My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Res-2018-197
>
Meetings
>
2018
>
12. December
>
2018-12-04 10:00 AM - Commissioners' Agenda
>
Res-2018-197
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2018 10:00:00 AM
Creation date
12/11/2018 9:57:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting
Date
12/4/2018
Meeting title
Commissioners' Agenda
Location
Commissioners' Auditorium
Address
205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg
Meeting type
Regular
Meeting document type
Fully Executed Version
Supplemental fields
Alpha Order
o
Item
Request to Approve a Resolution for the 2019 Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Infrastructure Improvement Program Agreement with Washington State Horse Park Authority
Order
15
Placement
Consent Agenda
Row ID
49668
Type
Resolution
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
129
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).
View images
View plain text
Other Feasibility Studle& <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 stu~ies 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 ccmsidered substantive, as was the model for <br />the Connecticut study. Both are •·bottom-up" studies; that is, they begin with estimates <br />of demand for the faciJity and estimates of 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 suitable for national events, <br />whereas the New Jersey f~cility was intended primarily as a state and regional facility. <br />As for the Impact components of existing studies, all are based upon a tallying of direct <br />impacts based upon counts of horse/days from which a number of measures are <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 detem,ine 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 ~tudles can be found in <br />the use of multipliers to estimate indirect impacts 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.output analysis to derive these multipliers. whereas the <br />other studies used existing estimates of multipliers, or did not-estimate Indirect impacts. <br />18
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.