http://augustafreepress.com/jmu-contribu...my-report/

(08-09-2016 11:09 AM)Potomac Wrote:  http://augustafreepress.com/jmu-contribu...my-report/

I don't understand (or care enough to study) the methodology used to come up with the number of $480 million, but when the university budget is $500 million as a starting point, and then you add the spending of 21,000 students above and beyond what the university has budgeted, and then add the turnover factor of what those two numbers (university budget plus student spending) does in passing thru the hands of local merchants, I'd venture a conservative guess the contribution to the local economy far exceeds $480 million. Indeed, guess a rough guess off the top of my head would be to take the JMU budget and multiply it by a factor of 3.

(08-09-2016 01:32 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 11:09 AM)Potomac Wrote:  http://augustafreepress.com/jmu-contribu...my-report/

I don't understand (or care enough to study) the methodology used to come up with the number of $480 million, but when the university budget is $500 million as a starting point, and then you add the spending of 21,000 students above and beyond what the university has budgeted, and then add the turnover factor of what those two numbers (university budget plus student spending) does in passing thru the hands of local merchants, I'd venture a conservative guess the contribution to the local economy far exceeds $480 million. Indeed, guess a rough guess off the top of my head would be to take the JMU budget and multiply it by a factor of 3.

The $500 budget is irrelevant if the money isn't spent locally and according to the study JMU spent $282 million locally. This is a study done by JMU in partnership with the Weldon-Cooper Center, I would imagine JMU would want the numbers to be as beneficial to them as possible. Take away the $282 million from JMU and that leaves just under $200 million in spending from students/employees/visitors, does $200 million from that group sound about right?

(08-09-2016 01:45 PM)CISDuke2014 Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 01:32 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 11:09 AM)Potomac Wrote:  http://augustafreepress.com/jmu-contribu...my-report/

I don't understand (or care enough to study) the methodology used to come up with the number of $480 million, but when the university budget is $500 million as a starting point, and then you add the spending of 21,000 students above and beyond what the university has budgeted, and then add the turnover factor of what those two numbers (university budget plus student spending) does in passing thru the hands of local merchants, I'd venture a conservative guess the contribution to the local economy far exceeds $480 million. Indeed, guess a rough guess off the top of my head would be to take the JMU budget and multiply it by a factor of 3.

The $500 budget is irrelevant if the money isn't spent locally and according to the study JMU spent $282 million locally. This is a study done by JMU in partnership with the Weldon-Cooper Center, I would imagine JMU would want the numbers to be as beneficial to them as possible. Take away the $282 million from JMU and that leaves just under $200 million in spending from students/employees/visitors, does $200 million from that group sound about right?

Actually the only real "contributions" to the economy are the $282M from JMU and the $20M or so they attributed to the 278,000 visitors.

The $93M in indirect spending (businesses in turn spending money they received from JMU back into the local economy) and $85M of induced spending (employees spending their paychecks locally) aren't really adding new money to the local economy, its just respending the same dollar over and over. It helps various businesses as it gets respent but it isn't really adding money to the economy. If you want to play that game you could move further down from secondary to tertiary, etc. spending and then get to numbers that LH was incorrectly guessing.

A more true statement would be that JMU added $282M to the local economy with nearly $180M of that estimated to remain in the local economy in secondary spending. JMU visitors are attributed to have added an additional $20M to the economy.

(08-09-2016 01:58 PM)JMaddy Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 01:45 PM)CISDuke2014 Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 01:32 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 11:09 AM)Potomac Wrote:  http://augustafreepress.com/jmu-contribu...my-report/

I don't understand (or care enough to study) the methodology used to come up with the number of $480 million, but when the university budget is $500 million as a starting point, and then you add the spending of 21,000 students above and beyond what the university has budgeted, and then add the turnover factor of what those two numbers (university budget plus student spending) does in passing thru the hands of local merchants, I'd venture a conservative guess the contribution to the local economy far exceeds $480 million. Indeed, guess a rough guess off the top of my head would be to take the JMU budget and multiply it by a factor of 3.

The $500 budget is irrelevant if the money isn't spent locally and according to the study JMU spent $282 million locally. This is a study done by JMU in partnership with the Weldon-Cooper Center, I would imagine JMU would want the numbers to be as beneficial to them as possible. Take away the $282 million from JMU and that leaves just under $200 million in spending from students/employees/visitors, does $200 million from that group sound about right?

Actually the only real "contributions" to the economy are the $282M from JMU and the $20M or so they attributed to the 278,000 visitors.

The $93M in indirect spending (businesses in turn spending money they received from JMU back into the local economy) and $85M of induced spending (employees spending their paychecks locally) aren't really adding new money to the local economy, its just respending the same dollar over and over. It helps various businesses as it gets respent but it isn't really adding money to the economy. If you want to play that game you could move further down from secondary to tertiary, etc. spending and then get to numbers that LH was incorrectly guessing.

A more true statement would be that JMU added $282M to the local economy with nearly $180M of that estimated to remain in the local economy in secondary spending. JMU visitors are attributed to have added an additional $20M to the economy.

An answer that makes sense. Thanks. I'm assuming there are standard accounting models that can get a pretty good handle on the size of the impact JMU has on the local economy. The $282M of new money spent locally by JMU begs the question where the balance of the $500M university budget ($218M) is going. Outside of repayment of the bonds used to finance new construction, do you have any guesses/insight?

Would be curious to see how this compares to other Universities and their local economies. Judging from some of the census growth statistics some of the other local areas that schools rumored to join the AAC are in are trending the opposite direction of JMU and Harrisonburg.

(08-09-2016 05:27 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 01:58 PM)JMaddy Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 01:45 PM)CISDuke2014 Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 01:32 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 11:09 AM)Potomac Wrote:  http://augustafreepress.com/jmu-contribu...my-report/

I don't understand (or care enough to study) the methodology used to come up with the number of $480 million, but when the university budget is $500 million as a starting point, and then you add the spending of 21,000 students above and beyond what the university has budgeted, and then add the turnover factor of what those two numbers (university budget plus student spending) does in passing thru the hands of local merchants, I'd venture a conservative guess the contribution to the local economy far exceeds $480 million. Indeed, guess a rough guess off the top of my head would be to take the JMU budget and multiply it by a factor of 3.

The $500 budget is irrelevant if the money isn't spent locally and according to the study JMU spent $282 million locally. This is a study done by JMU in partnership with the Weldon-Cooper Center, I would imagine JMU would want the numbers to be as beneficial to them as possible. Take away the $282 million from JMU and that leaves just under $200 million in spending from students/employees/visitors, does $200 million from that group sound about right?

Actually the only real "contributions" to the economy are the $282M from JMU and the $20M or so they attributed to the 278,000 visitors.

The $93M in indirect spending (businesses in turn spending money they received from JMU back into the local economy) and $85M of induced spending (employees spending their paychecks locally) aren't really adding new money to the local economy, its just respending the same dollar over and over. It helps various businesses as it gets respent but it isn't really adding money to the economy. If you want to play that game you could move further down from secondary to tertiary, etc. spending and then get to numbers that LH was incorrectly guessing.

A more true statement would be that JMU added $282M to the local economy with nearly $180M of that estimated to remain in the local economy in secondary spending. JMU visitors are attributed to have added an additional $20M to the economy.

An answer that makes sense. Thanks. I'm assuming there are standard accounting models that can get a pretty good handle on the size of the impact JMU has on the local economy. The $282M of new money spent locally by JMU begs the question where the balance of the $500M university budget ($218M) is going. Outside of repayment of the bonds used to finance new construction, do you have any guesses/insight?

Only about $32mil total goes to debt service, which seems reasonable. ~38 mil for utilities. There are other expenses like building maintenaince, etc. Total salaries/benefits is just north of $272 mil.

This is all posted online here: https://www.jmu.edu/budgetmgmt/wm_librar...02017.docx

(08-09-2016 06:32 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 05:27 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 01:58 PM)JMaddy Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 01:45 PM)CISDuke2014 Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 01:32 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  I don't understand (or care enough to study) the methodology used to come up with the number of $480 million, but when the university budget is $500 million as a starting point, and then you add the spending of 21,000 students above and beyond what the university has budgeted, and then add the turnover factor of what those two numbers (university budget plus student spending) does in passing thru the hands of local merchants, I'd venture a conservative guess the contribution to the local economy far exceeds $480 million. Indeed, guess a rough guess off the top of my head would be to take the JMU budget and multiply it by a factor of 3.

The $500 budget is irrelevant if the money isn't spent locally and according to the study JMU spent $282 million locally. This is a study done by JMU in partnership with the Weldon-Cooper Center, I would imagine JMU would want the numbers to be as beneficial to them as possible. Take away the $282 million from JMU and that leaves just under $200 million in spending from students/employees/visitors, does $200 million from that group sound about right?

Actually the only real "contributions" to the economy are the $282M from JMU and the $20M or so they attributed to the 278,000 visitors.

The $93M in indirect spending (businesses in turn spending money they received from JMU back into the local economy) and $85M of induced spending (employees spending their paychecks locally) aren't really adding new money to the local economy, its just respending the same dollar over and over. It helps various businesses as it gets respent but it isn't really adding money to the economy. If you want to play that game you could move further down from secondary to tertiary, etc. spending and then get to numbers that LH was incorrectly guessing.

A more true statement would be that JMU added $282M to the local economy with nearly $180M of that estimated to remain in the local economy in secondary spending. JMU visitors are attributed to have added an additional $20M to the economy.

An answer that makes sense. Thanks. I'm assuming there are standard accounting models that can get a pretty good handle on the size of the impact JMU has on the local economy. The $282M of new money spent locally by JMU begs the question where the balance of the $500M university budget ($218M) is going. Outside of repayment of the bonds used to finance new construction, do you have any guesses/insight?

Only about $32mil total goes to debt service, which seems reasonable. ~38 mil for utilities. There are other expenses like building maintenaince, etc. Total salaries/benefits is just north of $272 mil.

This is all posted online here: https://www.jmu.edu/budgetmgmt/wm_librar...02017.docx

But wouldn't all salaries be counted as revenue being put into the local economy? (With the exception perhaps of MBB coaches who live in Crozet). And utilities are local too...building maintenance (like fixing a roof or putting in new flower beds) are also using funds being spent locally. Not trying to be argumentative, just really curious how the accounting works.

(08-09-2016 07:30 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 06:32 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 05:27 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 01:58 PM)JMaddy Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 01:45 PM)CISDuke2014 Wrote:  The $500 budget is irrelevant if the money isn't spent locally and according to the study JMU spent $282 million locally. This is a study done by JMU in partnership with the Weldon-Cooper Center, I would imagine JMU would want the numbers to be as beneficial to them as possible. Take away the $282 million from JMU and that leaves just under $200 million in spending from students/employees/visitors, does $200 million from that group sound about right?

Actually the only real "contributions" to the economy are the $282M from JMU and the $20M or so they attributed to the 278,000 visitors.

The $93M in indirect spending (businesses in turn spending money they received from JMU back into the local economy) and $85M of induced spending (employees spending their paychecks locally) aren't really adding new money to the local economy, its just respending the same dollar over and over. It helps various businesses as it gets respent but it isn't really adding money to the economy. If you want to play that game you could move further down from secondary to tertiary, etc. spending and then get to numbers that LH was incorrectly guessing.

A more true statement would be that JMU added $282M to the local economy with nearly $180M of that estimated to remain in the local economy in secondary spending. JMU visitors are attributed to have added an additional $20M to the economy.

An answer that makes sense. Thanks. I'm assuming there are standard accounting models that can get a pretty good handle on the size of the impact JMU has on the local economy. The $282M of new money spent locally by JMU begs the question where the balance of the $500M university budget ($218M) is going. Outside of repayment of the bonds used to finance new construction, do you have any guesses/insight?

Only about $32mil total goes to debt service, which seems reasonable. ~38 mil for utilities. There are other expenses like building maintenaince, etc. Total salaries/benefits is just north of $272 mil.

This is all posted online here: https://www.jmu.edu/budgetmgmt/wm_librar...02017.docx

But wouldn't all salaries be counted as revenue being put into the local economy? (With the exception perhaps of MBB coaches who live in Crozet). And utilities are local too...building maintenance (like fixing a roof or putting in new flower beds) are also using funds being spent locally. Not trying to be argumentative, just really curious how the accounting works.

How much of those salaries is going to the Federal government and not poured into the Harrisonburg community?

(08-10-2016 06:56 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 07:30 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 06:32 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 05:27 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 01:58 PM)JMaddy Wrote:  Actually the only real "contributions" to the economy are the $282M from JMU and the $20M or so they attributed to the 278,000 visitors.

The $93M in indirect spending (businesses in turn spending money they received from JMU back into the local economy) and $85M of induced spending (employees spending their paychecks locally) aren't really adding new money to the local economy, its just respending the same dollar over and over. It helps various businesses as it gets respent but it isn't really adding money to the economy. If you want to play that game you could move further down from secondary to tertiary, etc. spending and then get to numbers that LH was incorrectly guessing.

A more true statement would be that JMU added $282M to the local economy with nearly $180M of that estimated to remain in the local economy in secondary spending. JMU visitors are attributed to have added an additional $20M to the economy.

An answer that makes sense. Thanks. I'm assuming there are standard accounting models that can get a pretty good handle on the size of the impact JMU has on the local economy. The $282M of new money spent locally by JMU begs the question where the balance of the $500M university budget ($218M) is going. Outside of repayment of the bonds used to finance new construction, do you have any guesses/insight?

Only about $32mil total goes to debt service, which seems reasonable. ~38 mil for utilities. There are other expenses like building maintenaince, etc. Total salaries/benefits is just north of $272 mil.

This is all posted online here: https://www.jmu.edu/budgetmgmt/wm_librar...02017.docx

But wouldn't all salaries be counted as revenue being put into the local economy? (With the exception perhaps of MBB coaches who live in Crozet). And utilities are local too...building maintenance (like fixing a roof or putting in new flower beds) are also using funds being spent locally. Not trying to be argumentative, just really curious how the accounting works.

How much of those salaries is going to the Federal government and not poured into the Harrisonburg community?

Do you care to do a person by person tax analysis based on the income bracket they are within? Even then, lets nit-pick it further and realize that we can't account for all sources of income, such as investments, rental property or multiple jobs.

Why can't we just not tear something apart with excessive over-analysis.... just once?

Without JMU, Harrisonburg would be another Staunton or Waynesboro. It's size would be dependent on poultry and other farming operations. Without DuPont, Waynesboro does not exist. The surrounding areas are seeing growth too thanks to JMU. Rockingham county being the obvious big winner of JMUs growth. Many employees live there.

(08-10-2016 08:10 AM)JMUNation Wrote:  Without JMU, Harrisonburg would be another Staunton or Waynesboro. It's size would be dependent on poultry and other farming operations. Without DuPont, Waynesboro does not exist. The surrounding areas are seeing growth too thanks to JMU. Rockingham county being the obvious big winner of JMUs growth. Many employees live there.

Who are you kidding? Without JMU Harrisonburg would be Dayton or Bridgewater or at best Mount Jackson.