My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSHP Covered Arena & Associated Build-Out-Cle Elum
>
Meetings
>
2017
>
06. June
>
2017-06-20 10:00 AM - Commissioners' Agenda
>
WSHP Covered Arena & Associated Build-Out-Cle Elum
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2018 3:26:32 PM
Creation date
1/16/2018 12:02:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting
Date
6/20/2017
Meeting title
Commissioners' Agenda
Location
Commissioners' Auditorium
Address
205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg
Meeting type
Regular
Meeting document type
Supporting documentation
Supplemental fields
Alpha Order
a
Item
Lodging Tax Large Scale Projects Presentations and Request to Consider the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee's Recommendation on the Tourism-Related, Large-Scale Municipality-Owned Capital Projects and Operations Grant Applications
Order
1
Placement
Board Discussion and Decision
Row ID
37453
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
133
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
Other Feasibility Studies <br />Of studies done of feasibility and/or impact of other horse parks,six are of particular <br />analytic merit:the feasibility and impact studies for the New Jersey,the Connecticut, <br />the Texas,and the Maryland horse parks,and the impact studies done on the Virginia <br />and the California horse park.Although the planned and actualized facilities for the <br />New Jersey horse park are considerably smaller that those planned for Washington <br />State,the general model of the study was considered substantive,as was the model for <br />the Connecticutstudy.Both are "bottom-up"studies;that is,they begin with estimates <br />of demand for the facility and estimatesof charges that can be made for horse park <br />services and proceed to project revenues,costs,and profits.Both studies entailed <br />surveys of regional facilities as a basis for estimating demand.It should be noted that <br />the intent of the Connecticut group was to build a facility suitablefor nationalevents, <br />whereas the New Jersey facility was intended primarily as a state and regional facility. <br />As for the impact componentsof existing studies,all are based upon a tallying of direct <br />impacts based upon counts of horseldays from which a number of measuresare <br />derived:number of persons attending(grooms,exhibitors,and spectators.)Direct <br />impacts are then calculated based upon the expenditures per day of participants.Some <br />of the studies conducted surveys to determine attendance per horse and spending <br />patterns,whereas others,given the close approximation of the survey results,chose to <br />use existing estimates.A similar differentiation among impact studies can be found in <br />the use of multipliersto estimate indirect iriipacts from direct impacts;indirect impacts <br />result from secondary spending by the recipients of horse park payrolls,expenditures, <br />expenditures by visitors,as well as from local linkages that provide inputs into the <br />purchases by the horse park and its visitors.The Virginia,Texas,Maryland,and <br />California studies used input-outputanalysis to derive these multipliers,whereas the <br />other studies used existing estimatesof rnultipliers,or did not estimateindirect impacts. <br />18
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.