HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes-2018-197BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF KITTITAS
STATE OF WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO: 2018-_J_C, 1-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE 2019 DISTRESSED COUNTY SALES AND USE TAX
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON
STATE HORSE PARK AUTHORITY
WHEREAS: The 1999 Legislature did pass RCW 82.14.370 Sales and Use Tax for Public
Facilities in rural counties; and
WHEREAS: These funds are for the purpose of financing Public Facilities which are defined as
bridges, roads, domestic and industrial water facilities, sanitary sewer facilities,
earth stabilization, storm sewer facilities, railroad, electricity, natural gas,
buildings, structures, telecommunications infrastructure, transportation
infrastructure or commercial infrastructure and port facilities in the State of
Washington; and
WHEREAS : The 2019 Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Infrastructure Improvement Program
Agreement with Washington State Horse Park Authority has been executed by said
entity with funding available January 1, 2019; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners
hereby approves the attached 2019 Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Infrastructure Improvement
Program Agreement with Washington State Horse Park Authority.
ADOPTED this 4th day of December, 2018.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Attest:
)2rClerk of the Board-Julie Kjorsvik
Obie O'Brien, Vice-Chairman
,,,,1\ 1\1 II IJ I/ lit I 'J,I
, ,,,''\; .. ?. ...... !; t;r, ,'-;.lerk of the Board-Mandy ~ Bchholz .
" c~ .. · .. o •;, . . /,,, ' =: i u ... ...-~ ···1;VJ;1J-u rtyLK:__J _2 __ _
~ C l !, L r ~ Cory Wright, Commissioner -,. ----.. --:;_,,•. --:~:: ~~\. . .. o g % 1'.s, ·•... . ...... ~ ~ ~ .....
~,I' q,Uln ................ ,(":_ -~ .,_;;:,..
,,,, "'V , ~ , ..... 'I,,, J ,,'-''
'"'"'"""''''
2019 DISTRESSED COUNTY SALES AND USE TAX INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT
BETWEEN KITTITAS COUNTY AND WASHINGTON STATE HORSE PARK
AUTHORITY
This Contract, dated f)e C •. 4 ' 2018 is made and entered into by and
between KITTITAS COUNTY ("County"), a subdivision of the State of Washington, and
WASHINGTON STATE HORSE PARK AUTHORITY ("Funding Recipient").
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is to provide for public facility
construction and foster economic development opportunities within Kittitas County;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein,
or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, the County and the Funding
Recipient mutually agree as follows:
Section 1. Scope of Work .
a. Funding Recipient shall provide the services and staff described in its Application
for Funds submitted to the Council of Governments, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference .
b. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement, Funding Recipient shall
furnish the following as required to perform the services, described in Paragraph (a)
above, in accordance with this Agreement: Personnel, labor and supervision ;
technical , professional and other services. All such services , property and other
items furnished or required to be furnished, together with all other obligations
performed , or required to be performed, by Funding Recipient under this Agreement
are collectively referred to herein as "Services."
Section 2 . Payment.
a. As full compensation for satisfactory performance of the Funding Recipient Services,
the County agrees to pay Funding Recipient the sum of three hundred fifty thousand
dollars ($350,000).
b. Additional payment terms: The County will make payment to the Funding Recipient
only on a reimbursement basis, as receipts for any items including marketing and/or ,<
advertising are submitted to the County .
c. Requests for reimbursements must be submitted to:
Kittitas County Public Works
Attn : Joyce White
411 North Ruby , -Suite 1
Ellensburg , WA 98926
joyc·e. whlte@co. kittitas . wa . us
Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Infrastructure Improvement Program Funding Agreement
Pagel
d . Reporting requirements of your events will be required on prescribed forms from the
Kittitas County Public Works Department.
Section 3. Performance by Funding Recipient.
a. Funding Recipient shall not (by contract, operation of law or otherwise) delegate or
subcontract performance of any Services to any other person or entity without the
prior written consent of the County . Any such delegation or subcontracting without
the County 's prior written consent shall be voidable at the County's option.
b. Funding Recipient shall at all times be an independent Funding Recipient and not an
agent or representative of the County with regard to performing the Services.
Funding Recipient shall not represent that it is, or hold itself out as, an agent or
representative of the County. In no event shall Funding Recipient be authorized to
enter into any Agreement or undertaking for or on behalf of the County. It is
understood that the Funding Recipient and the Funding Recipient's staff and
employees are not employees of the County and are not, therefore, entitled to any
benefits provided employees of the County .
c. Funding Recipient shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules,
regulations , orders, licenses, permits, and other requirements, now or hereafter in
effect, of any governmental authority (including, but not limited to, such requirements
as may be imposed upon the County and applicable to Services). Funding Recipient
shall furnish such documents as may be required to effect or evidence such
compliance. All laws, ordinances, rules, and orders required to be incorporated into
agreements of this character are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference .
Funding Recipient agrees to obtain all required licenses and permits, and further
agrees to keep them in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement.
d. The County and the Funding Recipient agree that in fulfilling the terms and
conditions of this Agreement neither shall discriminate on the basis of race, creed,
color, national origin, age, sex, marital status, or the presence of a physical, sensory,
or mental handicap.
e. The Services shall at all times be subject to inspection by and approval of the
County, but the County's making (or failure or delay in making) such inspection or
approval shall not relieve Funding Recipient of its responsibility to perform the
Services in accord with this Agreement, notwithstanding the County's knowledge of
defective or non-complying performance, or the substantiality or ease of discovering
the same. Funding Recipient shall provide the County with sufficient, safe, and
proper facilities and equipment for such inspection and free access to such facilities .
f. This contract is subject to review by any Federal or State auditor. Funding Recipient
shall promptly furnish the County or its designee, or such Federal or State auditor
with such information related to the Services as may be requested by the applicable
governmental entity. Funding Recipient shall preserve and maintain all financial
records and records relating to performance of Services under this Agreement for six
(6) years after contract termination . For such duration after the County makes final
payment of compensation due hereunder, Funding Recipient shall provide the
County access to (and the County shall have the right to examine, audit and copy ,
Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Infrastructure Improvement Program Funding Agreement •,
Pagel
with or without notice) all of Funding Recipient's books, documents, papers and
records related to the Services or this Agreement.
g. Funding Recipient understands and acknowledges that Funding Recipient is solely
responsible for its own reporting and accounting of all state, federal, social security, and
local taxes, of every nature, arising from Funding Recipient's performance of this
Agreement. All compensation received by the Funding Recipient will be reported to the
Internal Revenue Service at the end of the calendar year in accord with the applicable
IRS regulations.
Section 4. Release, Indemnity, and Ho'ld Harmless.
The County assumes no liability for the Funding Recipient's actions under this Agreement.
Funding Recipient releases and shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County, its
officers and employees, agents, representatives, attorneys and/or volunteers, from and
against all claims, costs, liabilities, damages, and expenses, (including, but not limited to,
reasonable attorney fees) which arise or may arise or be alleged to arise out of or by
reason of this Agreement including:
• Any fault, negligence, strict liability or product liability of Funding Recipient in
connection with the Services for this Agreement;
• Any lien asserted upon any property of the County in connection with the Services
for this Agreement;
• Any failure of Funding Recipient, or of the Services, to comply with any applicable
law, ordinance, rule, regulation, order, license, permit and other requirement, now or
hereafter in effect, of any governmental authority; or
• Any breach of or default under this Agreement by Funding Recipient.
Section 5. Compliance with Public Records Law.
a. In compliance with Washington's public records law, the County will retain copies of
any documents associated with this Agreement, which may be required by law
unless legally exempt from such retention, for any applicable legally required
retention period.
b. In the event a public records request is made to the County for documents created in
relation to this Agreement, should legal uncertainty arise regarding the disclosability
of any documents under federal or state public records laws, the County shall
provide notice to Funding Recipient pursuant to Washington's public records act,
chapter 42.56 RCW, to allow Funding Recipient to seek a court injunction.
c. The County specifically shall not be liable to Funding Recipient for the County's
release under public records laws of any documents not protected by trademark,
copyright or other law.
Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Infrastructure Improvement Program Funding Agreement
Page3
Section 6. Industrial Insurance Waiver.
With respect to performance of this Agreement and as to any claims against the County, its
Additional Insureds, officers, agents and employees, the Funding Recipient expressly waives
its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington, the Industrial Insurance Act,
for injuries to Funding Recipient's employees and agrees that the obligations to indemnify,
defend and hold harmless provided in this Agreement extend to any claim brought by or on
behalf of any employee of the Funding Recipient. This waiver is mutually negotiated by the
parties to this Agreement.
Section 7. Insurance and Endorsements.
a. The County may require through a request in writing that the Funding Recipient '>(
provide the County with a certificate, binder, or policy of liability insurance,
acceptable to the County in an amount specified by the County.
b. Such liability insurance shall be such as will protect Funding Recipient, its
employees, agents and representatives, from all claims, losses, harm, costs,
liabilities, damages and expenses arising out of personal injury (including death) or
property damage that may result from performance of the Services or this
Agreement, whether such performance is by Funding Recipient or any of its
employees, agents or representatives.
c. Should the County require such liability insurance, the Funding Recipient agrees to
provide proof of insurance prior to commencing performance of this Agreement.
d. Copies of the County's written request and the insurance documents provided by
Funding Recipient shall be attached to this Agreement and by this reference will be
made part hereof.
e. Where insurance is requested by the County, all liability insurance policies shall be t(
endorsed to include the County as an Additional Insured and shall stipulate that the
insurance afforded by the policies shall be primary insurance, and that any
insurance, self-insured retention, deductibles, or risk retention trusts maintained or
participated in by the Parties shall be excess and not contributory to any other
insurance maintained by the County. Funding Recipient shall furnish the County a
certificate of insurance with Endorsement as evidence that the required policies are
in full force and effect.
Section 8. Termination.
The County may, by written notice thereof to Funding Recipient, terminate this Agreement k
as to all or any portion of the Services not yet performed, whether or not Funding Recipient
is in breach or default. Upon receiving such notice of termination, Funding Recipient shall,
except as otherwise directed by the County, immediately stop performing the Services to
the extent specified in the notice. In the event the County terminates the Funding
Recipient's Services, the Funding Recipient is obligated and hereby agrees to refund to the
County all monies paid for Services not yet rendered by the Funding Recipient, if any, as of
the date of the notice of termination.
Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Infrastructure Improvement Program Funding Agreement
Page4
Section 9. Miscellaneous.
a. Funding Recipient shall not (by contract, operation of law or otherwise) assign this
Agreement or any right or interest in this Agreement without the County's prior
written consent.
b. This Agreement embodies the entire Agreement between the County and Funding
Recipient, and supersedes any and all prior oral or written communications, proposals ,
conditions, promises, representations , or understandings regarding the Services . No
change, amendment or modification of any provision of this Agreement shall be valid
unless set forth in a written amendment to the Agreement signed by both parties.
c. Notice for any purpose under this Agreement, except service of process, shall be
given by the Funding Recipient to the Kittitas County Commissioners and the Kittitas
County Public Works Director, 411 North Ruby, Suite 1, Ellensburg, WA 98926. For all
purposes under this Agreement, any notice by the County to the Funding Recipient
shall be given to the Funding Recipient's address provided on the signature page .
Notice may be given by delivery or by depositing in the U.S. Mail , first class , postage
prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested.
d. The section and paragraph headings of this Agreement are for reference
convenience only and are not intended to restrict, affect or be of any weight in
interpreting or construing the provisions of such sections or paragraphs.
e. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts and by facsimile,
each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one
and the same instrument.
f. Funding Recipient warrants to the County that the individual signing on Funding
Recipient's behalf has the requisite power and authority to enter into and to perform
Funding Recipient's obligations under this Agreement. Funding Recipient further
warrants to the County that Funding Recipient has made no misrepresentation or
misleading statement in connection with this Agreement, and is not in violation of any
applicable law, ordinance, or regulation the consequence of which will or may
materially affect Funding Recipient 's ability to perform its obligations under this
Agreement.
g. If any term or condition of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person(s) or
circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other terms, conditions
or applications which can be given effect without the invalid term, condition or
application. To this end, the terms and conditions of this Agreement are declared
severable .
h. The exclusive venue for any action brought to enforce this Agreement or any of its
terms shall be in Kittitas County, State of Washington .
. Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Infrastructure Improvement Program Funding Agreement ,·
Pages
KITTITAS COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Obie O 'Brien, V ice-Chair
6(2-c=
Cory Wright, Commissioner
Dated: Dec,. +, 1-1z1g
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
WASHINGTON STATE HORSE
PARK AUTHORITY
Rep re sentative
Y'!S th?
9o Bo\i t17<t
Address C-Lt 1"UJ./l1, hf A-'1 Y1 '2..2._
-g-77 ~ & j)-l/{( J
Telephone
Dated : (I -.l.1--IY
Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Infrastructure Improvement Program Funding Agreement
Page6
Kittitas County
Department of Public Works
DISTRESSED COUNTY SALES AND USE TAX INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM APPUCATION
The Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Infrastructure Improvement Program supports
improvements to infrastructure systems that foster economic development in Kittitas
County. The goal is to create economic opportunity through infrastructure investment
APPLICANT INFORMATION: V
Applicant: .,
JUL 1 ·1 2018
Contact Name:
Washington State Horse Park Authority
Leslie Thurston, Executive Director
POBox278
KITTITAS COUNTY
DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS Address:
City:
Telephone:
Cle Elum
877-635-4111
WA Zip: 98922
FAX:N/A
Email Address: director@wahorsepark.org
1202 Douglas Munro Blvd. Project Location:
Cle Elum, WA 98922 Jurisdiction Population: 1,890
Project Title: Washington State Hone Park Covered Arena and Associated
Build-Out
APPLICATION THRESHOLDS:
Applicant
Check-
Off
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Requirement
1. The project is improvement to an infrastructure system(s) linked to economic development
2. A detailed 8 1/2 X 11" vicinity map that clearly shows the project is included in the
application package
3. Distressed County Funds ere not being substituted for other funds that are already secured.
4. The Project involves traditional improvements instead of "nontraditional" improvements
eligible for "Enhancement" funding
5. Applicant has submitted only one application this round.
6. The local/regional economic development organization has been informed of the project
Washington State Horse Park Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Grant Application pgl/25
PROJECT BUDGET
FUNDING SOURCES Prellmlnary Right of Way Construction Is Funding
Engineering Phase Phase Project Total Sec~ed?
Distressed C.OOntv Funds Requ~sted
$ 400,000 $ . s . $ 4QO,OOO $ 400,000 N
Other Federal:
$ -$ -$ -$ -rs -
State Blennlal (apital Budget
$ 2,000,000 $ -$ . s 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 V
State RCO Grant
$ 350,000 $ 350,000 ,. $ 350,000 N
Local Government (County Lodging Tax)
$ 1,500,000 $ -$ -$ 1,soo,000 rs 1,500,000 N
Local Government {City Lodging Tax)
$ 30,000 $ 30,000 rs 30,000 N
Private (Private Fundralslng)
$ 200,000 $ -$ -$ 315,aoo r$ 315,000 VS0%
•other ,(Corporate Spensorships)
$ 125,000 $ -$ -$ 1is,ooo rs 125,000 V40%
"'Other (ln -KJ nd)
$ 160,000 $ -$ . s 1so,ooo rs 160,000 V
*Other (Distressed County Funds 2015)
$ 60,000 $ 60,000 rs 60,000 V
Project Total $ 60,000 $ -$ 4,880,000 $ 4,940,000
Distressed County Fund Matchlrn! Ratio 0 0 43'6 44%
Please Explain Other Type of Funding: Local Funding Includes: Distressed County Funds grant 2015, In Kind, Corporate
Sponsorshlos, Private Fundralslng, Otv and Countv Lod~in~ Tax C3i)Jtal Grants
Washington State Horse Park Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Grant Application pg2/25
PROJECT NARRATIVE
• Project Description: Describe the scope of work. Indicate the major work Involved, Including a
brief comparison of existing and propo1ed co.oditions.
The Washin~n State Horse Parle Authority ("the Authority'') is a 50l(c)3 nonprofit corporation whose
mission is to develop, promote, operat.e, manage and maintain a first-class horse park facility in
accordance with RCW 79A.30, which passed 1995. Subsequently the Authority obtained lend and
funding to develop the initial revenue-generating facilities for the Washington State Horse Park in Cle
Elum, Kittitas County, Washington: The Park held its first event in 2010 and has been self-sustaining
since that time. However, its ability to satisfy current customer needs, serve a broader range of horse
sport disciplines and host larger events is limited because all of its existing riding facilities are outdoors
while many event organizers require protection ftom the weather.
This project seeks $400,000 from the Kittitas Comity Distressed County Sales and Use Tax
Infrastructure Improvement Program to oonstruct a $4.9 million Covered Arena and Associated
Build-Out (oovered arena, not an enclosed arena) at the Washington State Horse Pm for the purpose of
public equine competitions and training events, recreational riding and other uses.
Background: In 1995, the State legislature passed RCW 79A.30 (recodified 67.18 ) to create the
Washington State Horse Parle Authority. The legislation directed the Authority to establish "3) a first-
class horse parlc facility in Washington to meet the important needs of the state's horse industry, attract
investment, enhance recreational opportunities, and bring new exh.toitors and tourists to the state from
throughout the region and beyond; and 4) A unique opportunity exists to fonn a partnership between
state, oounty and private interest to create a major horse park facility that will provide public rea-eational
opportunities and statewide economic and employment benefits." Upper Kittitas County was selected as
the location for the Horse Parle when suitable wooded acreage was donated by Suncadia LLC for the
purpose of developing a horse park. The 112-acre site is conveniently located off 1-90 at 1202 Douglas
Munro Blvd in the city of Cle Elwn. This location met requirements determined by earlier studies for a
horse park facility, including good highway access and a dry climate. The City took ownership of the
donated property and entered into a 99-year lease with the Authority.
Legislative support continued with appropriation of $3.5 million in the 2007-2009 capital budget for
Phase I oonstruction of the Horse Park. That work included design, development, permitting end
engineering components, as well as site clearing, road grading, utility improvements and initial arenas
and stabling to begin hosting activities and generating revenues. Ground was broken in March 2010 and
the first event took place in August of that year. In an Oct 12, 2009 posting on houserepublicans.wa.gov,
then Rep. Judy Warnick (now Sen. Judy Warnick, 13th Legislative District) included in the list of reasons
for her support: "Most of all, these facilities will help the local economy and provide much-needed
jobs."
This view by the legislators was reinforced in 2018 when the State Biennial Capital Budget was approved
with $2.0 million in support of the WA State Horse Park Covered Arena and Associated Build-Out
project. The bill passed both the House and Senate unanimously.
Construction of the Horse Pm has been divided into three phases. Phase I was oom.pleted when the Perk
opened for business. Its cost of $3 .5 million to develop the initial infrastructure and oompetition facilities
was funded by the state legislature in the 2007-2009 capital budget. Phase II, which expands upon those
basic amenities, has been ongoing since that time and includes acquisition of equipment, horse stalls,
bleacher seating, electricity extensions, cattle pens, jumps and fencing, etc. as well as development of a
Washington State Horse Perk Distrcsaed County Sales and Use Tax Grant Application pg3/2S
fomth arena, cross country courses, competitive trail obstacle course, etc. The Park is now ready to
initiate Phase Ill which includes this project (a covered arena) plus associated items and buildout of
amenities to attract and host major regional, national and international competitions.
The Covered Arena itself will comprise the following featmes:
• The competition arena is 150 feet x 300 feet.
• A 25-foot wide ''porch" wraps around the arena, resulting in a building that is 200 feet in width and
350 feet in length.
• Features of the porch:
-Floor level of the porch is the same as the competition arena, so gates can be placed to enter the
arena at any location.
-Portable seating can be placed at any location in the porch, depending on the needs of the event.
-Judges stands can be placed at any location in the porch, depending on the needs of the event.
-The porch can be used for competition wann up and to protect the horse and rider from adverse
weather while waiting to compete.
-The porch protects the competition space from direct sunlight and from rain.
Roll-down mesh screens can be installed at select locations at the outer wall of the porch (portions
at north and west) to protect from wind. These can be motorized and controlled from a single
location.
Eave height of the porch is 16 feet, so horses can enter at any location.
-The porch can be used for storage of event equipment
-Vendors, concessionaries and hospitality areas can be conveniently staged within the porch area.
• Lighting the Arena
-The eave height around the entire structure is 16 feet so light arrives evenly from all sides.
-A translucent panel skylight at the ridge balances the lighting for the arena.
-Lighting would be provided for night events.
• GableEnds
-The gable ends above the wraparound porch are solid, providing space on the outside for the
arena logo and name and on the inside for scoreboards and advertising.
-Air vents and/or mechanical circulation may be placed in the end gables if needed.
• Structure and Materials
-The entire structure is prefabricated steel, including the porch.
-Building footings are concrete with ties under the arena floor.
-Roofing and siding materials are metal.
Providing shade and weather protection for both participants and spectators will not only enhance the
user experience, it will also expand the Horse Park's calendar by affording more months of operation and
attracting more diversified equine acti~ties, e.9pecially '~A" rated equestrian competitions, thereby
increasing revenues and visitor volumes. Currently these activities are hosted at fairgrounds and private
venues across the State with covered or indoor arenas. Many equestrian event organizers have expressed
their strong interest in holding large shows at more modem and conducive facilities as the Park
represents.
Below is an artist's rendering of the planned covered arena without the screens down. The arena is
intended to be a bright and airy structure that will be inviting for horses and riders, and preserve the sense
of place of the Park's woodland setting.
Washington State Horse Parle Distressed County SBles and Use Tax Grant Application pg4/25
The land where the covered arena will he built is currently lightly wooded, smrounded by graveled
parking and roadways, and bas utilities (water, electric and sewer) adjacent to it There ere no
impediments to moving forward with the project once funding is secured.
2. Explain the specific infrastructure issues the project addresses and how they are linked to
economic development Improvements.
The project is cited as a high priority strategic objective of the Kittitas County Tourism Infrastructure
Plan (Action S: Recreational Tourism) and the Kittitas County Parks and Recreation Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) 2016--see attachment.
A Covered Arena was identified as a key facility as early as 1991 in the first Washington State Horse
Park feasibility study, which was funded by the Washington State Department of Community
Development. Recreation and Showing/Competition comprise 71% of US horse usage (source: AHCF
2005). This segment is different from the SCORP segment of equine activity, which is limited to trail
riding.
The project addresses the economic vitality that results from building infrastructme for recreational
tourism. Upper Kittitas County was ultimately selected as the site for the Horse Park when suitable land,
valued at $5 million, was donated by Suncadia. It also met the requirements determined by earlier studies
that the site have good highway access and a drier climate. With funding from the state legislature in
1986, the Washington State Department of Agriculture completed a study recommending the creation of
an equestrian center to '~omote and serve the recreatlonal hone industry in the state and provide
economic benefits through equine activities. (*FFEI-WSHP p.3 App IV) In 1995, the state legislature
passed RCW 67.18 (recodified 79A.30}, to create the framework for the facility, authorizing the Horse
Park Authority to establish "3) a first-class horse park facility in W asbington to meet the important needs
of the state's horse industry, attract investment, enhance recreational opportuniti.~. and bring new
exhibiton and tourists to the state from throughout the region and beyond; and 4) A unique
opportunity exists to form a partnenhlp between state, county and private Interest to create a major
horse park facility that will provide public recreational opportunities and statewide economic and
employment benefits."
Washington State Horse Park Distressed County Sales and Gse Tax GJ'Bllt Application pg5/25
The covered arena has always been part of the Horse Park's development master plan, and the City of Cle
Elum Master Plan.
The Washington State Horse Park Covered Arena promotes the following goals and priorities of the
Kittitas County Tourism Infrastructure Plan (see Exhibit I):
• Goal I: Develop integrity of pl~ This project will enhance Kittitas County's character by
developing and improving the venue in distinctive ways to differentiate Kittitas County from other
areas and to engender local community pride. In addition to bringing international caliber
competitions to the area, many equestrian event organizers have expressed their strong interest in
holding some of their large shows at a different, more modem and conducive venue. This market
opportunity represents approximately 40 new and expanded medium-to-large size competitions that
potentially could be hosted at the Horse Park. Local economic impact is estimated at $4.5 to $5.5
million.
• Goal 11: Interpret interactively-The WA State Horse Park Covered Arena and Associated Build-out
will attract and engage a unique segment of visitors, representing some 25-30,000 overnight stays.
These visitors will learn about other recreational assets of Kittitas County, thereby gaining a richer
experience and helping residents develop pride in their locale. The Park's beautiful woodland setting,
system of trails, competition facilities and horse-specific operations make it a unique facility in the
county and the state.
• Preliminary Engineering Phase:
Estimated Start Date: Site Preparation/Engineering 2016 Estimated End Date: 2019
Please explain phase status (work already completed, in progress, awaiting funding, etc. and
facton that may slow phase progress).
In 2016, funded by a Distressed County Sales and Use Tu: Infrastructure Improvement
Program grant of $60,000, project design and engineering began and this preliminary phase is now
completed. Working with affected horse community leaders and a professional design consultant,
Parle management invested significant time and attention to defining the right location and overall
specifications for the covered arena. Preliminary engineering and cost estimates .of the steel structure
were developed by a nationally known manufacturer. The arena location is depicted as 'Arena 1 ', on
the attached Master Plan.
4. Right of Way Phase: Is It Required? Yes: X No:
Please explain phase status (work already completed, In progress, awaiting funding, etc., and
facton that may slow phase progress).
The WA State Horse Park has engaged in talks with New Suncadia LLC to obtain an 8-acre parcel for
the purpose of additional parking at the site. The estimated cost of the land is $150,000 included in
the project cost. This parcel is not a "go/no-go" requirement of the project, but is considered in its
scope.
Washington State Horse Park Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Grant Application pg6/25
5. Construction Phase:
Esdmsted Start Date: Fall 2018 Estimated End Date: 2019
Please explain phase status (work already completed, in progress, awaiting funding, etc., and
factors that may slow phase progress).
The project is phased to meet funding requirements of the State, to speed the erection of the facility itself
with minim.al amenities to start events. Additional amenities, relocation of maintenance facilities,
additional seating, and other aspects of the project await confirmation of additional funding.
Below are details of the costs associated with Phases I and II of the project:
Covered Arena Project Expenses
Real ProDertvor "Riaht-o~WIIY" Acqullltlon Cost C.pltal A•t Cost
.Acciulsltlon of8-ecre parcel from New Suncadla LLCfor parkin1 $150,000 $150,000
Capital Asset Cost:
Covered Arena Construction Cost or "Hard" Costs lOTAL Phase I Phase II
Site Preparation and drainage $65,000 $65,000
Metal building ($28.50/sfx 60,000 sf) $1,710,000 $1,710,000
Porch at sable ends ($24/sfx 9,600 sf) $230,400 $230,400
Foundations $185,000 $185 000
Meehan I cal $35,000 $35,000
Electrlcal and engineering $250,000 $250,000
Fencing $50,000 $50,000
Arena footl ng $200,000 $200,000
Translucent panels (skvl lght) $450 000 $450,000
Landscapin1 $40,000 $25,000 $15 000
Portable bleachers $60,000 $60,000
Weather screens $55,000 $55,000
Restrooms $200,000 $200,000
Additional ~arking land-clearlngand construction $75,000 s1s,00Q
Relocation of maintenance area (utilities, landclearlng, site development) S1s5oon ~, c;r; nnn
Subtotal $3,761,400 $3,356,400 $405,000
Conti nency (5") $188,070 $167,820 $20,250
WSST(8%) $315,958 $281,938 $34,020
Total Construction $4,265,428 $3,806,158 $459,270
Soft Costs
3%AdministrativeCoston $2.0MM state funding $60,000 $60,000
Project Mana1ement $100,000 $60,000 $40,000
Permit Fees $15,000 $15,000
Architectural and Structural Design Fees ti:;n_ooo
-
c~n nnn ~,o ooo
Total Soft Costs $225,000 $165,000 $60,000
'Total Project Costs $4,640,428 $3,971,158 $669,270
A combination of private and corporate donations and public funding sources will fimd the project.
These, too, are phased to ( a) fast-traek the building of the arena itself and (b) accommodate grant
application and funding timing miuirements.
Washington State Horse Park Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Onmt Application pg7/25
6. Indicate H the project is consistent with the following applicable state, regional and local plans
and prioritization processes:
x Overall Economic Development Plan -Officially Adopted: June 2013
Yakima and Kittitas (Ki-Yak) Counties Regional Comprehensive Economic Development Plan is
dated June 1, 2013. The Washington State Horse Park is one of 11 ventures noted on page 42
under Strategic Projects -Key Investments and Projects Supporting a Strong Regional
Economy as having ''helped boost the region's economic fortunes.,,
X Comprehensive Land Use Plan -Officially Adopted: 2006
The City of Cle Elum Comprehensive Land Use Plan was adopted in 2006. The Horse Park is
noted within the City's Urban Growth Area (UGA) and is listed specifically on page 10 of
Chapter 2, Table-4 "Proposed Land Use" in the inventory of active parks. (Exhibit III, attached)
• Capital Facility Plan -Offkially Adopted Not applicable
• Community Action Plan (or other community-based plan -Officially Adopted Not
applicable
• Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan -Officially Adopted Not am>licable
• Site-specific development plans; e.g. Community Master Plan -Officially Adopted Not
applicable
x Other: Economic Development Strategic Plan-Offlclally adopted July 2009
The Economic Development Strategic Plan 1.0 sponsored by the Kittitas County Economic
Development Group was published by TIP Strategies and dated July 2009. The complete report is
available from the Kittitas County Chamber of Commerce office in Ellensburg. The report lists
Recreational Tourism as the third strategy for economic growth. Working closely with EDG, the
resulting "Strength-Weakness-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) Report lists "Build on recreational
tourism opportunities in the county and surrounding region" as Goal 3 ( of 6). "Tourism should be an
essential component of any economic development plan for a region with Kittitas County's
transportation access and natural featmes." The long-standing annual Ellensburg Rodeo and Kittitas
County Fair are listed as examples because each meets the s~dard of being a "mechanism. for
capturing retail sales dollars."
X Other: Kittitas County Parks and Recreation Open Space/Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
Officially Adopted 1016
The WA State Horse Park Covered Arena and Associated Buildout is listed as a High Priority
strategic objective of the plan, approved by the Kittitas County Board of Commissioners in 2016.
(Exhibit II, attached)
X Other: Kittitas County Tourism Infrastructure Plan--Offlclally Adopted March 2016
Authored by the Consolidated Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, which represents all four Lodging
Tax Advisory Committees in the County (Council Member Spears served, representing the City of
Cle Elum Lodging Tax Committee) this planning process included multiple public workshops and
forums in Cle Elum and Ellensburg, on-line and hand-back surveys of over a thousand tourists, and
meetings with local recreational groups. Adopted in March 2016 by the Board of County
Washington State Horse Parle Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Grant Application pg8/25
Commissioners, the plan lists the WA State Horse Park Covered Arena as a high priority strategic
objective.
X Other: 2018 State Biennial Capital Budget-Officially Adopted May 2018
A $2.0 million appropriation for the WA State Horse Park Covered Arena and Associated Build-Out
project was included in the budget, passed by both the Senate and the House, and approved
unanimously.
7. Explain how this infrastructure project hat been coordinated, or will be coordinated with other
Jurl1dlcdons, such as counties, cities, state/federal agencies, and with economic development
organizations during planning, design, financing, construction and/or operation phases.
Coordination has been the bedrock of Horse Park since 1986 when the Washington State Legislature
appropriated funds to the Washington State Department of Agriculture for investigation of the
economic impact of Washington's horse industry. The study recommended such a facility to promote
and serve the recreational horse industry in the state and ''provide economic benefits through equine
activities." (See FFEI-WSHP App IV, pg3). Co-ordination continued in 1991 with $200 thousand of
state funding for an e.questrian planning study. It was codified in 1995 with the passage ofRCW
67.18 (recodified 79A.30) to "establish a first-class horse park facility in Washington to meet the
important needs of the state's horse industry, attract investment, enhance recreational opportunities,
and bring new exhibitors and tourists to the state from throughout the region and beyond." The RCW
even speaks to the importance of continued interaction noting "a unique opportunity exists to form a
partnership between state, county, and private interests to create a major horse park facility that will
provide public recreation opportunities and statewide economic and employment benefits.
The RCW also established the Washington Horse Park Authority, a nonprofit corporation directed by
volunteer board members who are appointed by the governor and must be from across the state, and
experienced in the business side of horse shows and events. One member must represent the
WaBhington State Parks and Recreation Commission and another the local interest of the community
where the Horse Park is located (based on recommendations from County Commissioners). The
Board currently comprises eleven members who represent a over 300 years of oombined experience
in a range of horse disciplines: four members are full-time trainers, seven members C\ll'relltly ride
horse themselves. The Horse Park Authority actively seeks to fill Board positions with individuals
who can help the Horse Parle continue to expand its user base and facilities. More information is
available under Governance at wahorsepark.org.
At its May 27, 2014 City Council Meeting, City of Cle Elum Council members voted unanimously
for a resolution "Supporting the Application for Distressed County Sales Tax Funding for the Design,
Engineerin& and Pennitting of a Covered Arena for the Washington State Horse Park, located in Cle
Elum" (Exhibit IV),
The Washington State Horse Park has been awarded a total of over $200 thousand in eight
consecutive-year grants by the Kittitas County Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (and, most
recently, the Consolidated Kittitas County Lodging Tax Advisory Committee), approved by the
Board of Commissioners, in recognition of the Horse Park's value as an economic driver for tourism
efforts in Kittitas County.
The Kittitas County Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee (EDC) recognizes
the Horse Park plays to the strengths and opportunities of Kittitas County that were defined in the TIP
Strategies report (noted in Item 6) and the facility will be a valuable aid in developing Recreational
Wa~on State Horse Park Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Grant Application pg9/2S
Tourism, one of 6 goals cited. EDC is willing and able to assist whenever and however it is called on
to do so.
Last but not least, members of the Park's Authority Board serve in a variety of important roles at the
State and County levels: Senator Judy Warnick and Representative Tom Dent ensme the Perle's
projects and operations are connected as needed with State agencies and resources; Steve Brand
serves on the Board as the representative from the State Parks and Recreation Commission; Victor
Woodward is the Park's Advisory Board representative on the Consolidated Kittitas County Lodging
tax Advisory Committee; and Mitch Williams serves on the Technical Review Team for the new
Lodge Tax Large Capital Projects program. In addition, the Horse Park's Executive Director
participates in the County Chamber's Tourism Committee, and coordinates with local businesses and
community leaders to expand tourism opportunities in the County.
8. Explain how the infrastructure project wUl help meet the economic development goals of your
community and/or region. If.this project Is not done, will the anticipated private development
still take place?
Attracting new visitors to the Horse Park will create opportunities for a positive first impression of
the local community that can build tourism loyalty and word-of-mouth interest in the area as the
rightful gateway to recreational pursuits. The full realization of the Horse Park's potential economic
impact will rely heavily on the ability of the City of Cle Elum, the Town of South Cle Elwn, and City
of Roslyn to continue to develop acceptable, attractive lodging and tourism experiences for visitors of
the Horse Park.
The chart below summarizes the user metrics and economic impact of the Horse Park from 2014 to
date and projected forward to 2022. From 2014-17 the measurement process includes gathering zip
codes from all Park users, on-site surveys, the Dean Runyan Report provided by Washington Tourism
Alliance, and discussion with event organizers. (1bis exhibit only includes event visitors and not
recreational riders who are far less numerous and largely local.) For events, the number and zip codes
for all participants are supplied by each event organizer; this base data is then multiplied by 1.5 to 3
depending on tile type of group to project total attendees [Central Washington University conducted
an economic study in 2006 of over 40 horse parks across tbe country. The CWU findings estimate 3
people (including trainers, grooms, family, spectators, staff, volunteers, vendors, etc.) attend an event
for each horse/participant, and that assumption seems reasonable for many groups based on our
experience managing the Park to-date.]
This chart reflects strong but slowing growth because our largest shows have reached the capacity of
the Park until we add more arena space, our limited ability to attract more events without a covered
competition arena, and a short operating season from May-September due to the risks of bad weather.
However, we've been gratified to find that just the anticipation of a covered arena coming soon has
sparked renewed interest in the Park and brought in a few new events.
The chart also projects the measurable objectives and economic impact of the Park, with significant
increases expected to occur in 2020 and beyond due almost exclusively to completion and impacts of
the Covered Arena and Associated Build-Out.
Washington State Horse Park Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Grant Application pgl0/25
Event Visitor Traffic and Economic Contribution
. ;
2022
Projected lncrememal
Event Metrics 2014 2015 2016 2017 1'lth Economic Benefit
Coveted of Covered Arena
1 ... 1 .... 1 .... : ... i .. Arena l .... .....
Total nmnber of different events 39 38 39 45 65 20
No. V1Sitors 17,246 24,827 30,163 29.519 52,047 22,528
Vmton. resiliog ottsi:le Kittitas 93% 88% 95% 96% 70% NIA Couotv
Day V1ttors--non-Iocal 5,201 6,877 7,277 5.474 13,407 7,933
Total visitors ovanigbbl--non-Jocal 10,294 13,351 22,467 22,864 41.S49 18,685
Visitors ovemigbt--not in paid 1,544 2,003 3,370 3,430 6,222 2,792 lodmruz
Visitors ovemigbt--in paid hdgiog 8,750 11,348 19,097 19,434 35,327 15,893
No. LodmmrRooms Booked S,833 7,566 12,731 12,956 23.552 10S95
Overall Economic Impact ofvism $1,189,986 $1,543,376 $2,597,185 $2,643,078 $4,804,526 $2,161,448
Number ofJobs Created 19 25 42 42 77 35
Hotel/Motel Spending $464,095 $601,916 $1 012,902 $1,030,801 $1,873,765 $842,965
Lodl!in~ Tax Re-.enues t'@.4% $18,564 $24077 $40,516 $41.232 $74 951 $33.719
Recreational tomi.sm is a significant economic opportunity for this area, and clearly the Horse Park can
be the engine.
9. Describe any feasibility or predevelopment studies that demonstrate the linkage between the
proposed Distressed County Infrastructure improvemena and the antl.dpated economic
outcom.et.
l:.
The most recent study is the November 2006 "Financial Feasibility and Economic Impact of the
Washington State Horse Park" (FFEI-WSHP), written by Timothy Dittmer, Ph.D. and Richard Mack,
Ph.D. professors in the Economics Department at Central Washington University in Ellensburg, WA. The
study is included in this application in its entirety, as required. "The primary objectives of this study were
to determine the financial feastbility and potential economic impact of the Washington State Horse Park
(WSHP) in its proposed location in Kittitas County ... "(p.3) Using information from 17 other facilities
across the country, the authors "developed a relatively sophisticated financial model to determine
economic :feasibility. "(p.48)
The Study supports the expectations oflegislators (noted in Item 2) confirms the positive findings of
previous studies and updates the economic benefits. Summarizing from page 51 of the study: Using the
'most likely' scenario at year six ( considered matwity in operations assuming steady build-out to Master
Plan completion), the following impacts are projected:
Washington State Horse Park Dislre88ed County Sales and Use Tax Grant Application pgll/25
A. Direct spending by exhibitors end spectators estimated at $7 .3 million
B. Total money flows, both direct and indirect estimated at $8.4 million
C. 143 jobs created
D. Direct, indirect end induced spending by out of state residents estimated at $1,460,000
E. ''The recreational seivices sectors" will be the sectors most affected by the Horse Parle operations
The viability of the Horse Parle is evident in the way it plays to the strengths of the County as listed in the
report:
A. Outdoor recreation E. Development of Suncadia resort
B. Climate F. History (including western)
C. Premier sports facilities and even location G. Small town/rural character)
D. Interstate highway accessibility H. Natural beauty, open space
It is anticipated that at maturity, the Horse Park will be an economic engine that will facilitate and drive
private sector enterprise, especially retail, which is intrinsic to the value of recreational tourism to an
area. There is currently nothing else planned in Upper County that could have such n positive impact. At
this stage of development, the addition of a covered arena is expected to be the single most important
impetus in reaching the area's potential.
10. Indicate if other needed Infrastructure (e.g., sewer, water, power) is in place or if there is a plan
for getting it in place.
Utility infrastructure is in place at the Horse Park. Design and engineering of the covered arena includes
access to utilities on the grounds.
11. Indicate the Estimated Number of Businesses Created/Retained by the Project.
With the additional months of shoulder season activity allowed by the covered arena, the Horse Park
estimates an additional 22,528 visitors annually, nearly 15,823 incremental overnight stays of paid
lodging, and $2,882,000 of incremental economic impact (CWU study estimates the average visitor
spends $136/day for lodging and related expenditures).
Direct economic impacts of the WA State Horse Park will increase significantly with the buildout, but
examples of CU1Tent spending include (2017):
• Annual payroll: $203,000 (2 fulltime year round, plus 12 seasonal)
• Port-a-johns: $21,000
• Equipment rentals: $16,000
• Shavings: $27,000
• Manure removal: $4,000
• Temporary stall rentals: $16,000
Importantly, since over 95% of visitors to the Park come from more than SO miles away, indirect
economic impacts include local area restaurants, grocers, hotels and home rentals, fuel, supplies, etc ..
Park visitors typically stay more than one night and travel in larger groups.
12. Indicate the Estimated Number of Jobs Created/Retained by the Project.
As reflected on the chart in section 8 above, the Horse Park has experienced strong growth in visitor
traffic and resulting overnight stays. Projecting forward, essentially all of the visitor and revenue growth
expected during 2018-22 is attributable directly or indirectly to development of the covered arena. The
Washington State Horse Park Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Grant Application pg12/25
number of total annual event visitors increases by 22,528 with an increase in overnighters increases by
18,685, generating $2.2m in additional economic benefits and $33,719 of added Lodging Tax revenues.
The methodology used to develop these metrics and projectiom ii as follows:
• Impact of Covered Arena: Assumes season extended by 50% plus expansion of current shows and ability to
attract new users groups including some non-equine events.
• Vllltan: Based on actual count of each horse(rider) using the Horse Parle for a visit (regardless of number of
days of visit) multiplied by 3. Central Washhigton University (CWU) conducted an economic study of over 40
US hone parks in 2006. The study concluded that 3 people (including trainers, grooms, family, spectators,
staff: volwiteers, etc.) attend an event per horse. This is reasonable based on Hone Park experience.
• Vislton residing outside Kittitas County: actual zip code infoxmation collected from users and projected.
• Overnipts during muJtl..day events: based on each event's schedule.
C Day-Uae Vllfton-non-.loal: based on user registration fonns.
• Total vilitors ovemigbt&-non-local: calculated for each event the number of non-local visitors times the
number of nights, then applied the overall % of non-local visiton to the total.
• Visiton overnight-not in paid lodging: An estimated 15% of Horse Park Usc:ni ether use RV hookups or dry
camp. A negligible number stay with friends/family close by. We multiplied 15% to the total number.
• Vuiton overnight-in paid lodgin1: This is the rem.,.ioing 85% of visitors overnight.
• No. Lodging Rooms Booked: Based on user demographics, we estimate that 1.S users occupy a single room.
This is conservative.
• Overall Economic Impact of Visiton: CWU study estimates that an individual spends $136/day for tourist
services; this metric was multiplied by the total number of non~local visitor nights. We applied an even more
conservative assumption of$120/day.
• Number of Jobs Created: CWU estimat.es that for every $1 million of economic impact, 16 jobs are created.
• HoteJ/Motel Spending: approximately 39% of overnight spending is for lodging per Dean Runyan
Washington State Travel Impacts & Visitor Volume 2001-2011
• Lodging Tax Revenues: Total Hotel/Motel spending times 4% lodt,ring: tax rate (2% plus 2%)
Submit the original application to:
Kittitas County Department of Public Works
411 N. Ruby, Suite #1
Ellensburg, WA 9892
W118hington St&ttl Horse Park Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Grant Application pg13/25
Application Certification
Ce1 tification is hereby given that the infonnation provided I$ accurate and the appbcable attachments are
complete and mcluded as part of the appltcat1on package.
I certify that the apphcat1on thresholds are met at the tune of application
~~ ff d....~
Signature of Oflicw Repreientative
Leshe Thurston, Executh,e Duector
Signature of AgenC)· Representam·e
Typed or Printed Name
Sponsoring Agency
(If Applicable)
Date
Date
Associate Economic Devdopment Organization Notification
The organization listed below has received uotilicatfon of th.u-project as demonstrated by the
signature c,f the organization's representative.
Ktctltps County Chamber pf Commeru Economic Development Office
Name of Organization
(See Attached Letter) ,See .Anached LetrerJ
Signature of Repr~entative Date
Kittitas County Department of Publlic Works ConeeiJlttu•fi AiPJlJl"m'ail
Approval of the project feasibifib',.,scorpe.. alllld esfimatted•11t..
Per Cmtdze Leader, this signature requirement waived
Signature of Kittitas County DPW Representativ(LL
Typed or Printed Name
Washington State Horse Park Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Grant Application
Ju tv JJ. 1018
Datt
pgl4/25
CHAMBERof
COMMERCE
July 10, UIU
klttltJ& Cou~IY Departcnffll of Public: Worh
4U North Ruby 51:,ffl, Suite illl
ENcnsbura, W•jhln.,wn N916
lo Whom It May Conri.rn:
In ft'oognbfon gf t~ ~• ind !otal t.ommttrnent to tilt. WathlngtOf , St< Horsl! Pal'(, lt4o 11Vle H • lffi~
of tronomlc d tW!luprnent k.lr ttl& are 11, ii nd It! str1teglt po$itiotJ in l!Jall 11"'1 1rglr,n"' e-conottti:
clt!\lel~t P~l'll., I t,a-.-e bttn notlflt!d and h~bv nprffl wc,port of tM! 202 ~ ptO,ow-:1
applbtlo,-for l)jis\~,sed ti>UM¥ s.!,t,5 and UIM' r ,-Flilndr"& fttr N Wba:hmQl'on S!rrtf' HOM ,o,.
C~ttd Ar,nr, r,nd As$~d ,..,,1r1-ou1
O..ted and ~nt'd th., 1a t>av of Jul',•, 10Ul
l<ITTFTAS C:OUNlY CHAMUR OW: COMMERO
•~i •c ,· toPll.' N IH~
. . ~ "--···-~ ,,\. . ..... ----·------
Laura 11obl'nkl, lf);lrector of tcottomlt AOv~m,mt
klttltes. county Chamber of ei,n, merce looncmk: Deve-lapment, Walbk\gton
~MA1Nnr·rr 1r"1£t,J~ll)f(j1V;1A tJ~1i.6 I O1:ntt:~T!=!ITT'Y.i~OllHU·; b8.S9~: I rA)::~~r>11 "of•.,E
lt·-106>t,.,ru~,.-•.,~ ... MII '.r;e,"' .,,,,.~v.l illll•~~-.';1 b' l1a'<ll.' I.I :,r'
Washington State Hom Park Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Grant Application pgl5/25
ea, ff {J,k Efq,,,
119 West First Streel
Cle Elum, WA 98922
July 12, 2018
K.ittita:s County Dcpattment of Pub~ic W0tla
-411 N,lrth R Ub)' Strt:C'I
Su5u: #l
f..Be.usbnrJ:\;. Wissh{n~I.Otl 98926
J >i:a~ .Kc,·i~ 'I cam:
Telephone: (609) 67 4~2262
Fax: (508) 674-4097
wWtN.clt~fcreelum.com
The C'ily nf C'.h: Plum b~H been notffic;,d of the-20 i II -dated propoMJd appJfoat1nn {11t Oistrcs.scd
County Sale~ m1d Use TbA: Funding for the W4.(")JJ g101A Sltm> Hom l'ark Covl:'n!d A)-ena and
M.fOClat('(/ Build-Cha.
On .May 201 <>,, the: City .acknowledged iKS s.upport fol .n Covered Atett11 •t th c Wnshington State
Hun:.\: Part for lhc: pn,poi..cd Kiltiw County l'arb mid llecrea~ion Plan Capital hT1im,-.-emcnt
Pian (ClP}. The Kittilru. Cuunly Park, RccTe11.llon. and Opcn Spnc-c Plan (PROS), wus \l'rittietl. ti}'
th county 's COJJtrom!ru.ed Lodgint Ta>: AcM •ry Cor~li~lr:c im:h:1ding (tiunci! Membol· Ron
Sp •nm Jt11TC6Clll g th Cit1· of C l~ Blum LodRin ~ TllX Cu,mninoo.
ht J~uBT)' Wl 1, m~ Oty of C'Jt? Blum supportcrl the WA Stnl~ Horse Patt llJ'Jlliculjm, for tbr
5t1mi bier;niQl eQpi18' hudgel,
fhc City 1s llu.~ munfot_p-.:JHly qpU"unt tm· ll,..i,, pru_iwt for April 2017 K.iHil.t."1 ('ounly Lod,;it~
Ta~ l.ilrBr. Capirnl ~mj~t,r.~ 11mB the Covered Arena profoct 111 hCJ\\' in lhu third J'lhlli;r of the
fundin,l'i pnu:~,;.
11\tl C tt)"11 11.i::l:nc," li:dfl,om~nt r, lbe WA h1tr Hnn;t: P11rk ·11 mlc 115 1 d,inr of ccouo1rt ic
dcv l~prncnt (01 Lhc n1c14 nnd ill<: Htral t!~k JX iliuu in lo~l u:nd n:gi@n11I eoollootlc d \•11lop!lt1~nt
p._"111~ !~ Wclll•oot1m1e.uc.-0. n1w.l 1111,· < 1(y < ·umK11l n·1.1'lv~cl u 1m!j~l 11pdat•tt Hill r,l..itiRlly ,11" Mi!)'
WIM.
'111~· t'i1:,· ,1f(' I~ r;,Jum inforill,,,. i:H)' rn~l.l~'1.~ hn~;t!d Uf'.ttlll e:rtHctJl i11frn~r.i11un: n~'.\.'11 1 i:c'lhmwnit~·
\~111: a1td MUppm1, 11rnl fm1tli~1' U\'.&11!1'1IUI)', Alfl11m1!h ~"" JtorM: l'Mli. J>N~jr,11 liH tu1l ,: pritirilu7~d
Cit)• r•11Jr.rt ii d,,r~ 11ttnd1k u \'Uha,t'hlc 1ir:rvk.c 101tw ~cC•nmmnif)'
Dakd ond &lr,tmd thill I ti, Ua.'t ofJuly, ,n111
Washingto n State Horse Park Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Grant Application pgl6/25
(!u,,,.,ei·E/M-
11!' W(tr.t Firs~ Slrei;.·t
c:1,: Elun, 11./A. A8.9n
1-,-,ittJ, • C 'f•\•,,n1 ( :lllllll)~.••l!FI:,, -
MIil' I •1i1)!"r.,.• 1 ;;, « •'!'i·itl •\r,r,li ,1, ,1!•
!~~!i ,, 11. ~: "'•:. S.iitl: Ii 1\
l:kn•r."lnJI \~ .\ .;<oJ~:
, ,.,i,,.,., •. , ·~· ({\f:t•.1 i · (4 21(,~-
J. '¥ Stlij, ti74-4D:~~
lfr.,lll:\o,-tl~l,.:rJt li,J.im~ r,1\ \,_\L.j,,·,r,il.11·1,:L,1'••· nf •'.t•:I.J.11,i:,~} ..
\\'~;~h!n:•hm ~.io,. H•'C''!-. 11.11{-:,';~r .q,..,: 1-• l•1,,•.1 ., oi ,;·d''· ,.1 ,.r-,;n.:• .'"'lf .:~•:""-,:-~l.,: Ii.,: :ci, .·.:: ·1.,,-.
t;~,,1.· u;·q4; \,,.) l~•l iJn l"b ,p,fa :•1 ,t,J l·,,, .. iw~ pl.i ,, .. ,~ ~;, -, .. 11f,~ .. , , ·, ;,,. ~;;t:~, :::;,.,:-, 7.,.-; ,., ,JI, ....
l!•:.J,.t.''tl. l Ui}!~' '.'in.Ii.:". ·~1 .. m~-:l"Jlii:••(!if,(;l'U c.-rr I ,,,:,11-_;•1,I ,.,•,,:,. \,I'.; ··i•,•_;. :• i •1 (:1;•, ,~:,·:,.,·,
Washington State Horse Parle Distmised County Sales and Use Tax Onsnt Application pg17/2S
[ , ,
-· .. ~ :. '
(
! ! I : £
~ { • ~
•
t ., ..
.. ..
:,
•.. ·,:,
~
.•
, . .,
. .. ,.
.,
I
"' f ..
i
i .. ..
;!
:;.
Washington State Horse Perk Distressed County Sales and Use Tu Grant Application
PROJECT VICINITY MAPS: 1 of2
Location of Park
pg18/25
Washington State Horse Park Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Grant Application
PROJECT VICINITY MAPS: 2 of 2
Location of Covered Arena Site
~ •
pgl9/25
Exhibit I:
Kittitas County Tourism Infrastructure Plan Feb 2016 P64
meetlnJs aad presentations, parties, and ~din,•
Y•qm• tn-.a1 WIHt -'expan1lrm 10 n,dude
conreil p11tfoMUU!ceandublblhon •PIJ'..l', 47+
lepr-c •ltu, md rt:Hroom awl ahowcr facll1tiu
~ • for 13 hllJ.a.eTYI« pull-tb,;ouah
<ll!IPs Uu WI.th pow-er, water, Win, 111d clubbou•e
Wllh la1111dro-t and m1111Dg room on the •lte of
tbe eJdst1n1 mo bile home plll'k
. Cgnaohdattd PlrlAAI lot -with _ID.u,,rated llV
•lilll• fo rcxhfbltors and up to 922.cal', fol'tatr ,
rtideo, and 1peclal event 1tlendee1 -a porbon of
which could be used for ~ :relocation of the
carnival for bttt~ Y111bll1ty from Unlveralty Way
L.etd 116111 PotettUal pankfpllllfa
Klltit.a Co1111tr Ellen.burg ROCl-eo , Ellell8burg Rodeo
Hall of P.am~ '.K.ltlitu-County Fair
Board, JClttltu County 4-H Clubs,
Yakllllla l11dlan Nation, llttltu County
Chamber of Commerce, CWIJ, c.ity of
Elensbul'I, user .17oup1
Project-spedftc performance meuun1
• UIC .muter plu adopl-d
• dale rodeo 11'11118:sr•dlWDI, 4•H bamm, pult!Da lot and·
IIIDJID<VY RV shu, A!ikr Stre~i:•P• and l'ro.mcnade
compkted
0 datunoblle home park acquired and redevaloped for llV
Parlt and Yatama Tribe 1a1berln11 site
~ da1e Frontier VIiiage ~onflguri,d and commons md
stage completed
litec:reauomiitoiinsm"
.uuon 5. Wai,bra,100 Stille Hone Pm [• City ot Cle Bhun
PJ"OPerta')~Plall
$Ullt-,tc ol!jeCIIY•
CoJlllllele -lt~y !Mita p_lan Improvements Including:
14DxJ00 foot covered arena wilh bleachers
punantnt reau-ooma
• U.ul Dnl<.11.8~ Dll and off-site with reglon1l rrall
networlt
64
Priority
Hip
Lead a1ent PotenUal paiddpl.llb
Qe Elum Wuhlncton State Horse Part.
Wuhlngton S111te Legislature,
Wuhm11ton S!llte Parts & Recreation
Coau11111lon, Kittitas <.aunty Chamber
of Commerce, ~uncadla, and 111
conjunction wllb equestrian uaer
groups
l'r!>Ject-si,ecl!k pvforma11.ce mea.ure•
• dato full.dint •ppro,:ed a:nd ktl' tmprov emen.11 completed
,AQ!Oll 6.. Re-pillal •fllletn. torripetttto• ta,111-•
Sl.nll-,k obJu,b-11
Improve regional athletic field bleachers, conceuiona,
on-site water and re1trvom aervices, R.V plltldnr and
CIIIIPIDI Bl competitive athletic facllldes In:
• ll01lyn
• Cle Elum
Pottulial panlclpuu
Priority
LOW
• Ellensbul'tl
Lnda,ent
R.011:rn, Oe Ilium,
Ellutlnir1
Rotlfl), Cle 6lum1 .FJ.len1b11r,e Park.& a11d
Publlr Wotkl Departml!.l'ltl, K:lUIUls
County Chamber of Ca.m.incrce, l.n
eoruundton With athletlc luguu and
aponaon
Pra,iect-spedflc performance. IIIUllll'U
ii ellh1nceme111 pmjecta completed lncreulng to1lffllllllllllt
potential&
# tournament• scheduled per year as result af
l1J1pr<1vements
~~tiOD 71 I.WI aJl!! archery r•D,18
Stl'ltti,fk al!JKtlv•
Develop facWtte. and progra!M to teach md pncttce
gun •nd uchery 11fef\ fo,· hunting, recreanon.
tr•nw11. compet1tiOJ1, llld law enrorcewnt qency
1.ert1flcat1on pm-poses
Leua.a,t Potallllal parllctppta
Priority
LDW
KJltltu Coa:nty 1Ct1t1c11 Countt ShClifl, RO!lyn, Cle
Elum. and l!lle.n1,IJw-J hllct
Department&, lt11tlta1 Cow,ty Field It
Washington State Horse Park Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Grant Application pg20/25
Exhibit II:
Kittitas County Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan
Hip priority (not Uated In my particular priority order)
Pn>,lect DHcrlpdml Location Spon1or Cost Year
Walk-y Design md i:cmstruct a. oeeond walltway on the Bridge I.Cl'OH City of Cle Flum $979,920
lmp1onment to upstream 11de of !he ~outb Cle i:lum Bridge to Yakunall.lver
South Cla Elum provide• nfer pedeatrl111 river crosliDI between Clo Elum
lr1dge between die C0<1l Mln11 nul Sy1tetn and the and South Cle
John WIVfte Trill Th• Clll'l'e.Dt bridge II I 1!111111
hDltl~neck md deten vulton 1111d re11dant11.
Wayffndlng DeaJsn, m11111f1c:rure, and instill signqe to C.ountyWide Forterra, Mountains to $735.0D0
Slgnqe "find · rureat:on m 11.Jttttas County working with ~01,IJ\d Gree11¥1ay, Nature (W~1>0T
Kittitas Countv, WSDOT. and pubhc land Conservancy, Tru.11 for $100,000)
partnen. T1ua wl~ be a cootdlnated, Public L•ncl, W1ldeme11
compnhenan,e, and detailed approach to Soaety, Washmgton Trails
way~ndmg for recreational u1ets already In Aun
ulstence ID the Coi:nty
Teanaway The1e proJcaa will improve recreation Teansway DNR, Tunaway SH0,00()
Comnuu1tty Fore,t oppori'WIIUU ID.d p,1bllt a«:eu 10 . .recrUJlon In Co!l'.mlUIII)' Comllilllllty forut IDNR
Rllaeabon the Team.way C.Ommuntty Porut mcludlq a) PDl'IIII (;oordmator US,000)
Im.Provement, c.amparDllll4 IIDllrovementl. bl day-uae acca,
Improvements, and c) elgnqe.
Highway 10 Construct a low maintenance, gravel Teanaway IUver Kittitas county Sl,750,000
Yakima lllver reueatloald parking lot adjacent to Hqhway 10 8r!d&e OD Commissioners CPaths &
Recreation Acce11 between Cle Elum and Ellensburg '\l the nl01lth Hlgbway ID Trills Fund
of the reanawav River to lillpro~e access for $50,000)
recreation IIHl'II while also benefittllll the
travelu,. public 1111d mcrea•m1 p"Cbllc safety.
TDWIIIO Acqull'c 160 Kl'III of privately 111'rned land that Town to City or R01lyn SZ,182,25D
TIYlll&WIIY: eepa~t-• the Cty orR01l,n'1 Urban fon•t trail Teana"'•Y (Ro,Jyn
Reponal Trail• ay1tem frolll rqaonal neffloork'• bamr deveioped $500,000,
System on ad,Jacmt propertte• mdudt:,g the Nature Prmte
Conservancy', Central Caacadta Forest and the funds
Teanaway Community Forest H well•• other ($198,5381
exlattng re11anlll tnu1 network,.
Pl'OJerl ne,c:rtpdoa Loc:atlon Spamor Coat Yeu
Urilan forest Develop a tr.di <onnector from 15 acres dD11&ted Roelyo.. Cle mum, ltttltas County Parks & SZ,268,000
Connector by Suncadla fol' CIUIIPID!J', parklna;, md Stqing South C'le Elam Recreation Dltttlct l (Cle Elum
area OD llllllftol load Deal Suncadla to l) Fllh s10,000.
Hatdlerv, South Cle Elum, and the John Wayne Rotlyrt
Trail, olDd 2) from the C.oal MIiien Trill to Cle SS,000,
Ewn .nd lml.rn Rul1• trails to the T•-way South Cla
Community Forut EaHments. rtghtl-Df--y, Elum
and memorandums of understand:ng QIOUl may $2,000)
be tequtn,d. Brtd&es will be ,..,quired for the
Ya'kima River 1111d Cry•tal Creek.
Wasblngton State C.onatruct a. cavered lll'Ucture (covered arena, Washington State Washington State Hone $3,609,204
Hone Park :nat an encloHd arena) to attract m1,1ar reponal. Horse l'ark, Cle Park Authorlty (aUJ'BI
Covered Arena DJll10nal, and mternallonal campetttlons as pan Elum C.ount1••
of a muter plan lnvolvlnl S ai:ena• at build-out. SS0,000,
l.a&!JlatuN
$1,400,000,
Pnvate
$260,000,
In-kind
$160,000)
Upper County Develop linb 1111d connections, trail and Upper Kittitas Colll Mines Trail $133,000
Coll Mblu J rail trailhead lmprowments, wayftndlng 1lp.qe, County Commlsslon
MuterP'.an intupretlve ellhlblts and history, and
conser•11tlon .md nsto1-atlon practice. for the
Iron Ho1H Tn1I Md the Y1klm1 lliver, Cle Elu:n
River, B.ollyn lllllan Fore1t, Suncadla. Sapphire
Slnei;, Henlltlll Pond•, and the Teanawe,,
Community fon•I, Improve Wye Park lnllbud
facllities mdudlug public restrooms, and
wetland Dootl baln.
CoalTru Develop a dutmation mountain bike park on 30 Cle Elum Tralhlde Homes and SJ.tD,000
MmmlBill like & acres or land for all skill !evelll and aTI age hergreen Mounta!n Bike
Sldlls Park lll'DUPS completiri11 the already lrullated by .Alliance
volunteer efforts. C'omplete park tmprowmmtli
lncludl1111 parluna, 1181181•• and traII
lmprovemeatl,
G-2
~ G-C&pltal hdlhlu ,_ cat)
-c..mty ••rb,•l ocniadr,m" Opon Space (1'1105) Plall
Washington State Horse Park Distrell&ed County Sales and Use Tax Grant Application pg21/25
Exhibit III
City of Cle Elum Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2006
A. Active Parks
Washington SW, Horse Paris is a proposed 106 acre ~ucstrian facility located in the
Bullfrog Flats. The park is designed to be the premiere equeslrian facility in Washington
State drawing competitors. showman and tourists from the Greater Pacific Northwest and
the Canadian province of British Columbia. As a regional show and competition facility,
the horse park will accommodate large scale regional events such as the Arabian and
Quarter Horse Shows, The North American Young Riders program, Dressage and World
Cup Competitions, The facility is proposed to have a 200 by 300 foot covered arena, an
175 by 300 foot open arena, seating for over 1 ~000 spectators, a polo field, cross county
competition course, 400 stalls [located in 8.scparatc barns] and the required appurtenant
and support facilities to service the Horse Park.
Fta& Pole btk is a community park located bemieen the Cle Elum .,.wye" end the Coal
Mines TraiJhead. The park derives its name from the large American flag that has been
traditional!), flown here to welcome visitors to Cle Elum and as a reminder to iu residenti;
of Cle Elum 1s tmclition of duty and servioe to America. The park is an open lawn with
room ibr active and passive activities.
Centennial Park is a community park located north ofThird Street and nestled against a
wooded hillside. This park bas facilities for active recreation including; a marked end
goal posted football field, e. baseball/softball diamond and ample open lawn.
S)Yimmin1 fe>pl Pad£ is perhaps Cle Elum's most diverse community Park which is
locaied on the site of the old [now non..cxistcntJ community S\\1rruning pool. It includes a
&1ate .. of-the art skate board facility, play ground equipment, horseshoe games, a large
covered picnic shelter witlt tables and in ground barbeques, a large open lawn and is the
eastern "trail hcadH for the Cle Elwn Roslyn School oommunity Progress Path.
Flrepu1n's Park/ MemoriaJ Ball Field are actually two adjoining community parks
located in Cle Elum on the South Side of the Yakima River. Fireman's Park is home to a
large covered shejter; picnic tables, a wide open lawn and riverfront access. Memorial
Ball Field ls a 00JJIJ)etition youth baseba11 field complete wlth ooncessions, bleachers and
high quality baseball fields.
Suebrook Commuttx is a neighborhood park designed to serve as a community
meeting place and child's plly area.. The park is a small grassy area with a community
gazebo and barbeque area.
Fgur su,ens Agpstic Center The Pour Sl'aSOns Recreational board is examining the
possibility of constructing a community rcc~ation ~tcr behind the Cle Elum.Roslyn
School District campus. The centert expected to cost upward ofSl.5 million, may have
Washington State Hone Park Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Grant Application pg22/25
Exhibit N: 1 of 2
City of Cle Elwn Resolution dated 5.27.2014
C:l1'V OF CLE ELUM crrv COONTtL RESUUJ'l'ION
FOil THE SUPPORT OF
THE WASIDNGTON StATt HOR.SE l1 ARK APrLJC~TlON FOR
OlSTRKSSED COlJNTY SAI..ES AND lJSE TAX FllNl>ING
l'OR 1'HJ~ DESIGN. ENGINEERING AND PERMl'mNG OF A (.'OVERED ARFh~A
AT A MEETING Of' THE CITY COUNCIL OF CLE F.UJM, WASHINGTONI.Kl11'1TAS
COUNTY, HELD AT 7 P.M. ON MAY 27, 2014:
~
·iwsot.U'J'lON: SUPPOR.1'.lNO THE AJtPJ~JCATION T;OR DISTRESSHD COUNl'Y 'sfils7
ND USli TAX FUNDINO J-'OR THE P£SION. ENOINEFJUNG AND PERMJ1TlNO or A '
OVF.RED ARENA J·OR TJJE WASIIJNOTON STATE HORSE PARK, LOCATED rN CLI£ I
WM("' MtJNlCIPAIJ.Y-0\V~IZP f1ACLl:1T¥).~------
Thc City Councfl of Cle r~lum, Wasbiflilon, does hcrcb)' find as follow:i:
WURREA , in 1986 th· \V4Jlltilngton Stene Deparununt of A,grioultu~ e<1m)'.)icttd a ulud}'
r~C>mmcndin r Inc o""1llon of an equcj(trian contw to "promo<e nd ,er.10 the teQrc~onal horse
industry In tl10 111ate and provide c«momie bcnefl lhrough equine acth111fo11 1 and
WllEllliAS. 111 19?5, the sfa lt:&islo.ture-pa.11scd RC W 67.1 B (rccoditied 79A..3<.l), to create
the fmmcwork for I.he facUil)' 1,11hori:cine ti Horl'IC Park Authority to establish ... flt'St-class
horse park fucilil)' In 'ashi08ton to n,C(Jt the lm.ponam needs ofthe state's hor1,1c industi;•,
attruul iu •c.~tancnl, onhance rel.'.:roution1tl oripo.rtunities, and bring new cir.hibitors and touri!l.ts lo
the stnlc frt»n throughout the reginn and beyond', ,.lld
WHHllliA~. l.egisllilh'\.' !l1111port continued with~pproprinllfln of $3.5 million in the 2007-
2009 copiml b11d11.U1 fot Phru;o I of conrui.wtlon of the ' nsl1ingt.on 8t,1te Horse Park In ere mum.
Wt1Sbm~ton, and
Wl1.lml!AS, the Yakln1a and Kluhas (Ki-Yak) Counde., Regional Co1nprehel'i.'lhe Economic
Pe clopmcnt J>lnn dated June 20.13 citcw the Wll5hingtan St•&e llorse P.uk !i one of eleve.o
Str~i:h; Project&-K~ lnv~1mcn\s Md Projects Supporting a Strong Reaional f.oonom)' as
ha\'illl! "irelf)l?d b 011 tb reglon ts (.'tonoinic fortune ;• nnd
WI lliKHA, , lltc Chy of Cl, Efom Co1nprellcnsh-c Lttnd Use Pinn , adopted 1n 2006, cites the
W i,h.ingion State Horse l1arii. as ft part-0flhu Cit)'° Urhnn Gro\\th Arcu (UOA.) {,the Hor.ic Park
Is in the City itselfond ls ruunft.'ii,all. -owned) Md I IR 1J1efneitity in th<: i1ivC1ll\'lt)' of;icd
plldts, nd lndlcutes "Thi! fa.oillt)' [.!I J')ropos~ to hR\~ 200 by lO0 fool covered aren-a ... .., a.nd
WI IRREAS, The Hconomic D""\•dopmeirt Strmegk P111.11 1.0~ sponsored by the Kittitas
( 'ounty onol'hit Oc\'clopmllt\l Oroup . publ i$hi:d by T!P Sl~r.:,&i~i; uild doted July 2009
s11pr,o11~ ecreationnJ tourism as II~ third core strateg)· fc ooonnmk de,·cJopmcm, and
Washington State Horse Parle Dis1ressed County Sales and Use Tax Grant Application pg23/25
Exhibit IV: 2 of2
City of Cle Elwn Resolution dated 5.27.2014
W'llliR.EAS, The I lorsc P.srk has experienced strong growth in vi111t01· truffic and r•~ulting
m•ernight ~1,ws, incr~~ins by 60% in 2013 over 2012, and
WJ-lf..Rlll\S. th1t \Vasbin~Lon St~ Hor l'nrk will Ille applicutfon for the Dei.ign
nniinoorlng. il:J'ld PeTI'Jlilling of a covered arena, whlcb wm extend thf: wli,Stl11 fur cti vilies in the
Park by 50 porcen11 nnd cstlrnnl~ thnl the odditionnl mouths of shoulder ~ea. .. ,m ecdvity itltowcd
b)' the cow1 ed nrerw wil1 J'C5lllls slgnUit~nl i11cmaS4..'8 in visitors per year~ im:ri:mcntal ovctlli~ht
sta,.s ofpnid lodging, d O\'tr $1 minion of Incremental e<:()Ol)mk imJ'lll<=t.
NOW. THl:JtcfORE l:W IT H:Ek~llY PROClAIMED l?}' the Cily Council of Cle :Klum,
Washmi1on , ttmt the i() Council as •·.issaciate e-coooinic devclo11mem orcnni7.81ion'' for the
Cit)' of Cle Blwn ha been n ti fled ·of this 11rajct.11 ond hum~ exp~s St suJ)flert ot the 20) 4•
dntcd propo11ed upplic.illon for Olntrc~d C(lunty Sales nnd Use 'fAx Funding fur tht-D1:1>1J?ll,
l::.flgimn:ring. o.nd Perm II ting of a Ctwon:d Arent1. llt \\'h~hlngton Stt\l~ IJorS() Park.
Dated and signed this 28 111 Day of May .2014
CITY OF CLE FLUM
i, Fjdcmiller, Ma)'Or P~ -;,
Cit)' Council. Ci1}' of Cle Elum, Wuhington
Washington State Horse Park Distressed County Sa1es and Use Tax Grant Application pg24/2S
Exhibit V
Economic Impact of Horse Industry in Washi11gton State
. -, ,.• . -
' '1H1.E E<ZONOJHIC,lfvfP,1iCT OF ·'lFIEJIORSE IN1)UST[~Y1N
.... I -• . -: . . • • • •
~J~:J}'//JJV(~Tl 1N :S}1.1 '.TE . .
. -·7
. j ~ ._ . L. 1 I._ JI ... I _ _ :_____._ _.;. -_ .. _ ~-=------~
~_'II -1, -I -.. --.,
_..___ __ _
~--...... --·
By Bact Country Horsemen of Wallington (BCHW) for the Big Tent Coalition in Olympia 2013
"umbe:rofpcaplc in Washington Sta.tc cnsasod in equestrian actlvldes: 4% or 250.000 1
Activity rating in number of participants of all ourdoor activities in Waabinpc Staie: 141
1,.1
Number of horlos in Wuhmaton Seate: i49,9,wz
Average ~1;151 ofkeer,ing a hor,50 for a year: S3,.876J (249,964 x 3,876 = S!J68,860,464/year)
Wagei; from Eque..\trian .and Rd~d lnd1' tries in King County alone: S61,SS9,4084
~actors for contln1,1l11& to hfve a Sl.l«-eSsful and prosper.ou• 1ciuestrlM Industry U<h'i& County):
a) MaimeDB11c;:e of an apicu]tural ~r"O$~ that providei the fflQerlal1 1 111ervices1 and facilitie5
tor breeding, raisin&, tra.ining, stablioa, feeding, .and c:ar:ms for horse&.
b) A htalthy pari-mutuel racing ind11$11y.
c) Quality shr>W and coq,atitiOo facilities and vmuiei;.
d) An acmve l:!alendar of11lmM. cc;,mpcdtions, and other cqueslrian cve:nts and acti'Yitics, mch as 4.
H. COUDl)I fllira, etc.'
i\ newly complerecl atvdy in Kentucky (10 l 2) which ha& 24~ ,400 bonea and con1p4\rnb~ rec:realiona! and
Ca(:mg facilities pnts their t4uinc-rclatcd M&eli as 123.4 billion and Sl.2 btllion m equin-e related
t.-xpendilures.' With i;econdary bW!JlJffl; effi=cli, we (BCHW) estimate that equHtrian economic impeet&
in Washington State at SS blWon per year, which is eo«1siii:tenl with the nationw study by the Amnrican
Horse Council' arld makmg jt one of the top recmatioa.al contributon to our state's ~onomy.
'20060utdoor("1:l'a:ot!l1fl IIMIV bythc W thtnaton Smta Accreat1on ind tonservetlOl'I Office
1 Amerli;1m Horse~ovw publleat107' by tile Alt rlcan Hor.re ccuncll lOOS
l Mai Cooi,entlve Eldcnsloll 1-'ubUc:at loru Bulletln,1112004 ·
~~JndM$™ 10,l!•w Cou:ntv I,!¥ Kina, g,unty ;GA?9$.P§'nl1'1Qmal\! 2007
Summ ryofEconomft! o Eciuestrl ii Industry Us~ In Kir}! County 2011
~ 20U K-cntuclty Equine Survey
1 N11tlor, Eainomii: lmpacr of th U.S. HorS9 lndunrv bv Amcrlc:an Horse Council 2005
Wasbing1on State Horse Parle Distressed County Sales and Use Tax Grant Application pg2S/25
-
Financial Feasibility and Economic Impact
Of the
Washington State Horse Park
Contractor Report for
The Washington State Horse Park Authority
By
Timothy Dittmer, Ph.D.
And
Richard Mack, Ph.D.
Central Washington University
Ellensburg, Washington
November 29, 2006
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I INTRODUCTION a.,.,
II PREVIOUS FEASIBILITY AND JMPACT STUDIES
Ill EXISTING FACILITIES
JV FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT: METHODOLOGY.
APPLICATION AND FINDJNGS
V IMPACT ANALYSIS: METHODOLOGY, APPLICATION, AND
FINDINGS
VI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ,.P9' Cf~
VII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Bibriography
Appendix I , Questions for Equestrian Organizations ~~
Appendix II: Survey Questions for Horse Parks 5'1.
Appendix 111 Development of the Washington State Horse Park Authority f?
Appendix IV Washington State Horse Park Request For Funds I".('
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The primary objectives of this study were to determine the financial feasibility and
potential economic Impact of the Washington State Horse Park (WSHP) in its proposed
location in Kittitas County, and to make recommendations as to the organizational
structure for management of the facility. We cannot recommend unequivocally that the
plans to raise funds for a Phase 1 facility proceed. As explained below, our analysis
shows that like practically all public equestrian facilities, the Washington State Horse
Park will most likely require annual operating cost subsidies in addition to waivers of
property tax and capital repayment. Economic impacts of this facility and broad
unquantifiable benefits may justify its subsidization, as with other .public facilities.
Relative to the capital commitnient to the venture, the projected losses are minor. This
study Includes both financial feasibility and economic impact analysis. Key findings and
recommendations in terms of financial feasibility, economic Impact and organization~!
structure are summarized below:
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
We developed a relatively sophisticated financial model to determine economic
feasibility. To gather inputs into this model we:
Surveyed horse facility using organizations in Washington State
Validated our survey with the work of professional marketers
Surveyed the dev~lopmentai and financial experiences of horse parks around
the count,y
Gathered anecdotal recommendations of potential users of the facility.
3
Worked with professional equestrian managament consultants to set parameters
for the models
Four scenarios of the model were developed; they differed as to assumptions of growth
rates of: numbers and types of shows, entries, revenues, and costs. In Scenario 3,
which we believe will be the most likely scenario, the park operates at an eighty
thousand dollar per year loss, despite assuming augmented revenues of $100,000 per
year from non-equestrian events. Scenario 2, which assumes a much higher and likely
unrealistic rate of facility use, results in net revenues of approximately one hundred fifty
thousand dollars per year. The key financial findings of thes .e two scenarios are:
• Maximum use of the facility Is reached in the sixth year. Scenario 2. breaks
even in the sixth year.
• Accumulation of 1.4 million dollars In losses by the end of the tenth year in
Scenario 3. Scenario 2 accumulates one million dollars in losses prior to
break-even.
• Net revenues losses of $74,726 when the facility reaches maturity in year six
for Scenario 3. Scenario 2 projects net revenues at maturity In year seven of
$140,802.
• For Scenario 3, annual revenues at maturity will be $549,316 and annual
expenses will be $724,042. For Scenario 2 these values are resp~ctlvely:
$915,527 and $774,725.
• 69,35~ exhibitors and spectators will use the facility annually when the facility is
at maturity.
4
• For either Scenario, it will be necessary to waive property taxes on the facility
and to ~reate a capital funding approach which requires no direct repayment
from operating revenues .
In one version of the model, we adjusted revenue per horse In order to avoid losses.
Under the most likely assumptions, the facility rental fees required were too far above
competing levels. Survey results indicate that horse show organizers are very price
sensitive, and the required rental fees would likely result in the facility being unused.
Our findings are reflected in the national equestrian park picture, where large and
medium sized facilities are typically subsidized around 20% of operating revenues.
Only two of twenty~flve horse parks break even.
The primary reasons for the lack of positive cash flows in our projections of the
Washington State Horse Park are that
The climate and location limits the number of open weeks per year.
Recent local surveys showed that equestrian groups are very sensitive to price.
The equestrian-dedicated design Jimits the size and nature of nonequestrian
events.
For full utilization a facility needs to serve large horse events, and there is a lack
of growth in the number of large horse organizations in the region.
Under these circumstances there are several major provisos that must be met before
we car recommend that the plans to raise funds for the facility proceed. The first two
have already been stated, that capltal repayment not be required and that property
taxes be waived. Third is the requirement that in or,der to assure successful operation,
5
the Horse_Park Authority must recruit a facility manager from the upper 90 percentile of
managers and support that manager with top-notch review and assistance by
professional equestrian management professionals. Without an entrepreneurial
manager, it is unlikely that the. facility will generate the alternative revenue built into the
model.. Finally, the facility will require subsidization from either private foundations or
public coffers of approximately $80,000 per year.
ECONOMIC IMPACT S
One means by which other facilities justify operating grants is through their impacts
upon local and regional economies. Therefore, an impact model based upon
expenditures of the horse park participants and expenditures for horse park operations
was developed to estimate financial flows to both the local and state economies and to
local and state finances. Using the "most likely" Scenario 3 at year six maturity, the
following impacts a~e projected:
• The direct spending by exhibitors and spectators are estimated to be $7,334,838
when the· facility reaehes maturity In the sixth year of operations.
• The total money flows attributable to the horse park in the sixth year, inel1:Jding
Indirect and induced effects, are $8,412,982 annually.
• Using the employment multiplier of 17 jobs per million dollars of direct
expenditures projects, 143 jobs will be created by the horse park after the direct.
indirect and induced effects are fa.ctored In.
• Starting at the sixth year, annual state impacts from out of state residents were
found to be $5, 164,360 of direct, indirect and induced spending.
6
• Ope~tions of the facility would, at maturity, generate $1,199,279 in sales taxes,
of which $98,668 would be apportioned to local government coffers, and the
remainder would go to the State.
• The recreational services sectors will be the sectors (hotels, restaurants, etc.)
most affected by Horse Park operations.
For qualifications on the magnitude of these Impacts, see section V,
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTUR E
We · recommend that:
• The Washington State Horse Park Authority Board of Directors set up the
organization to be run as a commercial operation by an experienced and
successful professiona, manager.
• The organization of the institution be that of a non-profit corporation, avoiding
designation as a State governmental entity and thus avoiding the labor and
procurement procedures required of State governmental units.
• The Board focus Hs activities ·on obtaining funding commitments required for the
construction of improvements and the first.five years of operation.
• That the Board actively work with existing equestrian organizations to promote
the Horse Park project.
7
I INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW
The horse industry is highly diverse, supporting a wide range of activities in each region
of the country. A recerit report prepared by the American Horse Council, 0 The
Economic Impact of the U.S. Horse Industry in the United States" estimated that the
horse industry contributes $40 billion annually to the gross domestic product and
provides 460,000 full time equivalent jobs. In Washington State, horse ownership Is
woven into the fabric of the state•s history and essence. In terms of horse ownership,
Washington. with over 250,000 horses, ranks eleventh among the states in the nation In
total number of horses and ranks among the top states In the number of horses per .
capita. Annually Washington facilities host hundreds of small, medium and large s·caIe
events. The equestrian community finds toat no satisfactory facilities exist to handle
the highest quality or mufti-state events •. Most existing facilities offer limited 9Spacity,
older buildings and poor access (WSPRC Memo.)
Horse shows and western events are basic parts of the horse industry ~ Shows vary by
breed and type of event, each ·requiring specific facilities in which to conduct the
activity. The shows range from small. o~e-day local shows to large, muHi-d;ay national
and international exhibitions and activities. In the past decade, new facilities have been
developed in many locations around the country: Virginia, ~entucky, North Carolina,
Colorado, Arizona, Oklahoma, and New Jersey.
National Trends
We have three sources for N~tion Trends in horse shows; the number .of horses and
horses involved in .shows for 1996 and 2005 (American Horse Council Foundation),.
2000-2005 United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) data (http:f/www.usef.org), and
8
2001-2005 American Quarter Horse Association data
(http://www.aqha.com/association/who/statistics.html). Data from these organizations is
useful in analyzing underlying trends In the horse industry, and is presented In Table
One.
From 1996-2005 the number of horses and the number of horses used primarily for
competition have increased 33% and 37% respectively. The number of approved
shows, as shown in the USEF and AQHA data, has increased at a much smaller rate.
Over similar five year periods (half of the longer period), the rate of Increase for
approved shows was 2.57% and 11.56% for USEF and AQHA.
While the number of approved shows has increased relatively slowly, the number of
total entries has Increased at a high rate for USEF (39%), and a slow rate for AQHA
(7%). Given USEF's stow Increase In the number of shows, and rapid increase In the
number of entries, the number of entries per show has increased more rapidly (35%}
than for AQHA, which actually experienced a decline in the entries per show (-4%).
These data support the idea that at the national level there is an increase in demand for
horse shows. This increase has resulted in either a larger number of entries per show
(USEF) or a larger number of sh9ws (AQHA). Both increases are imi>ortant in the
economic feasibility of the WSHP, however as will be argued in Section 4, the number
of small shows is not lacking; instead it is the number of large shows (400 horses) that
is important for the facility's financial success.
Both public and private facilities have been developed across the nation as the
numbers of horses and horse owners have increased. The largest of these facilities
. .
tend to be publicly owned by state, county and municipal entities. The public ownership
has come about through either the initial establishment of the facility by the public
sector, or by the purchase of a private sector facility by the public sector. Typically,
9
profitability of these facilities is Inversely proportional to size, In our conversations with
public sector horse facility managers, the generally agreed upon estimate of profitability
Is that costs exceed·revenues in all but 8-10% of facilities. This is despite the fact that
many of these facilities are not required to make capital payments·, as the capital is herd
by the public entity. How are these losses justified? The construction of multi-million
dollar horse parks and their continued operation is commonly ju.stifled on grounds of
their generating economic impacts and unquantifiable benefits which extend beyond the
accounting balances between revenues and costs. These total impacts are of two
types: direct impacts that reflect expenditures generated by horse park activities; and
indirect Impacts, which reflect the regenerative impacts of the initial spending. For this
reason this feasibility study will be coupled with an impact analysis that will factor in the
total effect of direct plus indirect impa·cts.
This report .is an evaluation of feasibility and potential impact of a proposed state horse
park that was authorized by the Washington State Legislature in 1997. The horse park
is intended to be a first-class equestrian facility servfng a broad range of the
reci:eatlonal, competitive and educatJonal needs of Washington State horse owners. It
will support community, youth and disabled riding programs and will fOS~r physical
frtness, re~ponsibility, and achievement. Although the general concept for the
proposed horse park fs for a facfUty that la custom designed for equine events, it will
also be attractive for some secondary types of uses such as company picnics, dog
shows, motor vehicle shows, and trail bicycle events. To modify the design to
accommodate other non-equestrian events will require additional capital.
This report Is comprised of six sections. The remainder of this first section details the,
purpose of the study, states study parameters, summarizes the history of the
Washington State Horse Park, and provides a summary of the master plan. Section II
revi~ws previous studies of horse park feasibility and impact. Section Ill examines
existing facilities that were surveyed in the study. Section, IV presents the methodology,
10
applications and findings of the financial model, and Section V does the same for the
impact model. Conclusions and recommendations are presented in Section VI.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The overall purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and economic impact of
the proposed state horse park. More specifically, this study meets the following
objectives:
1. Evaluate the demand for and economic viability of a high quality, multi,.use
complex designed to meet the needs of the diverse sectors of the State's
substantial horse ii:idustry.
2. Determine ·the feasiblrity of establishing a successful faciHty
in Kittitas County which will meet the needs of national,
regional and local shows, westem events, and related equestrian activities.
3. Make specific recommendations as to the appropriate organizational structure
needed to acquire control of the site, solicit funds to construct improvements and
successfully operate the facility over the long term.
4. Summarize the economic impact to the State (?f Washington, generally, and
Kittitas County, specifically, of the operation of the proposed Washington State
Horse Park in Kittitas County.
PARAMETERS:
Objectivity -It should be noted that the authors have been completely objective and
11
unbiased in reaching their conclusions about the fea$ibility and impact of a major
horse park in Washington State. The study team was not directed to justify the
creation of such a facility.
Quality of the Facility -It is the Intent of the Horse Park Authority that the facility be
of high quality as to both functions and aesthetics. The consensus of the Horse
Park Authority is that if such quality could not be provided, a facility should not be
built.
Purpose and Use of the Facility-The design and intended primary use of the
faci!fty should be for horse related activities; other complementary activities are also
possible, but as a secondary priority. The facility should be designed and operated
In such a fashion as to:
-encourage use by all facets of the Washington State equestrian indust,y;
-attract competitions of a major regional, national or lntematlonal level; and
"promote tourism.
• provide an educational function
-serve the needs of equestrian activities of youth groups
Cost of Operatjons-Land for the facility in upper Kittitas County has already been
donated by a private entity, Suncadia Resorts, of the Suncadla Real ~state
Company. Capital costs will be raised primarily from the public sector; they may be
augmented by a concerted fund-raising program by the Washington State Horse
Park Authority and the Washington State Horse Park Foundation.
Public/Private Cooperation -The horse park will encompass elements of both public
12
and private sector organization, extending to both the development and
management/operation of the facility. Recommendations will be made as to how
best to combine these elements in order for the horse park to best accomplish its
objectives.
Impact on Exlsting Equestrian Facilities -The Authority plans to create a complex
which will complement existing equestrian operations, seeking out· and satisfying
unmet market needs. It is expected that over the long run the operations (?f the
horse park will Increase Interest in equestrian events and activities throughout the
state and accordingly create additional business for existing operators.
Facillty Summary:
The vision of the horse park Is that of a primarily equ~strlan facility to be located on
property donfJted by Suncadfa Resorts, located Immediately off of 1-90, near Cle Elum.
For this public-private partnership, Suncadia Resorts has donated a 106 acre parcel of
land,,currently valued at approximately flve·million dollars. It is proposed that this land
be develope~ in two phases. The first is a planhing, preparation, and Initial site
development phase that entalls final planning, design, pennitting approvals, and initial
land improvements. A request of $3,900,000 will be made in 2007 to fund Phase I.
Phase U entails the construction of the remainder of the facility. Estimated costs for
Phase II is $15,434,600 in current dollars. The WSHP _Authority 'intends to request
these funds from the State legislature so that full projed build-out will be completed In
2019. A detailed description of the facility and the funding reque~t is included as
Appendix Ill.
13
II PREVIOUS FEASIBILITY AND IMPACT STUDIES
Two categories of previous studies are relevant to this analysis: previous studies of the
need for and economic feasibility of a horse park in Washington State, and studies of
feasibility and impact of similar facilities in other states. The first category Is particularly
important. because considerable effort has already been invested in data gathering as
to the need for such a facility In Washington State. Initially an impact study of locating
a state equestrian center in Lewis County was developed in 1991 by Kay Crawford and
Sue Roden. The study was funded by the Washington State Department of Community
Development. When the Lewis County site was deemed non-feasible on grounds of
the physical locatlont the horse park group ·1ooked to the east side of the State to take
advantage of the drier weather. Whe.n the Trendwest/Suncadia property negotiation
with the Authority was completed in 1997; a second feaslblllty study was commissioned
and completed in 1998 by Richard Macie and Gary Richardson, both of th~ Central
Washington University College of Business. Each study is briefly summarized below.
Lewis County Study
The Lewis County study was comprised of four areas of prim~,y research: surveying 37
existing horse parks, surveying 59 equestrian groups, surveying 100 Individual
equestrians, and holding public meetings to solicit local community input. From
calculations based upon this primary data, conclusions were reached as to: the demand
for a state equestrian center, economic feasibility, the economic, employment and
congestion impacts upon the local community, the d~sign and management of the
facility, and funding options. Briefly, findings of the study were that: (1) T!Jere is
significant demand for a first class, fully enclosed facility; (2) In the first year 61 events
would take place, a number that would increase to 99 by the fifth year; (3) Attendees
would range from 48,900 in the first year to 80,000 .fn the fifth year, (4) The horse park
would be economically feasible on grounds of demand; even were the number of
14
projected events to be halved, the horse park would break even by the third year; (5) no
negative community impacts were identified; (6) Recommendations were gathered as to
horse park design; (7) A combination of government, private, corporate, foundation, and
debt funding wa~ recommel)ded; {8) Annual expenditures and jobs were projected to be
$3,655,146 and 116 in the first year and $5,939,714 and 190 jobs in the fifth year; (9)
The study recommended that locar communities begin planning efforts in order to
capitalize on horse park benefits.
Three surveys were developed for the lewis County analysis. The first was used to poll
a cross section of equestrian sports disciplines to detennine the _number size and
potential mobility of their functions; 59 equestrian groups were surveyed. The second
survey was used to poll Individual members of the groups as to travel and spending
plans. The goal of the third survey was to solicit specific opinions of existing facilities.
Of the three surveys 162 were returned from the initial 200 sent out.
Although the study was methodologically sound, significant demographic, climatological
and economic differences between Western and Eastern Washington required that
many elements of the feasibility and impact segments of the study be redone for the
1998 feasibility study.
The 1998 FeasibHlty Stud'{
For this study, representatives of thirteen public and private horse parks were queried
as to: background, facilities, events, marketing, funding, staffing, and community
involvement. In addition, information was solicited from several horse parks that were
under consideration at the time. Representatives of 59 equestrian groups. were also
contacted to update the Lewis County marketing survey. Input was also solicited In
deptli from ~e Langer Equestrian Group. an equestrian consulting finn from Los
Angeles.
15
Four scenarios of the model were devaloped and "run.· They differed as to
assumptions of the following initial values and growth rates: numbers and types of
shows. entries. revenues, and costs. Scenario 3, the •m~st likely" scenario, proved to
be financially feasible, as did the "optimistic" Scenario 4. Scenario 3 projected:
• Attainment of break-even at the end of the fifth year of operations.
• Accumulation of $715,372 in losses by the end of the frfth year.
• Net revenues of $189, 732 _ when the facility reached maturity in year six.
• At maturity annual revenues to be $858,307 and annual expenses to be
$66~,575.
• A total of 25,600 horses to be entered .in shows annually when the facility is at
maturity.
• 89,600 exhibitors an~ spectators to use the facility an·nually when the facility is at
maturity.
• It would be necessary to create a capital funding approach which does not
require direct repayment from operating revenues, because the facility will not be
able to afford debt service.
An impa_ct model based upon expenditures of the· horse park participants and
expenditures for horse pai:k operations was developed to estimate financial flows to
both the local and state economies and to local and state finances. Using the "most
likely" scenario at year si~ maturity, the following impacts were projected:
16
• The direct spending by exhibitors and spectators were estimated to be
$9,856,000 when the facility reached maturity in the sixth year of operations.
• The total money flows attributable to the horse park in the sixth year, including
indirect and induced ~ffects, were $11,476,765 annually.
• Using the employment multiplier of 16 jobs per million dollars of direct
expenditures projects, 160 jobs would be created by the horse park after the
direct, indirect and induced effects are factored in.
• Starting at the sixth year, annual state impacts from out of state residents were
found to be $7,685,884 of direct, indirect and Induced spending.
• Operations of the facility would, at maturity, generate $758,912 in sales taxes, of
which $204,429 would be apportioned to local government coffers, and the
remainder would go to the State.
As for organizational structure, the 1998 study recommended that:
• The Washington State Horse Park Authority Board of Directors set up the
organization to be run by an experienced professional manager as a commercial
operation.
• The organization of the institution be that of a non-profit corporation, avoiding
designation as a State governmental entity and thus avoiding the labor and
procurement procedures required of State governmental units.
17
Other Feasibility Studle&
Of studies done of feasibility and/or impact of other horse parks, six are of particular
analytic merit: the feasibility and Impact studies for the New Jersey, the.Connecticut.
the Texas, and the Maryland horse parks, and the impact stu~ies done on the Virginia
and the California horse park. Although the planned and actualized facilities for the
New Jersey horse park are considerably smaller that those planned for Washington
State, the general model of the study was ccmsidered substantive, as was the model for
the Connecticut study. Both are •·bottom-up" studies; that is, they begin with estimates
of demand for the faciJity and estimates of charges that can be made for horse park
services and proceed to project revenues, costs, and profits. Both studies entailed
surveys of regional facilities as a basis for estimating demand. It should be noted that
the Intent of the Connecticut group was to build a facility suitable for national events,
whereas the New Jersey f~cility was intended primarily as a state and regional facility.
As for the Impact components of existing studies, all are based upon a tallying of direct
impacts based upon counts of horse/days from which a number of measures are
derived: number of persons attending (grooms, exhibitors, and spectators.) Direct
impacts are then calculated based upon the expenditures per day of participants. Some
of the studies conducted surveys to detem,ine attendance per horse and spending
patterns, whereas others. given the close approximation of the survey results, chose to
use existing estimates. A similar differentiation among impact ~tudles can be found in
the use of multipliers to estimate indirect impacts from direct impacts; indirect impacts
result from secondary spending by the recipients of horse park payrolls. expenditures·,
expenditures by visitors, as well as from local linkages that provide inputs into the
purchases by the horse park and its visitors. The Virginia, Texas, Maryland, and
California studies used input.output analysis to derive these multipliers. whereas the
other studies used existing estimates of multipliers, or did not-estimate Indirect impacts.
18
Ill EXISTJNG FACILITIES
In the preparation of this study and its two precursors the administrators of 45 horse
parks were contacted and surveyed as to elements of their operational, organizational
and financial histories. The Lewis County horse park study was used as a basis of
information on regional facilities, as the study concentrated upon deriving information
from regional equestrian individuals, groups and facilities. The interviews conducted for
this study concentrated upon facilities of comparable scale and purpose to the planned
Washington State horse park. The purpose for this emphasis was multlfold: first.
financial and event data and growth rates from these facilities are a primary input into
modeling the feasibility of a Washington State facility. Many of the findings of this
survey process were corroborated in conversations with and information shared by the
Langer Equestrian Group of Los Angeles.
In addition to a number of horse park directors who were contacted for specific
information, ten horse park directors/managers were interviewed systematically and in
depth. These horse parks were selected because of their nature -they were primarily
state level facilities that hosted local. regional and national events. Facilities contacted
for the systematic interview were:
Georgia International Horse Park
Horse Park of New Jersey
Hoosier Horse Park
Kentucky Horse Park
Los Angeles Equestrian Center
Reno Livestock Events Center
The State Fair of Oklahoma
Virginia Horse Center
WestWortd
19
Will Rogers Memorial Center
Senator Bob Martin Eastern Agricultural Center Horse Facility, Wiffiamston, N.C.
DelMar, San Diego CA.
The Colorado Horse Park
The Carolina Horse Park
WestWorld, Scotsdale A7..
Gov. James B. Hunt, Jr. Horse Facility, Raleigh, NC.
Salt Lake County Equestrian Center
In addition to that which is obvious from the survey form in the appendices, .the
following data were requested from all horse parks: total events, equestri~n events,
nonequestrian events. pennanent stalls, temporary stalls, paved parkl~g, unpaved
perking, total acreage. organization chart, rental policies, and equestrian event priority.
Of particular Importance ~ere financia_l data. Generally, the following data were ·
available: capitalization, operating revenues, operating expenses, number and size of
events at start-up, growth rates of revenues, costs, events, average number of horses.
Several-horse parks provided data for a number of years.
When this feasibility study was underway, we learned of two other horse parks under
consideration In Washington State. The first !nvolves the ceding of the Enumclaw
Fairgrounds facility by KJng County to the City of Enumclaw. One of the recommended
uses for the facility is an equestrian focused r~furblshing_of the f~irgrounds, so thaJ the
facility would become primarily an equestrian facility. A feasibility study is currently
underway; recommendations will be forwarded to the city in late December. The
second equestrian faclllty under consideration Is the Southwest Washington Regional
Equestrian Center in Centralia. It is envisioned as a larger ($80 mllllon) multipurpose
. .
facility, of which horse-related activities · will constitute about 25% of total revenues. The
center has funded a feasibility study with a focus on equestrian activities.
20
Anecdotal Findings
Although none of the facllities provide an ideal model of the Intended Washingtor-i State
facllity,.there appear to be a number of "truthsn about horse park finances and
management that were derived from our interview process:
• The quality of management Is critical to financial success of the facility.
• Management must be entrepreneurially, rather than bureaucratically spirited.
• The critical managerial goal is to capture show dates.
• The major sources of revenue are: stall rentals, facility or ring rents, bedding
sales, parking, concessions, and RV facilities.
• It Is important that procurement be done through private sector. processes, rather
than through state or municipal processes.
• The vast majority of facilities are public/private partnerships.
• Estimates of profitability are consistently about one in tw~lve facilities. Hence,
the vast majority of faci1lties are subsidized.
• Public sector subsidies are typically in the range of 15%•25% of costs, although
some range as high as 45%. They are justified on a basis of econ~mlc Impact
and/or "spillover benefits," secondary economic benefits that accrue to the
Jocation or reg,on~
• A facility cannot make capital and interest payments and even dream of breaking
even.
The vast majority of facilities have associated foundations to raise private sector
funding for capital or to subsidize operations.
• Private sector fund raising is far more difficult and far less successful than one
would imagine.
• It Is better to concentrate fund raising on individuals rather than on foundations.
• Launches usually run 5.S years behind Initially expected schedules.
• Profitable facilities have typically had the same managing director for more than
eight years.
21
• The largest faclllties generally run the largest deficits.
• The fatal flaw of large facility failures usually involves overly ambitious ancillary
activities such as administration facilities; restaurants, meeting rooms, etc.
• Converting to a year-round operation sometimes increases costs without
substantially Increasing revenues.
• It is necessary to book multiple events.
• Multi-day events should be targeted.
• Equestrian events should be marketed in conjunction with other community
attractions and activities.
• Non-equestrian events pay higher fees and are critically important generators of
revenue.
• Non-equestrian events are far less labor intensive.
• Horse ~roups are highly supportive fn the formation process, but often balk at
fees later on.
• Most facilities make excru·sive food concession contracts.
• Retail concessions are generally left up to event promoters.
• . ~anagement wiU tell event promoters security requirements, but do not require
the use of the facility's security personnel.
• · Eight of the twelve facillties contacted use private contractors for disposal of
manure and shavings.
• The more successful facilities minimize full time staff and rely on part-timers· for
events.
• Eight of the ten facilities we _re multi_ple use.
• Most facilities require a certificate of Insurance with one millfon· dollars bodily
injury and 50 thousand to one million dollar damage minimums.
• Public boarding often conflicts with show management.
• Motels and restaurants are primary among local business beneficiaries.
• Minimum stabling size Is 400 horses.
• There is a burgeoning of horse parks across the country. Most managers felt
22
that the new competition would outstrip demand. Several were concerned with
the effects of a future recession.
• Maintenance costs creep up over 5-9 years and are significant.
• Clearly there is a learning curve that applies to operating expenditures.
• Many costs were not incorporated in the Initial plans.
• Operating deficits drive significant cost-shaving efficiencies in the third or fourth
year of operation.
IV FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT: METHODOLOGY, APPLICATION AND
FINDINGS
Here we analyze the feasibility of the Washington State Horse Park by making
projections as to its-likely operating profits. We assume that the capital expenditure will
be provided by other sources from the public and private sectors. In our projections we
also assume a waiver of property taxes.
Revenues
Although there are many categories of revenues, there ifre four categories that, from
the experience of other horse parks, comprise 85-91 % of all revenues. Stall rentals are
the most significant source of revenues ~t an average of 51 %. Bedding is the next
highest source at 18%. Together, stalls and bedding account for over 2/3rds of
revenues and these are critical areas in the success of any equestrian park. In addition
I
to these principal sources, arenas contribute 10%, camping facilities 9%, miscellaneous
utilities and equipment 4% and other sources 2%. The revenue flow from these
functions is remarkably consistent across horse parks.
Note that these revenue sources are proportional to the number of horses using the
23
facility. When modeling changing revenue over time, we focus on the number of horse -days (one horse using the facility one day) and the average revenue per horse. This
ignores non-equestrian sources of revenue, which we will address below.
The number of horse days, and therefore revenue, depends on the number of events
hosted by the Horse Park, and the number of horses per event. While examining the
experience of other horse parks may be informative, demand for a facility may vary
dramatically from location to location, depending on such factors as the horse
population density of the area surrounding the perk, the number and quality of
competing parks, and the length of the season. Obviously the factors that make
demand large In such a location as Los Angeles may or may not apply in Washington.
Given this, we estimated demand several ways. using differing methods and
assumptions. The demand estimate from the 1998 version of this study simply
multiplied the numb.er of stalls (400} times the number of weekend days the facility
would be open (64 days or 32 weekends), for a total number of horse days of 25,600.
This underesti!llated demand because it ignored the fact that most events will run from
three to five days. But it significantly overestimated demand, for it assumed that most
events will include the maximum number of horses (400). It also assumes full capacity
for 32 weekends. A 26 weekend seasori runs from April through the end of September;
32 weekends requires 6 weekends dMded between March and October, which we
view as infeasible on grounds of the length of the horse show season and
weather/travel conditions. However, in one scenario descri~ed below we do assume
25,600 horse days, but this ·number is excessively optimistic.
In order to develop a more fact based demand model, we asked a local horse
enthusiast. Steve Busick, to perform a market survey. Mr. Busick called the officials of
most Washington equestrian organizations, and recorded the number of events
conducted by each organization per year, and the number of horses in each event. He
24
also asked questions related to the how many of these events are likely to be moved to
the Washington Horse Park, as well as the likelihood of organizing new events.
Most organizations have two types of events. The first category is small events,
involving a single day and a small portion of the organization's membership. These
tend to be more frequent, but involve much smaller numbers of horses per event
(averaging 65 in our sample). These events are usually spread out among multiple
facilities, often local fairgrounds. We estimated that very few of these events would be
held at the WSHP-we assumed one per organization. This resulted in 260 horse days
from four events.
The other category of event involves a larger number of horses (averaging 150 In our
sample) and multiple days. In assessing potential demand, we included one major
event for each organization, unless the organizatiori official indicated that all events
were held at one other location and a new venue was desired (e.g. WSHJA, with five
events at Monroe which could all switch). In the case of one organization using Oregon
fairgrounds (AMHA Region 8), we concluded it was unlikely the WSHP will acquire any
business. In calculating horse days for multlple day events, we added one day to each
event. It is our understanding that most competitors arrive the day before major events,
resulting In another day of stall rentals. This overstates demand, for while stall, feed
and shavings will be purchased, other revenue sources such as arena rentals or food
concessions will not occur. Based on these assumptions, surveyed demand was
10,630 horse days from 11 multiple day events. The survey included 24 multiple day
events at all locations, so our assumptjons result in approximately half of surveyed
multiple day events switching to the WSHP. We wil.1 consider this number, 10,630, as
our conservative estimate of demand.
Our survey did not contact all Washington equestrian organizations, although it is likely
that we contacted the majority of the larger organization. There may al~ be
25
organizations from other states that are willing to switch to the WSHP, Rlthough our
survey does include organizations using Oregon facilities. If we assume that we only
contacted 60% of potential client organizations, and that the remaining organizations
are similar in character to the surveyed organizations, they we may scale up our
surveyed demand as follows:
10,630 X 60% = 17,717
This results in a true total number of 17,717 horse days from 18 large events and 7
small events. While the previous feasibility study estimated a 32 weekend season, a
six month or 26 weekend season seems more likely given Northwest weather
conditions and the length of the show season. While some of the small events may be
double booked for the same day or same weekend, there are few weekends remaining
for larger organizations. This is our optimistic forecast of horse day demand.
As another measure of potential demand, we note that in our sample-the average
number of horses at multiple day events is exactly f50. The average number of days in
multiple day events is 3.45. Multiplying these~ we have 518 horse days per multiple day
event. Jf we assume a 29 week season -every weekend April through S_eptember and
three w~ekends divided between March and October -this results in 29 times 518 or
15,027 horse days. For the total number of horse days to be larger than this, horse
organizations outside of our survey must hold substantially larger shows. Given that we
contacted the larger organizations, this seems unlikely. Our assumption of 29 events
per season is also somewhat heroic.
In alscusslng this point with an industry consultant, we were told that it is pos~ible that
entrepreneurs do put tt>gether horse shows Independently of local organizations. A 400
horse show could be drawn from the membership of many local organizations. We do
not have any method of assessing likelihood that this will occur. Nothing in our survey
gave support to the Jdea that there Is an underlying demand for horseshows untapped
by e.xisting organizations.
26
We then work with the following estimates of horse days per year: 10.630
(conservative), 17,717 (optimistic), and 25,600 (unrealistic). Given a number of horse
days per year, we translate this into revenue per year_ by multiplying by dollars per
horse day. As mentioned above, survey results indicate that stall fees are
approximately one. half of revenue per horse. We confirmed this by examining an event
analysis for a Dressage Horse Show conducted in Los Angeles in 2003. Horse stall
revenue was 54% of total show rental. Bas'3d on this, we assume total revenue per
horse is twice stall rental, even though some revenue is indirectly linked to the number
of stalls rented (e.g. the facility rental).
We must distinguish between stall fees charged to the participant from stall fees paid to
the facility. Show organizers pay facility stall fees and charge participant stall fees. For
the purposes of our study, we are only concerned with facifity stall fees. In our survey
of WA equine organizations, Steve Busick asked the organization officers what stall
rentals were at their current locations. Seven respondents said $25, while the other
threeJisted $35, $40 and $65 per d~y. For the Los Angeles show we examined, stall
fees to the facility ware $13.86 per horse day. Given this disparity In rental fees, we
were unsure if our survey respondents we providing stall fees charged to particip'ants or
charge fees paid to facilities. 111 order to resolve this we conducted a brief internet
search of current facilities.
The Kentucky Horse Pari< lists $20/night for the first night, and $15 per night thereafter.
This Horse Park of New Jersey lists $30 for one day shows, $45 (total) for 2 or 3 day
shows, and $10 per day thereafter. The North Carolina Eastern Agriculture Center
charges between $10 and $15 per day depending on the number of days. Examining
the entry forms of the Reining Horse Association NW, the per day stall fee to the
competitor atvarious Northwest locations is uniformly $25 per night This information
suggests that revenue to the facility is between $10 and $15. while &tall fees charged to
27
participants by th~ promoting organization are usua·lly $25 per night.
Based on this, and assuming total revenue per horse is twice stall rentals. we use
revenue per horse figures of $20 and $30. We believe higher figures than those are
unrealistic. Our primary evidence is a survey performed for another proposed facility In
Washington. When asked the primary reason for changing facilities, rising facility
charges was the most frequent answer. Organizers of horse shows seem to be quite
price sensitive.
While equine shows wifl be the primary source of WSHP revenue, it is also possible
that the facility will be used •for other types· of events. An essential component of
profltablllty wlll be booking .events for otheiwise unused times, and in our discussions
with Industry consultants several possibllitJes were proposed.
One Is housing a "livery stable" --an _organization that rents horses for trail riding. Given
the proximity to the Suncadla resort, it is possible that the WSHP may lease space to a
contractor who in tum rents horses for trail rides. Riding lessons may be another
potentia_l market. The resort may aiso wish to lease the facility for very large events -
trade shows. etc. -that require more meeting space than is available at the resort.
Entrepreneurial talent on the part of the WSHP management, as well as flexible facility
design will maximize the potential of .non-equine revenues. As a rough approximation,
it may be possible to generate $100,000 per year in non--equestrian revenue, and we
include this amount in one 9f our scenarios, This revenue stream is highly uncertain for
several reasons. First, the ~eslgn of the proposed facility is for a relatively small
number of spectators. A non-equesbian event will nonnally generate reven.ue from
spectatQrs (e.g. music events), so the WSHP facility with seating, restrooms ,etc.
designed for an audience of 1000 wm have little appeal. Given its location a mountain
pass away from population centers, we view it as unlikely that it will be used for the host
of events normally housed in county fairgrounds, such as car and gun shows. The
28
facility is also not designed for horse boarding, leaving a conflict between stall rentals
for horse shows and stall rentals for a "livery stable". In one of our scenarios we include
$100,000 per year in aJtematlve revenue, but the generation of this revenue will require
considerable entrepreneurial ingenuity.
Costs.
We used two methods of calculating operating costs. First, we estimated the ~st of
each component of operations (e.g. labor costs, utility co~ts, etc.) and add them
together (the component approach). Alternatively, we informally surveyed existing
horse parks to discover their operating costs (the survey approach). Each method has
disadvantages. The component approach has the ~isadvantage that we must estimate
the quantities of all inputs -we must know how many workers will be hired, how much
fuel will be-used. etc. Such estimates generally assume efficient operations, Which is
unlikely in any new business.
The survey approach has the advantage that it reflects the costs of actual operations,
but the disadvantage that other facilities may have very different operations -for
example the number of non-equestrian events may be substantially larger or smaller.
Both of our approaches yielded s;milar results, giving us substantial confidence In the
approximate cost of operations.
The 1998 feasibility study conducted a component cost estimate, based on estimates
by the Langer Equestrian Group and confirmed by a survey of 13 equestria11 facilities.
That estimate was $445,500 as a first year operating cost, and we scaled that estimate
up by the amount of inflation from 1996-2005, resulting in an estimate of $516,232 for
the first year of operation .. Another component based cost estimate was perfonned
independently by Ed Lapsley as part of his re-estimation of construction costs. His
result was within $12,000 of ours.
29
Fer the survey approach, we called a number of existing horse parks in order to
estimate operating costs for a facility of the size proposed for the WSHP. For 400 stall
parks, we found a wide range of operating costs, with lows very dose to our estimate
and highs around $1.2 million dollars per year (see below). This estimate is very
imprecise, for surveyed facilities varied the length of their operating season (with some
operating year round), as well as the range of equine and non.-equine events hosted.
In our scenarios we increase operating costs by 7% per year until the facility reaches
full capacity, and then decrease its growth rate to expected inflation (2.5%).
This model of cost over time assumes that many of the operating costs will exist
regardless of the number of horse days -for example the manager will have to be paid
even in the first year of operation when the number of events is small. To these "fixed"
costs we add costs that wlll increase with the number of horse days, such as bedding
and manual labor costs. Because only part of the total operating costs will Increase,
the rate of total costs wUI increase more slowly (1%) than the number of horse d~ys (20
or25%).
-
One op,rating cost that is not Included Is property tax. Based on an expenditure of
-
twenty million dollars and a la~d value of five million dollars, property taxes will be
approximately two hundred and twenty five thousand dollars. We have assumed that
the taxing jurisdictions waive these taxes -the facility will ~xperience substantial
operating losses if these are included.
Scenarios:
We use the parameters of demand and cost to develop four scenarios regarding
profitabllity. All assume an absence of capital costs and property taxes. Tables Two
30
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
ti-). ->
Table 2: Scenario 1 Parameter Values
Year
Horses
4,000 Starting Numbers of Horses
20.00% Growth Rate of Horses
$80,000.00 Starting Total Revenues
$20 Starting Revenue Per Horse
$516.232 Starting Total Expenses
$129.06 Starting Expenses per horse
7.00% Growth Rate of Expenses
400 Number of stalls
10,630 Maximum Horses
2.50% Inflation Rate
1
4000
2
4800
Total Rev per Horse
Total Revenue
$20.00
$80,000
$20.00
$96,000
3
5760
$20.00
$115,200
4
6912
$20.00
$138,240
5
8294
$20.00
$165,888
Total Expenses
Expenses per horse
$516,232 $552,368 $591,034 $632,405" $678,675
$129 $115 $103 $91 $82
6
9953
$20.00
$199,066
$724,042
$73
7
10630
$22.47
$238,879
8
10630
$24.05
$255,600
$774,725 $794,093
$73 $75
t 9
10630
$25.73·
$273,492
$813,945
sn
Operating Profits -$436,232 -$456,368 -$475,834 -$494,166 -$510,787 -$524,976 -$535,846 -$538,493 -$540,453
Cumulative Losses -$436,232 -$892,600 -$1,368,434 ·-$1,862,601 -$2,373,388 -$2,898,364 -$3,434,210 -$3,972,703 -$4,513,156
~
c,-
Table 3: Scenario 2 Parameter Values
Year
Horses.
8,000 Starting Numbers of Horses
25.00% Growth Rate of Horses
$240,000.00 Starting Total Revenues
$30 Starting Revenues per Horse
$516,232 Starting Total Expenses
$64.53 Starting Expenses per horse
7 .00% Growth Rate of Expenses
400 Number of stalls
25,600 Mal<imum Horses
2 .50% Inflation Rate
1 2
8000 10000
Total Rev per Horse $30.00 $30.0p
3
12500
$30.00
Total Revenue $240,000 $300,000 $375,000
Total Expenses $516,232 $552,368 $591,034
Expenses per horse $65 $55 $47
Operating Profits -$276,232 -$252,368 -$216,034
Cumulative Losses -$276,232 ·$528,600 -$744,634
4
15625
$30.00
$468,750
$632,406
$40
-$163,656
-$908,291
5 6 7 8 9
19531 24414 25600 25600 25600
$30.00 $30.00 $35.76 $36.66 $37.57
$585,938 $732,422 $915,527 $938,416. $961,876
$676,675 $724,042 $774,725 $794,093 $813,945
$35 $30 $30 $31 $32
-$90,737 $8,380 $140,802 $144,322 $147,930
-$999,028 -$990,648 -$849,846 -$705,524 -$557,593
~ -p
Table 4: Scenario 3 Parameter Values
6,000 Starting Numbers of Horses
25.00% Growth Rate of Horses
$180,000.00 Starting Total Revenues
$30 Starting Revenues per Horse
$100,000 Non-equine revenue
$516,232 Starting Total Expenses
SBS.04 Starting Expenses per horse
7 .00% Growth Rate of Expenses
400 Number of stalls
17,717 Maximum Horses
2.50% Inflation Rate
Year , .2
Horses 6000 7500
Total Rev per Horse $30.00 $30.00
Total Revenue $180,000 $225,000
Augmented total $280,000 $325,000
Total Exp~nses $516,232 $552.~68
Expenses per horse $86 $74
Operating Profits -$2~6.232 -$227,368
t::umulatlve Losses -$236,232 -$463,600
3
9375
$30.00
$281,250
$381,250
$591,034
$63
-$209,784
-$673,384
4 5 6 7 8 9
11719 14648 17717 17717 17717 17717
$30.00 l $30.00 $31.01 $31.78 $32.57 $33.39
$351,563 $439,-453 $549,316 $563,049 $577,126 $591,554
$451,583 $539,453 $649,316 $663,049 $677,1Z6 $691,554
$632,406 $676,675 $724,042 $742,143 $760,697 $779,714
$54 $46 $41 $42 $43 $44
-$180,844 -$137,222 -$74,726 -$79,094 -$83,571 -$88,160
-$854,228 -$991,450 -$1,066,176 -$1, 145,269 -$1,228,841 -$1,317,001
U).
~
Table ,5: Scenario 4 Parameter Values
Year
Horses
6,000 Starting Numbers of Horses
25.00% Growth Rate of Horses
$252,000.00 Starting Total Revenues
$42 Starting Revenues per Horse
$516.232 Starting Total Expenses
$86.04 Starting Expenses per horse
7.00% Growth Rate of Expenses
400 Number of stalls
17,717 Maximum Horses
2.50% Inflation Rate
2
6000 7500
$42.00 $42.00
3
9375
$42.00
4 5 6 7 a: 9
11719 14648 17717 1n11 17717 1.n11
$42.00 S4i.oo $43.41 $44.49 $45.60 $46.74 Total Rev per Horse
Total Revenue $252,000 $315,000 $393,750 $492,188 $615,234 $769,043 $788,269 $807,976 $828,175
Total Expenses
Expenses per horse
Operattng Profits
Cumulative Losses
$516,232 $55?,368 $591,034 $632,406 $676,675 $724,042 $774,725 $794,093 $813,945
$86 $74 $63 $54 $46 $41 $44 $45 $46
-$264,232 -$2~7,368 -$197,284 -$140,219 -$61,440 $45,001 $13,544 $13,883 $14,230
-$264·,232 -$501,600 -$698;884 -$839,103 -$900,544 -$855,543 -$841,999 -$828,116 -$813,886
Table Sbc lists revenue and cost data for eleven horse parks. ranked by the number of
permanent staHs. The dollar figures are In thousands. As may be observed from the
table, most horse parks experience operating losses, averaging 19% of operating costs.
This report's Scenario 3 is consistent with this, with losses of around 11 % of total
costs.
Facility#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Table Six: Comparable Facilities' Revenues arid Costs
Permane
nt Stalls
217
300
400
440
460
480
484
550
672
750
1,100
Revenue
($1,000)
$495
$850
$480
$600
$1,178
$6;111
$580
$578
$2,400 "
$3,205
$6,190
Costs
($1000)
$597
$1,500
$586
$1,100
$1,117
$7,447
$680
$860
$2,400
$3,558
$7,239
Operating
Profit
($1000)
-$102
--$650
·$96
·$500
$61
~1,276
-$100
-$282
$0
-$363
-$1,049
Average .
Profit as a o/o of
Costs
-17%
-43%
-16%
-45%
5%
-17%
-15%
-33%
0%
-10%
-14%
-19%
Scenario 3 predicts operating losses of around $80,000 per year. This ~hould be put in
perspective. Whether there are losses or gains of this amount, these results are only a
very small percentages of the opportunity cost of the 20 million doltar capital
expenditure. At a five percent interest rate, the annual interest on 20 million dollars is
one million dollars. The facility also requires two hundred and twenty five thousand
dollars forgone property tax. The opportunity cost of the facility, on an annual basis, is
therefore $1.225 million. If this facility provides this much value to the citizens of the
state, it probably also justifies another .eighty thousand per year in operating subsidies.
32
V IMPACT ANALYSIS: METHODOLOGY, APPLICATION AND FINDINGS
Impact analysis ·;s commonly used in regional policy making to predict the economic
changes that result from a project. These changes, or impacts, are experienced as
increases or decreases in the magnitude of selected economic variables.
Employment, output, income, value added, and taxable sales are the most often used
impact variables. Project impacts may be estimated for a local, regional, state, or
national economy.
One purpose of this study is to estimate the impacts of the horse park operations upon
the state, and more importantly, upon the immediate regional economy. This chapter
explains the methods that we used to estimate total regional impacts that result from
the initial direct effects of the project. First we describe the general type$ of econon,lc
Impacts. Then we briefly explain the specific modeling techniques.
Types of Economic Impact
There are th _ree types of economic impacts. direct, indirect, and induced-each of which
captures one facet of change in regional economic activities.
Direct Impact§
Direct impacts refer to the initial purchases within an economy that result from project
activities. OJrect impacts of the horse park include expenditures stemming from
construction. operations and maintenance. and from spending by event participants and
spectators. Examples include purchases of concrete for construction, purchases of
beddtng by the horse park, and expenditures for lodging by out-of~area participants.
Indira~ Impacts
33
The term "'indirect Impacts" refers to the production and sales of goods and services
that result from the fact that direct impacts require inputs from other business sectors.
For example. in order to sell hay at the retail level (a direct impact), materials will be
purchased from local wholesalers and growers. This second levef of activity is the
source of indirect impacts.
Induced Impacts
Ttie changes in employment in those industries ·that experience both direct and indirect
impacts result in changes in income that are spent in the region to purchase consumer
goods and services. This Income effect Is the source of induced impacts. For example,
if hay is produced locally, local incomes ~ncrease. Local spending of this additional
income is the basis of an induced impact.
Total Economic Impact
The total economic impact is found by adding all three levels of impact for each -sector
of the focal economy. The larger the magnitude of local purchases, the larger will be the
total local Impact; conv~rsely, the larger the portion of expenditures which are made
outside the local economy, the smaller will be the total local impact. The amount spent
outside the region does not effect the local economy, but the amount spent locally on
such things as food, s~rvices, and supplies is considered a local impact. Similarly,
purchases resulting from Increased wages which stem from both direct and i'ndf rect
impacts are the basis fur the Induced "impact, a further round of focal ·spending. Induced . . .
impact~ lead to additional rounds of indirect.and induced impacts. This is referred to as
a .. multiplier effect."
To the extent that expenditures occur outside the local economy, they are considered to
34
be leakages. With each round of spending a portion usually leaks outside the local
economy. Leakages from successive rounds of spending eventually taper further
rounds of responding to zero. The larger the region, the more intricate the economic
linkages and, accordingly, the greater the total local impact from a given direct
expenditure.
There is, -therefore, a multiplicative effect af a given direct impact, which results in
greater total impacts. This so-caU-ed multiplier reflects the extent to which the initial
expenditures ·recirculate through a local economy. The multiplier shows the relationship
of direct impact to toial impact and depends upon both the degree of linkages among
the local industries and the extent of leakages. In a general sense, the multiplier can be
estimated by dividing the total impact by the direct impact. For example, if a total impact
of $1000 is comprised of $500 of direct impacts, $275 of indirect Impacts, and $225 of
induced impacts, the multiplier Is $1000/$500 or 2. In this example, each dollar of direct
impact creates a total Impact of $2. Note that the total impact includes the original dollar
of direct impact. To most accurately assess the multiplicative effect, estimates of the
· multiplier are often derived for each sector of the economy. To accomplish this task a
computer model of the local economy can simulate local economic interactions.
A number of economic impact analyses have been conducted for horse-related
activities. The primary element of impact analysis for horse parks .is the measurement
of direct benefits. These are based upon a set of measurements regarding the ~umber
of people for every horse on the grounds, the expenditures per person, and the
percentage of expenditures that originate outside of the region of analysis. This last
component ls included because, ~y the precepts of regional eoonomk:s, it is assumed
that only external dollars advance the local or regional economy, since expenditures
from locals would have occurred anyway, whet~er on horses or on other Items that
would cycle through the local economy. It is, accordingly, appropriate to review the
values of these spending patterns used in other impact analyses of horse _parks. A
35
second major element of Impact analysis is the multiplier. Each analysis develops a
multiplier to convert direct expenditures to total impact upon the target economy. The
multipliers will vary depending upon location arid type of activity.
Fortunately, the measurements of both direct and indirect impacts that have been
dev~loped or assumed in other horse park studies converge into a somewhat tight
band. A brief review of the relevant variables in these studies follows; all dollar values
have been converted to year 2006 doUars.
The feasibility study of the national scale Maryfana Horse Park assumed the extremely
low values of 1.27 participants including spectators per horse. Sp~r,dlng per person in
the local area was $100 per day for lodging and meals plus $160 of horse related
expenditures.
The study for the California Horse Park assumed spending of $126.22 per person, with
95% of pa!"llclpants and spectators coming from outside the county. Total ·individuals
per horse was 2.5.
The often-cited Oklahoma City Chamber of commerce study measured and used the
following values: 3.5 persons per horse, $174.57 expended per person per show day,
85% of spending is from ·out of town.
A survey of Northwest horse owners was the basis for the estimates used in the Lewis
County study. This primary research projected the following values: 2.4 persons per
horse, $116.52 expenditure per day per person, and 28% out-of-state attendance.
These values were given particular weight in our analysis because of their regional
derivation.
The very complete analysis of the Virginia Horse Center by Kaplan and Knapp (1995)
36
derived the following values from their survey: an average of 1.5 persons per horse, a
weighted average of $268 expended per person per show day, 53% of spending from
out of town . It should be noted that although the persons per horse measure is quite
low at .1.5, the expenditures per person is quite high, resulting in a product of the two
factors that falls tightly into line-with the other studies.
The Governor Hunt Horse Park Complex in Raleigh uses the following values: 4
persons per horse, $125 expended per person per show day, 67% of spending is from
out of town.
The Hoosier Horse Park uses the following values: 3 persons per horse, $123
expended per person per show day.
The Connecticµt Horse Park and Exhibition Center feasibility study measured and used
the following values: 6 persons per horse (including exhibitors and spectators,} $169.68
expended per person per show day, 85% of spending from out of town.
Although ~he measures of participants from outside the area ranged from 28% to 85%
across the studies, these numbers reflect several factors -the size of the area and the
size and nature of the shows. Clearly the density of population in the East tends to
increase this measure, and a higher proportion of large shows tends to increase this
measure. The Virginia study group conducted a survey to find that 32% of small show
participants were from out of state, along with 59% at medium sized shows and 52% at
large shows. Thus this percentage wm change as the mix of shows shifts with maturity
of the facility. Because of the large sizes of western states and their relatively low
populatlon densities, we select the bottom end of the range for out of state participation,
25%. Remember that this Is the num~r to be entered into the calculations for impacts
at the state level; at tne county level a· figure as high as 95% of participants coming
from outside the county can be used and deemed conservative, given the very small
37
population of Kittitas County (at 38,000) relative to the region. Again,_ to be on the
conservative side, we use 3 persons per horse (both participants and spectators), and
$136 expenditures per person. Although our estimates of spending tend to be low, we
find these appropriate In vfew of the relatively limited options for expenditures in a rural
county. coupled with the iower cost of tourism expenditures for motels, restaurants, and
entertainment in a rural area.
In impact studies the magnitude of the impact multipliers Is wide ranging and far more
dependant upon scope of the region under analysis. As for impact of horse parks, the
Virginia Horse Center study employed the highly rigorous input-output technique to
derive two sets of multipliers, one for the state and one for the immediate horse center
area. Table 7 shows output, earnings, and employment multipliers for both Virginia and
the Immediate area. The output multiplier converts direct expenditures Into output (or
value of product), the earnings multiplier converts expenditures into Incomes, and the
empfoyment multipliers convert spending into a .measure of new jobs created. For the
~tate impacts of our study, we compare the ·most recent input-output analysis multipliers
for W ?Shington State to those for the State of Virginia and adopted the multipliers
shown in Table 8; note that they do not differmarkedly from those used for the State of
Virginia. However, the multipliers for Kittitas County differ significantly from those for
the Lexington-Rockbridge location of the Virginia facility. This Is because the Kittitas
' area is far smaller (population of 36,600 versus 360,000), and accordingly has far fewer
economic linkages; many of the types of establishments-in the Lexington-Rockbridge
location do not exist in Kittitas county, and will not exist within the time-scope of this
analysis.
38
Table Seven
The Impact Multipliers for the Virginia Horse Center
Output Multiplier Earnings Multiplier Employment
Multiplier
State of Virginia 2.48 0.95 43.54
Lexington-R-bridge 1.88 0.72 45.79 -
In the mid-1990's an Input-output model for the .combined Kittitas and Yakima Counties
was developed by one of the authors of this present study in order·to estimate the.
impacts of the operation of a fish hatchery, also located next to the City of Cle Elum.
The direct to indirect impact multipliers for this hatchery study (1.6 for jobs and 1.8 for
earnings) were very close to the 1.88 mu{tfpfiers of the Virginia stud yr This is not
surprising in view of the facts that the two county area has approximately the same
population as the Lexington-Rockbrtdge area, and that most of the spending associated
with the hatchery-expenditures by recreational fishers -impacted the hotel, restaurant,
e1;1mping and retail foods sectors, as did most of the expenditures by horse park visitors.
In both cases about 90% of expenditures impact these tourism sect9rs. Accordingly ,
the sectorlal multipliers for the state of Virginia study are deemed appropriate for direct
application as to the impact of the horse park upon the State of Washington.
Tabfe Eight
Impact Multipliers for Washington State and .Kittitas County
Direct Expend _itures to Total Employment Multiplier -
~pending Multiplier Jobs/Million $ of Direct
Expenditures
Washington State 2,48 20
Kittitas County 1.15 16
39
Because Kittitas County is far smaller and less economically interlinked Jhan is the
combined Kittitas-Yakima area (about 10% of the combined county population or
income), a yet smaller multiplier is appropriate. Accordingly, based upon a number of
studies that ~rrelate multipliers to -size of place, an earnings multiplier of 1.15 was
used for Kittitas C9unty impacts in this horse park analysis. A multiplier of 2.48 was
used for the State measures. Another means of stating the jobs multiplier is In terms of
the number of jobs created per million dollars of direct expenditures. This jobs
multiplier takes into account both indirect and Induced effects. In other horse park
studies these jobs multipliers range from 16 to 45 jobs created per million dollars of
direct expenditures. We have used 17 for the county component and 20 for the state
component, both conservative figures. Although the magnitude of these multipliers may
appear to be very conservative, It must be remembered that Kittitas County is a very
small and unlinked economy.
Direct Impacts: Two categories of direct expenditures were Input into the model: Direct
~xpendftures incurred In the operation of the horse park and the direct expenditures of
show ·participants and spectators. As for direct expenditures arising from operations of
the horse park, only a small percentage of these expenses will Impact the local area,
due to the lack of local sourcing of many of these expenditures. As many of these
goods and services wiil be purchased within the State, however, a higher proportion of
exJ?enditures shown on Line 1 of Table 8 are "margined" into direct e)CJ>enditures for the
state-wide component of the model. After considering availability of sources, 48% of
total operating expenditures were considered to be local and 90% were used in th~
state~wide component As the 48% local expenditures are included in the state's 90%,
this means that 10% of direct expenditures went outside the state.
Qlrect expenditures of show participants and spectators was calculated froni the •
number of horses, based upon the following assumptions: 3 persons ~r horse and
40
$136 spent per person per day. Be~ause these expenditures are primarily for tourist
services. we assume that 82% of expenditures will impact the local economy. The
remaining 18% wi,11 go to vendors who travel to the county for these events, and are
therefore not considered "local.11
Findings of the Impact Model
We applied the impact model only to the results of Scenarios 3 and 4, the "most likelt
feasibility models; both were based upon the same starting numbers of horses across
the years of analysis. As the Impact model results are linear functions of the number of
horses and therefore visitors. impacts for the other feasibility runs can be easily
calculated. Table 9 shows the logic and results of the model. let us use the Year Six
co1u·mn to show the impact of the horse park ln its maturity stage. DJrect participant
expenditures of $7,334,838 are shown on line 1; these are comprised of the number of
hors~s. times the number of participants per hors~. times the spending at $138 p~r day.
Line 1 is next margined at 95% to reflect the fact that 95% of participants are from
outside the county. (Expenditures by In-county participants are netted out as It is
assumed that this money would be spent in the county even without the horse park.)
This 111arglning yields the $6,968,096 in line 2, spending by participants on the local
market. Line 3 gives the $347,540 of expenditures made by the horse park
administn:ltion; it is calculated by multiplying horse park expenses by 48% to account
for expenses that flow Into the local economy; the remaining 52% will be spent outside
the local area. The sum of these two categories of local expenses (local spending by
participants, shown in line 2 plus spending on horse park operations, shown on line 3)
appears as $7,315,636 in line 4 as local total direct expenditures. These, in tum are
multiplied by the local (county) multiplier of 1.15 to yield local total impacts, shown lil
line 5. This number, $8,412,982 represents the total money flows, including indirect
and induced effects in the local economy that are attributable to the horse park. Using
the employment multiplier of 17 jobs per million dollars of direct expenditures glves us
41
•':',
line 6, the 143 jobs created by the horse park after the direct, indirect and Induced
effects are factored in.
42
Table 9: Cala.llation of Impacts from Contl~ulng
Operations
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9
Oi"ect Participant Expenditures $2,484,000 $3,105,000 $3.881,250 $4,851,563 $6,064,453 $7,334,838 $7,334,838 $7,334,838 $7,334,838
Out of County Participant Spending $2,359,800 $2,949,750 $3,687,188 $4,608,984 $5,761,230 $6,988,096 $6,968,096 $6,968,096 $6,968,096
L~ Horse Park Expenditures $247,791 $265,137 $283,696 $303,555 $324,804 $347,540 $356,229 $365,134 $374,263
Loom Total Direct Expenditures $2,607,591 $3,214,887 $3,970,884 $4,912,539 $6,086,034 $7,315,636 $7,324,325 $7,333,231 $7,342,·359
Local Total Expenditures $2,998,730 $3,697,120 $4,566,516 $5,649,420 $6,998,940 $8,412,982 $8,422,974 $8,433,215 $8,443,713
Local Employment Impacts (Jobs) 51 63 78 96 119 143 143 143 144
Out of State Participant Spending $496,800 $621,000 $TT6,250 $970,313 $1,212,891 $1.466,968 $1,466,968 $1,466,968 $1,466,968
Within State Horse Park Expenditures $438,797 $469,513 $502,379 $537,545 $57-5,174 $615,436 $630,822 $646,592 $662,757
Within State Total Direct Expenditures $935,597 $1,090,513 $1,278,629 $1;507,858 $1,788,064 $2,082,403 $2,097,789 $2, 113,560 $2,129,725
Total State Expenditures $2,320,281 $2,704,472 $3,171,000 $3,739,488 $4,434,399 $5,164,360 $5,202,517 $5,241,628 $5,281,717
Total Sales Tax $406,145 $so7,681 $634,602 $793,252 $991,565 $1,199,279 $1,199,279 $1,199,279 $1,199,279
Sales Tax to City $30,630 $38,288 $47,860 $59,825 $74,781 $90,446 $90,446 $90,446 $90,446
Sales Tax to County $2,785 $3,481 $4,351 $5,439 $6,798 $8,222 $8,222 $8,222 $8;222
Sa1es Tax to State $372,730 $465,913 $582,391 $727,989 $909,986 $1,100,611 $1,100,611 $1,100,611 $1,100,611
L,
~
State impacts are also calculated from the sum of participant plus horse park·
expenditures. This sum of $1,466,968 in Column 6, Line 7 is derived from Line 1; it has
been margined at 25%, because only 20% of participants are from out of state, and
therefore this is the source of impacts captured by the state. Those participants who
come from within the state would be assumed to be making those expenditures
elsewhere in the state If the horse park did not exist. Accordingly, the state participant
spending is actually less than the local. To denve ot~er state measures, State Horse
Park Expenditures of Line 8 are added to Line 7, summing to the $2,082,403 of State
Total Direct Expenditures. This, In tum is multiplied by the State multiplier of 2.48,
resulting in a total impact (including indirect and induced effects) of $5,164,360 shown
on Line 10.
Thus, It can be seen that the proposed park, even on a very conservative estimate of
use, generates a significant Impact on ·the County and-the State economies. It should
be noted that these estimates are based on horse shows only; they include no impacts
from use of the center by other events, which are expected .to consistently account for
up to 25% of the days the . facility is used. Any additional use by horse ~hows will also
markedJy increase these totals. This ana,ysis also only applJes to operating
expenditures -it ignores the very large initial construction expenditures ..
FJscal Impacts upon the Public Sector
Lines 11. 12, 13, and 14 of Table 8 show tax impacts. based upon the results of the
.. most likely" scenal'.'fo. Line 11 represents total sales ~ collected from participant
expenditures, calculated at a rate of 7.7%. Line 12 shows Cle Elum's local share of
the sales tax, $90,446 in Year 6. County share is $8,222. Finally, State share of sales
tax (6.5%) Is shown in Line 14, $1,100,611 in Year 6, reflecting the sales tax collected
from out of state participants. . Local share_of the motel and 'hotel·tax Is based on
50% of participant spending going to lodging and the tax rebate to local government is
44
2%; thus for year 6 this is $73,348.
Property Taxes
Using the assessment rate for Cle Elum of 8.34390 per thousand dollars of valuation,
the $5 million of land plus approximately $20 million of constructed Improvements
would generate an annual property tax of $225,285. The potential impact of adding this . .
level of taxes to the analysis of hor.se park economic feasibility is critical. Using the
projections of the most likely scenario, the payment of property taxes would add this
same amount to losses. Hence, even the most optimistic Scenarios, 2 and 4, would be
kept in the red. Essentially, payment of property taxes would render the project
infeasible under the most likely scenario.
Other Benefits:
Economic development is the business of attra'cting, creating and retaining businesses
in the State. An important element for any state in this battle is the ability to offer a
desirable quality of life. Any improvement in the quality of life makes a state more
attractive to people, and therefore more attractive to the companies which need those
people.
The addition of a first-class, nationatly-known horse park would be an enhancement to
the quality of life in Washington as well as an Important means for promoting the State's
image.
This type of facility, which brings thousands of people into the state from ~II over the
country, serves as a mar~eting tool. It b~ngs people here, exposes them to the benefits
of the area and perhaps stimulates their interest in Washington as a place to do
business --while at the same time pouring millions of dollars into the State's tourist
45
economy.
The various State and County development agencies subscribe to a goal of creating
additional major tourist attractions. The Washington Horse Park would function in much
the same way as a major sports arena or concert center where people come from a
wide area in order to watch events. Tourism is an important industry because it brings
substantial revenue into the economy without significanUy burdening local services,
particularly schools.
An increased number of equestrian events would also support those businesses in the
State serving the horse industry -farriers, feed and hay suppliers, veterinarJans and the
like. Increased interest In horses could also be expected to result in increased business
for horse dealers, stables and tack shops. Economic models estimate that over 7% of
the Overall Economic Impact occurring in the State due· to the Horse Park would flow
directly to the State in the form of taxes.
While. these impacts were calculated using standard economic methodology, it must be
noted that most of the forecasted events at the horse park are transfers of existing
shows at other facilHles. Only truly new events will create new spending, employment
and tax ·revenue.
VI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL STRU~TURE
A majQr task of this study was to make specific recommendations as to the appropriate
organizational structure needed to acquire control of the site. solicit funds to construct
improvements and successfully operate the facility over the long term. In this se~tlon
we recommend an appropriate organization structure for the WSHP Authority Board of
Directors based upon our interaction with the management of other horse parks, with
46
State and local government officials, and with groups of potential users.
The WSHP Authority is a non-profit corporation that was authorized by the Washington
State Legislature in 1995 under the provisions of Trtle 67 RCW 67.18. The seven
member Authority Board of Directors is appointed by the Governor of the State of
Washington and is granted broad authorities to "develop, promote, operate, manage,
and maintain" a horse park facility. We believe the most effective organization structure
to accomplish these key functions is: (1) for the Directors to establish a non-profit
corpora~ion with IRS Code 501.C.3 tax status so that it can receive tax free donations,
(2) for the corporation to contract in the private sector for the services of a professional
manager experienced in the establishment and operation of equestrian facilities, and
(3) to assign that professional manager the responsibility and authority, subject to
appropriate Board review, for the development, promotion, operation and maintenance
of the horse park. facility.
The professional manager, who would no~ be an employee of the State of Washington,
Would be responsible to monitor the construction of the improvements, to prepare a
budget to be approved by the Board for the operation of the facility, and to manage the
marketing and operations of the horse park facility. These responsibilities would
include hiring and managing employees (who would also not be employees of the State
of Washington) and negotiating directly with private sector suppliers of goods and
services to conduct the operations of the horse park facility. Based on our contacts
with horse park facilities In other states and with other authortty-controtled activities
within the State of Washington, it has consistently been pointed out that the flexibility,
time respohsiveness, and cost savings available by not being required to operate with
empJoyee regulations of the State of Washington and not being required to go through
the State purchasing system are significant and may be essential to the ability of the
Horse Park to achieve. financially self-supporting c;,perations in the early years.
47
In summary, we recommend that the WSHP Authority Board of Directors set up the
organization to be run by an experienced professional manager as a commercial
operation outside of the State governmental institutions and procedures, that the Board
focus its activities on obtaining the site and funding commitments required for the
construction of improvements and the first five years of operation, and that the Board
actively work with existing equestrian organizations to promote the Horse Park project.
VII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The primary objectives of this study were to determine the financial feasibility and
potential economic impact of the Washington State Horse Park in its proposed location
in Kittitas County, and to make recommendations as to the organizational structure of
the institution. We will summarize findings and make recommendations as they pertain
to each of these objectives.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Horse parks are not money makers in and of themselves. This is a reality which cannot
be overlooked. As shown in our analysis, they have a significant positive impact on the
economy, but are not themselves profit sources. This Is particularly true for high quality
facilities where typically revenues do not fully cover operating expenses._
We developed a relatively sophisticated financial model to determine economic
feasibility. The inputs into this model were gathered from.the experiences of operating
hol'$e parks around the country, user groups that we surveyed, and the experience of
horse park management professionals and consultants. The advantage of using such
experiential data is that elements· of good and bad luck. managerial learning, and shifts ·
in facility goats and procedures are therefore incorporated into the modeling process.
Four scenarios of the model were developed and "run;• they .differed as to assumptions
48
of growth rates of: numbers and types of shows, entries, revenues, and costs. In
Scenario 3, which we believe will be the most likely scenario, the park operates at an
eighty thousand dollar per year loss, despite assuming augmented revenues of
$100,000 per year from non-equestrian events. Scenario 2, which assumes a much
higher and likely unrealistic rate of facility use, results in net revenues of approximately
one hundred fifty thousand dollars per year. The key financial findings of these two
scenarios a re:
• Maximum use of the faciflty is reached in the sixth year. Scenario 2 breaks
even in the sixth year.
• Accumulation of 1.4 million dollars in losses by the end of the tenth year in
Scenario 3. Scenario 2 accumulates one million dollars in losses prior to
break-even.
• Net revenues fosses of $74,726 when the facility reaches maturity in year six
for Scenario 3. Scenario 2 projects net revenues at maturity in year seven of
$140,802.
• For Scenario 3, annual revenues at maturity will' be $549,316 and annual
expenses will be $724,042. For Scenario 2 these values are respectively:
$915,527 and $774,725.
• 69,357 exhibitors and spectators will use the facllity annually when the facility is
at maturity.
• For either Scenario, it will be necessary to waive property taxes on the facility
and to create a capital funding approath which ~quires no direct repayment
from operating revenues.
49
The model was also run to solve for revenues per home (Scenario 4 ). Under the most
likely ass~mptions, the level of revenues per horse necessary to break even in terms of
operating costs were unacceptably high.
Our findings are reflected in the national equestrian park picture, where large and
medium sized facilities are typically subsidized around 20% of operating revenues.
Only two of twenty-five horse parks break even.
The primary reasons for the lack of positive cash flows in our projections of the
Washington State Horse Park are that:
The climate and location limits the number of open w~eks per year.
Our survey showed that equestrian groups are very sensitive to price.
The equestrian-dedicated design limits the size and nature of nonequestrlan
events.
For full utilization a facility needs to serve large horse events, and th~re is a lack
of growth in the number of large horse organizations in the region.
Under these circumstances there are several major provisos that must be met before
we can recommend that the plans to raise funds for the facility proceed. · The first two
have already been stated, that capital repayment not be required and that property
taxes be waived. Third is U,e requirement that In otder to assure successful operation,
the Horse Park Authority must recruit a facility manager from the upper 90 percentile of
managers and support that manager with top-notch review and assistance by
professioAal equestrian management professionals. Finally, the facility will require
subsidization from either private foundations or public coffers of approximately $80;000·
per year.
50
ECONOM I C IMPACTS
One means by which other facilities justify operating grants is through their imp~cts
upon local and regional economies. Th~refore, an impact model based upon
expenditures of the horse park participants and expenditures for horse park operations
was developed to estimate financial flows to both the local and state economies and to
local and state finances. Using the ·most likely" scenario at year six maturity, the
following impacts are projected:
• The direct spending by exhibitors and spectators are estimated to be $7,334,838
when the facility reaches maturity In the sixth -year of operations.
• The total money flows attributable to the horse park in the sixth year,. including
indirect and induced effects, are $8,412,982 annually.
• Using the employment multiplier of 16 jobs per million dollars of direct
expenditures projects, 143 jobs will be created by the horse par:k after the direct.
indirect and Induced effects are factored in.
• Starting at the sixth year, ~nnual state impacts from out of state residents were .
found to be $1,466,968 of direct, indirect and induced spending.
• The recreational services sectors will be the sectors most affected by Horse Park
operations.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCT URE
We recommend that:
51
• The Washington State Horse Park Authority Board of Directors set up the
organization to be run as a commercial operation by an experienced and
successful professional manager.
• The organization of the institution be that of a non-profit corporation, avoiding
designation as a State governmental entity and thus avoiding the labor and
procurement procedures required of State governmental units.
• The Board focus its activities on obtaining funding commitments required for the
construction of improvements and the first five years of operation.
• That the Board actively work with existing equestrian organizations to promote
the Horse Park project
Our findings are reflected in the national equestrian park picture. where large and
medium sized facilities are typicatly subsidized around 20% of operating revenues.
Only two of twenty-five horse parks break even.
Under these circumstances there are several major proviso$ that must be met before
we can recommend that the plans to raise funds for the facility proceed. The first two
are that capital repayment not be required and that property taxes be waived. Third is
the requirement that in order to assure successful operation, the Horse Park Authority
must recruit a facility manager from the upper 90 percentile of managers and support
that manager with top-notch review and assistance by professional equestrian
management professionals. Finally, the facility will require subsidization from either
private foundations or public coffers-of approximately $80,000 per year.
However, the positive economic impacts accruing to Kittitas County and to Washington
State add some jus~catfon to financially support this endeavor.
52
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abell, John and Marsden, James, "The Economic Impact of the Standardbred
Industry .on the State of Kentucky: A Report Prepared for the Kentucky
Harness Racing Commission." 1984.
Adelaja, Adesolji., "The Proposed New Jersey Horse Park at Stone Tavern :
Economics Impact Analysis and Financial Analysis." Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, NJ, March 1987.
Allmon, Carolyn I. "Horse ·Racing in America: What Impact on the State's Economy?"
Minnesota Department of Revenue, 1987.
American Horse Council, Inc. "Economic Impact of Horse Shows." Washington, DC
1979.
American Horse CouncH. Inc. "198.9-1990 Horse Industry Directory." Washington,
D.C.: June, 1989.
Atelier, ps. 'Washington State Horse Park in Kittitas County." Master Plan Report,
Draft.
Bigler, Alexander 8. Assbclates. "A Financial Feasibility Assessment of a Proposed
Connecticut Equestrian Center." Oakton, VA, February 1982.
Carr, James; Atwood, Barbara; Bolin, Da"!ld; Southard, Larry. "Economic Impact of
Kentuckys Tourism and Travel Industry, 1987 and 1988." Kentucky Department
of Travel Development. Tourism Research Series No. 44., 1989.
Center for Business and Economic Research, College of Business & Economics,
University of Kentucky. "Understanding The Impact of the Equine Industry In
Kentucky and the Central Bluegrass.~ Lexington, KY, 1991.
City of Dallas. Texas Horse Park at Trinity. 2006.
http://www.dallascityharl.cpm/committee _briefings/brlefings0806/20060821 ~ TR
C DealPoints.pdf -'
Center for Economic Development, California State University, Chico-·callfomia Horse
Park Analysis of Its Impact on the Economy of Shasta County.• 2004. Chico,
CA
Crawford, Kay, nlewis and Clark State Equestrian Center, Economics and Employment
53
Impact Study." Auburn, WA, The Merit Co., 1991.
Economic Research Associates. nMemorandum Report -An Evaluation of Planning
for Kentucky State Horse Park.11 Kentucky State Department of Parks (March 5,
1975): 30.
Economics Research Associates. "Analysis of Development Potentlals for The Percy
Warner Equestrian Center." McLean. VA, December 1977.
Economics Research Associates. "Feasibility analysis for a Virginia Horse Center in
Roanoke, Virginia." (Draft) Washington, DC, November 1984.
Gamet Consulting Services, Inc. 11Connectfcut Horse Park and Exhibition Center
Feasibility Study Update." January 1996.
Gamet Development Group, Inc. and R. & L. Associates "Connecticut Horse Park
Feasibility Study.• December 1987.
Holt & Morgan Associates, P.A. "Master Plan for New Jersey Horse Park at Stone
Tavern.11 New Jersey, 1979.
KapJan Samuel R.; Knapp, John L.. "Economic Impact of the Virginia Horse Center."
September 1995
Kerns, Terry. "Economic Impact of the Horse Industry on the State of Kentucky, n Show
Horse. June, 1 ~67.
Kisler, Joseph R. "West World Research Report," Unpublished Report prepared for the
West World Business Plan Committee, 1997.
Kopp, Karen. 11 AHC StlJ~y Reveals Equine Industry's Economic Clout," EQUUS. June,
1986.
KPMG Peat Marwick -The Policy Economics Group. "Economic Impact of the Ohio
Horse Racing and Breeding Industry on the State of Ohio.• Executive Summary,
vol. 1, September 1990.
KPMG Company~"Economlc Impact Analysis for a Proposed New Horse Park in
Anne Arundel County, Maryland". March 2006
Deloitte Company-"The Economic Impact of the Hors.a Industry on the Ur:,ited
States." American Horse Foundation. 2006.
KPMG Company -Policy Economics Practice. "The Economic Impact of the Horse
54
Industry in the United States." National Summary, vol. 1-4, December 1997:
Mack, Richard; Richardson, Gary. "Financial Feasibility and Economic Impact of the
Washington State Horse Park. Contractor Report, Ellensburg, WA. 1998.
Maryland Stadium Authority_"Maryland Horse Park and Agricultural Education Center
2006 Feasibility Analysis."
Minnesota IMPLANGroup, Inc. "Micro IMPLAN User's Guide." (July 1993).
Pannell Kerr Forster. "Evaluation of a Proposal for the Development and Management
of Horseman's Equestrian and Theme Park to be Located in Scottsdale,
Arizona." New York, NY, May 1986.
Robbins, Mark; T erpsma, Betsy. "Structure and Economic Contribution of the Horse
Industry in British Columbia:" 1990
Sharp, Jim. "Virginia Horse Center Financial Estimates." Richmond, VA, October 1982
(updated 8/84 ).
United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) Data Pages 2006 (http://www.usef.org).
55
Appendix I
Questions for Equestrian Organizations
General horse park introduction
General questions about the nature of their organization
I . Size of Qrganization? Change over six years?
2. How many events do you schedule?
3. How many horses/event?
4. What stall fees do you pay?
5. What do you pay for arena facilities?
6. AR past years' calendars available?
7. What is the geographic range of your activities?
8. tlow satisfied are you with your current venues?
9. How frequently has your organization changed venues?
10. Why did you stop using these venues?
11. What new venues have you added?
12. What is your event planning horizon?
13. What has been the trend in fees for stalls? Do you think that your members are willing to
pay$S more?
14. Do you have past ye&IS' .data (going back to 2000) on events/entries/locations?
15. Would you consider using the WA Horse Park? New events?
16. Will you be willing to write a letter of support for the WA State Horse Park?
56
Appendix II:
Survey Questions for Horse Parks
Name of Facility
Contact Name
Phone#
Operations Manager Name
Phone#
Operated by:
Municipality
State
County
Public-Private Partnership
Private
Other
Date opened
Operating Months
Operating Days ofWeek
Hours of Operation
How many acres is your facility?
What is the number of on-site horse stalls?
57
Appendix Ill
DE VELOPMENT OF THE WASHINGTON STATE HORSE PARK AU THOR ITY
The history of the Washington State H9rse Park Authority is succinctly summar:ized in a
Janu~ry 16, 1998 memo From Cleve Pinnix, Director of the Washington State Parks and
Recreation Commission:
In 1990 the State Parks and Recreation Commission acquired land adjacent to Lewis
and Clark State Park for development of an equestrian facility. Subsequent detailed
evaluation determined that the amount of wetlands on the property made it unsuitable
for an equestrian facility. The property remains in Parks ownership.
The Commission next authorized staff to hire a planning consuttant to design a
schematic master plan alternative for an 1,120 acre site near the town of Ethel, on
Highway 12 about nine miles east of Interstate 5. The Commission approved the
consultant's recommended plan In January 1993. Staff was. also authorized to begin
acquiring needed land through use of funds previously designated for a horse park
facility and through public-private land exchange authority. Staff was also authorized to
work with private parties to develop support for a legislf;!tive package for equestrian
center development through a quasi-governmental entity to be chartered by the
legislature. Land ~cqulsHion was conditioned upon receMng legislative authorization
for the managing and ·development entity by ·september 30, 1994, a deadline later
extE!nded to September 30, 1995. Because several of the landowners were unwilling to
sell their land the project stalled.
On May 1, 1995 the Governor signed SSB 5403, creating the Washington Horse Park Authority.
59
Important components include:
1. Horse Park Authority Purpofil!
The best statement of Intent in the duties of the Authority is found in section I of the
originating statute:
RCW67.18.010(4) "It Is the purpose of this legislation to create the framework for such
~ partnership to facilitate development of the Washington state horse park. It is further
the intent of the legislature that the state horse park shall be developed in stages,
based on factors such as the availability of funds, equipment, and other materials
donated by private sources,-the availability and willingness of volunteers to work on
park development,-and the availability of revenues generated by the state horse park
as it Is developed and utilized. "
2. Commission Role
The statute describes the Commission's role as follows:
RCW 67.18.020 (1) /he Washington state horse park Is hereby established, to be
/ocsted at a site approved by the commission. In selecting a site the commission
shall consider areas with large blocks of land suitable for park development, the
distance to various population centers in the state, the ease of transportation to
the site for large vehicles traveling along either a north~outh or.an east-west
corridor and other factors deemed important by the commission.
The statute also encourages the Authority to collaborate with state agencies when it is
mutually beneficial. The Commission is referenced as a potential partner in matters
pertaining to public recreation.
3. Land Ownership
RCW 67 .18.020 (2) describes three means by which land for the park may ~ ~cqLilred.
First. through a grant to State Parks through the WWRP process. In this case the
60
I
resort complex. These linkages offer more economical development of needed
facilities ~nd have streamlined the permitting process for the horse park facility.
On October 22., 1997 the Horse Park Authority voted to endorse the Trendwest/Suncadia
site in order to proceed with prellmlnary planning. On January 2, 1998 WSPRC met and
approved the site.
F acllity Master PLAN
The contract for the design of the original master plan was awarded to Atelier p~. Janis
Snoey, the master plan project manager, worked with the Washington State Horse Park
Authority, the Washington State Horse Park Foundation, the Public Involvement Task
Force, -and the · authors of this study to design the Master plan. The d~sign of the Horse
Park clearty reflects an Iterative process that entalled repeated Interaction of all of these
parties. It is appropriate to draw directly from the document ~o succinctly portray the
envisioned facility:
As a show and competition facility, the Horse Parle Master Plan Is designed to accommodate one or more
small-to moderate-sized events at a time. At full bufld..c,ut, the Horse Park WIii support large events such as
regional Arabian Horse and Quarter horse shows, the North American Young Rider's Pro~ Anal
CompetitiQn. Dressage and Jumping Wor1d Cup competitions. The Horse Perk will meet the needs of breed
shows, western competitions, Jnd equestrian sports such as competitive trail riding, Jumping, dressage,
combined driving and three-day eventing. American Horse Show Association (AHSA), Federation Equestre
Internationale (FEl)and Professional Rodeo Cowboy's As6ocleUon (PRCA)standards wll guJde development of
the show and competition facDIUes • .
The Horse Park wlll also serve tho~e Interested In less formal equestrian activities such as trail tiding. The
Horse Park is proposed to include a trail system interconnected to the Coal Mine Trail east of the site and the
Iron Horse Slate Park (the John Wayne trail) south of the site. Tra~ _!CCBSS Is also proposed lhrough the
Mountain Star Resort to back country trans In lhe·adjacent National Foresl In cooperation with Trendwest, a
63
trailhead will be provided at the northwestern limits of the Mountain Star Resort : This facOlty will be provided
so that users may immediately access more rustic trails without riding through the resort. Trendwest will
determine the location of this "outpost."
The architecture end landscape development within the proposed Horse Park will confonn to a Northwest
mountain style to blend with the natural environment and reflecting Washington State's history. The building
style -characterized by sloped roofs, generous overhangs, and use of wood, stone, and heavy timber -· Is
consistent with that proposed for Mountain Star resort. To maintain aesthetic quality control, design of specific
facilities will be approved by a design review committee comprised of membe~ of the Horse Park Authority
and representatives of Trendwest. The project will be bunt to high-quality standards to stimulate use of the
facility and reduce long-term maintenance costs. Substandard facilities may cost less initially, but will not
serve the goals of the proposed proJect.
The Horse Park will be developed in phases to reduce the Initial cost and allow for flexible expansion. The
proposed first phase of development would serve the needs of many small~ to moderate•sized events
(although probably no more than two small events or one _moderate-sized event et a time). Temporary
construction is minimized to reduce the cost of future construction, although some temporary features are
necessary to consolidate development In the early l)hases.
In 2006 Edward Lapsley, Facilities Consultant, reassessed the original master plan and
developed a revised construction plan. The design was marginally changed to reflect the
last decade's changes In the technology, management and format of horse park design,
construction and operations. Cost estimates were also revised, .based upon a bottom-up
approach.
64
WASHINGTON STATE HORSE PARK
REQUEST FOR FUNDS
WASHINGTON
S T A T 6
HorsePark
,.
T@LE Of CONTENTS
The following information comprises the formal submission from
the Washington State Horse Park Authority for phased capital
funding of $19,384,699 "in total" to construct the Washington
State Horse Park in Cle Elum, Wash.
Introduction 3
Historical Background 3~4
The Organization 4
Events 4
Overview of Facilities s
Site Plan 5
The Facility 6
Design Costs 7
Construction Costs 8-10
Phased Build Out Plan & Cost Totals 11
Detail on Design & Construction Appendix A
Updated Economic Feasibility Report Appendix B *
* Central Washington Umvemty will be updating the 1998 Wuhington State
Horse Parle Economic Pea11billty R•port to reflect crmrent projection• for the
Hone Parle•• revenue and op rating costs, in addltlon to antl<Jipated looal
and statewide economic benefits. 'Ibis additional dooument wUI be made
available to the State Legislature and omce o!Flnancial Management u
eatly u ponlble prior 1o the session ,tart date.
2
WASHINGTON STATE HORSE PARK
'nte. Washington State Horse Pan: ls located on 106 acres of land adjacent to I-80
1n Cle Elum, Wath. 'lbe park wUl be the showcase of the Washington equestrian
lndusuy and a world-clas1 faclllty. serving the recrea1lonal, oompeUtlve and
educatlonal needs 0£ rider, and hone enthu.tlam a.cron the 111.te and thtoughout
the Nortbwnt. 'nle propo,ed faaDlty wDl provide ample ~ties to
accommodate regional, national and lntematlonal equestrian and recreational
pursuits. Special etnphasis ls m.cluded to provide equestrian activities for youth
and the dlse.bled.
HISTORl,CAL BACKGROUND
1881 -Wa.thlngton State Legislature appropriates fllndl to the Wuhlngton State
Department or Agriculture for tnveatlgattan of the eaonomlc lmpa.at of
Washington'• horse mdu&try. Study recommends tha cnation of• state--owned
and operat~d equestrian center to promote and serve the recreational horse
indutry in the 1tate and provide economic benefits through equ1ne a.ctl11ities.
1891 -Legula.ture authorizes expenditure or $200,000 for an eque,tnan oe1lter
planning ttudy. The Pub Corn.mto1on approve, $490.000 to purt:haise land
adja~ent to Lewis and Clark Stat• Park ln Lewi• County at a potential .Ue for the
Park.
1891 -1998 • Alter five yean of planning, horse commmdty input .and site
an~ysll"" physical and environmental ts.sues prove the Lewis County location
unruitable for a world~clau equetinan center.
HIS -St-.ta Leglllature, by RCW 67.18 (Reoodifled: ?SA.SO), authorSH, the
Wuhlngton Ste.te Horse Park Authority to ''establish a ftrst-olu1 hone park
fa.c:IUty in Washtnglon to meet the important n~eds of the state'• horseuiduatry,
attract investment, 81\hanee recreational opportunltlea, and brlng new emlbitors
and toudtta to the state from throughout (he region axul beyond." The legl,lature
further states, '!a 1Utiq1.!.e opportuDlty exirtl to form a putner,h1p between .tat.e,
C®nty, and private tntere11t to oreat• a major ho~•• parlcfaduty that will provide
puhllo ncreattona1 opport.urdt111 and statewide aaonomlo and employment
benefits."
1996 -Trendwe,t Resort Corporation offers to donate land for the horse ptifk :l:n
Cle Elum, Wash. adJaoent 1o their p18.Jlned resort comnumity. Governor Gary
Loab appoints Hone Parle Authority members.
1812 -A '45.000 ·gram t, provided by th• I,egifl~tur• to elev.lop an economic
reutbilUy ltudy and draft a Master Plan for the Wublngton State ~one Part 1n
JQttltu County. A letter o( intent to don.ta the property In Cle El.nm l• •l~ed by
amllates of]ELD-WEN aJl,d Lowe EmerprlJes, the new land ~en.
3
1998 -The state Parks Comml81ion authorizelfthe Parks Director to approve
selection Qfthe Cle.Blum fooatlon for the Washington State Ho-rse Park, as
required ln the Iegil.lation.
1998 -2004 -Through several yeanr of negotiation, Urban Growth Ad (UGA)
approval and changing developers, the lite in t:le Blum 11 selected on I 06 acres
Including 1.nfraslruoture improvements and wa1er rights. The value of the
donation by }ELD-WEN and Lowe Enterprise, (lJOW Sunoadla Resort) to the
clt1Jens of the sta1e grows to ,;nore 1han $6,000,000.
2004 -Wuhing1on State Horse Parle P'ounda1,lon reorganizes to bettennanage the
projeot, facllitllte fund~r _aislng actlvitle• and expand the involvement by the horse
comm.unity and equestrian-related busines•es.
eoos • Governor Chrlrttnf Gregoire appoints new Wa,hlngton State Horse Park
Authority Board members to finalize site planning and begin development.
2G08 -The Watbington State Hor1e ParkAu1hority Boa.rd works, in conjunction
with Ed Lapsley and Robert Mack (Central Washington Univer1lty-Depart:ment o!
Economia1). to update prior r~Port• on aa.pltal con,truetfon coin eitlmates and
economic fe.ulbW.ty-re1pect1vely. Thete doauments will support a capital
1\mcllng request to be ma.~e 10 the Wuhlngton State Legislature during the 2007-
08 blennial budg~.
THE ORGANIZATION
Wuhtllgtou State Hc.rH Park Authority hr a aeven-rnember board authorized by
the Wublngtoo. State Leglllmure and appointed by the Governor to devel(?p,
promote, o~rate, manage and maintain the Hors~ Park: u.s1ng a oomblnafion of
state and private resouroer.
Wuldngton State Ron~ Puk Foun4ation ls a non-profit corporation that acts u
a "friend of the Horse Park" by auppwting the Wuhing1on Sate Hone Parle;
.Authority. It ls oomprlsed o! an all-volunteer Board of Directors and Foundation
Membenhlp that represents a diverse oross-section of horse dlsdpllnes, interests
and budnesses.
EVENTS
'lhe Washington State Hone Park ls dellgned to Jn,8et the need" oflo(!a1, regional
and national oompetJttons. Ita charter 1peclfl.oally charges the Horse Park
Anthorlty B_oard to provide 4.-H, pony clubs, youth grou,ps ~d looal park
department• with youth recreatlonal aotlvitiea. Tha Authority Boud also ia to
provlde preferential u1e of an area of the Hone Park. for youth and the d.Jsabled at
nominal coat.
4
OVERVIEW OF FACILITIES
As a show and compeUUon facility the WashingtonState Hone Park will be
designed to acdommodate several simultaneous small to mode.rate S'.ize events or
a single large event. Example, of events would lnclude regional Arabian and
Oual'ter Horse 1how1, the NortbAm.erta&n Yo\lJ\g Rider'• program, Dr, uage
events and World Cup oompetlttons. The Horse Parle will meet the needl of
breed shows. western cornpetltions and eque:rtria.n 1pbrt1 such as competitive
trail riding, j1lll\ping, combined driving and three-day eventing.
The Washington State Hone Parle will also serve those Interested 1n less formal
equestrian actlvitte.a a11oh as traU riding and baokcountry packing. The Horse
Park will include an extensive trail systam lnteraOJU\eoted with the Co~Mines
~all eut of the lite i!.nd the Iron Hone Stat a Parlt south of the ,lte. It wtll al.ao offer
facilities for ovemlght trail rider camping and horse boarding.
THESITE
l.o(?ation of the lOB~aare site 1s depleted balow. Th• northern bounduy otthe slte
terrnlnetes at the .ba1e of a natural ridge, Which rlle• approximately 200 feet
above the property. The t1outhem border line re sh.red with the Waahlngton State
Highway Departments I-90 corridor. There ls a "no•bulld.0 76 foot aoni4,or
buffering the property from the freeway. The stte ls modera.telyforested, with
pine arid _Douglas fir. The agreement between the W5JiP Autho.rlty and Stmcadla
Resort is !or donation of the 106 aare.t.
----\)~~---
ift-tlll-=""=;" ...
s
THE FACIUJY
The kg faoUHy on the site will be a 200 x 300 foot c:ovend arena with a 115 x. 300 foot
open arena. A 25 x 300 ,foot support service area wJ:11 provide ·bleacher seating for
1,000 speataton. Bathrooms with showers, a vendor area, judging area, e'/ent aott!rol
ar-ea and omoes will alto be included. 'lbe estimate is bued on a ateel frame gable
end structure. The covered ar.ena·il supported with a 300 x SOO foot open arena ·an~ a
Z40 x 140 foot warm-up area_.
400 exhllutor hone ,..•,U• located l.n etghf weatherproof barns will be located to
accommodate easy aacess to parking spaces for 1nlak and trailer comblnatlona. Ba.ch
1-a x 1.a foot stall will Lnolude a sliding entry gate and sloped flo r to accommodate
liquid waste. The barn will have an effecUve waste management system, storage for
bedding, electrical power and water. The end of eaoh barn will have an open-air
horse wath area. The e.xhibitor parking area will have marked. parking stalls with a
poff~mounted duplex outlet fo.r each space providing power needs lot living quarter
trailers and veltloles, 'l'hls area willlnclUde concrete bumperourbs and night •ecurity
lighting.
'llie site will include a 900 x 480 foot polo field. This field will serve as a multi-purpose
spao.e for ~on-equestrian events, and as a ,pec:ial events parking when not being used.
as a polo field. The design Includes a. molorb:ed tprl.nkler system UIUlg SUncad!a-
provided Irrigation water.
Wute storage w.ulu (20 x SO foot) will serve·eaoh of the stable barns and the-arena.
Waste wUl b .e transported from the b&n:P and clean,up areais to the wute storage
vaults.
A aompolltlng 11.tea ( l 00 x 60 foot paved holding famllty) will be located away from the
main me area, and will hou11e the equipment to prooer:s the waate.
A livutoc~ holding pen with portable control pa:nels, f'encdng, gatea and a loading
ramp will beloaated ofrthe service road.
A 4,000 sq. fl. mehdenuce UMl et{ldpmant storage shop will be loo.tted near the
service. roa.d, and wUl house all the Jupport equipment u well u the tools required for
equipment maintenance and minor repair. .
•'Ihe north property Una is planned by Sun.cad.I& u the servlca ufillty route for water
and. watte water. They will be J)rovidlng lrrigatlon and domeattc water to the lite.
Power, gas and phone Jines will be provided by the sentng ut1lltle1, (PSE. eta.)
'lb.e Hone Park m.aln. entraace and HJdhitOI' parking will be located west of the Cle
Elum Cemetery off Douglas Munroe Ave. Wlth direct proxlmlty from the I..SO west Cle
Elum ~llange, lite ac~ss b very eJl!olent. An en.try sign and fenoing on both Bides
of the paved 38 foot wide entry road ar• identified Jn the conrtructlon e .irtimate.
A 366 car spectator paved. parking lot with security lighting ii' near the covered
arena.
6
; . co~~eN o~ t®Nr.> · .. -
'
BUD.$ too horae stalla 10 be pro'rided. Will build eigltt 80-stall po•t and $6,034,400
beam atrnctnres 4.8-feet wi~e by 3&8.f'eet long with 1a x lHoot
•Wla equipped wilh mding gatff. Ten farm water hydrants
loca.ted in oaah structttre willproride euy. aaeeo for e.xhibitora .
Each barn will lle:ve two location• for-hay atotage and relrienl.
Bltotrioll power ud lighting with c-ontrol awilche-a will allow
HC'ti.oual lighting oontrol. Each ba.tn will have a c:onorete hone
wa,hing fac:ilily . .
Waste Bolding ao x 30 foot concrete holding pen with raised concrete (0-foot wide $29,900
Pen wan. on three side• to facilitate the depositing and remoYal uing a
front erul loader.
EzmyRoada Clearing and bue reek inatalled under the lil• development $451,000
contra.01. Thie project mcludes the instillation of 3" of3/t minu1
loppUJ.g , gnided mdrolled with 2" ofparizlgfor the 3,ooo· x 8Hoot
of roadway . .Ra:i.Nd ~b• and a fenee on both &.ide11 of Ute road. A
new sign identifying the Washington State Barse Park a inclu~d
Wtl.lkwaya 1 'VVmf\md the dnelcpment oftrailt to connect lh• 88-aoru cl $516,100
Pafhwayt ud dffe.lopedlmd withm the Horse Park.it. to the exilling tnil
ServtceArus tptem. Iu1allation otw,ilkway, and pathway• between the
aonred arena, parking and exhibiton ~ are incl\\<ictd. '!'his
trail ,y,tem will ac:c:e,1 approximately 80 additional a.ore, that may
be used for eventbig c:oune needa Mltrt ofth.e main campu.
Composting Arn An area. zt&ar the 1eniae road wDl b• cleared and grubbed,
orgudc material and.1hllllp1 HmDTed lo alearfor a 100 k 80 toot
$28,100
pad for the wute material. Dentlopment of the pad will.conmt of
8'' ofbue rook, (" of l l/C,'' top rock gradad. and rolled, and the
finali:natlllation of 2" of pa.Wig.
Livestock The liYaaloclc holcliltg pen will have a. 80 lt 80 foot pll.'.d oonsiati.ng or $25,000
Eol-gPeas 8" ofbue rock,, .. oll l/&" top roclc, andmwly , .. of floor
m1torial . Perimeter fonaing wifh control gate, wm complete tl:d.t
proj.w:I.
Utilltl.e• 'l'ha •cope of lbi1 elel118Jlt is Iha conatructian of a 3,100 feet of ditdl. $728,100
from fhe property lo power trwformer loc:atiou provided by the
ceningutilitiee. 'ftlil worl: include• the iutallation of sec:mty
lightillg along the roadway, in addition to 1000-feet cf ditvh and
piping from. Otec servmgutility et\try on.to lb• lite property and to
th.ii aoHrtd art.na. Aho illalu<bid i• a 3,000 foot ditah, mu.hole
val~e• aud fire hydrant• for the wtallatton train the Sunaa.dia
water, ..wer uidinigalioiuyttem to the end of the are!,\&, Alow
voltage commmdeation ud 1eaurity 1J8lem will be iutalled. .
CON$ffl~~~-~-.-tc~.f .•, It ..
Maiatenance / Conotruction of a. 40 x 100 foot ehop building with a.18-toot celling $111,700
Storage Shop (po11t and beam atructure) near the aornce road. and olooe to the
aron& area. Worlc inaludH c:l~ving, grubbing and.installing 6" or
bue rook, , " ofJ l 11'" top rock and. a , " concrete pad. 14-fool
entry doors, man cloors, lighting ancipowerwill aupport
maintenanca op.eralio:ns od atorago of equipment-and matoriala .
Public Facilities Funds to pay for adndni1tration duringplamrlngad contilnu:tion. $1,014,191
Jldministration.
@ 6.00%
ImlaUon Factor Estimated increase in Connmer Price Index applied to Phue 2 $1,456,619
andPhue 3.
TOTAL PROJECT'COffS $19,384,599
10
Planning
Pl&Ming, design and coutruction of the Wul1ington State Hor1e Park
project is directly c:onneeted tbe CUJTent State Legislature funding request.
Th, planning procedure is bued on ftlndin9 contiguoua phua. OYer a
perio'd of three yeare as lb.own below .
.. \Nati f jJ ...,Stafa~ Pak
, -. -.. .. ..
11
Washington State Ho~e Park
Funding AssumpUons
1 Washington State Funding (WSF)
2 WSF has been to fund major capital projects in two separate
appropriations.
a) Design
b) Construction
3 WSF or private funds will be used for working capital
Project Book Planning Assumptions
Observations
Schedule
1 Event calendar will be completed by September 30, 20()6
2 Economic study will be completed by November 30, ~006
3 Economic study will be used to detennlne recommended design and
constructing completion.
4 Approval of Environmental Impact Statement will determine the start
of construction.
5 Completion of the project will be when the revenue exceeds the
operating costs.
1 The maximum horse event days will be over a 30 week period of time
which I& based on weather
2 Eartler economic studies suggest a 5 year period before the
projected revenue exceeds ~eoperatlng costs.
1 Revised Project Book Completed by December 15, 2006
2 WSF approved ~ January 2007
3 Environmental Impact statement Engineering Contract awarded by
March 2001.
4 Site Planning Contract awarded by March 2007
5 Design Contracts awarded by August 2007
6 Site Planning completed by June 2007
7 Environmental Impact Statement completed by Feb 2008
9 .Site Development package 'completed by Marcil 2008
10 Bid and Award Construction by April 2008
11 Construction completed by November 2008
Capital Funding Packages
Design
Construction
Const/Wcapital
Wor1<ing Capital
Wor1<ing Capital
Working Capital
Total
Amount
$1,800,000
$18,300,000
$500,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$21,200,000
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Washington State Horse Part
Washington State Horse Park Cost Estimate for concept plan with phased Construction
Cash flow through 2013 15..Sep--06
Item Amount Yea2007 Vear2008 Year2009 Year2010 Talal
1. Dulgn
EJ) Field Survey & Geo-Tee $37,500 $37,500 $37,500
bl Site Planning $156,000 $156,000 $156,000
c) Landscape Design $7,000 $7,000 $7.000
d) Design $810,000 $810,000 $810,000
e) Construction Administration $360,808 $133,632 $133,632 $93,542 $0 S3e0,806
f) Permits $571,483 $76,354 $323,098 $183,500 $8,533 $571',483
g) Envlronmenlal lmpaet Statement $317,000 S317,000 · $317,000
Total $2,259,789 $1,537,486 $458,728 $2&7,042 $8,533 $2.~9,789
2. eonstructton
a) Sile Development $2,519,000 $750,000 $1,769,000 S2,519,DOD
b) Covered~ $2,709,000 $2,709,000 $2,709,000
e) Open Arana $136,500 $138,500 $138,500
d) Warm up Arena $138,500 $138,~ $138,!!00
11) Polo Fleld $218,800 $218,800 $218,800
f) Spectator Parking $657,800 $328,900 $328,900 $657,800
g) Exhibitor Park-,g $286,900 $143,450 $143,450 $286,900
h) Barns SS,034,400 $3,017,200 $3,017,200 $6,034,400
I) Waste Holding Pens $29,900 $14,950 $14,950 $29,900
J) Entry Road $451,00D $451,000 $481,000
k) Trails, Pathways & Service Areas $516,100 $5t6,100 $!18,100
O Composting Area 528,100 S28,100 $28,100
m) Livestock ttalding -pen $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
n) Utilities $728.700 $728,700 $728,700
o) Maintenance Storage Shop/Caretaker $171,700 J171,700 $171,700
Construction Estimate $14,853,400 $1,957,800 $8,284.500 $4,182,300 $218,100 $14,853,400
Bub Total $16,913,189 $3,485.288 Sl,741,221 $4,448,342 $227,333 $18,913,189
Public Factlltiee Admlnlalratlon 18%) $1,0-,4,711 S209,717 $124,474 $211,181 $13,14D $1,014,791
Design and Construclfon Eatlmm S17,927,BB~ $3,705.003 $9,265,701 $4,711,31D $240,973 $17,927,980
Inflation @ Consumess Price Index $144,495 $722,725 $551,807 $37,592 $1,456,619
Total Phased Project Design & Canatruction Costs . $3,849,499 $1,188,428 S5,2G8.110 $278,665 $19,38-4,599
Budget Amount $18,000,000 $3,900,000 $10,000,000 $5;300,000 $300,000 $19,500,000
Washington State Horse Park
Site Development Estimate
Item Units Lenath
Cleaning & Grubbing SF t,000
Clearing & Grubbing Roads SF 3,100
Remove Organic Material Tons
Remove Stumps EA
Remove Soil CY 1,000
Relocate Soil CT 200
Storm Drain System Job
Road Ballast Rock ITons
Parking Lot Ballast Rock Tons
Exhibitor Pqrklng Ballast Rock Tons
Exhibitors Parking Lot 518" -Tons
Grading SF
Utility Road Clearing/Grubbing SF 3,100
Removal Organic Material SF 3,100
Remove & Relocate Soil Tons 3,100
Compacting Utility Road SF 3,100
Grading SF 3,100
Utility Road Base Rock Tons 3,100
Utillty Road 5/8 -Tons 3.100
Sub Total
Contractors overhead 12.0%
Contractors Profit 10.0%
Sub Total
Design Contingency 20.00/4
Construction Contingency 0.0%
rotar
Material Take off Length Width
Remove Soll 1000 1500
Road Ballast Rock 3,000 24
Paved Parking Ballast Rock 300 150
Exhibitor Parking Ballast Rock 1,400 600
Width Amt
1.680
30
30
300
1,680, 65,556
30P 2,222
1
1,375
12,833
600 25,667
600 12,833
1,019,000
20
20 10
20 1,894
20 62,000
20 62,000
20 1,894
20 1,263
Thickness CUFT
12 1,500,000
6 38,000
6 22,500
6 420,000
15-Sep-06
.•-Je,
$1\Jnit Unit$ GSF Cost/sf Cost
1,680,000 $0.06 $105,840
93,000 $0.06 $5,859
$37.50 $1,125 0 $1,125
$161.00 $48,300 0 $48,300
$6.63 $312,500 1,680,000 $312',500
9.38 $20,833 60,000 $20,833
$400,000 $400,000 0 $400,000
13.12 $18,041 0 $18,041
$13.12 $168,378 0 $168,378
$13.12 $336,756 $336,756
$13.97 $179,286 $179,286
$0.048 $49,306 $49,306
$0 62,000 $0.06 $3,720
$0 .00 $0 62,000 $0.06 $3,720
9.38 $17,760 62,000 $17,760
$0.056 $3,441
$0.048 $3,000
13.12 $24,856 62,000 $24,85$
13.97 $17,644 62,000 $17.644
S1 1n0,366
$2.06,444
$172,037
$2,09~,847
$419,769
$0
$2,51 ,8,616
$2,519,000
CY K Factor Tons SF/Grade
55,556 1.65 91,667
1,333 1.65 2,200 72,000
833 1.65 1,375 45,000
15,556 1.65 25,667 840,000
Exhibitor Parking 518" -
Utllity Raad Clearing/Grubbing
Utility Road Ballast Rock
Utility Road 5/8'' -
Totaf
1,400
3,100
3,100
3,100
600
20
20
20
3 210,000
6 31,000
6 31,000
4 20,687
7,778
1,148
1,148
765
1.65 12,833
1.65 1,894
1.65 1,894 62,000
1.65 1,263
1,019~0
Washington State Horse Park
Concept Estimate Covered Arena
ltein Amt . Unit Unit Price
Fteld Survey (Comers Elv) 1.00 jb
Excavation 10,000 cy $5.63
Foundation Forms 4,000 If $3.78
Foundation Rebar 9.00 Tons $500.00
Foundation Conc:rete 1,300 cy $78.23
Ft1undation Concrete Finish 1,300 cy $78.23
Flat Work Fonns 600 If $2.60
Flat Work Rebar 7.00 Tons $500.00
Flat Work Concrete 150 sf $0.75
Flat Work Concrete Finish 1,500 sf $0.75
Back Fm Classified 9,000 cy $5.63
Back Fill Base Rock 1,300 cy $13.12
Back Fm 518" 1,300 cy $5.63
Structure 64,000 sf. $7.25
Crane (20T, 60'Boom) 1 Wk $8,000.00
Sand 900 Tons $13.72
Shredded Rubber mix 60,000 sf $0.25
High Bay Lighting 180 ea $150.00
ElectricaJ Rough In 64,000 sf $0.80
Fire Alarm , System 64,000 sf $0.15
Fire Suppression System· 4,000 sf $3.00
Plumbing Rough In 80 ea $120.00
Lavatories 16 ea $200.00
Urtnafs 6 ea $225.00
Sinks 16 ea $110.00
Washington State Horse Park
Concept Estimate Covered Arena
Total Unit Total
Hr Hr
$D 4 B
$56,250 0
$15,120 0.24 960
$4,500 16 144
$101,695 0 0
$101,695 0.25 325
$1,560 0.09 54
$3,500 16 112
$113 0
$1,125 o 0
$50,625 0.003 27
$17,056 0.003 3.9
$7,313 0.03 38
$484,000 0.14 8960
$8,000 40 40
$12,348 0.05 45
$15,000 0.0003 18
$24,000 1 160
$51,200 0
$9,600 0
$12,000 0
$7,200 3 180
$3,200 2.5 40
$1,350 2:5 16
$1,760 2.5 40
Rate ·ota1 Labo
Cost
$156.D0 $1,248
$0
$27.00 $25,920
$27.00 $3,888
$27.00 $0
$27.00 $B,n5
$0
$27.00 $3,024
$0
$0.00 $0
$27.00 $729
$27.00 $105
$27.00 $1,053
$27.00 $241,920
$35.00 $1,400
$27.00 · $1,215
$27.00 $486,
$37.50 $8,000,
$0
$0
$Cl
$37.50 $8,750
$37.50 $1,500
$37.50 $563
$37.50 $1,500
Apr-04
Lapsley
p . ~-. -·
Line Cost
$1,248
$56,250
$41,040
$8,388
$101,695
$11Q,470
$1,560
$6,524
$113
$1,125
$51,354
$17,1B2
$8,368
$7,95,920
$9,400
$13,563
$15,486
$30,000
$51,200
$9,600
$12,000
$13,950
$4,700
$1,913
$3,260
Aug-06
Lapsley
-=
Item Amt Unit Unit Price Total Unit Total Rata Total Labo1 Une
Hr Hr Cost C09t
Showers • ea $500.00 $2,000 4.5 18 $37.50 $6t5 $2,675
Bathroom Structure 1,200 sf $12.00 $14,400 0 $0 $1 4,400
Bathroom lnfertor 1,200 sf $1.00.00 $120,000 0 so $120,000
Office 1,200 sf $80.00 $96,000 0 $0 $96,0DP
Judge Room 300 sf $80.00 $24~0 0 $0 $24,000
Panels 2,200 If $12.00 $28AOO 0.05 110 $27.00 $2,970 529,370
Security Fencing 1 jb $4,000.00 _$4,000 0 $0. $4,000
Roll up Doors 12 ea $2,000.00 $24,000 o · $0 $24,000
Exterior Man Doan; 4 ea $1,000.00 $4,000 0 $0 $4,000
Exterior Double Doors 4 ea $1,500.00 $6,000 0 -$0 $6,000
Entry Structure Assembly e ea $1.~00.00 $9,000 0 $0 $9,000
Sidewalks 5,000 sf $8.50 $42,500 0 $0 $42,500
Landscaping 7,000 sf $1.25 SB,750 0 $0 $8,750
Seating 2,000 ea $76.00 $150.00D D $0 $150,000
Totals $1.501,261 11,299 $309,721
Line Total $1 ,849 ,9 12
General Operating Cost 10.0% $184,991
GeneJal Profit 12.0% $221,989
Total Contractors Bid $2-,258 ,892
Design Contingency 20.0% $451,378
Construction Contingency 0.0% $0
$2,708,270
Total Construction Estimate 2,_709~000
Washington State Horse Park
. Polo Field
Item I Units I AMT I Length I Width I
Top Soll Tons 7,680
Sprtnkler SF .900 480
Grading SF 900 480·
Hydro Seeding SF 900 480
Border Marker LF 1,800
Sprir:ikfer EquiEment SF 1
SUbTotal
Contractors Overhead
Contractors Profit
Contractors Bid
Design Contingency
Contingency
Materials Take Off
Item Lenath Width Thickness CUFT
Top Soil 900 480 4 144,000
Ballast Rock 900 480 6 216,000
fi/8.Minus 900 528 4 158,400 ..
GSF I $/AMT
9 .38
432,000
432,000
432,000
2.00
$5,000
12.0%
10.0%
20.0%
0.0%
KFactor Tons
1.44 7 ,680
1.44 11,520
1.44 a443
Cost/sf
$0.00
$0.10
$0.048
$0.08
Sep-06
Laosle_r
Cost
$72,000
$43,200
$20,903
$34,560
$3,800
$5,000
$179,263
21,512
$17,926
$197,190
$39,438
$0
$218,701
$218,800
Washington State Horse· Park
Warm Up Arena
Item I Units 1 AVT -Lenath I Width I GSF I Cost/Unit ITotal UnllSI Coatlsf I
5/8 11 Minus Tons 334 200 150 30,000 $13:97 $4,666
Porous Asphalt wlth polymer a1 SF 200 150 30,000 $1.70 $51,000
Grading SF 200 150 30,000 $0.048 $1,452
Compaction SF 200 150 30,000 $0.05 $1,500
Footing Material 6" CY 556 200 150 $13.72 $7,622
Nike additive 200 160 30,000 $0.25 $7,500
Sprinkler System EA 1 $2,000.00 $2,000
Fencing LF 900 $12 .00 $10,800
Outdoor .Llghtina EA 2 $4,000.00 $8,000
.
Contractors overhead 12.0%
Contractors Profit 10.0%
To1al Contractor Bid
Design Contingency 20.0%
Conslructlon Contingency 0.0%
Construction Estimate
Aug-06
Laos!
~
Cost
$4,666
$51,000
$1,452
$1,500
$7,622.
$7,500
$2,000
$10,800
$8,000
$94,540
11,345
$9,454
$115,339
$23,088
$0
$138,407
$138,SO0
Washington State Horse Park
Item
58" Crushed Rock
Compaction
Pavlng
Curbs
Lighting
StriDln
Spectator Parking
Units! AMT 1 Length f Width I Ht
Ton 1814 3
SF 632 310
SF 632 310 2"
LF 1600
EA 12
LF 7640
Sub rota!
$12
$3,000
$0.29
Contractors Overhead
Contractors Profit
Contractors Bid
Design Contingency
Contingency
Construction Estimate
GSF
195,920
195,920
0
12.0%
10.0%
20.0%
0.0%
Aug-06
Laps(~
Cost/sf I Cost
$25,342
0.0555 $10,874
$2.00 $391,840
$19,200
$36,000
$2,21.6
$449,256
$53,911
$44,926
$548,092
$109,618
. 0
$657,710
$657,800
Washington State Horse Park
Exhibitor Parking Aug-06
-·r. ~ --
Item Units AMT Length Width Ht Cost/Unit Cost/sf Cost
5/8" Crushed Rock CY 7,778 1400 600 3 $13.97 $108,858
Grading SF 840,000 1400 600 $0.048 $40,~5
Compaction SF 840,000 1400 600 $0.056 $46,620 $46,620
Sub Total $195.924
Contractors Overhead 12.0% . $23,511
Contractors Profit 10.0% $19,6 92
Contractors Bid $239,027
Design Contingency 20.0% $47,805
Contingency 0.0% $0
$286,832
$288.900
Washington State Horse Park
Item Units
518" minus (6") Tom;
Compaction SF
Concrete SF
Forms SF
finish SF
Covered Area SF
Parking Curbs LF
Part<ing Lighting EA
Main Power Panel EA
Parking Connections EA
Lighting/Power/Fire SF
Stalls EA
Water EA
Check Number
Cos:t per SF with out stalls
400 Stalls in 50 stalls per unit
Exhibitors Barns
Post & Beam housing 50 stalls with Water and Lighting
Plus 4 .&tails for bedding or feed
Lenath Width Amt $/Unit Units GSF
410 40 304 $0.00
410 40 . . 16,400
398 36 159 14,328
398 36 14,328
398 36 14,328
348 36 12,528
800 $4.00
12 $3,000.00
1 $8,000.00
25 $800.00
348 36 12,528
12 12 54 $4,676.00
-8 $300.00 $2,400
Sub Total
Contractors OVerhead 12.0%
Contractors Prcfit 10.0%
Contractors Bid
Design Contingency 20.0%
Contin gency 0.0%
12,528
Units Unit Price
8 $754,300
Costlsf I
$0.056
$77.50
$0.06
$0.75
$11.00
$2.50
Aug-OS
•p ••
Cost
$0
$910
$12,338
$860
$10,746
$137,808
$3,200
$36,000
$8,000
$20,000
$31,320
$252,504
$2,400
$515,176
$61,821
$5:t,518
$628,51A
$125,703
$0
$754,217
$754,300
$32
$6,03,.400
$252,504
358555.7
$395,744
Washington State Horse Park
Waste Holding Pens
Item Units Lengm Width Amt $/Unit Unit$ Cost/sf
Clearing & Grubbing
Remove Top Soil
Excavation
Ballast Rock
Grading
Concrete Foundation
Concrete Walls
Concrete Floor
Concrete Finish
Re-Bar
Lli:ihtirnJ
Material Take off
Base Roel<
Top Rock
Excavation
Concrete Foundation
Concrete Walls
Concrete Floor
SF 30
CY 30
CY
Tons
SF 30
CY
CY
CY
SF
Job
Job
Length Width
20
20
20
100
100
20
20 600 $0.060
20 22 .$5.83
67 $5.625 $375
8 $13.12 $105
20 600 $0.048
5 $78.23 $388
15 $78.23 $1,159
11 $78.23 $869
1,200 $0.75 $900
1 $400 .00 $400
1 $2,000 n.ooo
Sub Total
Contractors Profit 12.0%
Contractors Overhead 10.0%
Contractors Bid
Design Contingency 20.0%
Cootin.gency 0.0%
Total
Amount of Units
Construction Estimate
Thickness CUFT . CY KFactor Tons
30 6 .300 11 1.44
30 3 150 6 1.44
30 36 1,800 67
2 8 133 5
6 8 400 15
30 6 300 11 1.44
Sep-06
Laosf
Cost
$36.00
$125.00
$375
$105
$29
$386
$1,159
$869
$900
$400
$2,000
$6,223
$0
$0
$6,223
1,245
0
7,488
4
$29,872
$29,900
Washington State Horse Park
!Item
5/8'! Crushed Rock
Compaction
Paving
Curbs
Signs
FenclnQ
Round up .
Material Take off
Anal Gradingl3/4-
Entry Road
Units Lenath Width Amt $/Unit Unit$ GSF
Tons 3,000 . 26 1,040 $13.97 $14,529 78,000
SF 3,000 26 78,000
SF 3,000 24 72,000
LF 6,000 1 6,000
EA 1 $1 ,200.00 $1,200 ·o
tf 6 ,000 $12.00 $72,000
Contractors OVerhead 12.0%
Contractors Profit 10.0%
Contractors Bid
Design Contingency 20.0%
Contingency 0.0%
Construction Estimate
Length Width Thickm CUFT CY K Factor Tons
3,000 26 3 19,500 722 1.44 1,040
Aug-06
Cost/sf Cost
$14,529
$0.056 $4,329
$2.00 $144,000
$12.00 $72,000
$1,200
$72,000
$308,058
$36,967
30,806
$375,831
$75,166
$0
$450,997
$451 ,000
Washington State Horse Park
Trails, Walkways & Paths
Aug-00
Item I Unlt.s I Length t Width Amt 1· $/Unit I Unit$ I GSF I Cost/sf I Cost
Cteanlr,g & Grubbing SF 16,800 12 201,600 $0.08 $12,701
Remove Organic Material CY 5,376 5.63 $30,240 $30,240
Remove Stum~s EA 10 161.00 $1,610 $1,610
21/2" Ballast Rock Tons 5,376 13.12 $70,535 $10;535
518" Crushed Rock Tons 3,584 13.97 $50,070 $50,070
Grading SF 16,800 12 201,600 $0.048 $9,755 $9,755
Footing Mix (6n) Tona 3,584 13.72 $49,174 $49,174
Nike Mix SF 16,800 12 201,600 0.25 $50,400 $50,400
Paving around Arena SF 2,600 12 31,200 2.50 $78,000 $78,000
Sub Total $352,484
Cootractors Overhead 12.0% $42,298
Contractors Profit 10.0% $35,246
Contractors Bid $430,031
Design Contingency 20.0% $86,006
Contingency O.O"A! $0
Construction Estimate $516,037
. $516,100
MateriaJ-Take off Length Width Thickness-CUFT · CY KFactor Tons SF
Excavation 16800 12 6 100,800 3,733 1.44 5,376
2112" Ballast Rock 16800 12 6 100,800 3,733 1.44 . 5,376
518" Minus 16800 12 4 67,200 2,489 1.44 3,684
Footing Material 16800 12 4 57,200 2,489 1.44 3,584
Pavtna Temp Stall Area 2.600 12 2 5,200 1,93 31,200
Washington State Horse Park
lltem
Clearing & Grubbing
Remove Organic Material
Excavation
Ballast Rock
5/8" Crushed ~ock
Grading
Footing material
Fencing
Loading Ramp
Water
Material Take Off
Item
Ballast Rock
5(8"-
Floor Material
Uve Stock Pens
Units AMT Length Width GSF $/unit
SF . 80 80 4,800
Tons 3 80 60 $37.50
Tons 80 60 $5.625
Tons 128 80 60 4,800 $13.12
Tons 85 80 60 4,800 $13.97
SF 80 60 4,B00
Tons 85 80 60 4,800 S13.n
LF 260 $30.00
,JOB 1 $3,000
JOB 1 $2,000
Sub Total
Contractors Overhead
Contractors Profit
Contractors Bid
Design Contingency
Contingency
Construotfon Estimate
Length Width Thlckne~ CUFT K Factor Tons
60 80 6 2,400 1.44 128
60 80 4 1,600 1.44 85
60 BO 4 1,600 1.44 85
Sep.o6
X>stof unitl Cost/sf Cost
0.05
$112.50
0.0484
1,879 $0.00 $1,679
1,192 $0.10 $1,192
$0.04B $232
1,171 $0.06 $1,171
7,800 $7,800
3,000 $3,000
2,000 $2.000
$17,075
12.00% 2,049
10.00% $1,707
$20,831
20.00% $4,166
0.00% $0
~4,997
$25.000
Washington State Horse Park
Item
Trench, backfill, compaction
D. B. #10
Panel
Pole base
Poles & Lamps
Connect to Utifrty
Item
Trencn, backfill, compaction
Piping
Connect to Gas Mein
Total
Item
Trench, backfill, compaction
0.8. Primary
compact
Connect to Main
Total
Item
Trench, backflH, compaction
Piping
Length Wrdth
3380
3380
1
12
12
Gas
)Length~. ~Width
I 4340
4340
0
Power
gth jwidth
SeeGas
4340
4340
0
Water
Length !Width
4340
4340
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Utilities
Height
fHel_g_ht
IHe!ght
IHe!i)ht
Aug-06
·-.. GSF Cost/sf Cost
3,380 $2.13. $7,210
3,380 $3.00 $10,140
1 $1,200.00 $1,200
12 $400.00 ·$4;800
12 $3,000.00 $36,000
1 $2,000.00 $2,000
$61,350
j~SF _ -_fCost/sf_ I Cost
4,340 · $2.13 $9,258
4,340 $8.65 $37,541
1 $2,000.00 $2,000
[ $48,799
IGSF least/sf lCest
$0
4,340 $15.00 $65,100
4,340 $4.00 $17,360
1 $2,500.00 :::1 l
jGSF least/sf !cost
4,340 $8.08 $36,054
4,340 $15.00 $65,100
Washington State Horse Park
Concept Estimate
Contl11gency
Base
Qestgn Contingency 20.0%
Construction Contingency 0.0%
Consumers Price Index
Pennits 3.9%
Contingency & Permits
Year1 Year2 Year3
3.9% 7.8% 11.7%
Of ConslruJ:tion Costs
27-Aug-06
,.... . ~~
Year4 Year5 Years Year7 Years Year9
15.6% 19.5% 23.4% 27.3% 31.2% 35.1%
Washington State Horse Park
Concept Estimate Design 15-sep-08
--------------,---,,,--_,,,...,...,.,,,,_. _________ Lapsley
Marrl:M)'a Ra.ta/MO
Sll!tSurvey
Ffeld Survey
Survey Roads
Survey Open Area
Survey Bulldlng Strudln
Set Grades
Contour Drawing
Boundlll)' Orawfng for T1tle
Tol81
Expen-
Recoldlng
Sub Total
Canlingenuy
Total
Daal;n Effort
Pro}ect Management
Survey
Geo-Tech
Total
Pn)/ecl Management
1-h/yr
Rate
Benefit
E)penses
Total
2 S1,400 $2,800
3 $1,400 $4,200
2 $1,.00 $2,800
1 $1,400 S1,400
2 $1,400 12,800
2 S2.000 $4,000
2 $2,000 14.000
14 122,000
15.0% 13.300
1600
$25,800
10.0% $2,680
$28,380
S29,9CJO
cash Flaw RequlremanlS
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
$133,832 $133,832 $93,542
129,000
$8,500
$171,132 $133,832 193,s.12 so
Bae Year1 Yaer2 Ya•r3
100% 100% 70%
2,088.00 2,088.00 2,088.00 1,481.60
$50 $104,400 5104,400 $73,080
18% $18,792 $18,792 S13,1!14
10% $10,440 S10,440 $7,308
$133,632 $133,832 $93,5"42
Survey&
Year5 Year6 Year7 Total
$3&8,308
Year• Ye1r5 Yeare
80% 20% 20%
1,252..80 417.60 4-17.80
$62,840 $20,880 $20,8B0
$11,27.5 $3.7!18 $3,758
$6,264 $2,088 $2,088
S80,179 S26,nt; 128,726
$380,806
$29,000
$8,500
Year?
20%
417.60
Total
8,143
$20,880 $407,180
$3,79 .$73,289
12,088 $40,716
$28,728 '521,165
Oeslcln
20% Concept & Sc:hemltlG Duign 50% Design Development 30% Contract Documents Total Hrs
Total Hrs Sr Eng Eng )eslgnDraf SrEng Eng Jelign Drat SrEng Eng :>eelgnDr.lft
20% 80% 20% 20"JI, 8Q'l(, 20% 20% 15°'6 20%
:SHe Development
CMI 1,000 40 120 40 100 300 100 60 180.0D BO.OD 1000
Mechlmlcal 280 10.4 31.2 10.4 26 78 26 15.8 46.BO 15,80 280
Eledrtcal 312 12.-48 37.44 12.48 31.2 93.8 31.2 1B.72 56.18 18.72 '312
Total --$ite Development 1-tn1 1;572 B3 189 83 157 472 157 94 283 94
Average Hr Rate $120 $100 $75 $120 -$100 $75 $120 $100 S75
Total $7,646 $18,884 M.716 $18,864 $47,180 $11,790 $11,318 $28,298 $7.074 $1551828 I s1ee.ooo
Design I
Drawings Hr/Dmmg Total Hrs Rate/Hr Total$
1$tal1 up meetings
Arcblt8etural 40 $120 54,800
Clvll 40 $120 $4,800
Mechanical 40 $120 $4,8DO
E~cal 30 $120 13,600
SIie Plan • Civl 2 80 180 $120 $19,200 Site Plan • Elecb1cal 2 60 120 $120 $14,400
S"lle-Pfan -Mechanlcal 2 60 120 S120 $14,400
Site DetaO • ClvU 8 80 640 $120 $76,800
Sile Detail -Eledr1cal 4 60 240 S120 $28,8DO
Site Detatl -Mechank:81 2 60 120 S120 $14,400
fstte Oetan • CIYI ~lo Field 1 80 80 $120 $9,600
Sjta Detail -ME -Polo Field Sprinkler 1 52 52 $120 $8,240
~ Detail• Civil Warm Up Arena 1 BO 60 $120 •17,200
Site Delell • Clvif Open Arana 1 BO 60 $120 $7,200
Sfte DetaA • Exhibitor Parlclng 1 80 80 $120 S9.6DO
Sile Detail -Composting Arena 1 80 BO $120 $9,600
Sile OetaH -Landst:aplng 1 80 60 $120 17,200 $224,~
8am -Architectural Foot Pmt 2 80 160 ·$120 $19,200
Sam -Archllectural Elavatlons 2 80 160 $120 $19,200
Barn -Arcflitedural OetaB 8 80 640 $120 $78.800
Barn -MechaniGallEleclrlcal 8 50 400 $120 $48,000 $183.200
COVERED ARENA
Arch!tedural Foolprint 1 80 80 $120 $9,600
Atthlleaw:af Bevalions 10 80 800 $120 $98,000
StrucM.al Details 4 80 320 $120 $38,400
Med\3.nlcal Oelatl 5 60 300 $t20 $38,000
EJedncaJ oeean 4 60 240 $120 $28,800
UghtlngDe\ail 3 60 180 $120 $21,800
C<lvered Arena (nterlorg
Arctirteduntl Footprint t 80 80 $120 $9,600
Archil.ecturwl S111cli0ns 2 60 120 $120 11-t,400
Structural Ce1a0 1 80 80 $120 Sl,800
Mechanical Detail 3 60 180 1120 $21,600
E:leeirteal Delall 2 60 120 $120 $14,400
Malntenmce & Caretaker
Arch )tedUral Footprllll 1 60 60 $120 $7.200
Arthftectt.ral Elevations 1 so 80 $120 $9,600
Structu.ral Detaft& 1 80 60 $120 $7200
Mecha nical Detail 1 60 60 $120 $7,200
Eledrical Dela' 1 80 60 $120 S7.20D
Covered Arena lnl8rlors
Arctilledl,ral Foolprlnt 1 60 60 $120 17.200
Archltecturai Sedlons 2 60 120 $120 S14,400
St.ructuraJ Detail 1 6D 60 $12D $7,200
Mecflal'ieal Oetall 3 60 180 $1-20 $21,600
Elef:1.rleal Detail 2 60 120 $120 $14,400 $403,200
97 8,742 S809.040
$810,000
Washington State H~rse Park
~ncept Exthnate Material Data 27-Aug-06
Lapsley
Material Cost lnstaHed
2 1/2" BaHast Rock
5/8'' Crushed.Rock
Footing Material 70 o/o Sahc:1 30% Clay
Porous Asphalt with polymer additive
Nike Additive
Removal of Top Soil
Excavator ( Track .:. suppprt to
DumpTrucl<
Total
Replace Top Soil
Excavator ( Track -support to
Dump Truck
Spread Top Soil
Total
Remove and Replace Soil
Removal of Organic Material
Excavator ( Track -~pport to
Dump Truck
Disposal
Total
Units
Yd
Yd
Yd
Units
Yd
Yd
Ton
$ @ Plant Trans. $ ·CY Tons $ per Ton
PerTon PerTruck PerTruck PerTruck Ton
$10. 75 $8.00 1-5 21.6
$11.60 $8.00 15 21.6
$11.35 $8.00 15 21.6
$1.70 per SF
$0.25 PerSF
Amoun1 Loads/Hr Ydslhr ·$/hr $/CY
10 4 40 $150.00
10 4 40 $75.00
10 4 40 $150.00
10 4 40 $75.00
10 4 40 $150.00
Amount Loads/Hr Vds/hr $/Ton
10 3 30
10 3 30
21 3 83 $37 .50
$11.12
$11.97
$11.72
$3.75
$1.88
$5.63
$3.75
$1.88
$3.75
$9.38
Concrete
Concrete 5 sack
$ Delivered Trans.$ YdsfTruck Matertal$ Total$ $/yd
Per CY Per Truck Delivered
$77.50 $8.00 11 852.5 $860.50 $78.23
Total$
Install $ Per Ton
$2.00 $13.12
$2.00 $13.97
$2.00 $13.72
,