The School Year Calendar and Tourism in Michigan MLTA School Year St… · Executive Summary Anderson Economic Group, LLC 3 We compared the room sales in the year after the PLDS implementation

September 8, 2016

© Anderson Economic Group, LLC, 2016Permission to reproduce in entirety granted with proper citation. All other rights reserved.

Anderson Economic Group, LLC1555 Watertower Place, Suite 100East Lansing, Michigan 48823Tel: (517) 333-6984Fax: (517) 333-7058

www.AndersonEconomicGroup.com

The School Year Calendar and Tourism in Michigan

The Effects of Post-Labor Day School Start and Year-Round Schools on Michigan’s Tourism Industry

Prepared by:

Anderson Economic Group, LLCTraci Taylor, Senior AnalystAlex Rosaen, Director

Commissioned by:Michigan Lodging and Tourism Association

Table of Contents

Anderson Economic Group, LLC

I. Executive Summary............................................... 1Purpose of Report .................................................................. 1Overview of Approach .......................................................... 1Overview of Findings ............................................................ 2About Anderson Economic Group ........................................ 6

II. State Policies on the K-12 School Calendar ....... 7What is a Post-Labor Day School Start? ............................... 7What is a Year-Round School Calendar? ........................... 10

III. Benefits of the Post-Labor Day School Start to Michigan’s Tourism Industry............................. 14

Research on the Effects of a PLDS Law ............................. 14Tourism Trends in Michigan ............................................... 15Benefits of the PLDS Law To Michigan Tourism .............. 17

IV. Potential Effects of a Year-Round School Calendar on Michigan’s Tourism Industry ....... 23

Potential Effects of a YRS Calendar in Michigan .............. 23Policy Considerations ......................................................... 25

Appendix A. Methodology and Data .....................A-1Data Sources .....................................................................A-1Post-Labor Day School Start .............................................A-1Year-Round School Calendar .........................................A-15

Appendix B. Summary Exhibits .............................B-1

Appendix C: About Anderson Economic Group... C-1Authors .............................................................................. C-2

Executive Summary

I.Executive Summary

PURPOSE OF REPORT Michigan policymakers have recently considered adopting policies that would affect the school year calendar for public K-12 schools in the state. In particular, legislation introduced last year would, if passed, either overturn or diminish the 2005 mandate that public K-12 schools start after Labor Day. This mandate is known as a post-Labor Day school start (PLDS) law. In addition, many local school districts are considering adopting a year-round school (YRS) calendar.

These policies are often thought to have an impact on tourism since families with school-age children typically plan their vacations and travel around the school calendar. The purposes of this report are to:

1. Quantify the benefits of the PLDS law to Michigan’s tourism industry; and2. Qualitatively examine the potential effects of a statewide adoption of a YRS

calendar on Michigan’s tourism industry.

OVERVIEW OF APPROACH

We evaluated the benefits of the PLDS law in terms of the net impact on tourism spending in the state. By net impact, we mean the impact on travel in addition to the travel that would have taken place in Michigan if the PLDS law did not go into effect. To do this, we analyzed actual hotel volumes from survey data in the years before and after the PLDS law took effect in 2007. We used hotel stays and other data on expenditures to estimate the impact on tourism spending.

We relied on hotel room sales and revenue data from Smith Travel Research (STR), a research firm that surveys hotel operators. We also relied on travel data from D.K. Shifflet and Associates (DKSA), a research firm that surveys U.S. residents’ travel behavior. Travel characteristics include the purpose of stay, party size, length of stay, trip accommodations, and trip spending. We define “tourism” travel as leisure travel associated with vacations and special events, based on the definitions used by DKSA.

We had access to data for four regions in Michigan: the Southeastern Lower Peninsula, the Southwestern Lower Peninsula, the Northern Lower Peninsula, and the Upper Peninsula. We also had access to more detailed information for the Southeastern Lower Peninsula, allowing analysis of several sub-regions within this region.

This data provides a solid basis for analysis of tourism activity connected to hotel stays, but does not capture the effects of the PLDS law on tourists on day trips or staying in non-hotel lodging, such as campgrounds and vacation rentals. As a result, our approach produced a conservative estimate of the effect of the PLDS law. For further discussion of our data sources and methodology, see “Appendix A. Methodology and Data” on page A-1.

Anderson Economic Group, LLC 1

Executive Summary

OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS

1. Room sales for Michigan hotels increased by 40,000 to 44,000 room nights in 2007 due to the PLDS law. The impact of the PLDS law on hotel room revenues was between $4.5 and $5.2 million.

Passed in 2005, the PLDS law took full effect in 2007. We estimate that travel-ers booked 24 million room nights that year, for which hotels earned $2.3 billion in room revenues. These estimates represent both business and leisure travel.

FIGURE 1. Difference in Rooms Sold in Michigan (2004-07 and 2005-07)

Source: AEG analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research (2004, 2005, 2007)

-15,000

-10,000

-5,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21

Diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

room

s sol

d in

200

4 a

nd 2

007

(r

oom

nig

hts)

Number of days relative to Labor Day

-4,000

-2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21

Diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

room

s sol

d in

200

5 an

d 20

07

(roo

m n

ight

s)


2004 Ryder Cup

2005 room = 0 nights



Executive Summary

We compared the room sales in the year after the PLDS implementation (2007) to two different reference years prior to the PLDS implementation (2004 and 2005). We used two reference years to provide a range for the size of the impact, since year-to-year fluctuations in hotel activity could be explained by numerous factors that are independent of the PLDS law. Examples include economic con-ditions, weather conditions, traveler preferences, and special events.

As shown in Figure 1 on page 2, there was an increase in room sales in Michi-gan during the two weeks leading up to Labor Day after the PLDS was passed.1 This effect was larger than the background level increase (for the days outside of the two-week period leading up to Labor Day) and appears to only partially represent substitution for travel after Labor Day.

The impact of the PLDS on the number of rooms sold in Michigan was between 40,000 and 44,000 room nights. This activity increased room revenues for hotels and motels by about $4.5 to $5.2 million. For additional information, see “Benefits of the PLDS Law To Michigan Tourism” on page 17.

2. The PLDS law increased hotel room sales and room revenues for hotels in all regions of the state. The impact was the largest in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula.

The PLDS law increased room sales and room revenues throughout Michigan, which we summarized by region in Figure 2 on page 4. The impact was the larg-est in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula, which represented between 40 to 55 percent of the total impacts on the state. Room sales increased by between 18,700 and 22,100 room nights, and room revenues increased by between $2.1 and $2.4 million. The impact in this region was concentrated in Macomb, Oak-land, and Wayne Counties, which represented about 70 percent of the impacts on the region and about 30 to 40 percent of the impacts on the state.

Hotels in the Northern Lower Peninsula experienced the second largest impact, which was about 20 to 30 percent of the total impacts on the state. Room sales increased by between 8,600 and 12,600 room nights, and room revenues increased by between $1.2 and $1.5 million.

The impact on the Southwestern Lower Peninsula followed, representing about 10 to 20 percent of the total impacts on the state. Room sales increased by between 5,600 and 8,500 room nights, and room revenues increased by between $430,000 and $890,000.

1. Note that the negative difference between 2007 and 2004 during day 7 through day 13 is due to additional tourism activity in Southeast Michigan associated with the 2004 Ryder Cup.


Executive Summary

Hotels in the Upper Peninsula experienced the smallest share of the total impacts on Michigan, which was roughly 10 percent. Room sales increased by between 3,800 and 4,700 room nights, and room revenues increased by between $490,000 and $650,000.

For further discussion, see “Benefits of the PLDS Law To Michigan Tourism” on page 17.

FIGURE 2. Impact of the PLDS Law on Hotels in Michigan by Region (2007)

18,665 to 22,137 room nights

$2.15 to $2.42 million5,558 to 8,476 room nights

$0.43 to $0.89 million





Room Sales:

Room Revenues:

Room Sales:

Room Revenues:

Room Sales:

Room Revenues:

Room Sales:

Room Revenues:

Upper Peninsula

Northern Lower Peninsula

Southwestern Lower Peninsula

Southeastern Lower Michigan


Executive Summary

3. The PLDS law in Michigan increased tourism spending by at least $20 million in 2007.

We estimate that travel parties who stayed overnight in hotels in Michigan spent about $2 billion in 2007. The net impact on this tourism spending in Michigan due to the PLDS law was between $20 and $23 million. Non-room tourism spending was associated with transportation, food, shopping, entertainment, and miscellaneous expenses. We summarize these impacts in Table 1 on page 5.For further discussion, see “Benefits of the PLDS Law To Michigan Tourism” on page 17.

4. As policymakers consider the costs and benefits of YRS, a statewide implementation may reduce revenues for the tourism industry. Con-figuring school year calendars so they maximize student breaks dur-ing July and August could avoid the potential revenue loss.

Peak travel in Michigan takes place during July and August, which coincides with summer vacation for most school districts in Michigan. However, some school districts have adopted—or have considered adopting—a YRS calendar. Under Michigan’s current standards, a YRS calendar is defined as one in which the summer break is limited to six weeks or less. However, there are many other configurations of YRS calendars that call for shorter breaks throughout the year that are two, three, or four weeks in length.

If implementation of YRS were expanded statewide, this could potentially reduce revenues for the tourism industry. Of the many possible configurations of a YRS calendar, several call for school to be in session during the entire period between the Fourth of July and Labor Day. These schedules would likely limit vacation travel during this time period for Michigan families with children in public schools. This would likely displace some “domestic” tourism to other

TABLE 1. Net Impact of the PLDS Law on Overnight Tourism Spending in Michigan (2007)

Net Impact (millions)

Room $4.5 to $5.2

Transportation $4.6 to $5.1

Food $4.6 to $4.9

Shopping $2.7 to $3.6

Entertainment $2.6 to $3.1

Miscellaneous $1.2 to $1.4

Total Impact on Tourism Spending $20.1 to $23.3

Source: AEG analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research, D.K. Shifflet and Associates, and AEG professional judgment


Executive Summary

states since Michigan travelers are more likely to travel out-of-state if they lose the opportunity to travel in Michigan during its warmest months.

There are at least two strategies that could curb the potential revenue loss for the tourism industry resulting from an expanded implementation of YRS. First, pol-icymakers could require that school year calendars have a break during July and August. This restriction would make it more likely that families with children in public K-12 schools would continue their current practice of taking more vaca-tions in Michigan during these months, which have the highest average temper-atures.2

Second, there are logistical considerations that would affect the quality of life of families with multiple children in public schools or families that take vacations with other families. School districts should consider placing all schools within the same district on consistent schedules so that it would be easier for families with children in different schools to arrange their vacation travel. Similarly, sev-eral school districts within a region should also consider coordinating their schedules so that their breaks overlap. This would allow for families who live in different school districts to vacation together without having to take their chil-dren out of school.

See “Potential Effects of a Year-Round School Calendar on Michigan’s Tourism Industry” on page 23 for further discussion.

ABOUT ANDERSON ECONOMIC GROUP

Anderson Economic Group, LLC is a boutique research and consulting firm, with offices in Chicago, Illinois; East Lansing, Michigan; and Istanbul, Turkey. The experts at AEG specialize in economics, public policy, business valuation, and industry analyses. They have conducted nationally-recognized economic and fiscal impact studies for private, public, and non-profit clients across the United States.

The team at Anderson Economic Group has a deep understanding of advanced economic modeling techniques and extensive experience in a variety of indus-tries in multiple states and countries. Work by AEG has been utilized in legisla-tive hearings, legal proceedings, and public debates, as well as major planning exercises and executive strategy discussions. For more information, please see “Appendix C: About Anderson Economic Group” on page C-1 or visit www.AndersonEconomicGroup.com.

2. Based on data from the Midwestern Regional Climate Center, July and August have generally had the highest average monthly temperatures across Michigan.See “Midwestern Regional Climate Center,” 2016, http://mrcc.isws.illinois.edu/, accessed April 2016.


State Policies on the K-12 School Calendar

II.State Policies on the K-12 School Calendar

In this section, we discuss two state policies related to the K-12 school calendar: PLDS and YRS. We describe each of these policies and how they are imple-mented in Michigan. We also discuss the motivation behind implementing these policies and the arguments raised for and against them.

WHAT IS A POST-LABOR DAY SCHOOL START?

A PLDS law requires schools to start after Labor Day. Some states that have passed a PLDS requirement, such as Michigan, also allow waivers for earlier start dates if certain criteria are met.

A handful of states have similar laws, but require that schools either start after September 1 (Wisconsin and North Carolina) or start between the first week of September and the first Monday in December (Iowa). Several other states also limit how early schools may start, but still allow for school to start in August.

PLDS Law in MichiganIn September 2005, the Michigan Legislature passed Public Act 144 of 2005 (PA 144), which required public school districts, intermediate school districts, and charter schools to begin the school year after Labor Day. Prior to PA 144, local school districts determined their own start date. The only calendar restric-tion related to Labor Day was that school could not be in session the Friday before Labor Day.

The PLDS law went into full effect starting in the 2007-08 academic year. The PLDS requirement is subject to several types of exceptions, which have increased since PA 144 was passed. Under current law, a school can start before Labor Day if any of the following apply:

1. The superintendent of schools grants a waiver. The superintendent must issue a PLDS waiver if the school or program meets standards for a bona fide year-round school or program. The superintendent is authorized to establish these standards under state statute.

2. There is a collective bargaining agreement that was in effect prior to the law and conflicted with the PLDS law. After the collective bargaining agreement expires, the school is subject to the PLDS restriction.

3. The school is an international baccalaureate academy that provides 1,160 hours of instruction per year can start before Labor Day.

4. The intermediate school district provides programs or services for a constituent school district or charter school that is permitted to start before Labor Day.

5. The school operates grades 6 through 12 at a single site, aligns its high school curriculum with advanced placement (AP) courses, and ends its second aca-demic semester after the AP exam takes place.



Arguments About PLDS LawsThere are many arguments both in favor of and against PLDS laws. We summa-rize these arguments, drawing from those considered when the law was passed in 2005.3

Arguments in favor of PLDS laws. The tourism industry is often an active proponent for implementing a PLDS law. Prior to the widespread practice of schools opening before Labor Day, many Michigan tourism-driven businesses earned enough income to last the entire year during the summer months, with July and August as the peak months. When school districts start earlier in August, the summer travel season is shortened, resulting in significant losses for these businesses. These losses also translate to lost tax revenue to the State of Michigan.

PLDS proponents also claim that many of these businesses are staffed by high school students who leave when the school year starts, leaving them under-staffed for Labor Day weekend. In addition, during the run-up to Labor Day weekend, a local community’s tourism industry could be harmed by the local school district’s decision to start school before Labor Day. Losing access to these low-cost workers may exacerbate the challenges caused by the reduction in tourism demand.

In addition to the tourism-related benefits, starting after Labor Day could save school districts money by reducing utility costs. August is typically one of the hottest times of the year in Michigan. For schools that do not have air condition-ing, this avoids an uncomfortable environment for students and staff.

However, there are several responses to these arguments that indicate that the tourism benefits are overstated. First, the bill only applies to public schools and charter schools; private schools are not subject to a PLDS law. Second, school-related activities begin several weeks before the start of classes, which prevents many families from traveling in August anyway. Examples include fall sports and marching band. Third, the law does not prohibit scheduling teacher in-ser-vice days before Labor Day. Similar to the student school activities, these work commitments would likely impede August travel as well. Fourth, most people have a limited amount of vacation time available, and the law would simply shift their travel plans rather than increase the amount of vacations they take.

3. Katherine Summers-Coty and Jay Wortley, “State of School After Labor Day: HB 4803 First Analysis,” Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency, September 20, 2005.Mark Wolf and Mary Ann Cleary, “Legislative Analysis: State School Year After Labor Day,” Michigan House Fiscal Agency, June 28, 2005.



Arguments against PLDS laws. Opponents of a PLDS law have also raised several arguments. First, many believe that a local school board should be allowed to set its own calendar based on the needs of its community. They have argued that, at the very least, PLDS laws should allow schools to start prior to Labor Day due to extenuating circumstances, such as accommodating school construction.4

Second, starting the school year later in the fall potentially extends the school year into late June. This would make it difficult for teachers to enroll in continu-ing education classes that start in June.

Third, starting schools after Labor Day gives students fewer instruction days to prepare for the statewide standardized exams. These exams, known as the Mich-igan Student Test of Educational Progress (M-STEP), are currently conducted in the spring.

The primary rebuttal to these arguments is that school districts still maintain a large measure of local control. The PLDS law does not impose restrictions on how a school sets its calendar for holidays, teacher in-service days, winter or spring breaks, or when the school year ends. When the PLDS law was passed, schools could also address the issues related to school testing and teacher con-tinuing education by extending the school day to accommodate the later start date. However, this is no longer an option since the State of Michigan also sets a minimum requirement for the number of instruction days.

In addition, the objection regarding preparation for the statewide standardized exams is ameliorated since they are conducted in the spring. At the time that the PLDS law was passed, these exams were conducted in the fall.

Revisions to the PLDS Law in MichiganIn 2014, the State of Michigan increased the required minimum days of instruc-tion from 175 to 180 days starting in the 2016-17 school year.5 While this policy change does not affect the school start dates per se, some schools cite this as a reason to apply for a waiver to start before Labor Day.6 These schools would plan to meet the requirement by adding days to the beginning of the school cal-endar. If school districts choose to meet the requirement by extending the school year further into June, their school start dates would not be affected.

4. At the time that the PLDS law was passed, Wisconsin and Minnesota generally prohibited schools from starting prior to September 1, but construction projects that met certain criteria were included in the list of allowed exceptions.For further information see Katherine Summers-Coty and Jay Wortley, “State of School After Labor Day: HB 4803 First Analysis,” Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency, September 20, 2005.

5. Public Act 196 of 2014.



Michigan legislators have also recently proposed two separate bills that would revise the PLDS law in Michigan. Under the first bill, SB 567, the PLDS would be overturned and schools would only be required to make sure that school is not in session the Friday before Labor Day.

Under the second bill, HB 5193, a school cannot apply for a PLDS waiver unless it has held at least one public hearing to discuss the proposed change to the school calendar. However, if the school meets one of several criteria, then the superintendent must consider the school as a YRS and issue the waiver.

WHAT IS A YEAR-ROUND SCHOOL CALENDAR?

YRS Calendars in MichiganA YRS calendar refers to several types of modified school calendars that replace the traditional three-month summer break with shorter breaks through-out the year. This concept is often used interchangeably with the term “bal-anced” calendar.

In Michigan, the YRS calendar refers to any school calendar with a summer break that is six weeks or less.7 Currently, there are two primary versions of a YRS calendar in Michigan.8 The first version keeps the traditional 180-day school year and has a 6-week summer break with more breaks throughout the year. The second version expands the school calendar to 200 days of instruction with a six-week summer vacation. For example, Carpenter Elementary in Lake Orion adopts a 180-day YRS calendar, while Cornerstone School in Detroit and the Himawari Preschool and Hinoki International Elementary School in Livonia adopt a 200-day YRS calendar.

Potential Ways to Structure YRS CalendarsMichigan also allows for more radical departures to balance the school calendar. YRS programs are typically defined by the number of weekdays in school, fol-lowed by the number of weekdays out of school. There are numerous ways to

6. Mary Ellen Murphy, “HPS soon to be in session,” WHTC, August 16, 2016, http://whtc.com/news/articles/2016/aug/16/hps-soon-to-be-in-session/, accessed August 2016;MIRS News, “MDE Allows 50 School District To Start Before Labor Day,” MIRS News, July 20, 2016, http://www.mirsnews.com/capsule.php?gid=4880, accessed August 2016; andMonica Scott, “School leaders seek waivers to start classes before Labor Day,” Mlive, Decem-ber 16, 2015, http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/12/school_leaders_seek_waivers_fo.html, accessed August 2016.

7. Office of School Aid and School Finance, “Standards for Determining a Bona Fide Year-Round School,” Michigan Department of Education, June 5, 2012, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/waiver_labor_day_1-23-08_224652_7.pdf

8. Sharon MacDonell, “Year-Round School in Michigan,” January 11, 2015, http://www.metro-parent.com/daily/education/school-issues/year-round-school-michigan/, accessed June 2016.



structure these calendars. Michigan allows additional ways to structure YRS calendars that include:

• 45 days on and 15 days off (45-15),• 60 days on and 20 days off (60-20),• 60 days on and 15 days off (60-15), and• 90 days on and 30 days off (90-30).

In addition to structuring the school calendar by the frequency and length of breaks, YRS systems can be structured as “single-track” or “multi-track.” Sin-gle-track schools have all students on the same schedule. Multi-track schools have multiple cohorts of students on different schedules. These schedules stag-ger the breaks so that some students are in school, while others are on break. As a result, multi-track schools allow the same building to be used to teach more students since only a portion of students are in school at a time. For instance, in the 45-15 model, a school can have four cohorts with staggered breaks such that only three cohorts are in the school at once. As a result of such a policy, a school can increase enrollment by 33 percent.

Benefits and Costs of YRS CalendarsThe debates surrounding YRS generally raise claims about education benefits and costs, as well as support for tradition and extracurricular learning.9

Benefits of YRS. Proponents cite several benefits of year-round education. First, they claim that YRS can increase student learning by decreasing summer learning loss. In addition, proponents argue that the more frequent and regular breaks can allow students who need remediation to get help more often rather than during the summer.

Second, YRS can also potentially save money by reducing total capital costs, if implemented under a multi-track schedule. Multi-track schools allow more stu-dents to attend a single school because one track could be on a break while the others are in session. This saves the money associated with maintaining or con-structing other school buildings.

Third, YRS advocates claim that parents may be able to save money on child-care. In addition, teachers may also prefer the more frequent breaks provided under a balanced school calendar, resulting in higher teacher retention. Finally, proponents of YRS calendars point out that these calendars can reduce the num-ber of teacher development days and parent-teacher conference days that stu-

9. For further discussion of the debates surrounding YRS, see:Rebecca Skinner, “Year-Round Schools: In Brief,” Congressional Research Service, June 2014.



dents need to miss during the year because these days can occur during scheduled breaks.

The discourse on year-round education indicates that there is controversy sur-rounding the benefits of this policy. In a brief report on YRS, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) observed that research on the extent to which YRS improves student performance has generally been found to be inconclusive and lacking in methodological rigor.10 Each study cited in the report concluded either that the study design for existing research compromised the findings on the effects of YRS or that YRS has little to no effect on educational outcomes.

The CRS report also reviewed research on whether YRS affects the costs of education. Their review indicated that YRS accrue cost savings under a multi-track system. However, it is less clear if schools operating under a single-track system experience cost savings.

Costs of YRS. Opponents of YRS raise issues related to tradition and costs. First, YRS calendars disrupt the traditional calendar and reduce summer vaca-tion. The shorter summer breaks also prevent students from engaging in other enriching summer activities, such as summer employment and summer camps. In particular, high school students may no longer have the opportunity to attend summer programs hosted by colleges and universities that could increase their chances of being accepted in more selective colleges and universities.

Second, YRS may generate scheduling issues for families that have children on different schedules. This could result from children attending multi-track schools or attending different schools that are on different schedules. Multi-track structures can also reduce community-building by reducing the amount of time students spend with each other.

In addition to the social implications, YRS have monetary and practical issues that make them unpopular. First, YRS may require up-front capital investment to handle the new school calendar. In particular, schools without air condition-ing would need to install a system to provide a comfortable learning environ-ment during the summer months.

Second, YRS may increase operating costs by increasing energy consumption and payroll for administrative employees. In multi-track schools, the capital savings tend to be higher than the increased operating costs, but that is not always the case. Finally, YRS calendars make it more difficult to make capital improvements to keep school buildings in proper condition. It is more difficult and more expensive to complete intensive capital projects while school is in ses-sion.

10.Skinner, June 2014.



Proposed Changes to YRS in MichiganThe State of Michigan is proposing to change the regulations around YRS in Michigan. In particular, HB 5193, if passed, would make it easier for school dis-tricts to receive waivers from the state to adopt a modified school calendar. The bill aims to move low-performing schools to a YRS calendar.


Benefits of the Post-Labor Day School Start to Michigan’s Tourism Industry

III.Benefits of the Post-Labor Day School Start to Michigan’s Tourism Industry

In this section, we examine the benefits of the PLDS law to the tourism industry. We first discuss existing research on the economic impacts of PLDS laws in other states. We then examine the benefits of the PLDS law to the tourism industry in Michigan.

RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS OF A PLDS LAW

As state policymakers have considered adopting PLDS laws, there have been several studies that quantify the effects of this policy on state economies and tourism industries.11 Most of this existing work has been predictive in nature as opposed to retrospectively evaluating the impact of a PLDS law.

However, one study published by the University of Minnesota evaluated the effect of PLDS laws on actual travel patterns using data from five states, includ-ing Michigan.12 The study found that a PLDS law increases the likelihood that a family takes a leisure trip away from home in August or September by 50 per-cent. However, the impact of the PLDS on the incidence of total leisure travel would likely be less than 30 percent. The authors of this study considered two factors that would suggest that the impact on travel by families with children during August and September would overstate the overall impact on leisure travel.

First, they considered that a PLDS might shift travel from earlier months to later months in the summer. They evaluated travel patterns in the months between May and September and found that the impact on travel during these months was lower than the impact on travel in August and September. The incidence of leisure trips by families with children during May through September increased by 30 percent due to the PLDS.

Second, they considered that travel patterns of households without children would likely not be affected by a PLDS. They also evaluated the incidence of leisure travel by households without children during the summer months, and their results suggest that a PLDS law had no effect on these travelers.

11.See “Sources Reviewed” on page A-14 for list of existing studies of the impact of PLDS laws.12.Elton Mykerezi and Genti Kostandini, “Do families vacation more in the summer when school

starts after Labor Day?: A Study Comparing Actual Travel Patterns in Five States,” University of Minnesota Extension, July 23, 2012.



Sour

c

TOURISM TRENDS IN MICHIGAN

In this study, we primarily rely on data that measure the business volume of hotels and motels to evaluate trends in Michigan’s tourism industry. Seasonal data for these businesses are readily available, unlike data for bed and break-fasts, vacation rentals, and campgrounds.

Monthly Business Volume by RegionIn 2015, travelers booked about 24 million room nights in hotels in Michigan, which generated $2.3 billion in room revenues for these businesses. As shown in Figure 3 below, the Southeastern Lower Peninsula represented the largest portion of hotel business volume in the state. Specifically, hotels in this region represent 53 percent of the room sales in Michigan. Room sales in Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne Counties represent about 70 percent of the room sales in this region. Among the remaining regions, the hotel industry in the Southwest-ern Lower Peninsula was the second largest in the state, representing 24 percent of total room sales. The Northern Lower Peninsula followed with 15 percent of room sales in the state, and the Upper Peninsula represented 8 percent of room sales.

The Southeastern Lower Peninsula had the majority of room sales in the state for every month of 2015, except in July and August. During these months, there was an increase in room demand in the Northern Lower Peninsula and the Upper Peninsula, indicating a boost in tourism travel.

FIGURE 3. Monthly Rooms Sold and Room Revenues by Region (2015)

Figure 3 above also shows that the business volume peaked in July and August. Room sales during these months represented about 22 percent of the total rooms sold during the entire year. Room revenues in July and August represented about 24 percent of total room revenues for the year. This is slightly higher than

ce: AEG analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research (2015)

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

$350,000,000

$400,000,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov De

Roo

m r

even

ues (

2016

dol

lars

)

Southeastern Lower Peninsula Southwestern Lower Peninsula

Northern Lower Peninsula Upper Peninsula

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Roo

ms s

old

(roo

m n

ight

s)

Southeastern Lower Peninsula Southwestern Lower Peninsula

Northern Lower Peninsula Upper Peninsula



the share of the number of rooms sold, which indicates that the daily room rates during these months are higher than the rates during the remainder of the year.

In Figure 4 below, we compare each region’s reliance on business in July and August. Hotels in the Northern Lower Peninsula and Upper Peninsula were the most reliant on business during these months. In contrast, hotels in the South-eastern Lower Peninsula relied the least on business in July and August. In the Southwestern Lower Peninsula, the reliance on business in July and August was about the same as the state average.

FIGURE 4. Hotel Industry Reliance on Business in July and August by Region (2015)

Monthly Business Volume in Selected YearsIn Figure 5 on page 17, we present monthly trends in the number of rooms sold during selected years before and after the implementation of the PLDS law in Michigan. Similar to the trends for 2015, July and August were the peak months for lodging business for the years immediately before the PLDS implementation (2004 and 2005) and after (2007). During all years shown, July and August room sales represented about 22 percent of rooms sold during the respective year. Interestingly, room demand in August exceeded the demand in July in 2007 unlike in other years.

The trends in room revenues tend to follow the trends in room demand. For each of the years shown, revenues in July and August represent about 23 percent of total revenues for the respective year. As noted in the section on regional trends, this is slightly higher than the share of July and August room demand. This indi-cates that the daily room rates during these months are higher than in other months of the year.

Source: AEG analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research (2015)

19% 20%

26%

33%

22% 24%

29%

33%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Room Sales Room Revenues

July

and

Aug

ust B

usin

ess

Vol

ume

as a

Sh

are

of A

nnua

l Bus

ines

s V

olum

e

Southeastern Lower Peninsula Northern Lower Peninsula

Southwestern Lower Peninsula Upper Peninsula



Sour

c

FIGURE 5. Monthly Rooms Sold and Room Revenues (2004, 2005, 2007, 2015))

BENEFITS OF THE PLDS LAW TO MICHIGAN TOURISM

The benefits of the PLDS law to the tourism industry originate from allowing families with children to travel during the weeks leading up to Labor Day. We start by analyzing data on hotel room sales and revenues. We then examine the implications for total tourism spending, which includes spending on categories such as food and shopping.

Difference in Michigan Hotel Business Volume Before and After the PLDS Law

The difference in the business volume of Michigan’s hotel between years before and after the PLDS law forms the basis of our analysis of the impact. As we show in Figure 6 on page 18, there was an increase in rooms sold between the years immediately before and after the PLDS law took full effect. This increase was most apparent during the two weeks leading up to Labor Day and was only partially offset by travel that took place before and after this period.

We note that the number of rooms sold from day 7 through day 13 was actually significantly lower in 2007 than in 2004. This was likely due to the 2004 Ryder Cup, a men’s golf competition that took place from September 17 through 19 in a suburb northwest of Detroit. In addition to the competition, two practice days held prior to the event attracted a large volume of visitors to the state.

See “Net Impact on Hotel Business Volume” on page A-3 for a discussion of our methodology and additional exhibits that break out the difference in rooms sold and room revenues for Michigan and by region.

ce: AEG analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research (2004, 2005, 2007, 2015)

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Roo

ms

sold

(roo

m n

ight

s)

2004 2005 2007 2015

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov De

Roo

m r

even

ues (

2016

dol

lars

)

2004 2005 2007 2015



FIGURE 6. Difference in Rooms Sold in Michigan (2004-07 and 2005-07)

Source: AEG analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research (2004, 2005, 2007)

-15,000

-10,000

-5,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21

Diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

room

s sol

d in

200

4 a

nd 2

007

(r

oom

nig

hts)


-4,000

-2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21

Diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

room

s sol

d in

200

5 an

d 20

07

(roo

m n

ight

s)


2004 Ryder Cup





Net Impact of the PLDS Law on Michigan Hotel BusinessesWe estimated the net impact of the PLDS law on the business volume of Michi-gan hotels. Our estimates are based on the difference in the August and Septem-ber room sales and room revenues between the years immediately before and after the PLDS law was fully implemented. These estimates take into account substitution, which is travel that would have still occurred in the absence of the PLDS law and was simply shifted to August and September from other months in the year.

FIGURE 7. Impact of the PLDS Law on Michigan’s Hotels by Region (2007)


$2.15 to $2.42 million5,558 to 8,476 room nights






Room Sales:

Room Revenues:

Room Sales:

Room Revenues:

Room Sales:

Room Revenues:

Room Sales:

Room Revenues:

Upper Peninsula






We estimate that the PLDS law increased the number of rooms sold by 40,000 to 44,000 room nights and increased revenues by $4.5 to $5.2 million in 2007. In Figure 7 on page 19, we presented the distribution of these impacts by region.

We estimate that most of the impact took place in the Southeastern Lower Pen-insula, where the impact on room sales was between 40 and 55 percent of the total impact in Michigan. The impact of the PLDS law in this region was pri-marily concentrated in Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne Counties. The increase in rooms sold in these three counties was roughly 70 percent of the impact on the Southeastern Lower Peninsula and between 29 and 39 percent of the impact on Michigan statewide.

Following the Southeastern Lower Peninsula, hotels in the Northern Lower Pen-insula experienced about 30 percent of the impact on total rooms sold. Hotels in the Southwestern Lower Peninsula and the Upper Peninsula experienced about 20 percent and 10 percent of the impact on total rooms sold, respectively.

FIGURE 8. Average Daily Rate of Extra Rooms Sold Due to the PLDS Law and Total Rooms Sold in August and September (2007)

As we show in Figure 8 above, the implied average daily rate for the extra rooms sold due to the PLDS law was roughly $115. This is over 15 percent higher than the average rate for all rooms sold in August and September. Thus, not only was there more travel as a result of the PLDS law, but hotel visitors also paid more for the extra rooms that they booked compared to travelers throughout August and September.

Source: AEG analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research; D.K. Shifflet and Associates; and AEG professional judgment

$109

$77

$122

$127

$112

$98

$95

$110

$86

$98

Southeastern Lower Peninsula



Upper Peninsula

Michigan

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160Average Daily Rate (2016 dollars)

Extra rooms in August and September Total rooms in August and September

Margin of error for extra rooms

$138

$134

$105

$115

$117



While hotels in the Upper Peninsula had the lowest share of the overall impact of the PLDS law on Michigan, they saw the highest difference between the average daily rate for the extra rooms sold and the rate for the total rooms sold in August and September. The rate for the extra rooms was between 47 and 60 percent higher than the rate for all rooms.

We describe our methodology in “Net Impact on Hotel Business Volume” on page A-3. We also provide exhibits that detail our analysis in “Appendix B. Summary Exhibits” on page B-1

Net Impact of the PLDS Law on Tourism SpendingIn addition to the impact on room spending, we estimated the net impact of the PLDS law on total tourism spending for travel parties who stayed overnight in hotels in Michigan. It stands to reason that there was a similar effect on other tourism-serving businesses as there was on hotels. Examples of affected indus-tries include restaurants, grocery stores, retailers for clothing and souvenirs, entertainment venues, and nature parks.

These estimates are limited to tourism spending associated with overnight trips in which travelers stayed in hotels. Our approach did not allow us to estimate the impact of the PLDS law on tourism spending associated with day trips nor overnight trips at campgrounds, bed and breakfasts, and other alternate accom-modations.

We estimate that tourism-related spending from with these overnight travelers increased by $20 to $23 million due to the PLDS law. Rooms, transportation, and food represent the largest categories of spending, ranging from between $4.5 and $5.2 million each. See Table 2 on page 22 for a breakdown of the impact on overnight tourism spending by spending category and by region.

We describe our methodology in “Net Impact on Tourism Spending” on page A-14. We also provide exhibits that detail our analysis in “Appendix B. Summary Exhibits” on page B-1.



TABLE 2. Net Impact of the PLDS on Michigan Tourism Spending (millions)

RoomsTransportationFoodShoppingEntertainmentMiscellaneousTotal Impact on Tourism Spending

Source: AEG analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research (2004, 2005, 2007), D.K. Shifflet & Associates, and AEG professional judgment

Note: The impacts on Michigan as a whole were estimated using either 2004 or 2005 as the reference year for the whole state. The low estimate for the state does not necessarily include the low estimate for each region. Thus, the low estimate for each region does not sum to the low estimate for the state.

$0.60 to $0.67 $0.09 to $0.23 $0.25 to $0.38 $0.15 to $0.21 $1.16 to $1.41$1.30 to $1.47 $0.19 to $0.50 $0.66 to $0.82 $0.30 to $0.45 $2.62 to $3.07$1.53 to $1.72 $0.20 to $0.59 $0.53 to $0.96 $0.24 to $0.53 $2.68 to $3.60$2.07 to $2.33 $0.38 to $0.80 $1.16 to $1.30 $0.69 to $0.71 $4.56 to $4.88$2.16 to $2.43 $0.55 to $0.83 $1.05 to $1.36 $0.61 to $0.74 $4.64 to $5.09

$20.15 to $23.27$2.47 to $3.29$4.80 to $6.34$1.84 to $3.84$9.80 to $11.03

$4.49 to $5.22$0.49 to $0.65$1.16 to $1.53$0.43 to $0.89$2.15 to $2.42MichiganUpper Peninsula





Potential Effects of a Year-Round School Calendar on Michigan’s Tourism Industry

IV.Potential Effects of a Year-Round School Calendar on Michigan’s Tourism Industry

In this section, we explore the potential effects of YRS implementation in Mich-igan. In addition, we identify important policy levers that could be used to reduce the effect of YRS on tourism.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF A YRS CALENDAR IN MICHIGAN

YRS calendars have the potential to disrupt the travel and tourism industry by reducing the number of potential customers and employees. Little research has been done in the field, but we summarize the results of this research below.

Potential Effects on Tourism TravelIn theory, YRS could affect tourism by providing families with children or fam-ilies with teachers less time to go on vacations. YRS could alter the timing, the duration, and the location of vacations.

One study surveyed families at a private school in Tennessee to see how YRS would affect their travel plans.13 This survey suggested that YRS moved vaca-tions from the summer to other parts of the year. For Michigan, this effect could hurt the tourism economy because places in Michigan are better summer travel destinations than winter destinations. In addition, their survey indicated that after YRS calendars were implemented, families were more likely to travel to new locations, go on more vacations, and travel slightly further for vacation. All of these effects suggest that YRS may make it less likely that Michigan resi-dents would stay in-state for their vacations. However, since the survey focused on families at a single school in a different state, the results might not necessar-ily apply to the experience of YRS implementation in Michigan.

Another study used data from the American Time Use Survey to examine the effects of YRS on vacation time.14 Using a variety of different tests, the authors did not find that states with YRS policies had different travel patterns than states without such policies. They also examined areas with large percentages of stu-dents attending schools with year-round calendars. This test still resulted in no detectable change from the policy.

There are two possible explanations for these results. First, the results show that the average trip length for families with children is 8 days and that 95 percent of

13.Margaret Peercy and Ken McCleary, “The Impact of the Year Round School Calendar on the Family Vacation: An Exploratory Case Study,” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol 35, Issue 2, May 2011, p 147-170.

14.Elton Mykerezi and Xinyo Qian, “Impact of Year-Round Education on Travel,” University of Minnesota Extension, January 2016.



trips are less than 15 days. Since many types of YRS calendars have some sort of summer break, it is likely that families would still use this break for travel. Second, parents often have the choice of enrolling their students into a school with a year-round calendar. Families that travel less during the summer might be over-represented in schools with year-round calendars. As a result, we would expect YRS policies to have little effect.

Effects of YRS on Tourism-Related EmploymentStudent summer workers are an important employment source for the travel and tourism industry. Since the tourism industry has seasonal demand, businesses in the industry often have to increase staff during the peak season. Local students are a natural source for this labor since they can easily take on a seasonal job. YRS could inhibit the ability of the tourism industry to hire student workers.

One study surveyed tourist attractions in the state of Tennessee.15 The research-ers asked the survey sample about the number of employees they have during the summer months and the percentage of the employees who were students. The results of the survey suggested that 52 percent of the seasonal workforce were local high school students. As a result, it is likely that a statewide imple-mentation of YRS would make it more difficult for tourist attractions to find labor.

YRS also likely limits students’ availability to work. Many YRS calendars are structured in a way that students are not available to work when they are needed most, such as during peak periods in the summer.16 Further, most YRS calen-dars have breaks that are shorter than the traditional summer break. As a result, students who attend a YRS might not be available for prolonged periods of time, which may reduce the willingness for employers to train these potential workers.

15.Lyn Pickeral and Susan Hubbard, “The Effects of Year-Round Schools on the Hospitality Industry’s Seasonal Labor Force in the State of Tennessee,” Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol 1, 2002.

16.The National Association for Year-Round Education provides sample calendars for many YRS configurations. See National Association for Year Round Education, 2015, http://www.nayre.org/calendars.html, accessed August 2016.We also discuss this issue further in “Policy Considerations” on page 25.



POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

Based on the above research, we examined sample YRS calendars to determine if there are ways of structuring a YRS to mitigate the effects of the policy. As we showed in “Tourism Trends in Michigan” on page 15, July and August are the peak months for travel in Michigan. We evaluated calendars to see if they provide: (1) a break during the two weeks around the Fourth of July holiday, (2) a break during the two weeks leading up to Labor Day, (3) a break at the end of July and beginning of August.

We found that there is no YRS configuration that provides breaks during all three time periods. This would require that a calendar has a break that spans the entire months of July and August, a period of about nine weeks. Only traditional school calendars have such breaks. The configuration that would allow for the longest break is one in which there is a six-week summer break, which is the maximum allowed break under the State of Michigan’s current definition of a YRS.

We also noted that several calendars allow time off during one or two of those time periods. If statewide implementation of YRS were to occur, requiring that schools adopt such calendars could possibly mitigate the potential revenue loss to the tourism industry.17 There are several calendar configurations that would result in school being in session during the entire peak travel season. This policy would restrict the use of such configurations.

There are additional logistical considerations that can be made at the school dis-trict level that would also affect the quality of life of families that travel during the summer. These considerations are based on the principle that vacation time is more valuable when people within the same network have the same time off, which is called a network effect. This is one of the reasons why weekends and holidays, such as Thanksgiving and Christmas, are associated with peak travel.

Schools districts should consider placing all schools within the district on a con-sistent schedule. This would make it easier for families with multiple children in different schools to arrange their vacation travel. Similarly, schools districts within the same region should also consider placing their schools on consistent schedules, or at least schedules in which summer breaks overlap. This would allow for families who live in different districts to arrange vacation travel together.

17.For examples of such calendars, see Table B-11 on page B-12. For a discussion of the method-ology we used to develop these calendars, see “Year-Round School Calendar” on page A-15.


Appendix A. Methodology and Data

In this section, we document our data sources and methodology for our analyses of the PLDS law and YRS implementation.

DATA SOURCES We primarily relied on the following data sources to complete our analysis:

• Smith Travel Research Trend Reports for hotel room sales, revenues, and occu-pancy data;

• D.K. Shifflet and Associates for travel party characteristics, such as the purpose of stay, party size, length of stay, trip accommodations, and trip spending;

• National Association for Year-Round Education (NAYRE) for sample YRS cal-endars.

POST-LABOR DAY SCHOOL START

We primarily relied on hotel data in order to estimate the impact of the PLDS law on Michigan’s tourism industry. As a result, the estimates that we present in this study are conservative, since this data does not allow us to evaluate the impact of the law on tourism activity for visitors who go on day trips or over-night trips at campgrounds, bed and breakfasts, vacation rentals, and other accommodations. While the amount and mix of spending associated with these visitors may be different, they are an important source of business for the tour-ism industry and are not captured in our data.18

We estimated the net impact of the PLDS law on the business volume of Michi-gan hotels by region. We segmented the state of Michigan into four regions and defined these regions as we show in Table A-1 on page A-3 and Figure A-1 on page A-2.

18.Tourism Economics recently reported that 58 percent of the trips in Michigan in 2014 were day trips, with day travelers representing 20 percent of the total spending. It is not clear to what extent the PLDS law would affect these travelers differently The DKSA data that we used for this study was consistent with the Tourism Economics’ find-ing regarding the prevalence of day trips. In 2007, the year that the PLDS law was took effect, day trips represented roughly 52 percent of trips to Michigan. In addition, over 50 percent of overnight trips were spent in accommodations other than paid hotels and motels. These statis-tics suggest that a significant portion of tourism volume are not captured in our study.See Tourism Economics, “The Economic Impact of Travel in Michigan: Tourism Satellite Account of Calendar Year 2014,” http://www.michiganbusiness.org/cm/Files/Reports/Michi-gan-2014-Tourism-Economic-Impact.pdf, accessed August 2016; andBernard Costa, “Michigan 2009 Data Tables,” D.K. Shifflet and Associates, 2010.

Anderson Economic Group, LLC A-1

FIGURE A-1. Map of Michigan Regions

Macomb

St.Clair

Sanilac

Alcona

Genesee

Huron

Iosco

Lapeer

Monroe

Oakland

Tuscola

Wayne

Arenac

Bay

Gladwin

Ingham

Jackson

Lenawee

Livingston

Midland

Ogemaw

Oscoda

Saginaw

Shiawassee

Washtenaw

Branch

Calhoun

Clare

Clinton

Crawford

Eaton

Gratiot

Hillsdale

Ionia

Isabella

Kalkaska

Missaukee

Montcalm

Roscommon

Allegan Barry

Cass

Grand

Kalamazoo

Kent

Lake

Mecosta

Newaygo

Osceola

Ottawa

St.Joseph

Wexford

Benzie

Berrien

Manistee

Mason

Muskegon

Oceana

VanBuren

GogebicAlger

AlpenaAntrim

Baraga

Charlevoix

Cheboygan

Chippewa

DeltaDickinson

Emmet

Houghton

Iron

Keweenaw

Leelanau

Luce

Mackinac

Marquette

Menominee

Montmorency

Ontonagon

Otsego

Presque Isle

Schoolcraft

Upper Peninsula




Source: AEG map based on AEG-defined regions


We also had access to more detailed data for the Southeastern Lower Peninsula, which allowed us to evaluate the impacts of the PLDS law on the following sub-regions: the tri-county area consisting of Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne Coun-ties; Washtenaw County; and the remaining area of the Southeastern Lower Peninsula. The remaining area of the Southeastern Lower Peninsula consists of the following counties: Bay, Genesee, Hillsdale, Huron, Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Livingston, Monroe, Saginaw, Sanilac, Shiawassee, St. Clair, Tusc-ola.

The data we received from STR for hotel room sales and room revenues were segmented in accordance with these regions. We also relied on annual data from DKSA that reported leisure travel characteristics for the Upper Peninsula, Northeastern Lower Peninsula, Northwestern Lower Peninsula, Southeastern Lower Peninsula, and Southwestern Lower Peninsula.19 We assumed that the DKSA’s Upper Peninsula, Southeastern Lower Peninsula, and Southwestern Lower Peninsula were equivalent to our respective definitions. We also assumed that the aggregate regions of DKSA’s Northeastern Lower Peninsula and North-western Lower Peninsula were equivalent to our Northern Lower Peninsula region.

TABLE A-1. Definitions of Michigan Regions

Region Counties Included

Southeastern LowerPeninsula

Bay, Genesee, Hillsdale, Huron, Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee,Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, Saginaw, Sanilac,Shiawassee, St. Clair, Tuscola, Washtenaw, Wayne

Southwestern LowerPeninsula

Allegan, Barry, Berrien, Branch, Calhoun, Cass, Clinton, Eaton, Gratiot, Ingham, Ionia, Kalamazoo, Kent, Mecosta, Montcalm, Muskegon, Newago, Oceana, Ottawa, St. Joseph, Van Buren


Alcona, Alpena, Antrim, Arenac, Benzie, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Clare, Crawford, Emmet, Gladwin, Grand Traverse, Isabella, Iosco, Kalkaska, Lake, Leelanau, Manistee, Mason, Midland,Missaukee, Montmorency, Ogemaw, Osceola, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle, Roscommon, Wexford

Upper Peninsula Alger, Baraga, Chippewa, Delta, Dickinson, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Keweenaw, Luce, Mackinac, Marquette, Menominee,Ontonagon, Schoolcraft

19.Bernard Costa, “Michigan 2009 Data Tables,” D.K. Shifflet and Associates, 2010.


Net Impact on Hotel Business Volume

Impact in Michigan. We estimated the net impact by taking the following steps:

1. We started with data on room sales and room revenues for August and Septem-ber in 2004 through 2007 for each region. We indexed the dates for each year to indicate when the date falls relative to Labor Day. Dates prior to Labor Day are negative and dates after Labor Day are positive. The value of the index increases in magnitude the further a date is from Labor Day.

2. Using the index, we estimated the difference in number of rooms sold and room revenues between 2004 and 2007 and then between 2005 and 2007 for each date. This accounts for fluctuations in business volume throughout the calendar week (i.e. weekends have higher occupancy than weekdays) and as well as dif-ferences in when Labor Day falls each year. See Figure A-2 on page A-6 through Figure A-5 on page A-9 for exhibits that summarize this step.

3. We estimated the baseline difference in room sales and room revenues in order to account for factors that could explain the inter-year differences in room demand other than the PLDS law. These factors might include economic condi-tions, weather, and special events.Based on our observation of the data, we determined that the weeks in August leading up to the two weeks prior to Labor Day and then the weeks in Septem-ber following Labor Day represented the baseline difference in business volume for both the 2004-07 and the 2005-07 comparisons. For the 2004-07 baseline, we excluded days 7 through 13 from our baseline calculations due to a special event, the 2004 Ryder Cup, that significantly affected business volume in the Southeast Michigan.To estimate the baseline, we calculated the average difference in business vol-ume during the baseline periods by weekday (i.e. averaged the difference for all Sundays, then for all Mondays, etc.). We estimated the baseline for both the 2004-07 and the 2005-07 comparisons.

4. We estimated the incremental increase in room sales and room revenues com-pared to the baseline, which we refer to as the impact of the PLDS law. For each date under each comparison, we calculated the difference between the increase in business volume and the respective baseline. We then calculated the cumula-tive impact during the two-month period of August and September.

5. We estimated the net impact on total tourism room revenues for the year. We assumed that there was intra-year substitution for the increase in travel during August and September. In particular, we assumed that 60 percent of the impact on the August and September room revenues were net-new to the state for the entire year. By net-new, we mean that this travel was new to the region due to the PLDS law after taking into account travel that would have otherwise occurred either before August or after September. In other words, about 40 per-cent of the impact was associated with travel that would have taken place during other months of the year if the PLDS law did not go into effect.We assumed that there was intra-year substitution for three reasons. First, peo-ple have limited vacation days for taking time to travel. It stands to reason that some visitors to destinations in Michigan shifted their travel plans rather than


increased the amount that they traveled. Second, we observed that this occurs in August and September, based on the daily data. For example, the charts for the Southeastern Lower Peninsula in Figure A-2 on page A-6 and Figure A-3 on page A-7 indicate that, after the PLDS law was implemented, travel shifted from after Labor Day to before Labor Day. Lastly, there is empirical, literature-based evidence that intra-year substitution exists. Our assumption that 60 per-cent of the travel was net-new is based on a study of the effect of a PLDS law on travel patterns of families in five states, including Michigan.20

We also estimated the room revenues that Michigan hotels received in 2007 due to tourism-related travel. Our analysis was based on data from DKSA and STR. See Table B-1 on page B-2 for a detailed exhibit that summarizes our analysis of the impact on room sales and room revenues for Michigan hotels. We also sum-marize our analysis of the tourism room revenues for Michigan hotels in Table B-2 on page B-3.

Impact within the Southeastern Lower Peninsula region. Our approach to estimating the net impact of the PLDS law on room sales and room revenues within the Southeastern Lower Peninsula was similar to our approach for Mich-igan. See Figure A-6 on page A-10 through Figure A-9 on page A-13 for exhib-its that present the difference in room sales and room revenues between 2007 and 2004 and 2007 and 2005 within the Southeastern Lower Peninsula.

To estimate the amount of leisure stays in each sub-region, we apportioned the share based on the respective share of room nights. We also applied the data points for the Southeastern Lower Peninsula to each sub-region. See Table B-6 on page B-7 and Table B-7 on page B-8 for detailed exhibits that summarize our analysis.

20.Elton Mykerezi and Genti Kostandini, “Do families vacation more in the summer when school starts after Labor Day?: A Study Comparing Actual Travel Patterns in Five States,” University of Minnesota Extension, July 23, 2012.


Sourc

-15

-10

-5

5

10

15

-12,

-10,

-8,

-6,

-4,

-2,

2,

4,

6,

-12,

-10,

-8,

-6,

-4,

-2,

2,

4,

6,

= 0

= 0

FIGURE A-2. Difference in Rooms Sold Between 2007 & 2004 in Michigan (room nights)

e: AEG analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research (2004, 2007)

,000

,000

,000

0

,000

,000

,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21


Michigan

000

000

000

000

000

000

0

000

000

000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21



2004 Ryder Cup

-12,000

-10,000

-8,000

-6,000

-4,000

-2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21



-12,000

-10,000

-8,000

-6,000

-4,000

-2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21

Upper Peninsula

Upper Peninsula

000

000

000

000

000

000

0

000

000

000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21



2004 Ryder Cup



2004 room nights


2004 room nights


So

-

1

1

-2

-1

1

2

3

4

5

-2

-1

1

2

3

4

5

= 0

ts

= 0

ts

FIGURE A-3. Difference in Rooms Sold Between 2007 & 2005 in Michigan (room nights)

urce: AEG analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research (2005, 2007)

2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

0,000

2,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21


Michigan

,000

,000

0

,000

,000

,000

,000

,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21



,000

,000

0

,000

,000

,000

,000

,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21



-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21



-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21


Upper Peninsula



2005roomnigh


2005roomnigh


Source

-$3,

-$2,

-$2,

-$1,

-$1,

-$

$

$1,

$1,

$2,

-$3,0

-$2,5

-$2,0

-$1,5

-$1,0

-$5

$5

$1,0

-$3,0

-$2,5

-$2,0

-$1,5

-$1,0

-$5

$5

$1,0

= 0 s

= 0 s

FIGURE A-4. Difference in Room Revenues Between 2007 & 2004 in Michigan (2016 dollars)

: AEG analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research (2004, 2007)

000,000

500,000

000,000

500,000

000,000

500,000

$0

500,000

000,000

500,000

000,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21


Michigan

2004 Ryder Cup

00,000

00,000

00,000

00,000

00,000

00,000

$0

00,000

00,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21



2004 Ryder Cup

00,000

00,000

00,000

00,000

00,000

00,000

$0

00,000

00,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21



-$3,000,000

-$2,500,000

-$2,000,000

-$1,500,000

-$1,000,000

-$500,000

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21



-$3,000,000

-$2,500,000

-$2,000,000

-$1,500,000

-$1,000,000

-$500,000

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21


Upper Peninsula

2004 room = 0 revenues


2004 room revenue


2004 room

revenue


Source: AEG an

-$400,000

-$200,000

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

-3

-$400,000

-$300,000

-$200,000

-$100,000

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

-35

-$400,000

-$300,000

-$200,000

-$100,000

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

-35



FIGURE A-5. Difference in Room Revenues Between 2007 & 2005 in Michigan (2016 dollars)

alysis using base data from Smith Travel Research (2005, 2007)

5 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21


Michigan

-28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21



-28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21



-$400,000

-$300,000

-$200,000

-$100,000

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21



-$400,000

-$300,000

-$200,000

-$100,000

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21


Upper Peninsula





Source: AEG

-12,000

-10,000

-8,000

-6,000

-4,000

-2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

-35

-12,000

-10,000

-8,000

-6,000

-4,000

-2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

-35

-12,000

-10,000

-8,000

-6,000

-4,000

-2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

-35


FIGURE A-6. Difference in Rooms Sold Between 2007 & 2004 in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula (room nights)

analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research (2004, 2007)

-28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21



-28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21


Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne Counties

2004 Ryder Cup

2004 Ryder Cup

-12,000

-10,000

-8,000

-6,000

-4,000

-2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21


Washtenaw County

-28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21


Remaining Southeastern Lower Peninsula





Source: AE

-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

-35

-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

-35

-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

-35


FIGURE A-7. Difference in Rooms Sold Between 2007 & 2005 in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula (room nights)

-28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21



-28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21



-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21


Washtenaw County

-28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21






Anderson Economic Group, LLC A-11G analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research (2005, 2007)

Source:

-$3,0

-$2,5

-$2,0

-$1,5

-$1,0

-$5

$5

$1,0

-$3,00

-$2,50

-$2,00

-$1,50

-$1,00

-$50

$50

$1,00

-$3,00

-$2,50

-$2,00

-$1,50

-$1,00

-$50

$50

$1,00

= 0

FIGURE A-8. Difference in Room Revenues Between 2007 & 2004 in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula (2016 dollars)

AEG analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research (2004, 2007)

00,000

00,000

00,000

00,000

00,000

00,000

$0

00,000

00,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21



2004 Ryder Cup

0,000

0,000

0,000

0,000

0,000

0,000

$0

0,000

0,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21



2004 Ryder Cup

-$3,000,000

-$2,500,000

-$2,000,000

-$1,500,000

-$1,000,000

-$500,000

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21


Washtenaw County

0,000

0,000

0,000

0,000

0,000

0,000

$0

0,000

0,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21





2004 room revenues



Source

-$400

-$200

$200

$400

$600

$800

-$400

-$300

-$200

-$100

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

-$400

-$300

-$200

-$100

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

= 0 s

FIGURE A-9. Difference in Room Revenues Between 2007 & 2005 in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula (2016 dollars)

: AEG analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research (2005, 2007)

,000

,000

$0

,000

,000

,000

,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21



,000

,000

,000

,000

$0

,000

,000

,000

,000

,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21



-$400,000

-$300,000

-$200,000

-$100,000

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21


Washtenaw County

,000

,000

,000

,000

$0

,000

,000

,000

,000

,000

-35 -28 -21 -14 -7 LaborDay

7 14 21





2005 room revenue



Net Impact on Tourism Spending

Impact in Michigan. We estimated the net impact on tourism spending in Michigan in the following manner:

1. We estimated the amount of tourism spending in Michigan. Using data from DKSA, we limited our estimate to tourism spending related to overnight trips in paid hotel and motel accommodations. See Table B-3 on page B-4 for a detailed exhibit that summarizes our analysis.

2. We estimated the net new tourism spending in Michigan due to the PLDS law. We assumed that the tourism spending increased by relatively the same amount as tourism room revenues. See Table B-4 on page B-5 for a detailed exhibit that summarizes our analysis.

3. We estimated the composition of the tourism spending. We subtracted the net impact on room revenues from the net impact on total tourism spending. We apportioned the tourism spending to other categories based on DKSA data. See Table B-5 on page B-6 for a detailed exhibit that summarizes our analysis.

Impact within the Southeastern Lower Peninsula. Our approach to estimat-ing the net impact on tourism spending in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula was similar to our approach for Michigan as a whole.

To estimate the amount of leisure stays in each sub-region, we apportioned the share based on the respective share of room nights in each sub-region. We also applied the data points for the Southeastern Lower Peninsula to each sub-region. See Table B-8 on page B-9 through Table B-10 on page B-11 for detailed exhib-its that summarize our analysis.

Sources ReviewedBureau of Revenue Estimates, “Economic Impact of a Post Labor Day School Start Date for Maryland Public Schools,” Comptroller of Maryland, August 14, 2013.

Elton Mykerezi and Genti Kostandini, “Do families vacation more in the sum-mer when school starts after Labor Day?: A Study Comparing Actual Travel Patterns in Five States,” University of Minnesota Extension, July 23, 2012.

M Keivan Deravi, “An Economic Analysis of Early School Start Date in Ala-bama,” February 24, 2009.

Steve Morse, “South Carolina Early School Start Dates and the South Carolina Travel and Tourism Industries,” University of South Carolina.

Steve Morse and Chad Church, “Post Labor Day School Start Dates in Tennes-see: An Analysis of the Economic and Tax Revenue Impacts on the Tennessee Travel and Tourism Industry,” The University of Tennessee, January 2008.


Tripp Umbach, “The Economic Benefits of Reinstituting the Traditional Sum-mer Vacation: The Cost to Pennsylvania’s Economy Resulting from School Starting Before Labor Day,” Tripp Umbach, September 2006.

YEAR-ROUND SCHOOL CALENDAR

Sample YRS Calendars

We reviewed sample YRS calendars posted by NAYRE.21 These calendars include 60-20, 60-15, and 45-15 schedules. We identified calendars that offer school breaks during the months of July and August and adjusted the dates in order to provide sample configurations for the 2016-17 academic year. We pres-ent these configurations for illustrative purposes, since they may differ from schedules that have actually been implemented. See Table B-11 on page B-12 for the sample of calendars that provide breaks during July and August.

Sources ReviewedElton Mykerezi and Xinyo Qian, “Impact of Year-Round Education on Travel,” University of Minnesota Extension, January 2016.

Lyn Pickeral and Susan Hubbard, “The Effects of Year-Round Schools on the Hospitality Industry’s Seasonal Labor Force in the State of Tennessee,” Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol 1, 2002.

Margaret Peercy and Ken McCleary, “The Impact of the Year Round School Calendar on the Family Vacation: An Exploratory Case Study,” Journal of Hos-pitality & Tourism Research, Vol 35, Issue 2, May 2011, p 147-170.

21.National Association for Year-Round Education, “NAYRE - Calendars Defined,” National Association for Year Round Education, 2015, http://www.nayre.org/calendars.html, accessed August 2016.


Appendix B. Summary Exhibits

This appendix contains the following summary exhibits:

• Table B-1, “Net Impact of the PLDS Law on Michigan’s Hotel Business Vol-ume (2007),” on page B-2

• Table B-2, “Tourism Room Revenues for Michigan’s Hotels (2007),” on page B-3

• Table B-3, “Tourism Spending for Overnight Trips at Hotels in Michigan (2007),” on page B-4

• Table B-4, “Net Impact of the PLDS Law on Overnight Tourism Spending in Michigan (2007),” on page B-5

• Table B-5, “Composition of the Net Impact of the PLDS Law on Overnight Tourism Spending in Michigan (2007),” on page B-6

• Table B-6, “Net Impact of the PLDS Law on the Southeastern Lower Penin-sula’s Hotel Business Volume (2007),” on page B-7

• Table B-7, “Tourism Room Revenues for the Southeastern Lower Peninsula’s Hotels (2007),” on page B-8

• Table B-8, “Tourism Spending for Overnight Trips at Hotels in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula (2007),” on page B-9

• Table B-9, “Net Impact of the PLDS Law on Overnight Tourism Spending in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula (2007),” on page B-10

• Table B-10, “Composition of the Net Impact of the PLDS Law on Overnight Tourism Spending in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula (2007),” on page B-11

• Table B-11, “Sample YRS Calendars that Include Breaks in July and August,” on page B-12

Anderson Economic Group, LLC B-1

B-2

2004-07 basis 2005-07 basis

(a) ImpacSouthSouthNorthUpper

(b) Share

Net ImSouth 115.13 109.27$ 97.88$ South 105.05 76.63$ 95.47$ North 121.63 134.48$ 110.47$ Upper 138.14 127.50$ 86.45$

117.48 111.91$ 98.42$

Source

(a) We des(b)

Implied Average Daily Rate (2016$)

2007 Average Daily Rate

(2016$)

We ass d that a PLDS law increased the incidence of travel during August and Septem the impact on August and September travel could be explained by familie


TABLE B-1. Net Impact of the PLDS Law on Michigan’s Hotel Business Volume (2007)

Room demand (room nights)

Room revenues (2016$)



t on Business Volume in August and September (2007)eastern Lower Peninsula 31,109 3,581,453$ 36,895 4,031,650$ western Lower Peninsula 14,127 1,483,975$ 9,264 709,827$ ern Lower Peninsula 20,986 2,552,516$ 14,383 1,934,189$ Peninsula 7,826 1,081,029$ 6,371 812,289$

Total Impact in Michigan 74,048 8,698,972$ 66,913 7,487,955$

of travel that was net new for the entire year 60% 60% 60% 60%

pact on Business Volume in Entire Year (2007)eastern Lower Peninsula 18,665 2,148,872$ 22,137 2,418,990$ $ western Lower Peninsula 8,476 890,385$ 5,558 425,896$ $ ern Lower Peninsula 12,592 1,531,509$ 8,630 1,160,513$ $ Peninsula 4,696 648,617$ 3,823 487,373$ $

Total Net Impact in Michigan 44,429 5,219,383$ 40,148 4,492,773$ $

: AEG analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research; D.K. Shifflet and Associates; and AEG professional judgment

cribe the methodology used to develop these estimates in "Net Impact on Hotel Business Volume" on page A-2.

2004-07 basis 2005-07 basis

umed that 40% of the impact on travel during August and September would have still taken place during other parts of the year. This is based on a study that estimateber by 50% for families with children, while the effect on travel during May through September was a 30% increase. This suggests that 40% (20 percentage points) ofs shifting their travel from earlier months to later months. See "Net Impact on Hotel Business Volume" on page A-2 for further discussion.

B-3

n Lower nsula Upper Peninsula Total Michigan

Trave 46,040,000 46,040,000 46,040,000 (a) 16% 5% 67%

Leisu 7,556,947 2,226,103 30,726,118 (b) 52% 59% 46%

Overn 966,421.87 1,314,679 13,980,390 (c) 38% 50% 38%

Leisu 507,240.31 657,340 5,339,981 (d) 45% 44% 40%

Touri 678,258 289,229 2,159,229 (e) 2.8 2.3 2.6

Touri 1,905,905 671,012 5,550,921 (f) 86.62 70.65$ 82.41

Tour 5,096,864 47,406,296$ 457,460,992$

Memo2004- 0.9% 1.4% 1.1%2005- 0.7% 1.0% 1.0%

Sourc

(a) Based(b) Based(c) Based(d) Based(e) Based(f) Based


TABLE B-2. Tourism Room Revenues for Michigan’s Hotels (2007)



NortherPeni

l volume (stays) 46,040,000 46,040,000 Share of Michigan stays due to leisure x 31% 15%

re travel volume (stays) 14,087,722 6,855,347 Share of leisure stays due to overnight stays x 42% 40%

ight leisure travel volume (stays) 5,982,772 2,716,518 3, Share of overnight leisure stays in paid hotel/motel x 39% 31%

re travel volume in paid hotel/motel (stays) 2,333,281 842,120 1, Share of leisure stays due to tourism x 37% 39%

sm travel volume in paid hotel/motel (stays) 863,314 328,427 Average length of stay x 2.5 2.5

sm travel volume in paid hotel/motel (room nights) 2,149,652 824,352 Average daily rate x 83.53$ 79.34$ $

ism Room Revenues for Michigan Hotels 179,550,856$ 65,406,976$ 16$

: PLDS net impact as a share of tourism room revenues:07 impact 1.2% 1.4%07 impact 1.3% 0.7%

e: AEG analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research and D.K. Shifflet and Associates

on DKSA data from 2007-09 for the share of stays due to leisure. on DKSA data from 2007-09 for the share of leisure stays due to overnight travel. on DKSA data from 2007-09 for the share of leisure stays in paid hotels and motels. on DKSA data from 2007-09 for the share of leisure stays due to vacation and special events. on DKSA data from 2007 for the average length of stay for leisure overnight trips and AEG professional judgment. on Smith Travel Research data for 2007 room revenues and room sales.

B-4

n Lower insula Upper Peninsula Total Michigan

Trave 46,040,000 46,040,000 46,040,000 (a) 16% 5% 67%

Leisu 7,556,947 2,226,103 30,726,118 (b) 52.5% 59.1% 46%

Overn 966,421.87 1,314,679 13,980,390 (c) 38.0% 50.0% 38%

Leisu 507,240.31 657,340 5,339,981 (d) 45% 44% 40%

Touri 678,258 289,229 2,159,229 (e) 1,008 832$ 938$

Over 3,554,488 240,498,315$ 2,025,189,483$

Sourc

(a) Based(b) Based(c) Based(d) Based(e) Based


TABLE B-3. Tourism Spending for Overnight Trips at Hotels in Michigan (2007)



NortherPen

l volume in Michigan (stays) 46,040,000.0 46,040,000 Share of Michigan stays due to leisure x 31% 15%

re travel volume (stays) 14,087,722 6,855,347 Share of leisure stays due to overnight stays x 42.5% 39.6%

ight leisure travel volume (stays) 5,982,772 2,716,518 3, Share of overnight leisure stays in paid hotel/motel x 39.0% 31.0%

re travel volume in paid hotel/motel (stays) 2,333,281 842,120 1, Share of leisure stays due to tourism x 37% 39%

sm travel volume in paid hotel/motel (stays) 863,314 328,427 Average stay leisure spending for parties in paid hotel/motel x 949$ 859$ $

night Tourism Spending in Michigan 818,992,296$ 282,144,384$ 68$

e: AEG analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research and D.K. Shifflet and Associates

on DKSA data from 2007-09 for the share of stays due to leisure. on DKSA data from 2007-09 for the share of leisure stays due to overnight travel. on DKSA data from 2007-09 for the share of leisure stays in paid hotels and motels. on DKSA data from 2007-09 for the share of leisure stays due to vacation and special events. on DKSA data from 2007 for the average stay spending for leisure overnight trips in paid hotel/motel accommodations.

B-5

ower a Upper Peninsula Total Michigan

0.9% 1.4% 1.1%0.7% 1.0% 1.0%

(a ,488 $ 240,498,315 $ 2,025,189,483

0,945 $ 3,290,519 $ 23,274,027 4,901 $ 2,472,507 $ 20,148,419

31,509 648,617$ 5,219,383$ 60,513 487,373$ 4,492,773$

09,435 2,641,902$ 18,054,644$ 44,388 1,985,134$ 15,655,647$

(a se estimates.


TABLE B-4. Net Impact of the PLDS Law on Overnight Tourism Spending in Michigan (2007)Southeastern

Lower PeninsulaSouthwestern

Lower PeninsulaNorthern L

Peninsul

Net Impact on Tourism Rooms RevenuesBased on 2004-07 data 1.2% 1.4%Based on 2005-07 data 1.3% 0.7%

) Total 2007 overnight tourism spending x $ 818,992,296 $ 282,144,384 $ 683,554

Net Impact on Total Overnight Tourism SpendingBased on 2004-07 data $ 9,801,732 $ 3,840,831 $ 6,34Based on 2005-07 data $ 11,033,832 $ 1,837,179 $ 4,80

Memo: PLDS net impact on tourism-related room spending2004-07 impact 2,148,872$ 890,385$ 1,5$ 2005-07 impact 2,418,990$ 425,896$ 1,1$

PLDS net impact on tourism-related non-room spending2004-07 impact 7,652,860$ 2,950,446$ 4,8$ 2005-07 impact 8,614,842$ 1,411,282$ 3,6$


) See Table B-3, "Tourism Spending for Overnight Trips at Hotels in Michigan," on page B-4 for the calculations that were used to arrive at the

B-6

er Upper Peninsula Total Michigan

(29% 31%32% 35%14% 12%18% 15%

7% 7%00% 100%

(,435 $ 2,641,902 $ 18,054,644 ,388 $ 1,985,134 $ 15,655,647

(

,509 $ 648,617 $ 5,219,383 ,719 $ 744,719 $ 5,089,376 ,889 $ 714,050 $ 4,879,788 ,558 $ 527,101 $ 3,602,184 ,506 $ 449,619 $ 3,072,674 ,764 $ 206,413 $ 1,410,621 945 $ 3,290,519 $ 23,274,027

,513 $ 487,373 $ 4,492,773 ,759 $ 610,409 $ 4,639,551 ,784 $ 687,895 $ 4,560,247 ,389 $ 238,109 $ 2,677,370 ,921 $ 302,807 $ 2,622,459 ,535 $ 145,916 $ 1,156,020 901 $ 2,472,507 $ 20,148,419

( gion.( to arrive at these estimates.( ive at the room estimates.

f non-room spending.


TABLE B-5. Composition of the Net Impact of the PLDS Law on Overnight Tourism Spending in Michigan (2007)Southeastern

Lower PeninsulaSouthwestern

Lower PeninsulaNorthern Low

Peninsula

a) Share of Non-room SpendingTransportation 28% 39%Food 27% 27%Shopping 20% 14%Entertainment 17% 14%Miscellaneous 8% 6%

Total Non-room Spending 100% 100% 1

b) PLDS Net Impact on Tourism-related Non-room SpendingBased on 2004-07 data $ 7,652,860 $ 2,950,446 $ 4,809Based on 2005-07 data $ 8,614,842 $ 1,411,282 $ 3,644

c) Composition of PLDS Net Impact on Tourism-related Non-room SpendingBased on 2004-07 dataRooms $ 2,148,872 $ 890,385 $ 1,531Transportation $ 2,157,245 $ 831,694 $ 1,355Food $ 2,068,406 $ 797,443 $ 1,299Shopping $ 1,526,865 $ 588,660 $ 959Entertainment $ 1,302,421 $ 502,129 $ 818Miscellaneous $ 597,923 $ 230,520 $ 375

Total Based on 2004-07 Data $ 9,801,732 $ 3,840,831 $ 6,340,

Based on 2005-07 dataRooms $ 2,418,990 $ 425,896 $ 1,160Transportation $ 2,428,415 $ 546,968 $ 1,053Food $ 2,328,410 $ 384,158 $ 1,159Shopping $ 1,718,796 $ 195,077 $ 525Entertainment $ 1,466,138 $ 194,593 $ 658Miscellaneous $ 673,083 $ 90,486 $ 246

Total Based on 2005-07 Data $ 11,033,832 $ 1,837,179 $ 4,804,


a) These estimates are based on spending data by category from DKSA for leisure and overnight leisure for Michigan and leisure for each reb) See Table B-4, "Net Impact of the PLDS Law on Overnight Tourism Spending in Michigan" on page B-5 for the calculations that were usedc) See Table B-1, "Net Impact of the PLDS Law on Michigan's Hotel Business Volume" on page B-2 for the calculations that were used to arr

The estimates for other categories are estimated by multiplying the impact on tourism-related non-room spending by the respective share o

B-7

2004-07 basis 2005-07 basis

(a) ImpacMacoWashRema

(b) Share

Net ImMaco 116.51 111.32$ 99.33$ Wash 175.37 117.85$ 114.13$ Rema 98.32 98.79$ 86.23$

T 115.13 109.27$ 98.42$

Source

(a) We des(b)

2007 Average Daily Rate

(2016$)Implied Average Daily Rate (2016$)

We ass hat a PLDS law increased the incidence of travel during August and Septem e impact on August and September travel could be explained by families shifting


TABLE B-6. Net Impact of the PLDS Law on the Southeastern Lower Peninsula’s Hotel Business Volume (2007)





t on Business Volume in August and September (2007)mb, Oakland, and Wayne Counties 21,353 2,487,799$ 26,234 2,920,457$ tenaw County 1,745 306,056$ 3,041 358,383$ ining Southeastern Lower Peninsula 8,011 787,598$ 7,620 752,809$

Total Impact in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula 31,109 3,581,453$ 36,895 4,031,650$

of travel that was net new for the entire year 60% 60% 60% 60%

pact on Business Volume in Entire Year (2007)mb, Oakland, and Wayne Counties 12,812 1,492,679$ 15,740 1,752,274$ $tenaw County 1,047 183,634$ 1,825 215,030$ $ining Southeastern Lower Peninsula 4,806 472,559$ 4,572 451,686$ $otal Net Impact in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula 18,665 2,148,872$ 22,137 2,418,990$ $

: AEG analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research and AEG professional judgment

cribe the methodology used to develop these estimates in "Net Impact on Hotel Business Volume" on page A-2.

2004-07 basis 2005-07 basis

umed that 40% of the impact on travel during August and September would have still taken place during other parts of the year. This is based on a study that estimated tber by 50% for families with children, while the effect on travel during May through September was a 30% increase. This suggests that 40% (20 percentage points) of th their travel from earlier months to later months. See "Net Impact on Hotel Business Volume" on page A-2 for further discussion.

B-8

nty

Remaining Southeastern Lower

PeninsulaSoutheastern Lower

Peninsula

000 46,040,000 46,040,000 (a) 2% 5% 31%

018 2,394,913 14,087,722 (b) 2% 42% 42%

622 1,017,071 5,982,772 (c) 9% 39% 39%

662 396,658 2,333,281 (d) 7% 37% 37%

065 146,763 863,314 (e) 2.5 2.5 2.5

972 365,441 2,149,652 (f) .53 83.53$ 83.53$

68 30,523,646$ 179,550,856$

.3% 1.5% 1.2%

.5% 1.5% 1.3%

(a) e share of room nights in each sub-region.(b) eninsula to all sub-regions.(c) Peninsula to all sub-regions.(d) rn Lower Peninsula to all sub-regions.(e) stimate for Southeastern Lower Peninsula to all sub-regions.(f) o all sub-regions.


TABLE B-7. Tourism Room Revenues for the Southeastern Lower Peninsula’s Hotels (2007)

Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne Counties Washtenaw Cou

Travel volume in Michigan (stays) 46,040,000 46,040, Share of Michigan stays due to leisure x 23%

Leisure travel volume (stays) 10,565,791 1,127, Share of leisure stays due to overnight stays x 42% 4

Overnight leisure travel volume (stays) 4,487,079 478, Share of overnight leisure stays in paid hotel/motel x 39% 3

Leisure travel volume in paid hotel/motel (stays) 1,749,961 186, Share of leisure stays due to tourism x 37% 3

Tourism travel volume in paid hotel/motel (stays) 647,485 69, Average length of stay x 2.5

Tourism travel volume in paid hotel/motel (room nights) 1,612,239 171, Average daily rate x 83.53$ 83$

Tourism Room Revenues for Michigan Hotels 134,663,142$ 14,364,0$

Memo: PLDS net impact as a share of tourism room revenues:2004-07 impact 1.1% 12005-07 impact 1.3% 1

Source: AEG analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research and D.K. Shifflet and Associates

Based on DKSA data from 2007-09 for the share of stays due to leisure. We apportioned leisure stays to sub-regions based on the respectivBased on DKSA data from 2007-09 for the share of leisure stays due to overnight travel. We applied the estimate for Southeastern Lower PBased on DKSA data from 2007-09 for the share of leisure stays in paid hotels and motels. We applied the estimate for Southeastern LowerBased on DKSA data from 2007-09 for the share of leisure stays due to vacation and special events. We applied the estimate for SoutheasteBased on DKSA data from 2007 for the average length of stay for leisure overnight trips and AEG professional judgment. We applied the eBased on Smith Travel Research data for 2007 room revenues and room sales. We applied the estimate for Southeastern Lower Peninsula t

B-9

ty

Remaining Southeastern Lower

PeninsulaSoutheastern Lower

Peninsula

Trav 00 46,040,000 46,040,000 (a) 2% 5% 31%

Leis 18 2,394,913 14,087,722 (b) 2% 42% 42%

Ove 74 1,017,071 5,982,772 (c) 9% 39% 39%

Leis 48 396,658 2,333,281 (d) 7% 37% 37%

Tour 65 146,763 863,314 (e) 49 949$ 949$

Ove 84 139,228,690$ 818,992,296$

Sour

(a) Base e of room nights in each sub-region.(b) Base la to all sub-regions.(c) Base sula to all sub-regions.(d) Base er Peninsula to all sub-regions.(e)

Base imate for Southeastern Lower Peninsula to all sub-regions.


TABLE B-8. Tourism Spending for Overnight Trips at Hotels in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula (2007)

Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne Counties Washtenaw Coun

el volume in Michigan (stays) 46,040,000 46,040,0 Share of Michigan stays due to leisure x 23%

ure travel volume (stays) 10,565,791 1,127,0 Share of leisure stays due to overnight stays x 42% 4

rnight leisure travel volume (stays) 4,487,079 478,621. Share of overnight leisure stays in paid hotel/motel x 39% 3

ure travel volume in paid hotel/motel (stays) 1,749,961 186,662. Share of leisure stays due to tourism x 37% 3

ism travel volume in paid hotel/motel (stays) 647,485 69,0 Average stay leisure spending for parties in paid hotel/motel x 949$ 9$

rnight Tourism Spending in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula 614,244,222$ 65,519,3$

ce: AEG analysis using base data from Smith Travel Research and D.K. Shifflet and Associates

d on DKSA data from 2007-09 for the share of stays due to leisure. We apportioned leisure stays to sub-regions based on the respective shard on DKSA data from 2007-09 for the share of leisure stays due to overnight travel. We applied the estimate for Southeastern Lower Peninsud on DKSA data from 2007-09 for the share of leisure stays in paid hotels and motels. We applied the estimate for Southeastern Lower Penind on DKSA data from 2007-09 for the share of leisure stays due to vacation and special events. We applied the estimate for Southeastern Low

d on DKSA data from 2007 for the average stay spending for leisure overnight trips in paid hotel/motel accommodations. We applied the est

B-10

7)aining

heastern Peninsula


1.5% 1.2%1.5% 1.3%

(a) 39,228,690 $ 818,992,296

2,155,500 $ 9,801,732 2,060,291 $ 11,033,832

472,559 2,148,872$ 451,686 2,418,990$

1,682,941 7,652,860$ 1,608,606 8,614,842$

(a) ns that were used to arrive at these


TABLE B-9. Net Impact of the PLDS Law on Overnight Tourism Spending in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula (200Macomb, Oakland,

and Wayne Counties Washtenaw County

RemSout

Lower

Net Impact on Tourism Rooms RevenuesBased on 2004-07 data 1.1% 1.3%Based on 2005-07 data 1.3% 1.5%

Total 2007 overnight tourism spending x $ 614,244,222 $ 65,519,384 $ 1

Net Impact on Total Overnight Tourism SpendingBased on 2004-07 data $ 6,808,616 $ 837,616 $ Based on 2005-07 data $ 7,992,717 $ 980,824 $

Memo: PLDS net impact on tourism-related room spending2004-07 impact 1,492,679$ 183,634$ $ 2005-07 impact 1,752,274$ 215,030$ $

PLDS net impact on tourism-related non-room spending2004-07 impact 5,315,937$ 653,982$ $ 2005-07 impact 6,240,442$ 765,794$ $


See Table B-8, "Tourism Spending for Overnight Trips at Hotels in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula," on page B-9 for the calculatioestimates.

B-11

ower Peninsula (2007)


(28%27%20%17%

8%100%

( $ 7,652,860 $ 8,614,842

(

$ 2,148,872 $ 2,157,245 $ 2,068,406 $ 1,526,865 $ 1,302,421 $ 597,923 $ 9,801,732

$ 2,418,990 $ 2,428,415 $ 2,328,410 $ 1,718,796 $ 1,466,138 $ 673,083 $ 11,033,832

((

( t were used to arrive at the room re of non-room spending.

tions that were used to arrive at


TABLE B-10. Composition of the Net Impact of the PLDS Law on Overnight Tourism Spending in the Southeastern LMacomb, Oakland,

and Wayne Counties

Washtenaw County

Remaining Southeastern

Lower Peninsula

a) Share of Non-room SpendingTransportation 28% 28% 28%Food 27% 27% 27%Shopping 20% 20% 20%Entertainment 17% 17% 17%Miscellaneous 8% 8% 8%

Total Non-room Spending 100% 100% 100%

b) PLDS Net Impact on Tourism-related Non-room SpendingBased on 2004-07 data $ 5,315,937 $ 653,982 $ 1,682,941 Based on 2005-07 data $ 6,240,442 $ 765,794 $ 1,608,606

c) Composition of PLDS Net Impact on Tourism-related Non-room SpendingBased on 2004-07 dataRooms $ 1,492,679 $ 183,634 $ 472,559 Transportation $ 1,498,496 $ 184,349 $ 474,400 Food $ 1,436,785 $ 176,758 $ 454,863 Shopping $ 1,060,613 $ 130,480 $ 335,773 Entertainment $ 904,706 $ 111,300 $ 286,416 Miscellaneous $ 415,337 $ 51,096 $ 131,489

Total Based on 2004-07 Data $ 6,808,616 $ 837,616 $ 2,155,500

Based on 2005-07 dataRooms $ 1,752,274 $ 215,030 $ 451,686 Transportation $ 1,759,102 $ 215,868 $ 453,446 Food $ 1,686,660 $ 206,978 $ 434,772 Shopping $ 1,245,066 $ 152,788 $ 320,942 Entertainment $ 1,062,045 $ 130,329 $ 273,765 Miscellaneous $ 487,570 $ 59,832 $ 125,681

Total Based on 2005-07 Data $ 7,992,717 $ 980,824 $ 2,060,291


a) We applied the estimates for the composition of travel spending for the Southeastern Lower Peninsula to the composition for all sub-regions.b)

c) See Table B-6, "Net Impact of the PLDS Law on the Southeastern Lower Peninsula's Hotel Business Volume," on page B-7 for the calculations thaestimates. The estimates for other categories are estimated by multiplying the impact on tourism-related non-room spending by the respective sha

See Table B-9, "Net Impact of the PLDS Law on Overnight Tourism Spending in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula," on page B-10 for the calculathese estimates.

B-12

5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31Traditional6-week Summ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 160-2060-15 V1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 160-15 V2 1 1 1 1 145-15 V1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 145-15 V2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 145-15 V3 1 1 1 1 1

6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31Traditional 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16-week Summ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 160-20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 160-15 V1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 160-15 V2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 145-15 V1 1 1 1 1 1 145-15 V2 1 1 1 1 145-15 V3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31Traditional 1 1 1 1 1 16-week Summ 1 1 1 1 1 160-2060-15 V1 1 1 1 1 1 160-15 V245-15 V1 1 1 1 1 1 145-15 V2 1 1 1 1 1 145-15 V3 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28Traditional 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16-week Summ 1 1 1 1 160-20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 160-15 V1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 160-15 V2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 145-15 V1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 145-15 V2 1 145-15 V3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30Traditional 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16-week Summ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 160-20 1 1 1 1 160-15 V1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 160-15 V245-15 V145-15 V2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 145-15 V3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3Traditional 1 16-week Summ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 160-20 1 1 1 1 1 1 160-15 V1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 160-15 V2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 145-15 V1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 145-15 V2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 145-15 V3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Source: AEG

Note: White b e configurations.

ber

August

ry

pril

President's Day

Winter Break

ber

JulyJune


TABLE B-11. Sample YRS Calendars that Include Breaks in July and August

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1

er1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

er 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

er 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

er 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

er 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

er 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

analysis of sample year-round school calendars from the National Association of Year-round Education

oxes indicate student breaks; gray boxes indicate weekends; and all other colors indicate instructional days. The suffixes for the 60-15 and 45-15 calendars are used to differentiate sample calendars that are possible for thes

July

September Octo

Labor D

ay

Colum

bus Day

Fourth of July

Februra

March A

ML

K D

ay

November

January

Election D

ay

Veteran's D

ay

Thanksgiving B

reak

Winter Break

Decem

Spring Break

Spring BreakSpring Break

Mem

orial Day

May

Spring Break

Appendix C: About Anderson Economic Group

Anderson Economic Group, LLC is a boutique consulting firm founded in 1996, with offices in East Lansing, Chicago, and Istanbul. Our team has a deep under-standing of advanced economic modeling techniques and extensive experience in multiple industries in multiple states and countries. We are experts across a variety of fields in tax policy, strategy and business valuation, public policy and economic analysis, and market and industry analysis.

The consultants at Anderson Economic Group are often published on topics within their respective fields of expertise. Publications from our team include:

• “Tourism-Related Benefits in the Ann Arbor Area Economy,” published in 2014 and 2015.

• “Tourism-Related Benefits in Greater Lansing’s Economy,” published in 2013.• “Tourism-Related Benefits in Traverse City’s Economy,” published in 2013.

Past clients of Anderson Economic Group include:

• Governments: The government of Canada; the states of Michigan, North Caro-lina, and Wisconsin; the cities of Detroit, Cincinnati, and Sandusky; counties such as Oakland County, and Collier County; and authorities such as the Detroit-Wayne County Port Authority.

• Corporations: Ford Motor Company, First Merit Bank, Lithia Motors, Spartan Stores, Nestle, and InBev USA; automobile dealers and dealership groups rep-resenting Toyota, Honda, Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz, General Motors, Kia, and other brands.

• Nonprofit organizations: Convention and visitor bureaus of Lansing, Ann Arbor, Traverse City, and Detroit, and Experience Grand Rapids; higher educa-tion institutions including Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and University of Michigan; trade associations such as the Michigan Manufac-turers Association, Service Employees International Union, Automation Alley, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and Business Leaders for Michigan.

Please visit www.AndersonEconomicGroup.com for more information.

Anderson Economic Group, LLC C-1

AUTHORS Traci Taylor Ms. Taylor is a Senior Analyst with Anderson Economic Group, working in the Public Policy and Economic Analysis practice area. Her recent work includes research and data analysis for economic and fiscal impact studies, benchmarking studies, and tax reform proposals.

Prior to joining AEG, Ms. Taylor was a graduate assistant at Michigan State University, where her research focused on local governments facing fiscal stress. She also interned at the Citizens Research Council, a non-profit research organization that focuses on public policy issues in Michigan. Prior to attending graduate school, she worked as an engineer in the petrochemicals industry in Louisiana and as an AmeriCorps VISTA at a non-profit organization in New Orleans.

Ms. Taylor holds a Master of Science in Agricultural, Food, and Resource Eco-nomics and a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering, both from Michi-gan State University.

Alex RosaenMr. Rosaen is a Senior Consultant at Anderson Economic Group, and the Direc-tor of Public Policy and Economic Analysis. Mr. Rosaen’s background is in applied economics and public finance.

While with AEG, Mr. Rosaen has worked on a wide range public policy and economic topics for universities, governments, and private sector groups. Past clients include business groups, labor unions, and universities, and cultural institutions. Mr. Rosaen’s recent work includes analyses of water-related inno-vation at Michigan’s research universities, transportation taxes, the cost of med-ical care for patients with inadequate dental insurance, the impact of Wayne State University on Midtown Detroit, and the cost of aquatic invasive species to businesses and residents in Great Lakes states.

Mr. Rosaen holds a Masters in Public Policy from the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. He also has a Master of Science and a Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering from the University of Michigan. He has previously worked as a mechanical engineer for Williams International in Walled Lake, Michigan.

Anderson Economic Group, LLC C-2

Documents

The School Year Calendar and Tourism in Michigan MLTA School Year St… · Executive Summary Anderson Economic Group, LLC 3 We compared the room sales in the year after the PLDS implementation