HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-125 Public FacilitiesBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COTINTY OF KITTITAS
STATE OF WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 2026 - 1, L{
AUTIIORIZING CREATING A COUNTYWIDE PUBLIC F'ACILITIES DISTRICT
WHEREAS:Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.100 authorizes Counties to develop a Public
Facilities District (PFD) upon adoption of a resolution providing for the creation of such
district by the County Legislative Authority; and
WHEREAS: the Board of County Commissioners, as the County Legislative Authority, is responsible
for the care and management of County f'unds and property; and
WHEREAS: Public Facilitates Districts are able to develop and operate regional facilities including
sports, entertainment, convention or recreational facilities; and
WHEREAS: Formation of a PFD will allow access to develop, own and participate in funding for such
facilities; and
WHEREAS:There is interest in developing possible projects, and in order to access sources for
financing new and/or renovations to public facilities a PFD is to be formed to promote
and manage facilities authorized by PFD such as recreation facilities; and
WHEREAS: An independent financial feasibility review by the Washington State Department of
Commerce (Commerce) prior to formation of any new PFD was completed and was
found to be feasible; and
WHEREAS: The formation of said PFD was discussed at a public meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners on July 21,2026.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Board of County Commissioners, in the best interest of
the public hereby accepts the independent financial feasibility review prepared by the
Washington State Department of Commerce; and
NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Board of County Commissioners, in the best interest of
the public hereby establishes a Public Facilities District, to be known as the Kittitas
County Public Facilities District, the boundaries of which shall be coextensive with the
boundaries of the County; and
NOW, BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that said District shall be governed by a five-member Board of
Directors, selection of the same to be made as outlined in RCW 36.100.020; and
NOW, BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED as the City of Ellensburg is the largest City in the County by
population, and has a population that is at least forty percent of the total County
population, per RCW 36.100.020(1)(b), the appointment of the Five-Member Board of
Directors shall be as follows:
- Two members appointed by the Board of County Commissioners;
- Two members appointed by the Ellensburg City Council;
- One member will be selected by the other four members; and
DATED this 2lst day of July 2026, at Ellensburg, Washington
c0t
SEAL
BOARD OF COI.INTY COMMISSIONERS
KITTITAS , WASHINGTON
cory Chairman
Attest:
tr Clerk of the Board- Julie Kj orsvik
tr Deputy Clerk of the Board-#"h{*sr'rr
)
Kiltitos County Public
Focilities Dislrict
Finonciql Feqsibility Review
T*q JOHHS(IH
. c0llsl,$lt{G
June 2fi26
Transmittal Letter (Jun e 2,20261
Re. Kittitas County Public Facilities District - Financial Feasibility Review
C.H. Johnson Consulting, lnc. (Johnson Consulting) is pleased to submit this independent
financial feasibility review of the proposed formation of the Kittitas County Public Facilities
District (,,pFD"). Tlris assessnrent is proviclecl for the Washington State Department of
Commerce ("Commerce") pursuant to RCW 36.100.025' '
Johnson Consulting has no responsibility to update this report for events and circumstances
occurring after the date of this report. Johnson Consulting used sources deemed to be reliable
but cannot guarantee their accuracy. Moreover, some of the estimates and analyses presented
in this study are based on trends and assumptions, which can result in differences between
projected results and actual results. Because events and circumstances frequently do not
occur as expected, those differences may be material. This report is intended for the Clients'
internal use and cannot be used for project undenruriting purposes without Johnson
Consulting's written consent.
We have enjoyed serving you on this engagement and look forward to providing you with
continuing service.
Sincerely,
c,#.rv,
C.H. Johnson Consulting, lnc
iiill;5{1f;
2t' f"
Executive Summary
Purpose of Review
The purpose of this report is to conduct an independent financial feasibility review for
Commerce on behalf of Kittitas County. Pursuant to RCW 36.100.025, the review must
examine the potential costs and the adequacy of revenues or expected revenues to meet the
costs to be incurred for the formation of a new PFD. As directed by State statute, Johnson
Consulting, as the preparer of this analysis, is to exercise independent professional judgment
in conducting the financial feasibility review.
MethodologY
ln order to conduct this independent feasibility review, Johnson Consulting performed the
following tasks:
1. Reviewed all documents provided by Commerce and Kittitas County, including documents
provided at commencement of the study, as well as others obtained from the County
throughout the study process. No additional independent research was conducted as part
of this independent feasibility review'
2. Reviewed costs to be incurred in relation to the formation of the PFD and capacity to fund
operating and costs and repay debt financing associated with the project.
Proposed Project
The formation of a county-wide PFD has been recommended by a partnership between the
Upper Kittitas County Community Recreation Center Alliance (a non-profit organization
representing Upper County communities), the City of Ellensburg (collectively, the "Project
Sponsors"), municipalities, Kittitas County and the Conference of Government have supported
by motion the financial feasibility review for the purpose of partially funding various large
recreation projects. Three projects, in various stages of development, have been identified to
date - 1). Upper Kittitas County Community Recreation Center; 2). Ellensburg Community
Fieldhouse; and 3). Kittitas Valley Aquatic Center. lt is the intent that funds generated from a
voter-approved 0.2 percent sales taxes would support the projects in different ways and would
be allocated among the projects as determined by the PFD board of directors, once formed'1
4
At this time, it is not contemplated that the PFD will own and/or operate any of the identified
facilities, nor will it issue debt to build facilities. Should the capital financing plans for the
projects change, the pFD is expected to request a separate review that will focus on capital
and operating costs prior to the issuance of any debt, as required by Washington State Law
(RCW 36.100.025 and 35.57 .025).
Assessment
Key findings of Johnson Consulting's independent financial feasibility review of the proposed
formation of Kittitas County PFD are summarized as follows:
. Washington State law allows for PFDs to be formed by cities, counties or contiguous groups
of cities/ counties. A pFD is a municipal corporation, an independent taxing authority and a
taxing district.
. Three projects, in various stages of development, have been identified to date - 1). Upper
Kittitas County Community Recreation Center; 2). Ellensburg Community Fieldhouse; and
3). Kittitas Valley Aquatic center. lt is the intent that funds generated from a voter-approved
0.2 percent sales taxes would support the projects in different ways and would be allocated
among the projects as determined by the PFD board of directors, once formed'
. Utilizing two alternative methodologies, anticipated PFD sales tax revenues, if approved,
would amount to an average of between $4.1M and $5.36M annually (between 2027 and
2043).
. The intent of this independent financial feasibility review is not to create, test or othenryise
opine on the costs for capital or operations of the identified projects. Rather, the purpose is
to identify costs specific to the formation of the PFD.
. Based upon information provided by Kittitas County, PFD operational funding support for the
three identified projects would total $3.1M annually. The PFD will also incur costs related to
its own operations and administration, including start-up costs prior to the disbursement of
tax revenues, if aPProved.
5?,'fl ijllllllll
t;s:,'] "
-tai:trrfl .l
- - sr rr"'*:*ius',qr+,3';:i:+.ali" +li :!' .
. The formation of the pFD appears to be a viable funding mechanism to support the
proposed projects. Accrued revenues will be sufficient to cover both PFD administration and
project operating support costs (noting that this assessment assumes that the PFD is
formed in2027, all identified projects are under construction or operationalin2028, and the
pFD will provide the same amount of operating funding each year, for illustrative purposes)'
. Further due diligence by the PFD board of directors, particularly in relation to the timing of
the identified projects and annual operating shortfall projections, is recommended before
finalizing any operating subsidies for the proposed projects. Continued refinement of these
assumptions will further support implementation and long-term success.
5,riiil ri j .
,,: I I ,
Table of Gontents
tt
zo
-l-Utlt
va
zo
-t-uutarl
zo
-l-Ulult',
zo
FUllJcn
46z,ltto-o-
xozrl|
O-a-
1
PAGE 8:
lnlroduction
PAGE 13:
Proposed Proiecls
PAGE 18:
Proposed Funding & Finoncial Feosibility
Assessmenl
PAGE 26:
Conclusion
PAGE 31:
Aboul lhe Author
PAGE 33:
Docurnents Reviewed
7!,f. i,t11i111X1
1. lntroduction
Purpose of Review
Johnson Consulting was retained by the Washington State Department of Commerce
(,,Commerce") to provide an independent financial feasibility review of the proposed formation
of the Kittitas CountY PFD.
Tlris repoft 5as been preparecJ pursuant to RCW 36.100.025. As enacted by the 2012
washington state Legislature, RCW 36.100.025 states that:
1. An independent financial feasibitity review under this section rs required to be performed
prior to any of the following events:
a. The formation of a public facilities district under this chapter;
b. The issuance of any indebtedness, excluding the issuance of obligations to refund or
replace such indebtedness, by a pubtic facitities district under this chapter; or
c.The long-term lease, purchase, or development of a facility under this chapter-
2. The independent financial feasibitity review required by this section must be conducted by
the department of commerce through the municipal research and seruices center under
RCW 49.110.030 or under a contract with another entity under the authority of RCW
43.110.080. The review must examine the potenlral cosfs to be incurred by the publicfacility
[facilities] district and the adequacy of revenues or expected revenues to meet those cosfs.
The cost of the independent financiat feasibitity review must be borne by the public facility
ffacitities] district or the tocal government proposing to form a public facility [facilities] district.
3. The independent financial feasibility review, upon completion, must be a public document
and must be submitted to the governor, the state treasurer, the state auditor, the public
facitity [facilities] district and participating locat potitical subdivisions, and appropriate
committees of the legislature.
The intent of this independent financial feasibility review is to provide Commerce, Kittitas
County and other project partners with an impartial assessment of potential costs to be
incurred by the pFD and the adequacy of revenues or expected revenues to meet those costs.
jiti ilis0li
'.1!1.,;ir'l
t;'rt"
Scope of Work
ln order to conduct this independent feasibility review, Johnson Consulting performed the
following tasks:
1. Reviewed all documents provided by Commerce and Kittitas County, including documents
proviclecl at conrmencement of the study, as well as others obtained from thc County
throughout the study process. No additional independent research was conducted as part
of this independent feasibility review
2. Reviewed costs to be incurred in relation to the formation of the PFD and capacity to repay
debt financing and operating costs associated with the projects.
PFD Formation, Governance and Funding
Washington State law allows for PFDs to be formed by cities, counties or contiguous groups of
cities/ counties through an lnterlocal Agreement (RCW 39.34). The boundaries of the PFD
must be contiguous with the city, county or contiguous group of cities/ counties that formed the
pFD. Specific formation processes are set forth in RCW 35.57 (formation by cities) and RCW
36.100 (formation bY counties).2
A pFD is a municipal corporation, an independent taxing authority and a taxing district and
possesses all the usual powers of a corporation for public purposes, including, but not limited
to, the authority to hire employees, staff, and services, to enter into contracts, including
contracts with public and private parties, to acquire, own, sell, transfer, lease, and otherwise
acquire or dispose of property, to grant concessions under terms approved by the PFD, and to
sue and be sued (RCW 36.100).3
2. \^'/ASf-llNGTOl.l ST,-\lE LEGISLi\lUFiE P'CV/:19.34,35 57 AND 3tj 'l f-)il
:l \/!A:jl-llNCiTCtl.l SIATE LEGISI-.\TtJRE ROW:16 1Oij
lt {.i{l}lfl::iilii
;j!, .:i' :: iln
10
PFD Formation, Governance and Funding
A pFD must be governed by a board of directors consisting of five, seven or nine members,
reflecting the size of the resident community or communities where the PFD is formed.
Specifically, the required number of members is defined by RCW 36.100 based on the size of
the resident population of the county and the largest city therein. ln 2025, Kittitas County had
an estimated population of 4g,759 persons. a Ellensburg, which is the largest city in the
County, had an estimated population of 21,717 persons, representing 43.6 percent of the
population of Kittitas County. a As such, the proposed PFD will require a five-member board of
directors including two members appointed by the County legislative authority to serve for four-
year staggered terms, two members.appointed by the Ellensburg City Council to serve for
four-year staggered terms, and one person to serve for a four-year term who is selected by the
other directors.5
pursuant to RCW 36.100, a pFD may issue general obligation bonds and revenue bonds,
subject to certain statutory limits and including non-voter and voter-approved bonds.5 Funding
and revenue sources available to a PFD include:
' Charges and fees for the use of its facilities, and a tax on admission charges.
. Sales and use tax, not to exceed 0.2 percent, subject to voter approval'
' Excise tax on lodging, not to exceed 2.0 percent, subject to voter approval.
. Tax on vehicle parking charges.
' Ad valorem property tax, with limitations, subject to voter approval.
. Gifts, grants, and donations.
The statutorily-authorized taxing authority of a PFD may not be restricted in any manner by the
forming jurisdiction or jurisdictions or by any action of the PFD. 5
4. ES['1I BUSINESS /INALYSl ONLII'lE (BAO)
5, \ ,'/\Sl lll.lGTOhJ Sl/r'IE LEGIStA'l[JRE RC\\'39 '14, 35 57 '\ND ij6 10l)",'f,, ;rlllil,lli,l
11
PFD Formation, Governance and Funding
Expenses incurred by a PFD are consistent with its operation as a municipal corporation'
Typical expenses include salaries, wages, and benefits for employees, compensation for
members of the board, marketing, accounting, travel reimbursement and other expenses
necessary to administer the PFD.6 ,
While a newly forined PFD has the statutory authority to establish revenue sources, initial
capital is required to fund start-up costs, such as administrative costs and project planning,
prior to revenue generation.
Proposed PFD
The formation of a county-wide PFD has been recommended by a partnership between the
Upper Kittitas County Community Recreation Center Alliance (a non-profit organization
representing Upper County communities), the City of Ellensburg (collectively, the "Project
Sponsors"), municipalities, Kittitas County and the Conference of Government have supported
by motion the financial feasibility review for the purpose of partially funding various large
recreation projects. Three projects, in various stages of development, have been identified to
date. lt is the intent that funds generated from a voter-approved 0.2 percent sales taxes would
support the projects in different ways and would be allocated among the projects as
determined by the PFD board of directors, once formed.T
At this time, it is not contemplated that the PFD will own andlor operate any of the identified
facilities, nor will it issue debt to build facilities. Should the capital financing plans for the
projects change, the pFD is expected to request a separate review that will focus on capital
and operating costs prior to the issuance of any debt, as required by Washington State Law
(RCW 36.1 00.025 and 35.57 .025).
6. WASI IiNGTCJN Slr{l'E LEGISL\TURE 36.100
7. i(lll-l 1,.\SCOTJNIYDOr-'UlvlENTATlOl.l FORllEVlE\/OFiPFDl':Oflf'4AlION(l''f i\Rtjl'l 2026)
12l'# r,gtJilir{
2. Proposed Projects
Proposed Projects
project Sponsors have recommended formation of the proposed PFD for the purpose of
partially funding various large recreation projects - 1). Upper Kittitas County Community
Recreation Center; 2). Ellensburg Community Fieldhouse; and 3). Kittitas Valley Aquatic
Center.
1. Upper Kittitas county community Recreation Genter
ln 2020, the Upper Kittitas County Community Recreation Center Alliance (UKC CRCA), a
501(c)3 non-profit organization, was established to lead an efforl to construct an indoor
recreation center in the portion of Kittitas County commonly referred to as the Upper County
(geographically, the western portion of Kittitas County). The 64,786 SF recreation center is
proposed to include:
. A natatorium with a six-lane lap and competition pool; a zero-entry recreation pool with a
small "lazy river"; and a hot tub'
. Two full-size indoor basketball courts adaptable for pickleball, volleyball, and other
hardwood sports.
. An elevated indoor running track.
. A fitness area with weights, cardio machines, and training space.
. Two multipurpose community rooms for meetings, gatherings, and events.
. Two flexible-use rooms intended for fitness classes and other programming.
. A child watch area where small children can be supervised while the parent or guardian
uses the facilitY
The total project cost is estimated to be $52.2M (in Q1 -2025 dollars)'8
()IVIl\CC ES-]'IiIATII',]G GROUP UPPER I(III'II,AS COUNII'Y COI'1I"iUI']II'Y RFCREATION CENTFR
COI']SJTRUC IION COS] ESIII'II\IE (FEBRL]ARY 2Q.2024).'Jfi ''llllllrl'i
14
Proposed Projects
The project is proposed to be funded through $4OM in voter-approved bonds secured by
property tax revenues, supplemented by fundraising and grants.s To date, an estimated
$7.g7M in funding has been raised, along with an additional $1.0-$2.0M contingent on the
voter-approved sales tax .e ln addition to capital costs, the facility is projected to operate at a
deficit of ($t.0M) in year 1.10 The proposed PFD has been identified as a potential financing
partner to support operations.e
2. Ellensburg Community Fieldhouse
The City of Ellensburg has been pursuing the development of the Ellensburg Community
Fieldhouse, to be located in Rotary Park, since 2023. ln September 2025, City Council
approved the issuance of a request for qualifications to solicit a developer for the project. The
60,OOO SF recreation center is proposed to include:
' Five basketball courts with court lines for volleyball and pickleball.
. Synthetic turf area of approximately 14,400 SF intended for small, sided soccer games,
parks and recreation department programs, indoor playground, team and individual training.
. Office space and multipurpose room for meetings, parties, and events.
. Batting/pitching cages.
. Three lane walking/running lanes around the perimeter of the facility.
. parking for up to 300 vehicles which, when combined with the existing parking at Rotary
park, creates parking infrastructure to host multiple events concurrently.
The total project cost is estimated to be $10'OtM.e
9. l(l-ITAS corJtilY DoctjMENl'AltoN FOFI REVIE!\',OF PFD FORMATIOt.I (|'4ARCFl 2026)
10. ALSC ARCI-lITEC-IS I.JI'PER I(ITIII/rS CIOUNTY C'OMMUNIITY RECI]E.\TION CENI IR FE,ASIBILITY
sltJD\', (20212)
a,'t J,il:lll,tll)
15
Proposed Projects
It is proposed that the city, which will operate the recreation center, will enter a lease back
agreement with the selected developer. The project is proposed to be funded through City
resources, including debt issuance, supplemented by fundraising and grants.11 The proposed
pFD has been identified as a potential financing partner to support operations, estimated to
total a $276,000 contribution annually.l2
3. Kittitas ValleY Aquatic Center
The City of Ellensburg is in the early stages of contemplating a replacement of the existing
Kittitas Valley Memorial pool & Fitness Center. While the City is in the process of conducting
community outreach to guide the facility program, preliminary program elements may include:
6-8 lane lap pool.
Lazy river.
Youth swim areas with shallow depths/interactive water play
Therapy/warm water pool for rehab and seniors.
Smaller community event space.
Fitness facilities.
Support space
storage.
locker rooms, showers, restrooms, staff offices/break rooms, equipment
Deck seating areas for viewing/spectator seating.
I
I
I
11
12
KIl'IIIA5] COUI'.ITY L-TOCUi"IENTAIION FOR REVIElV OF PFD FORMIT.I IOhJ (I''1I\FCII 2026)
B/\L.LARLt t(NG /\ND ASISOCIAIES 1"1-\Fl(ET UEVIE\\/.Al.lD OPFRA'llON PlAl{ FCR El-LENISBIIRG
cot4MUNllfY FlEl-D HOLISE (202!t)
r,'fr. i,lllft|,'j 16
Proposed Projects
While a project budget has yet to be developed, City staff anticipate a total project cost of
approximately $32.5M. 1 3
The project is proposed to be funded through bonds issued by the City of Ellensburg,
supplerrreltecl by furrdraising arrcl grants.13 Tlre proposed PFD lras been identified as a
potential financing partner to support operations, estimated to amount to $1.7M annually.l3
Summary
Although the identified projects are in various stages of development, the intent is for the
proposed PFD to primarily supporl operating shortfalls via funds generated from a voter-
approved 0.2 percent sales taxes. Since this independent financial feasibility review relates to
the formation of the pFD by the County, no independent assessment is provided with regard to
the capital or operating costs associated with the proposed projects.
pursuant to RCW 36.100, the PFD, if formed, is required to seek project-specific independent
financial feasibility reviews prior to issuance of any indebtedness, or the longterm lease,
purchase or development of a facility owned by the PFD. The proposed projects are not
intended to be owned by, or cause indebtedness to, the proposed PFD. lt is anticipated that
the pFD will refine project and capital funding plans prior to requesting an independent
financial feasibility review relating to the issuance of any proposed debt.
a
I fl jU It[,,_]rJtijj:l'l ll: i r:r 13. t(l'l il.AS cot..rNlY DOCUl",lEt,tli\l lo[J FL)R RE\ lE\A/ OF Pl::D FORlvlAllON (l'1ARL]t-l 2-026)17
3. Proposed Funding &
Financial FeasibilitY
Assessment
Proposed Funding
pursuant to RCW 36.100.025, this independent financial feasibility review must examtne
potential costs to be incurred by PFD and the adequacy of revenues or expected revenues to
support project costs.
Taxable Retail Sales
ln 2024, which is the most current data available, Regular and Optional sales tax distributions
throughout Kittitas County, including the cities of Cle Elum, Ellensburg, Kittitas, Roslyn, South
Cle Elum and unincorporated Kittitas County, totaled close to $19'4M.14
Utilizing applicable tax rates 'for 2024, taxable retail sales are estimated to have totaled $1.18.
Overall, between 2O1g and 2024, estimated taxable retail sales grew at a compounded
average annual rate of 7.46 percent.
2
3
4
5
6
7
i8
o
10
11
12
13
14
15
iro
2019 2020 2021
$8,257,775
1,337,737
5,77 4,585
182,478
237,985
53.O12
$550,5 1 8,360
89,1 82,469
320,810,269
12,165,183
1 5,865,690
3,534,1 1 5
$992,0?6,086
1. Regutar & Optional Sates Tax; Sourced from Kiftitas County Treasurer Office
g Estjmated based on quarterty sales tax rates; Sourced from Washington State Deparlment of Revenue
10. Kittitas County lJnicorporated Areas Q1 2019 - 2022 Local Rate.0.015; Q2 2022 - 2024 Local Rate 0 016
1 1 Cle Etu m Q1 20 1 9 - 2a22 Local Rate: 0.01 5, Q2 2022 - 2024 Local Rate : 0 01 6
t2 Elensburg Q1 2O1g - 2022 Locat Rate 0 018, Q2 2022 - 2024 Local Rate:0 419
1 3 Kittitas Ql 201 9 - 2022 Local Rate 0 01 5; Q2 2022 - 2024 Local Rate: 0 01 6
14. Roslyn Q1 2O1g - 2022 Local Rate;0 015; Q2 2022 - 2024 Local Rate 0 016
1 5. South Cle Elum Q1 201 g - 2022 Local Rate. 0.01 5: Q2 2022 - 2A24 Lacal Rate 0.01 6
*Compounded Annual Growlh Rale (2019-2024)
Source: Kittitas County Treasurer Office, Washington State Departrent of Revenue, Johnson Consulting
t16;843,5?2 t18,300,9s3 s'18,918,319 $19J372r483
Sales Tax Distribution
Kittitas County
Cle Eium
Ellensburg
Kittitas
Roslyn
South Cle Elum
Total Tax Distfibution
Estimated Taxable Retail Sales
Kittltas County
Cle Elum
Ellensbu rg
Kittitas
Roslyn
South Cle Elum
Estimat€d ?axable Retall Sslcs
$6,332,144
1,043,842
5,105,787
101,505
199,344
a) aqa
$12,p15,576
$422,142,933
69,589,467
283,654,833
6,767,000
1 3,289,600
2 199 e33
$797,6d0,7€7
$6,546,5 1 9
1 ,148,326
5,07 4,277
11 1 ,094
185,139
361 5.15
s13,10'1,870
$436,434,600
76,555,067
281,904,278
7,406,267
12,342,600
2,434,333
$817!0?7,'!'14
2022
$ 1 0,088,932
1,451,s68
6,242,500
213,681
252,670
51 502
2023
$1 0,678,631
'1,553,s09
6,218,912
158,317
262,817
43, 1 33
2024
$ 1 0,383,837
1,628,425
6,883,268
1 62,569
265,517
49.261
CAGR'
t.4st^
$641,067,554 $667,414,438 $648,989,813
92,235,050 97,094,313 101,751,563
333,1'15,863 327,311,158 362,277,263
13.577,647 9,894,813 10,160,s63
16,055,073 16,426,063 16,594,813
3,272,523 ..2,695,813 3,079,188
$1,0s9,323,709 s1,120,838,596 81,144863,201
lJistoric Sales TaxGolleclions & Estirnated Taxable Retail Sales'
Klttitas Gounty, WA (201'940241
19
Potential Funding for Proposed PFD
The various large recreation projects that are intended to be partially funded by the proposed
pFD - 1). Upper Kittitas Coung Community Recreation Center; 2). Ellensburg Community
Fieldhouse; and 3). Kittitas Valley Aquatic Center - are located in Upper Kittitas County and in
the City of Ellensburg. Given this geographic distribution throughout Kittitas County, it is
assumed, for the purposes of this financial feasibility review, that if voters approve the
imposition of a sales and use tax at the rate of 0.2 percent, it would be collected on
Countywide taxable retail sales base.
Our analysis considers 2 methodologies for projecting estimated taxable retail sales - 1).
Conservative Scenario based on a linear regression; and 2). Moderate Scenarios reflecting the
compounded annual growth rate observed between 2019 and 2024 (7.46 percent) and applied
to future years (2025-2043).
ln 2027, when the proposed PFD is assumed to be formed, the Conservative Scenario would
yield annual revenues to the proposed PFD of $2.85M from the 0.2 percent sales tax, while
the Moderate Scenario would yield revenues of $2.83M. Anticipated PFD sales tax revenues
would amount to an average of between $4.1M (Conservative Scenario) and $5.36M
(Moderate Scenario) annually (between 2027 and 2043).
2024 Actual 2025 2026 2027 2028
7 Estimated Taxable Retail Sales
Projected Sales Tax Gollections & Estimated Taxable Retail Sales
Kittitas County, W A QA24-20431
3 Moderate Scenario
4 Estimated Sales Tax Distribution to Proposed PFD
$1,142,853,201$1,228,081,164$1,3',19,664,979$1,418,078,632$1,523'831,456
6 Moderate Scenario
7 Estimated Taxable Retail Sales
$2,285,706 $2,456,162 92.999,999
2035
9?,q_3!,151
2040
$3,047,663
2029 2030 2043
3 Moderate Scenario
4 Estimated Sales Tax Distribution to Proposed PFD
$1,637,470,767 $1,759,584,699 $2,521 ,118,641 $3,612,238,276 $4,482'148'634
$3,274,942 $3,519,169 $5,042,237 $7,224,477 $8,6 Moderate Scenario
2. Reflecls linear regresslon model; Maybe impacted by historic splkes ln spending due to large construction projects
3. Retects Compounded Annual GroMh Rate 2019-2024
4. Assumes 0.2% allocation to proposed PFD
Source: Kittitas County Treasurer Office, Washington State Departn]ent of Revenue, Johnson Consulling
:.'*; rijllil.rllir
964,297
20
Potential Funding for Proposed PFD
Although 2O2S sales tax distributions are not available at the time of this financial feasibility
review, it is noted that the KITTCOM Emergency Communications and Facilities sales and use
tax, which was approved April 23, 2024, reported actual revenues from a 0.2 percent county-
wide sales tax amounting to $3.069M in 2025.15 This indicates an estimated taxable retail
sates base rn Kittitas County of $1.58, which is significantly higher than2024 actuals ($1'tA1
and exceeds the projected amounts under either the Conservative or Moderate Scenario.
The reported revenues accrued to KITTCOM in 2025 were consistent with Kittitas County's
2O2S budget, which indicated $3.0M in revenues from the 0.2 percent sales tax.16 Although the
County's 2026 budget does not specify KITTCOM revenues, it is reasonable to conclude that
both the Conservative and Moderate Scenario estimates for 2025, as presented, potentially
understate revenues from a0.2 percent county-wide sales tax, if approved, particularly in early
years following pFD formation. However, in the interest of being conservative, this financial
feasibility review relies on actual data for 2024, and the projections as previously described
under a Conservative and Moderate Scenario.
Prelim inary Project Operating Costs
lnformation provided by Kittitas County highlights various levels of proposed contributions by
the PFD, if formed, to the identified large recreation projects as follows:
1) Upper Kittitas County Community Recreation Center: The proposed project is
projected to incur a deficit of ($t ,052,325) in Year 1 of operations. The primary strategy for
closing this operational gap is the formation of the proposed PFD. 17 lt is the County's
expectation that the operating shortfall will diminish over time, with surplus revenue
potentially available to accelerate bond repayment.lT
2l Eltensburg Gommunity Fieldhouse: Preliminary projections include $276,000 in annual
PFD funding to support a portion of operations and debt service'18
3) Kittitas Valley Aquatic Center: Preliminary projections include $1 ,724,000 in annual PFD
funding to support a portion of operations and debt service.lT
.l 5 l( llcol"l /rt.rl'1ll.1lsl'jir:i'llVI Bor\illj Aili]l.lD;\ if::F-trFiLJAl-lY '12, <02{-:)
16 l(lTl I l.\S COIJNl'1 Bl.JDtiEI :ll-rlll'{.qF\' 20241
17. l.|'iltTASCr_)Lli'JTY-TltEi\:iLJfiFRpP::p1(lFl\.i/l\S,{ lli.liiTON-cl.\lLli[:t-'rrFiTMElt]lOl'rPlF"'ENl-l F
I E. [3Al-l ARI-r I(lNG Al'.i t-r "\-\SOClr,t15 51 1.1;--r1' 12t-i2i-i)
21
Preliminary Project Operating Gosts
On an annual basis, the identified funding support to be provided by the PFD, if formed, totals
$3.1M across the identified projects.
PFD Administrative Gosts
ln addition to capital and operating support to the identified projects, there will be costs
incurred by the pFD, if formed, for its own administration and operations. As previously noted,
typical expenses include salaries, wages, and benefits for employees, compensation for
members of the board, marketing, accounting, travel reimbursement and other expenses
necessary to administer the PFD.1e
For illustrative purposes, it is assumed that the PFD, if formed, will incur estimated annual
ongoing operating costs of $120,000.20 The sole source of PFD revenues will be from the
proposed 0.2 percent sales tax, if approved. lt is noted that the disbursement of tax revenues
to the pFD will not occur immediately upon voter approval, as prescribed by the procedures
set forth in the State statutes.le
Funding Plan
The intent of this independent financial feasibility review is not to create, tpst or otherwise
opine on the costs for capital or operations of the identified projects. Rather, the purpose is to
identify costs specific to the formation of the PFD.
For illustrative purposes, the following analysis reflects key variables and assumptions:
' The proposed PFD is formed and receives funding in Ql -2027 '
. All three identified recreation projects are anticipated to be either under construction,
triggering lease or debt service repayments by Project Sponsors, or operational in2028'
. pFD operational and administrative costs are maintained at constant levels throughout the
projection period, net of inflation.
19 WASHINGTON STAIE LEGIStAl'IJI]E RC\A/ 36.100
20. E:JTIMATF AS PROVIDILI BY I(ITTITAS COI.JI.JTYq4 1llllllfll
2?
Funding Plan
. Operating shortfalls at the three identified projects are maintained at constant levels
throughout the projection period, in the absence of projections beyond Year 1 estimates and
net of inflation.
For simplicity, pFD l"urrdirrg contributions to the proposed projects arc assumed in the entire
amounts as provided (totaling $3.1M annually). This is intended to demonstrate the PFD's
cumulative capacity to provide funding support, noting the following caveats:
1. phased implementation strategies, and corresponding funding contributions, are likely to
be implemented, subject to further due diligence by the PFD board of directors before
finalizing any operating subsidies for the proposed projects.2l
2. The pFD has the ability to adjust project support and selection. Also, each Project Sponsor
has the ability to adjust its reliance on PFD support over time.21
As shown on the following page, accrued PFD revenues will be sufficient to cover all costs,
including operating funding for the proposed projects by Project Sponsors and its own
operating expenses, under either the Conservative or Moderate Scenarios in 2028, assuming
the PFD is formed and funded in Q1 -2027.
The pFD should be viewed as a flexible and scalable funding tool that can adapt to actual
revenue peformance and project timing. As such, the variables listed above could allow for
even greater revenue accrual by the PFD, if formed, prior to, and during, project operations.
""f,' jillltlill 21. t<*TrrAs couNTy DCCUr"lEr.'AroN Fo^ RFVTEW oF pr':D FORi'4ATloNt (rvl,\RCH 2u2o)
23
Funding PIan
7 Estimated Sales Tax Distribution to Proposed PFD
Projected sales Tax Receipts and Amount Allocated to operational costs
Kittitas Countlr, WA (2024'2028'l
3 Moderate Sccnario
4 Estimated PFD Operating Expenditures
5 Accumulated PFD Revenues
$2,285,700 $2,4s6,162 $2,639,330 $2,836,1 57
($1 20,000)
$3,047,663
($1 20,000)
Z Moderate Scenario
8 Operational Funding to Projects
9 Project 1
10 Project 2
11 Project 3
12 Total Project Costs
13 Amount Available for Debt Service (Shod Fall)
$0 $o $0 $2,716,157 $5,643,820
($1,052,325)
($276,000)
($1,724,000)
($3,052,325)
$0
$0
$0
$0
15 Moderate Scenario $2,716,157 $2,591,495
7. Assumes o.2%o allocaton to proposed PFD
2. Reflects linear regression model
3. Reflects Compounded Annual Growth Rate 2019-2024
4. Eslimate as provided by Kiftitas County; Requires fufther due diligence by PFD to establish annual operating budget; Non-inflated
5. Net of PFD operaling expenditures (Line 4)
8. Reflects informaton provided by Kittitas county; Requires fufthet due diligence by PFD; Non-inflated
g. Reftects information provided by Kiftitas county for total Year 1 eslimated operating deficit
10. Reflects information provided by Kiflitas Counly based on 2025 Batlard Kng and Associates study
13. Reflects information provided by Ktttas County for total Year 1 eslimated operating delicit
Source: Kittitas County Treasurer Office, Washington State Department of Revenue, Kittitas County, Johnson Consulting
ln2O2B, both the Conservative and Moderate Scenarios indicate a surplus of PFD revenues'
Revenues are projected to continue to increase throughout the projection period'
The pFD, if formed, will need to refine the estimates of revenue available from a potential
sales tax and develop a budget for expenditures for PFD administration, any operating
shortfalls and reserves to determine how much revenue will be available to support debt
service.
Further, the pFD is expected to request a separate review that will focus on operating and
capital costs, prior to the issuance of any debt, as required by State law'22
t'f, ililllillfi z?- w-\sFrNrGTor\isT/r,rE r EGrsI-ATUFtF RCV,, -t'r.100
24
Funding Plan
7 Estimated Sales Tax Distribution to Proposed PFD
projected sales Tax Receipts and Amount Allocated to operational costs
Kittitas County, WA (2027'2043)
, j.t r:t I, iii,|;i.i r iri iii'.r:1r,,.: ,, . I 1,1i,':,lr:'l l,' ,1i . rl:i ir 1'rri,'t
3 Moderate Scenario
4 Estimated PFD Operating Expenditures
5 Accumulated PFD Revenues
$2,836,1 57
($1 20,000)
$3,047,663
($1 20,ooo)
$3,s1 9,1 59
($1 20,000)
$5,042,237
($1 20,o0o)
$7,224,477
($1 20,000)
$8,964,297
($1 20,000)
.r ,,...,,,,,..tt,,,jr 't.i,),'. :"\..:" i'1.\:,'..i'' :i 1,,!iii," I l'ri I :"j:,, :i,':.1'i i' . l
$2,716,157 $5,643,820 $12,197,931 $33,544,378 $64,389,069 $89',098'787
7
I
9
10
11
12
13
Moderate Scenario
Operational Funding to Projects
Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
Total Project Costs
Amount Available for Debt Service (Shod Fall)
$0
$0
$0
$o
($1,052,325)
($276,000)
($1,724,000)
($3,052,325)
($1,052,325)
($276,000)
($1,724,000)
($3,0s2,325)
($1,052,325)
($276,000)
($1,724,000)
($3,052,325)
($1,052,32s)
($276,000)
($1,724,000)
($3,052,325)
($1,052,325)
($276,000)
($1,724,000)
($3,0s2,325)
$2,716,157 $2,s91,49s $9,145,606 $30,492,053 $61,336,744 $86,046,46215 Moderate Scenario
7. Assumes 0.2/o attocation to proposed PFD
2. Reftects linear regression model
3. Reftects Compounded Annual GrcMh Rate 2019-2024
4. Estjmate as provided by Kittitas county; Requites futher due diligence by PFD to establish annuat operabng budget; Non-inflated
5. Net of PFD operaling expenditures (Line 4)
S,ReflectsinfonaionprovidedbyKtftascounty;RequiresfuftherduediligencebyPFD:Non-inflated
g'ReflectsinfomatjonprovidedbyKtitascountyfortotalYearleslimatedoperatingdelicit
1o'ReflectsinfomalionprcvidedbyKittjhscounlybasedon2o2SBaltadKingandAssociatessfudy
l3.ReflectsinformatjonprovidedbyKttitascountyfoltotatYearlesfmatedoperatjngdeficit
source: Kittitas county Treasurer office, washington state Department of Revenue' Kittitas county, Johnson consulting
lilt lr{slll iiirl,:ii liiji:
,}f.25
4. Conclusion
$,.r$.' 1:'4{^r": i;il#!3r9i8tif':'^fite.?.,i}g#'i},is..:r' ;:i
Summary of Assessment
Based upon Johnson Consulting's independent review of the financial feasibility of the
formation of the proposed PFD, it is our impartial opinion that revenue from a 0.2 percent
sales tax, if approved, would be sufficient to cover estimated operating costs for the PFD, with
surplus to cover higher operating costs as well as operating shortfalls at the proposed projects
following pFD formation. At the time of this study, based on information provided by Kittitas
County, the proposed pFD has been identified as a potential financing partner to support
operations of the identified large recreation projects - 1). Upper Kittitas County Community
Recreation Center; 2). Ellensburg Community Fieldhouse; and 3). Kittitas Valley Aquatic
Center - amounting to $3.1M annually. Even under a scenario where the entirety of this
funding support is required in 2028, reflecting preliminary project schedules, and assuming
that the pFD is formed and funded in Q1 -2027, the debt service schedule indicates that
accrued pFD revenues will be sufficient to cover this level of operating support, while also
maintaining its own oPerations.
Estimated taxable retail sales throughout Kittitas County grew at a compounded annual rate of
7.46 percent between 2O1g and 2024, demonstrating long-term robustness' Under a
Conservative scenario, it is estimated that PFD revenues would amount to an average of
$4.1M annually (between ZO27 and 2043) and under a Moderate scenario, it is estimated that
pFD revenues would amount to an average of $5.36M annually (between 2027 and 2043),
exceeding the estimated pFD operating costs and proposed funding support to the identified
projects ($3.17M) Formation of the PFD with sufficient time to accrue revenues, and/ or
staggered project timing, will be critical to minimizing the likelihood and magnitude of any
funding gaps in early years. l-onger-term projections indicate sufficient capacity to support
administrative costs and project-related funding needs as cumulative revenue surpluses are
achieved.
lf the proposed pFD is formed, the PFD board of directors will need to refine estimates of
revenue available from a potential sales tax and develop a budget for PFD administration, any
annual operating shortfalls and reserves. This will inform how much revenue is projected to be
available to support operating shortfalls for the proposed projects and any debt service on
bonds. Continued refinement of these assumptions will further support implementation and
long-term success.
' ".r liiliil:i1lil
: : : .,rr .r.r i.
27
Potential Costs
As it relates to the formation of the proposed PFD by Kittitas County, likely costs include
1. lnitial Gapital: Prior to voter approval of the 0.2 percent sales tax, the proposed PFD will
not have an independent source of revenue available to cover administrative and
operational costs. Start-up costs will require funding, which can bc addrcssed through
agreements with the County, City and/ or other parties. At this time, information from
Kittitas County indicates the Project Sponsors, including the Upper Kittitas County
Community Recreation Center Alliance and the City of Ellensburg, and other partner
entities, may collaborate through an interlocal or cost-sharing agreement to support certain
pre-formation and planning expenses.23 lf the proposed sales tax is not approved, the PFD
will not have sources of revenue required to repay any borrowed funds'
2. Costs Associated with Voter Approval: Since the proposed sales tax to fund the PFD
will require voter approval, there will be associated costs borne by the PFD. These costs
can be addressed through agreements with the County, City and/ or other parties. As
described above, information from Kittitas County indicates the Project Sponsors and other
partner entities may collaborate through an interlocal or cost-sharing agreement to support
certain pre-formation and planning expenses.23 There is no assurance that the proposed
funding will be approved.
3. planning Gosts: The PFD board of directors will likely incur costs associated with
additional studies, planning or review prior to seeking voter approval on the proposed sales
tax funding. This costs will precede PFD revenue. lf the proposed tax is not approved,
there will be no means to reimburse these costs. As described above, information from
Kittitas County indicates the Project Sponsors and other partner entities may collaborate
through an interlocal or cost-sharing agreement to support cedain pre-formation and
planning expenses.22 Municipalities within Kittitas County, and the Conference of
Governments, have provided support for the financial feasibility review. 23
tif ',fjliryil]lu ,,, tlTT jT/is CfluNTy Doc[.lp1Ei\l1A'1Oi\l FoFi ri[:\]tEvv oF PFD FoRMir.Tlohl (l'lARCFl 2tr26)
28
Potential Gosts
4, project Operating Shortfalts: At the time of this study, each of the large recreation
projects that are intended to be partially funded by the proposed PFD - 1). Upper Kittitas
County Community Recreation Center; 2). Ellensburg Community Fieldhouse; and 3)'
Kittitas Valley Aquatic Center - have projected operating shortfalls in Year 1'24 Based on
information provided by Kittitas County, the proposed PFD has been identified as a as a
potential financing partner to support operations amounting to $3.1M annually. Under either
of the tested projection scenarios (Conservative and Moderate Scenario), accrued PFD
revenues will be sufficient to cover this level of operating funding, in addition to covering its
own operating expenses, assuming that the PFD is formed and funded in Q1 -2027 and the
proposed projects are either under construction, triggering lease or debt service
repayments by the Project sponsors, or operational in 2028.
The analysis presented herein is intended to demonstrate the PFD's cumulative revenues
from the proposed 0.2 percent sales tax, if implemented. The PFD may in fact achieve
higher revenue accruals if taxable sales occur at a higher rate, as may be anticipated given
recent comparable tax performance, or if the proposed projects are phased. At this time,
pFD funding contributions to the proposed projects are flexible and can be adjusted over
time. Further due diligence by the PFD board of directors is recommended before finalizing
any operating subsidy for the proposed projects. Further, the PFD would need to budget
additional funds or reserves to recognize the potential for higher operating shortfalls than
projected or enter into agreements with other parties ameliorate that risk.
S. Costs lncurred by Kittitas County: The County will incur legal costs related to the
formation of the pFD. Fufther, if the County enters into agreements with the City and/or
community partners prior to formation of the PFD, or with the PFD after it is formed, this
may incur additional costs.
fl i'iilrlr'i 2,:r i.il jrirrs e ct.-r r'.rTY Doilr.Jl"r[:r'JIAiloN [:oR R[:\/lf]\\'(lF: p{rD frc)ltl'/i Afl()r.l (l'1At]cl"l 2,{l?6)
29
Appendices
A. About The Author
About Johnson Consulting
Johnson Consulting, lnc. is a corporation founded in 1996 in Chicago, lL. Since inception, Johnson
Consulting has conducted numerous engagements in the U.S. and abroad, including community
development projects that comprise event and entertainment, tourism, hotel, commercial and retail
uses. our professionals have worked in real estate, tourism, and hospitality planning for over 35 years'
The majority of our work is focused on markct analysis, financial analyeie, operational reviews, and
economic and fiscal impact andlyses.
The breadth and depth of Johnson Consulting's experience and our
unique qualifications include:
. Commitment to providing governments, developers, and not-for-
profits with real estate market and financial analysis for urban and
destination-oriented Projects.
Experience in over 2,000 communities on similar engagements,
including numerous event, entertainment, recreation, cultural and
tourism assets, that have resulted in multi-faceted projects that are
supportive of strategic objectives and achieve the desired return on
investment and "return on vision", while protecting against risk.
Proven collaborative processes that utilize market data with precise
analytics to empower our clients to confidently make the most
informed decisions.
An economic and tourism development mindset that ensures we
would never recommend a plan that will not be fiscally responsible or
not create jobs and better quality of life for area residents.
Reputation among investors, underwriters, and developers as a
trusted and objective feasibility advisor. Our market studies are
frequently included in public-private partnership solicitations and
utilized for underwriting.
t- ii :.1 ; i j 1- I : i'l a E i. {-l i lc i'i : a'il.i. il ti! l
.ii!:, r: 'ilr;r lii /.lljrl':5li
i:al ir,_i5r_l: ii!!!?,ii.i i*i-i!' il:!
+25 YEARS
20,000
I
Eilii i ir,;, !: i,r-;!l,l;i
;t ;caj:_i,i: 3i-ri1_i
I
h*i
3OM SQ.FT
'iF i .'Hi3:I:.-r:i !i,',.-:
Stooe
muJohnson Consulting is committed to promoting the following values
through our work: objectivity, independence, economic pragmatism,
and social resPonsibilitY.
+2,000
:p.,1., : :r; jr : ii!!.1' i li i-:.
oaEgoo
ti
nBn
ENE
i -J riIlrl,iiJii
t r , rr, i rr
B. Documents
Reviewed
Documents Reviewed
This independent financial feasibility review required access to, and review of, information and
documents prepared by others, including the following:
, Kittitas County Documentation for Review of PFD Formation (March 2026), as provided by
Kittitas CountY
. washington state Legislature RCW 39.34, 35.57 and 36.100
'.1 la
r
WA OV
ESRI Business Analyst Online (BAO)
MACC Estimating Group Upper Kittitas County Community Recreation Center Construction
Cost Estimate (February 20,2024)
s:/is UA mlstati 79f226a 8121 B5c0 Bceb4
881 8ea/I 75086233 B/Constructio n+Cost+Esti mate+2-2A-2 4 odf
, ALSC Architects Upper Kittitas County Community Recreation Center Feasibility Study
(2022)
il ic1.s uar com/stat 5d79f2 548121 73til68 TfOBcBb
b03fd/1 750862573 693i Final+Re port-Schemati c+Desi n.ndf
. ALSC Architects Upper Kittitas County Community Recreation Center UKC CRC
Community Meeting Presentation (2024)
5d7 15481 17da7d1
f
4^t.5
6a9f5 3211711 51 0 304554/UKC+CRCA+P roiect+Co mmittee -20-24-sm il ndf
UKC Community Recreation Center - Potential Non-tax Sources of Funding and Resources
htt s://d le readshee 1 H5zE5 z rtQP mRTE4 ul ROi
QiYFs /edit?cid id=0
Ballard King And Associates Market Review and Operation Plan For Ellensburg Community
Field House (2025)
UA ce.com/s -7
I
'il;r1'rlll
34
d.,1{f i:niF1're.€i#ngd*
Documents Reviewed
. City of Ellensburg Request for Qualifications R25-09 Developer of Ellensburg Fieldhouse
Responses to Questions
httns://wvwv.e llensbu cl ov/D ocum e n tCente tew t2 48241 RFO-Ouestions-and-Answers-
PDF?bidld=
. City of Ellensburg - Ellensburg Fieldhouse Information (Various)
https://www.ellen sburqwa ovllZS2lEllens buro-Communitv-Fieldhouse
rq.wa.us/Docum en enterA/iew/1 B/ERRC Ca ita Fundinq uesthttps://ci.ellensbu
//ci.elle wa.us/Docu enterA/i 7tK nD
s://www WA ovl mentCe 1946 ined
Ellensburq Com munitv Fieldhouse 2A24
iwww.ellensbu rcwa.qov/Document CenterA/iew l24744lEllensbu rq-PRO S-Plan-
Su
https:/
Prese 1A825?bi
Kittitas County Treasurer Office/ Washington State Deparlment of Revenue
htt I ov/about/cs-r l-taxes/l les-and--distrib
KITTCOM Administrative Board Agenda (February 12,2026)
https./ikittcom.qov/AqendaCenterA/iewF ile/Aqend al 02122A26'108
Kittitas County Budget Summary 2025
httos:/.co.kittitas.wa.u s/uoloads/audi tor/accountin o/budaet/bud 0 et-i n-
b ri ef I 2 0 25 o/,, 20 B u d q eto/o 20in%20Brief.Bdf