Res-2018-197 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

through Five show the assumptions and output of each of the modeled scenarios. Scenario 1: This has our pessimistic estimate of the maximum number of horses, plateauing at 10,630 horse days per year. We begin with more than one third of this - 4000 horse days per year. We assume a low rate of growth; the park takes 8 years to achieve its maximum number of horse days. Revenue starts at $20 per horse. AJI scenarios start with the same assumption about costs, but since this model has few horses the initial cost per horse is quite high. With this scenario, the park never experiences profitability, and loses approximately half a million dollars per year. Scenario 2: This has the very most optimistic demand forecast; all 400 stalls rented for every weekend for 32 weekends, or 25,600 .horse days per year, and a rapid rate of growth to this number. Revenue starts at $30 per horse. Profitability is achieved by year six, and following this the facility has net revenues of around $150,000 per year. Scenario 3: This•scenario assumes a maximum of 17,717 horse days per year, $30 per horse.revenue, and $1.~0,000 per year of non-equestrian revenue. At its maximum number of horse days, the facility loses approximately $80 thousand per year. Scenario 4: This duplicates scenario 3, but instead of adding non-equestrian revenue, we raise the revenue per horse sufficiently to break even. At $42 per horse, the facility will ne~ approximately $15 thousand per year. This corresponds to stall receipts of $21 per horse. and corresponding fees for all other revenue sources (shavings, feed, etc.). We view Scenario 3 as the most likely outcome, with the reservation that the $100,000 in alternative revenue is far from certain. This scenario is consistent with the experience of the vast majority of horse parks around the country -it is very difficult to find any examples of horse parks that do not require continuing subsidies. 31