail sales have risen in Muskogee, from $510,470,827 in 2001 to $559,348,643 in

2010. The sales in 2010 represent a slight decline from 2009, when retail sales peaked for the period

presented. Table 9 presents sales tax collection data for Muskogee County. The county collected over $4.5

million from sales taxes in 2010 at a rate of 0.65%.

6

Table 1: Population Estimates by Community for Muskogee County, Oklahoma 1990, 2000, 2010

Area 1990 2000 2010

Percent Change,

2000-2010

Muskogee County 68,078 69,451 70,990 2.2%

Boynton 391 274 248 -9.5%

Braggs 308 301 259 -14.0%

Council Hill 139 129 158 22.5%

Fort Gibson (part) 3,359 4,046 4,132 2.1%

Haskell 2,143 1,765 2,007 13.7%

Muskogee 37,708 38,310 39,223 2.4%

Oktaha 266 327 390 19.3%

Porum 851 725 727 0.3%

Summit 170 226 139 -38.5%

Taft 400 349 250 -28.4%

Wainwright 223 197 165 -16.2%

Warner 1,479 1,430 1,641 14.8%

Webbers Falls 722 726 616 -15.2%

Remainder of County 19,919 20,646 21,035 1.9%

Source: Oklahoma Department of Commerce, “Oklahoma Counties and Places: Decennial Populations, 1890 to 2010.” 1890-2010-Decennial-Census-Pop_2302.xls

7

Table 2: Population Estimates by Age and Gender for Muskogee County, Oklahoma, 2010

Age Category Number Percent

Under 5 years 4,874 6.9

5 to 9 years 4,894 6.9

10 to 14 years 4,878 6.9

15 to 19 years 4,957 7

20 to 24 years 4,500 6.3

25 to 29 years 4,708 6.6

30 to 34 years 4,526 6.4

35 to 39 years 4,259 6

40 to 44 years 4,181 5.9

45 to 49 years 4,955 7

50 to 54 years 5,064 7.1

55 to 59 years 4,648 6.5

60 to 64 years 4,138 5.8

65 to 69 years 3,177 4.5

70 to 74 years 2,434 3.4

75 to 79 years 2,013 2.8

80 to 84 years 1,443 2

85 years and over 1,341 1.9

Median Age 37.6

Male 34,695 Female 36,295 Source: Oklahoma Department of Commerce, “2010 Census Demographic Profiles, Oklahoma: State, MSAs

and 77 Counties.” 2010-Census-Demographic-Profil_3366.xls

8

Table 3: Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2010

Number Percent

All Races 70,990 100

One Race All One Race 65,149 91.8

White 42,467 59.8

Black or African American 8,030 11.3

American Indian and Alaska Native 12,403 17.5

Asian 396 0.6

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 24 0

Some Other Race 1,829 2.6

Two or More Races All Two or More Races 5,841 8.2

White; American Indian and Alaska Native 4,036 5.7

White; Asian 63 0.1

White; Black or African American 476 0.7

White; Some Other Race 170 0.2

Race alone or in combination with one or more other races [4]

White 47,546 67

Black or African American 9,408 13.3

American Indian and Alaska Native 17,454 24.6

Asian 542 0.8

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 64 0.1

Some Other Race 2,152 3

Hispanic, All 3,688 5.2

Source: Oklahoma Department of Commerce, “2010 Census Demographic Profiles, Oklahoma: State, MSAs and 77 Counties.” 2010-Census-Demographic-Profil_3366.xls Table 4: Household Statistics, 2010

Households 27,054

Average Household size 2.49

Total Housing Units 30,908

Owner-Occupied Housing Units 58.5%

Renter-Occupied Housing Units 29.0%

Vacant Housing Units 12.5%

Source: Oklahoma Department of Commerce, “2010 Census Demographic Profiles, Oklahoma: State, MSAs and 77 Counties.” 2010-Census-Demographic-Profil_3366.xls

9

Table 5: Labor Force Data for Muskogee County, 1990-2010

Year Labor Force Employment Unemployment Unemployment Rate

1990 29,593 27,742 1,851 6.3%

1991 29,593 27,123 2,470 8.3%

1992 29,354 27,087 2,267 7.7%

1993 29,977 27,565 2,412 8.0%

1994 30,210 27,674 2,536 8.4%

1995 29,225 27,252 1,973 6.8%

1996 29,799 28,051 1,748 5.9%

1997 30,325 28,457 1,868 6.2%

1998 31,760 29,657 2,103 6.6%

1999 31,844 30,411 1,433 4.5%

2000 28,959 27,828 1,131 3.9%

2001 28,954 27,713 1,241 4.3%

2002 29,983 28,377 1,606 5.4%

2003 29,088 26,954 2,134 7.3%

2004 28,699 26,666 2,033 7.1%

2005 29,265 27,509 1,756 6.0%

2006 29,381 27,833 1,548 5.3%

2007 29,757 28,129 1,628 5.5%

2008 29,590 28,207 1,383 4.7%

2009 30,848 28,434 2,414 7.8%

2010 31,181 28,602 2,579 8.3%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics

10

Table 6: Employment by major sector for Muskogee County, 2001-2009

Description 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Total employment 38,963 39,056 38,148 38,095 38,697 39,081 39,304 39,261 38,950

Wage and salary employment 32,186 32,333 31,290 31,201 31,644 31,841 31,746 31,776 31,374

Proprietors employment 6,777 6,723 6,858 6,894 7,053 7,240 7,558 7,485 7,576

Farm proprietors employment 1,807 1,701 1,676 1,645 1,646 1,623 1,696 1,678 1,669

Nonfarm proprietors employment 2/ 4,970 5,022 5,182 5,249 5,407 5,617 5,862 5,807 5,907

Farm employment 2,003 1,870 1,812 1,811 1,807 1,772 1,859 1,855 1,827

Nonfarm employment 36,960 37,186 36,336 36,284 36,890 37,309 37,445 37,406 37,123

Private employment 29,395 29,602 28,836 28,615 28,552 28,843 29,695 29,551 28,317

Forestry, fishing, and related activities (D) 153 148 171 169 181 181 171 163

Mining 209 200 255 209 186 232 250 344 481

Utilities (D) (D) 328 323 325 330 332 329 330

Construction 2,315 2,333 2,212 2,155 2,269 2,290 2,340 2,392 2,118

Manufacturing 5,189 4,774 5,021 4,620 4,634 4,679 4,643 4,635 4,189

Wholesale trade 1,037 988 988 963 920 1,014 1,009 1,006 881

Retail trade 4,551 4,721 4,863 4,738 4,836 4,497 4,344 4,170 4,002

Transportation and warehousing (D) (D) 834 834 1,042 1,189 1,316 1,246 1,133

Information 628 676 574 360 356 400 412 405 377

Finance and insurance 1,003 1,005 941 967 970 981 940 964 1,069

Real estate and rental and leasing 670 693 707 812 835 812 859 848 856

Professional, scientific, and technical services 865 941 910 941 902 939 986 953 866

Management of companies and enterprises 154 139 123 111 33 32 37 44 48

Administrative and waste management services 2,033 2,242 1,848 2,189 2,496 2,605 2,437 2,291 1,812

Educational services (D) (D) (D) (D) 469 469 462 (D) (D)

Health care and social assistance (D) (D) (D) (D) 3,548 3,590 4,380 (D) (D)

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 362 340 327 292 281 291 286 285 297

Accommodation and food services 2,375 2,395 2,368 2,411 2,375 2,386 2,504 2,476 2,552

Other services, except public administration 1,894 1,940 1,941 1,934 1,906 1,926 1,977 1,954 1,944

Government and government enterprises 7,565 7,584 7,500 7,669 8,338 8,466 7,750 7,855 8,806

Federal, civilian 1,532 1,566 1,594 1,662 1,737 1,788 1,929 2,174 2,518

Military 347 341 341 326 300 301 304 319 313

State and local 5,686 5,677 5,565 5,681 6,301 6,377 5,517 5,362 5,975

(D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals. Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=70&step=30&isuri=1&7028=-1&7031=40000&7022=11&7023=4&7024=NAICS&7026=40101&7027=-1&7001=611&7029=33&7032=40000

11

Table 7: Personal Income by Major Source for Muskogee County, 2001-2009 (in thousands of dollars)

Description 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Wage and salary disbursements $833,271 $865,328 $865,269 $878,450 $930,184 $989,337 $1,027,898 $1,061,558 $1,076,211

Supplements to wages and salaries $210,585 $231,114 $241,660 $248,649 $271,109 $287,892 $290,932 $308,807 $338,762

Proprietors' income $108,248 $109,764 $115,183 $135,031 $132,667 $125,772 $134,747 $123,175 $114,732

Earnings by place of work $1,152,104 $1,206,206 $1,222,112 $1,262,130 $1,333,960 $1,403,001 $1,453,577 $1,493,540 $1,529,705

less: Contributions for government social insurance

$132,665 $139,825 $141,610 $146,159 $156,224 $164,854 $169,858 $174,162 $181,416

plus: Adjustment for residence -$142,690 -$152,936 -$152,828 -$150,461 -$161,144 -$167,956 -$169,801 -$174,858 -$189,546

Net earnings by place of residence $876,749 $913,445 $927,674 $965,510 $1,016,592 $1,070,191 $1,113,918 $1,144,520 $1,158,743

plus: Dividends, interest, and rent $258,697 $260,459 $257,746 $237,758 $250,642 $275,765 $321,217 $329,377 $314,856

plus: Personal current transfer receipts $348,235 $380,578 $404,824 $434,458 $457,137 $496,328 $528,466 $576,561 $638,421

Personal income $1,483,681 $1,554,482 $1,590,244 $1,637,726 $1,724,371 $1,842,284 $1,963,601 $2,050,458 $2,112,020

Per capita personal income (dollars) $21,346 $22,364 $22,734 $23,429 $24,560 $26,157 $27,779 $28,982 $29,575

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=70&step=30&isuri=1&7028=-1&7030=0&7022=49&7023=4&7024=Non-Industry&7029=49&7026=40101&7027=2009,2008,2007,2006,2005,2004,2003,2002,2001&7001=649&7031=40101&7032=40101

12

Table 8: Sales Tax Collections for the City of Muskogee , 2001-2010

Year Rate Sales Tax

Collections Estimated

Retail Sales

2001 2.50% (11), 3.00% (1) $12,961,510 $510,470,827

2002 3.00% (11), 2.50% (1) $15,370,196 $519,255,760

2003 2.50% (8), 3.25% (4) $14,063,017 $512,674,397

2004 3.25% $16,746,504 $515,277,046

2005 3.25% (5), 4.25% (7) $20,433,565 $531,164,331

2006 4.25% $23,190,817 $545,666,282

2007 4.25% $23,660,656 $556,721,318

2008 4.25% (8), 3.50% (4) $22,933,840 $572,508,654

2009 3.50% $20,652,073 $590,059,229

2010 3.50% (5), 4.00% (7) $21,235,529 $559,348,643

Numbers in parentheses identify number of months a rate was effective Source: Oklahoma Tax Commission Ledger Reports, 2001-2010 Table 9: Sales Tax Collections for Muskogee County, 2007-2010

Year Rate Sales Tax

Collections Taxable Sales

2007 0.15% $1,025,655 $683,770,000

2008 0.15% (7), 0.65% (5) $2,329,942 $671,283,897

2009 0.65% $4,754,479 $731,458,307

2010 0.65% $4,523,983 $695,997,384

Numbers in parentheses identify number of months a rate was effective Source: Oklahoma Tax Commission Ledger Reports, 2001-2010

13

Some Basic Concepts of Community Economics Industries or businesses bring income from outside the community into the local economy are

called basic industries. Sometimes, basic industries produce goods primarily for sale outside the

economy; other times, basic industries create services which attract people from outside the community

to spend money in the local economy, such as the Regional Junior Livestock Show. They are important

components of all economic systems. Two other major components of economic systems are service

firms and households. Figure 1 illustrates the major flows of these three sectors within any economy

with respect to the basic industries in the community.

Though the MRJLS does not create employment explicitly, people attending the show create

demand for restaurants, gas stations, hotels, etc. Thus, the direct impacts of the livestock show will be

the employment and output stimulated at these related businesses by those attending the show.

The increase in demand for products from existing manufacturing and service firms due to the

basic industry causes a secondary effect in the local economy. In order to meet the demand of the

Regional Junior Livestock Show attendees, the existing firms, which supply the restaurants, gas stations,

hotels, etc. must increase their own employment and purchase of other inputs to increase their output

and satisfy the demand. Thus, a basic industry causes an indirect effect by increasing the

production/employment of existing firms in the local economy.

There is a third effect that could result from the Regional Junior Livestock Show. The employees

of the related businesses spend their wages to purchase goods and services from retail and service

businesses in the community. This increase in household consumption could cause new retail

establishments to open and existing retailers to expand by hiring more employees and buying more

inventory. Increasing employment induces increased household consumption, so the third effect is

known as the induced effect.

14

The above discussion indicates how basic industries serve as the foundation of an economy and

how households and service firms are necessary to make the economy function. Service industries

account for a substantial part of the outputs of most economies. But, as Figure 1 shows, much of the

service industries' output supports the local basic industries and households. Mathematical techniques

can be used to measure the relationships between basic industries, households, and services.

A measure used in economics to describe the effects of an increase or decrease in economic

activity is called a multiplier. A Social Account Matrix (SAM) multiplier is used for this study. A SAM

multiplier is defined as the ratio between direct employment (or output) and the sum of the direct, indirect,

and induced employment (or output). A SAM output multiplier of 1.5, for example, indicates that if one

dollar of output is generated by the direct activity, then 0.50 additional dollars of output are generated due

to business (indirect) and household (induced) spending. IMPLAN is a computerized database and

economic model produced by Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc., and the 2008 data set for Muskogee County

is used to generate multipliers for this analysis. For further details regarding this methodology, see the

references listed at the end of this report.

15

Figure 1

Overview of Community Economic System

$

Services

Inputs Labor $ $

Households

Goods &

Services

Exported

Products

$ Imported

Inputs

$ Basic

Industry

Goods &

Services

$

$

Goods &

Services

16

The Economic Impact of the Muskogee Regional Junior Livestock Show 2011

To estimate the total economic impact of an economic activity such as a Regional Junior Livestock

Show, it is necessary to divide the activities into direct and secondary. The direct activities correspond to

the expenditures of visitors to the Regional Junior Livestock Show, and the secondary activities relate to the

suppliers of firms at which visitors spend. The data used in this analysis was self reported by attendees of

the MRJLS. A copy of the forms used to collect the data can be found in the Appendix.

The direct impact of the Muskogee County Regional Junior Livestock Show results from the

expenditures of the visitors to the event. The survey data was collected on the days of the event, March 1-3,

2011. It is estimated that 5,300 people attended the show. Only 177 surveys were complete enough to be

used in this analysis. These surveys represented 2,163 people attending the MRJLS. As shown in Table 10,

the survey respondents spent over $43,000 in Muskogee as a result of attending the MRJLS. The largest

share of expenditures was on food and lodging, almost $15,400, followed by retail goods excluding gas, gas

and then services.

Of those attending MRJLS, residents from Muskogee County but outside the City of Muskogee

represented the largest share of attendees. Sixty-three percent of surveys were county residents while 31%

represented people from outside Muskogee County. The remaining 6% represent City of Muskogee

residents. It is important to know where attendees were from because only the expenditures of those from

outside Muskogee County contribute to the multiplier effect. The expenditures by residents of Muskogee

County are already counted as part of the local economy, so these expenditures are attributable to the

MRJLS, but do not generate indirect or induced effects.

Table 11 presents the expenditure estimates for the entire population of attendees. Using the

proportion of survey respondents by residence, and the proportion of surveys to total attendees,

expenditures were estimated. Total expenditures across all residence categories were almost $107,000;

$70,100 came from Muskogee County residents, and nearly $34,000 came from non residents of Muskogee

County.

The economic impact of the Muskogee Regional Junior Livestock Show is presented in Table 12. The

direct impact of the event was $106,631. As discussed earlier, only the non residents of Muskogee County

17

will create indirect and induced impacts. Combined indirect and induced impacts of the nonresident

expenditures were $11,050. Total impact of the event was $117,680. The implied multiplier for this event is

1.104, meaning that every $1 spent by MRJLS attendees generated an additional 10.4 cents.

Table 13 presents the estimated retail sales tax collections to the City and County of Muskogee,

respectively, generated from the livestock show. Of the direct impacts, only $70,434 is subject to sales tax

(food and lodging, and retail – excluding gas categories). Applying respective rates of 0.65% for the county

and 4.0% for the city, sales tax collections are estimated to be $458 for the county and $2,817 for the city.

The induced impact will also generate retail sales tax collections, since this represents additional household

consumption. Only $1,772 of the induced impact is estimated to be on taxable items. An additional $12 for

the county and $71 for the city are estimated to be generated from the induced impact. In total, the county

of Muskogee receives an estimated $470 and the city of Muskogee receives $2,888 in retail sales tax

collections due to the livestock show.

Participants were also asked on the survey to rank several of Muskogee’s community assets.

The assets ranked the highest most consistently were restaurants, followed by the mall, motels,

recreation, museums, and casinos. See Table 14. Assets listed in the “other” category included the

fairgrounds, Walmart, feed/agricultural supply stores, the Expo Center, and schools. The most

commonly mentioned community shortcomings were the fairgrounds themselves being old and in

disrepair, a lack of variety in shopping and restaurants, and the absence of recreational activities for

families. See Table 15 for more detailed comments.

As presented in Tables 16 through 20, respondents were asked to rate several aspects of their

overall experience from 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest possible rating representing “excellent.” When

asked to rate their overall experience with MRJLS, the average rating was 3.7. Staff courtesy averaged a

4.2 rating. The facility itself earned a 2.8 average rating, and concessions earned a 2.7 average rating.

Finally, the facilities for spectators received a 2.8 average rating.

When asked the open-ended question, “What could we have done to make your overall

experience better?” the answers included some of the following. Thirty-two people requested

improvements to the fairgrounds; many requested a new facility. Nine more respondents requested

18

heat. An additional eight respondents were not satisfied with the restrooms specifically. Four

respondents wanted better concessions—mostly referencing high prices. Other respondents

commented on needing a better sound system, requiring the show winners to write thank you notes,

requested that the judges come from outside of the region, more parking, and the lack of handicap

accessibility.

Finally, respondents were given space to make open comments. Only nineteen participants

took advantage of this opportunity. Of those, six expressed appreciation for the effort put into the

event and complemented the committee. Another five persons expressed disappointment over the lack

of maintenance of the facilities and suggested the youth who participate deserve better facilities. One

person was appreciative of the new portable pens for showing. Another respondent commented again

about the need for better lighting, while another suggested moving the event to a new facility in Hatbox.

“Judge the animal – not who you know. McPeak needs ‘hands off’,” was the comment of another

individual. Additional comments pointed to the need for more money in the sale, making hand sanitizer

available, and water drainage issues at the facility.

19

Table 10: Summary of Survey Results Regarding Expenditures at the Muskogee Regional Junior Livestock Show by Residence

Expenses

City of Muskogee Residents

Muskogee County

Residents (not including City of Muskogee

residents)

Visitors from Outside of Muskogee

County Total

Food & Lodging $214 $9,721 $5,416 $15,351

Retail Goods (except Gas) $320 $9,303 $3,771 $13,394

Gas* $300 $6,369 $3,506 $10,175

Services* $255 $3,214 $1,128 $4,597

Total $1,089 $28,607 $13,821 $43,517

Number of Surveys 12 111 54 177

Attendance of Surveyed 46 1,622 495 2,163

Table 11: Estimated Expenses of All Attendees at the Muskogee Regional Junior Livestock Show by Residence

Expenses

City of Muskogee Residents

Muskogee County

Residents (not including City of Muskogee

residents)

Visitors from Outside of Muskogee

County Total

Food & Lodging $524 $23,819 $13,271 $37,615

Retail Goods (except Gas) $784 $22,795 $9,240 $32,819

Gas* $735 $15,607 $8,591 $24,933

Services* $625 $7,875 $2,764 $11,264

Total $2,668 $70,097 $33,866 $106,631

Estimated Attendance 113 3,974 1,213 5,300

20

Table 12: Economic Impact of the Muskogee Regional Junior Livestock Show

Source of Expenditure

Direct Impact

Indirect & Induced Impact Total Impact

City of Muskogee Residents $2,668 -- $2,668 Muskogee County Residents (not including City of Muskogee residents) $70,097 -- $70,097

Visitors from Outside of Muskogee County $33,866 $11,050 $44,916

Total $106,631 $11,050 $117,681

Table 13: Estimated Taxable Sales and Sales Tax Collections in Muskogee County and the City of Muskogee due to the Muskogee Regional Junior Livestock Show

Sales Amount

Muskogee County Sales Tax Collections

(0.65%)

Muskogee City Sales Tax

Collections (4.0%)

Total Direct Impact Subject to Sales Tax $70,434 $458 $2,817

Induced Impact Subject to Sales Tax* $1,772 $12 $71

Total Sales Subject to Tax $72,206 $470 $2,888

*Induced Impacts reduced by the local purchasing coefficient to reflect local household spending patterns Table 14: Overall Ranking of Muskogee’s Community Assets (Most Important to Least Important)

#1 Restaurants #2 Mall #3 Motels #4 Recreation #5 Museums #6 Casinos

Others Fairgrounds/Expo Center Walmart Atwoods/ Farm Stores Schools

21

Table 15: Muskogee’s Most Significant Shortcomings (number of responses in parentheses)

Expo/Fairgrounds (156) Very old facilities/Need new facilities In poor state of repairs/run down In bad part of town Heat in exhibit building Barn lighting Wash pens Pig barns need concrete floors Trashy appearance Hot water in bathrooms Too much tax on sponsors Not enough vendors/Cost of vendors Better rest rooms for women Steps are difficult for elderly More parking/Quality of Parking/Difficulty Loading and Unloading Cost/Quality of Concessions Muskogee appears to have no pride Speaker System Appears to be a lack of support from city No signs Lack of premium buyers Muddy walkways Coverings over walkways between arena and barn Lack of support, government support specifically Coverage in Newspaper

Streets/Roads Poor quality/narrow roads

Motels/Hotels None were close to the Expo Center

Restaurants Too few near Expo Not enough selection (e.g., steakhouse, Olive Garden, Texas Roadhouse)

Mall/Shopping Poor selection More gas stations

Also Mentioned: More recreational, unrelated activities for families

Table 16: Overall Experience with Muskogee Regional Junior Livestock Show

Average Answer (Out of 5) 3.7 Total People Who Answered 162

Table 17: Experience with Livestock Staff Courtesy

Average Answer (Out of 5) 4.2 Total People Who Answered 162

22

Table 18: Experience with the Facility

Average Answer (Out of 5) 2.8 Total People Who Answered 166

Table 19: Experience with Concessions

Average Answer (Out of 5) 2.7 Total People Who Answered 164

Table 20: Experience with the Facility for Spectators

Average Answer (Out of 5) 2.8 Total People Who Answered 164

23

Summary

The economic impact of the Muskogee County Regional Junior Livestock Show on the City of

Muskogee and Muskogee County is significant. The Regional Junior Livestock Show brings in a large number

of visitors who spend money in the area. The secondary impact occurring in the community and in the

county is not extremely large but is important. The multipliers are small due to the fact that inputs come

from outside the county and that many residents purchase goods and services outside the county. If further

analysis is desired, please contact your County Extension Director.

24

References Allen, C.W., Woods, M.D., and Doeksen, G.A., A Methodology for Assessing the Impacts of Business

Activity, Stillwater: Oklahoma State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, B-793, November 1990.

Hustedde, Ron, Shaffer, Ron, and Pulver, Glen (1984). Community Economic Analysis: A How To Manual.

North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, Iowa State University of Science and Technology: Ames Iowa.

MIG, Inc. IMPLAN System (2008 Pottawatomie County, OK, version 3.0.16.2), 502 2nd Street, Suite 301,

Hudson, WI 54016. http://www.implan.com MIG, Inc. 2010. Version 3.0 User’s Guide. Hudson, WI: MIG, Inc.

http://implan.com/V4/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=197&Itemid=7

Oklahoma Department of Commerce. “Oklahoma Counties and Places: Decennial Populations 1890 to

2010.” http://www.okcommerce.gov/Data-And-Research/Downloads/Decennial-Census-Data/1890-2010-Decennial-Census-Population-By-Place-By-County; accessed 8/5/11 at 11:15 am.

Oklahoma Department of Commerce. “Oklahoma Department of Commerce, “2010 Census

Demographic Profiles, Oklahoma: State, MSAs and 77 Counties.” http://www.okcommerce.gov/Data-And-Research/Downloads/2010-Census/2010-Census-Demographic-Profiles-Andndash-MSAs-And-Counties; accessed 11/9/11 at 3:45 pm.

Oklahoma Tax Commission. City Sales Tax Ledger Reports, Fiscal Years 1980 to 2010. Available online at

http://www.tax.ok.gov/rpt4.html Oklahoma Tax Commission. County Sales Tax Ledger Reports, Fiscal Years 1980 to 2010. Available online

at http://www.tax.ok.gov/rpt4.html U.S.Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local Area Unemployment Statistics.

http://www.bls.gov/lau/; downloaded data 11/8/2011 at 5:00 pm. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Economic Accounts. Tables

CA05N and CA25N. http://www/bea/gov/regional/index.htm; downloaded on 1/16/12 at 3:04 pm.

25

Appendix

Economic Impact Survey – Visitors to the MRJLS The Muskogee Regional Junior Livestock Show has asked Oklahoma State University to conduct an economic

impact survey to discover how the Muskogee Regional Livestock Show impacts the city of Muskogee and

Muskogee County. This information is very important for the livestock show and might help secure future

sponsorships and events. Please do not put your name on this survey. All information is strictly confidential. Thank

you for taking time to complete this survey.

1. Where are you from? (Circle only one)

a. City of Muskogee

b. Other city or town (or rural area) in Muskogee County, Oklahoma

c. Other county in Oklahoma

d. Other state. Please tell us which state:____________________________________________________

e. Other country. Please tell us which country________________________________________________

2. Are you (Circle only one):

a. Exhibitor or Exhibitor’s Family b. MRJLS representative

c. Club Leader d. Spectator

e. Other:_______________________________________________________________________________

3. Including yourself, how many people in your group are attending the MRJLS?________

4. Please estimate or predict your family’s expenditures within Muskogee or Muskogee County for the

duration of the MRJLS. Only one person per family should submit this survey. When completing this

question, please do not include any purchases made outside of Muskogee County. If you do not have or do

not expect to have any expenditure in one or more of these categories, please enter 0 in those categories.

a. Food and drink purchased at the livestock show concessions: $_____

b. Items purchased from other vendors at the show: $_____

c. Lodging $_____ per night, for how many nights____

d. Restaurant food and drink: $_____

e. Groceries $_____

f. Gasoline $_____

g. Admission fees & Other recreation or entertainment: $_____

h. Gifts, clothing, books, souvenirs, or other retail items $_____

i. Health-related services (doctor, dentist, hospital visits): $_____

j. Other services (auto repair, laundry, beauty shops, etc): $_____

k. Other expenses: $_____

Please describe other expenses:_____________________________________________________________

26

5. Listed below are 6 of Muskogee community assets. Please rank these assets 1 to 6 where 1 is the greatest or

most important and 6 is the least important. If you believe that we have omitted an important community

asset, please include it in this list.

_____Mall _____Museums

_____Motels _____Recreational/Sightseeing

_____Restaurants _____Casinos

_____Other (Please List)__________________________________________________________________

6. Based on your visit to the Livestock Show, please tell us three of Muskogee’s most significant

shortcomings.

1. _____________________________________________________________________________

2. ____________________________________________________________________________

3. ____________________________________________________________________________

Please rate the following aspects of the MRJLS at the Muskogee Expo Grounds, where 1 indicates a poor experience

and 5 indicates an excellent experience. Circle one number in each row.

1

Poor

2

Below

Average

3

Average

4

Very

Good

5

Excellent

Not Sure

Not

Applicable

Overall experience with MRJLS 1 2 3 4 5

Livestock staff courtesy 1 2 3 4 5

The livestock facility: i.e., Barns, show ring, etc. 1 2 3 4 5

Concessions 1 2 3 4 5

Facility for spectators 1 2 3 4 5

How could we have made your overall experience better? _______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional Comments: _______________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your time.