Financial Plan
The numbers
behind the vision
All figures are illustrative estimates for planning and discussion purposes. Site selection has not been finalized — values are based on an example northern Wasatch site. A formal feasibility study would refine all assumptions. The companion Excel workbook contains editable inputs.
$73.6M
Total capital required (all phases)
$64.3M
Identified funding (~87% of total)
$5.7M
Year 1 projected revenue
Yr 2–3
Target financial sustainability
180K
Stabilized annual skier visits (Yr 6+)
Section 1
Estimated capital costs
Key cost drivers: access road ($15M), lifts ($22.5M, ~31% of hard costs), and base lodge ($9M). Land acquisition is $0 under an assumed USFS Special Use Permit for the illustrative northern Wasatch site. If a private land site is selected, acquisition costs would be added.
| Cost Item | Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| Land Acquisition (USFS SUP assumed) | $0 |
| Lift Installation (5 fixed-grip quads @ $4.5M) | $22,500,000 |
| Magic Carpet / Surface Lift | $400,000 |
| Trail Development (650 acres @ $8K) | $5,200,000 |
| Snowmaking System | $5,500,000 |
| Base Lodge (~30,000 sq ft, no-frills) | $9,000,000 |
| Parking | $1,500,000 |
| Access Road (illustrative site) | $15,000,000 |
| Grooming Equipment (2 snowcats) | $1,200,000 |
| Rental Fleet (prior-season used) | $150,000 |
| Snowmobiles & Off-Road Vehicles | $200,000 |
| Permitting & Design | $2,000,000 |
| Construction Contingency (18%) | $10,917,000 |
| Total Capital Requirement | $73,567,000 |
Phase 1 — Pilot
Opening day
$50–55M
3 lifts + magic carpet, ~500 acres, full base lodge, access road, snowmaking. Full operational opening.
Target: 2029 opening
Phase 2 — Expansion
Full terrain
$20–25M
2 additional lifts, remaining ~500 acres. Triggered once Phase 1 demonstrates financial sustainability.
Years 4–6
Phase 3+ — Growth
Further expansion
TBD
Additional terrain into adjacent drainages if the site supports it. Managed access if overcrowding occurs.
Years 7+
Section 2
Annual operating costs
Costs are structured into Controllable and Non-Controllable categories per industry best practice. Variable labor scales daily with skier visit counts, protecting margin in slow periods. All costs escalate at 3% annually.
| Operating Line Item | Year 1 | Year 6 (Stabilized) |
|---|---|---|
| Controllable — Fixed Labor | ||
| Fixed Labor (fully loaded, incl. benefits) | $774,090 | $898,000 |
| Controllable — Variable Labor | ||
| Variable Labor (fully loaded, incl. benefits) | $1,139,208 | $1,520,000 |
| Total Controllable Labor | $1,913,298 | $2,418,000 |
| Non-Controllable Expenses | ||
| Lift Operations & Maintenance | $800,000 | $928,000 |
| Snowmaking & Grooming (operating) | $350,000 | $406,000 |
| Utilities (electricity, water) | $250,000 | $290,000 |
| Insurance (GL + Workers Comp) | $500,000 | $580,000 |
| USFS Land Use Fee | $150,000 | $174,000 |
| F&B Cost of Goods (~35% of F&B revenue) | $252,000 | $567,000 |
| Marketing & Outreach | $150,000 | $174,000 |
| Maintenance & Repairs | $200,000 | $232,000 |
| Summer Maintenance Staff | $175,000 | $203,000 |
| Snowmobile & Vehicle Operating Costs | $40,000 | $46,000 |
| Total Annual Operating Costs | $4,780,000 | $6,002,000 |
Section 3
Revenue projections
Pricing is set to remain meaningfully below the Utah market while reflecting the resort's superior terrain and vertical drop. The $59 resident day ticket is the most affordable for a quality Utah mountain. Revenue grows as word-of-mouth builds and school district partnerships expand.
Year 1 total revenue
$5.7M
80,000 skier visits. Operating surplus of ~$940K. A conservative starting point — well below the resort's 180,000 stabilized capacity ceiling.
Year 5 total revenue
$10.3M
147,000 skier visits. Operating surplus of ~$4.7M. Resort is self-sustaining and generating meaningful surplus to service bond debt.
Year 10 total revenue
$12.3M
Stabilized at 180,000 visits/year. Operating surplus of ~$5.9M annually — fully covering bond service costs with margin remaining.
| Revenue Stream | Year 1 | Year 5 | Year 10 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Skier Visits | 80,000 | 147,000 | 180,000 |
| Lift Ticket Revenue — Resident ($59) | $1,975,000 | $3,500,000 | $4,100,000 |
| Lift Ticket Revenue — Non-Resident ($119) | $990,000 | $1,750,000 | $2,050,000 |
| Season Pass Revenue ($750 res. / $1,250 non-res.) | $700,000 | $1,280,000 | $1,565,000 |
| Rental Revenue | $1,260,000 | $2,315,000 | $2,835,000 |
| Food & Beverage Revenue | $720,000 | $1,323,000 | $1,620,000 |
| School Program Revenue ($15/student) | $75,000 | $110,000 | $177,000 |
| Total Revenue | $5,720,000 | $10,278,000 | $12,347,000 |
| Total Operating Costs | ($4,780,000) | ($5,540,000) | ($6,408,000) |
| Operating Surplus / (Deficit) | $940,000 | $4,738,000 | $5,939,000 |
Revenue figures are illustrative estimates from the companion Excel model. Financial sustainability target is Year 2–3. The Excel workbook allows full sensitivity testing on all assumptions.
Section 4
Funding sources
Utah has a strong ecosystem of recreation and infrastructure funding tools. The model identifies eight near-term sources totaling $64.25M — covering approximately 87% of total capital requirements. A diversified funding stack reduces reliance on any single mechanism and strengthens the legislative case.
| Funding Source | Amount | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| State Legislative Appropriation / Bond | $25,000,000 | Primary mechanism. Mirrors proven NY ORDA public ski area operating model. |
| State Government Bonds (30-yr municipal) | $20,000,000 | ~4% rate; ~$1.5M annual debt service, covered by operating surplus from Year 3+. |
| 2034 Olympic Venue Development Funding | $10,000,000 | Access road serves Olympic-area transportation goals — a natural funding bridge. |
| Tourism Revenue Subsidy (Resort Operators) | $5,000,000 | Public access reinvestment from Utah resort tax revenue generated by major multi-resort pass operators. |
| Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) | $2,500,000 | 50% federal match; NPS-administered. Perpetual public recreation use required — aligns perfectly with project mission. Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation purview. |
| Utah Outdoor Recreation Grant | $1,000,000 | Regional Asset Tier; up to $1M. Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation administers. |
| Philanthropic / Corporate Sponsorship | $500,000 | Ski industry partners, school districts, local businesses. |
| Pre-Opening Season Pass Sales (Founding) | $250,000 | Founding member passes at $499; early working capital before opening day. |
| Total Identified Funding | $64,250,000 | ~87% of total capital requirement of $73,567,000. |
| Remaining Gap | $9,317,000 | Addressable via phased construction, additional bond capacity, or enhanced Olympic funding. |
Section 5
Key risks & mitigations
| Risk | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Low snowfall years | Base elevation of ~7,200 ft significantly reduces risk vs. existing low-elevation Utah resorts. Snowmaking system in capital plan covers key lower-mountain terrain. High-elevation site selection criterion in formal feasibility study. |
| Visit volume below projections | Year 1 target of 80K is conservative — well below stabilized 180K ceiling. School program provides guaranteed demand floor from Day 1. Non-resident pricing is a direct lever to increase visit volume if needed. |
| Overcrowding if demand exceeds capacity | Overcrowding at a financially solvent resort is proof of concept, not failure. Response options: lottery-style day ticket reservation system or Phase 2 terrain expansion trigger. |
| Permitting & environmental review delays | 18% construction contingency included. NEPA review assumed at 2 years, built into 2029 target opening timeline (1 yr feasibility, 2 yrs permitting/design, 1 yr construction). |
| Access road cost overrun | Road cost buffered at $15M. Existing road infrastructure at candidate sites may reduce new construction required. Final road cost determined in site feasibility study. |
| Political / market pushback from existing resorts | Resident-only pricing and terrain differentiation target a non-overlapping market segment. Overcrowding relief at existing resorts is a shared benefit that can be used to frame the proposal as complementary, not competitive. |
Section 6
Operating models worth evaluating
Three governance structures are worth evaluating in a formal feasibility study, each with different implications for state exposure, pricing flexibility, and long-term sustainability.
| Model | Description | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Authority Recommended |
State creates a public ski authority that owns and operates the resort with a professional management board. Mirrors ORDA/Gore Mountain model. | Full pricing control; mission-driven; access to state capital; strongest precedent | State absorbs operating risk; requires legislative action |
| Public-Private Partnership | State owns land and core infrastructure; private operator manages day-to-day under a resident-pricing mandate. | Reduces state operational burden; brings private management expertise | Mission drift risk over time; less long-term pricing control |
| Nonprofit Operator | State funds capital; a nonprofit entity manages operations with a public-benefit charter. | Mission-aligned by structure; lean operations; community ownership culture | Fundraising complexity; harder to scale; less access to state capital |
Questions or feedback?
The companion Excel model
is available on request
All figures in this summary come from a fully editable Excel workbook with live formulas for sensitivity testing. Reach out to discuss the assumptions or request the working model.