1. Garfield County overview: 31 events, 166 divisions, 977 team participations

This independent calculation filters County = Garfield in the authoritative September 20, 2026 Hidden Valley CSV. An event is a distinct pair of season and base event identifier; a division row is a separate classification within an event; team participations are appearances in those divisions rather than necessarily unique clubs or unique individual athletes. The original row date range is 2001–2011, with no source-coded Garfield rows after 2011; this is not evidence that local baseball ceased later.

2. Municipality breakdown: Enid, not a proof of property title

All 166 original county-labelled division records list Municipality = Enid. There are no separately source-coded Garfield municipality groups. Consequently the Enid municipality model equals the Garfield source-coded county total exactly; it does not automatically mean the City of Enid collected or controlled those modeled dollars. Any facility at a county, tribal, school, or private parcel would override a provisional municipality owner attribution when a deed/contract documents it. No such overriding owner has been independently established for each source alias in this analysis.

3. Exact facility-label ledger: preserve both Enid labels

The CSV carries two distinct exact venue labels. Its 27 Crosslin-labelled events and four “Enid Baseball Complex” events are non-overlapping by source ID. Do not merge the labels into a single physical property or treat them as proven separate parcels. The City’s Crosslin Park listing establishes a public park at 1520 W Oxford; Visit Enid describes two baseball complexes at Crosslin Park. Only reservation calendars, period maps, permits, deeds and event-specific field assignments can establish which source label refers to which actual complex, and who possessed gate/concession rights in each year.

4. Key financial sensitivity: league/preseason admissions dominate the gate model

The source LeaguePhase field identifies 16 division records across six events marked “League Play” or “League Preseason.” Such events may span many calendar days, unlike a two- or three-day weekend tournament. A blanket model collecting gate admissions from assumed fans for every source TotalEventDays risks drastically overstating realized cash. This is a model-risk identification, not evidence of an actual overcharge or actual collections.

The 16 source-flagged records generate $493,700 modeled gate—approximately 68% of the county gate estimate—and $246,850 gross concessions. Yet those same rows carry only $4,000 source-modeled visitor spending because the league entries use different low day-trip rates and zero overnight assumptions. The remaining 150 division rows produce $228,800 modeled gate and $458,439 visitor-spending estimates. Those are sensitivity partitions, not a claim that nonleague admissions actually occurred.

Source test cases: A 2008 “EJRT 6U League” event has 45 team participations and $202,500 modeled gate; a 2009 “EJRT League” event likewise has 45 and $234,000 modeled gate. The model’s arithmetic depends on event-day counts and assumed daily attendees and admissions—not original gate tickets or bank deposits. These historical EJRT references identify dataset program labels only; no judgment about operators’ practices is implied.

As a second sensitivity, 34 division rows carry a $0 team-entry rate yet still model $528,500 in gate. A zero modeled entry fee does not demonstrate free attendance; a modeled gate does not demonstrate fees were actually collected. Thirty-one source row statuses are populated and 135 are blank; a blank status cannot prove an event occurred.

5. Countywide modeled economic impact: source-field reconciliation, not incremental impact

The gross hypothetical visitor-spending total in the CSV is $462,439: countywide DayImpact $73,445 plus OvernightImpact $388,994. These are spreadsheet estimates, not hotel occupancy data or outside-visitor surveys. They are especially unreliable as incremental county economic benefit unless local-vs-outside traveler composition, substitution, displacement, margins and leakage are independently established.

Reproducible division-row formulas and historically varying rates

For each division row: DayImpact = TeamsEntered × DayTripRate × DayStay; OvernightImpact = TeamsEntered × NightTripRate × OverNightStay; and TotalEconomicImpactPerEvent = DayImpact + OvernightImpact. Despite the last column’s “PerEvent” name, its value is stored on every division row, not once per distinct event. Add the values across all 166 rows once each; do not multiply the county sum by 31 events or total division records again.

Why “economic impact” is not verified public benefit or hotel tax

The $462,439 source-modeled spending is gross potential trip spending across historical divisions. There is no independently demonstrated incrementality (new nonlocal dollars caused by events), attendance, realized hotel nights, participant residence, local sales-tax collection, marginal labor contribution or multiplier in the file. Locals may replace rather than add spending; some spending could flow outside county; family hotel rooms may be shared; canceled play may still have modeled rows. The article does not add model gate, entry fees, gross concessions, scenario-net concessions or source TotalEventNet to economic impact, because participants’ expenditures could overlap and double counting has not been analyzed. No derived tourism tax receipt or profit figure is claimed.

6. Row-level financial formulas, source columns and assumptions

1. Distinct events: unique (Seasonid, base TournamentID). TournamentID sometimes includes a final -division suffix; records sharing the same original base event key count as one event for the county and exact facility.
2. Team participation and gross entry: sum TeamsEntered and TotalTeamEntryFee; on Garfield rows, TotalTeamEntryFee = TeamsEntered × EntryFeePerTeam. Fees are modeled gross, not verified deposits; a team could appear more than once in a season.
3. Gate: the tested source formula is DailyFans × DailyAdmissionFee × TotalEventDays = TotalEventGate; Garfield records also satisfy DailyFans = TeamsEntered × 20. The 20-person assumption and $5 admission rates are model parameters, not verified attendance or posted rates; longer league durations make gate particularly sensitive.
4. Concessions: source model TotalEventConcession = 50% × TotalEventGate. Gross concessions are not food sales actually received. Illustrative net concession retention scenarios assume 30%, 50% or 70% remaining from modeled concession gross after unspecified costs—not actual costs, retained net, or profit; no evidence assigns collection to the City, a concession vendor or a league.
5. Game minimum: TotalMinimumGamesPlayed summed from source division row model; games played, scheduled and forfeited may differ; overlapping age divisions are not the same as actual unique field time. TotalEventUmpires = TotalMinimumGamesPlayed × UmpiresPerGame gives assignment slots, not distinct humans or paid timesheets. TotalEventUmpireFees = TotalEventUmpires × UmpirePayPerGame uses $40/assignment in these Garfield rows.
6. Sanction cost model: TotalUSSSASanctionFees = TeamUsssaSanctionFees + EventUsssaSanctionFees; source total '+money(A['TotalUSSSASanctionFees'])+' consists of modeled team sanctions '+money(A['TeamUsssaSanctionFees'])+' and modeled event sanctions '+money(A['EventUsssaSanctionFees'])+'. This is not documented money received by a sanction body.
7. Economic fields: row-level DayImpact, OvernightImpact, and TotalEconomicImpactPerEvent summed as separate audited calculation columns, with the original DayTripRate, NightTripRate, DayStay and OverNightStay preserved as recorded.

Arithmetic quality control: all 166 Garfield rows satisfied the tested entry, admission, concession, official-slot, umpire-cost, sanction and visitor-spending relationships, and the two facility totals reconcile to the county and Enid totals. Mathematical consistency of an assumed model does not validate the assumptions or prove a cash transaction.

7. Enid parks, public operations, sports organizations and collaboration

The City identifies Crosslin Park at 1520 W Oxford Avenue and lists sports and youth-recreation amenities; the local visitor bureau records two baseball complexes. The City’s Parks and Recreation office and Accounting office have public operations and payment responsibilities, respectively. Municipal park availability or maintenance is not proof the municipality operated, sanctioned or financially received every historical league tournament.

Historical LeaguePhase records use EJRT labels and the spreadsheet identifies historical tournament-director names. Those records are leads for original user agreements—not a verified list of legal operators, grant recipients, beneficiaries, debtors or culpable persons. Municipal collaboration questions include whether the City, nonprofit youth leagues, promoters, sponsor groups, county tourism authorities and schools have written use agreements, priority scheduling, youth scholarship commitments, concession rights, maintenance-sharing arrangements and annual public reporting. Competing stakeholders should be able to provide documentation that improves the ledger without being treated as subjects of allegations.

The City’s park-use municipal code § 7-2-1 provides a governance reference for approved organized-play schedules. The rule should be checked against the version in force for each 2001–2011 event; a present rule cannot be automatically retroactively applied.

8. Current financial decisions are separate from historic gate scenarios

Enid’s City-County hotel-tax discussion involves future community facilities and visitors but is not an accounting confirmation of 2001–2011 tournament income. City-published hotel-tax planning materials describe an 8% to 12% proposed/approved structure and a 60% City / 40% Garfield County Fairgrounds Trust Authority distribution. The official published Ordinance No. 2026-12 specifies the tax-use terms and an October 1, 2026 implementation date subject to voter approval. The reported August 25, 2026 unofficial results favored approval; these records alone do not independently certify every later collection, appropriation or expenditure.

City estimates of approximately $2.1 million annual lodging-tax collections (roughly $700,000 additional annually compared with the prior structure, $1.26 million City share, $840,000 Fairgrounds Trust share) are projections, not verified receipts and not traceable to the 31 historic baseball event IDs. Ordinance wording does not earmark a fixed percentage of the City share for a new sports complex. The County Fairgrounds Trust/Chisholm Trail Expo Center has a legally distinct purpose; its share should not be imputed to City-controlled Crosslin Park.

Municipal discussions describe a possible approximately $60 million multi-sports project and potential state/federal funding applications. Project estimates, grant applications, voter-approved tax authority, an actual grant award, contract execution, appropriations and expenditures are different milestones. This article makes no unsupported assertion that $60 million has been borrowed, expended or granted or that tournament data financially justifies a new facility.

9. Separate municipal and county audits — scope matters

City of Enid: annual independent statements

The City’s Accounting department publishes the FY2024–25 annual audit and a historical audit archive, including 2008–2011 documents near the last source years. Its 2025 independent audit (fiscal year ended June 30, 2025) is a government-wide financial statement, not a third-party check of the 2001–2011 Hidden Valley row estimates. Facility-specific concession and booking ledgers still require original records and reconciliation to the appropriate City fund, trust, contractor or user organization.

Garfield County: Oklahoma State Auditor & Inspector

The State Auditor’s Garfield County FY2023 financial audit (issued May 29, 2025) gives an unmodified opinion on the Oklahoma regulatory reporting basis and an adverse opinion relative to U.S. GAAP because the state-prescribed regulatory basis is different from GAAP. That accounting-basis distinction must not be depicted as a finding that youth baseball receipts were misappropriated. The County audit identifies county fund reporting, not Crosslin Park lease payments; the City and County are different reporting entities. The Oklahoma State Auditor report index is the venue for checking later county report availability. No adverse facility-specific findings are alleged here.

10. District attorney, courts, jurisdiction and a verified legal outcome

The official District Attorneys Council identifies Garfield County in District 4, together with Blaine, Canadian, Grant and Kingfisher counties. District Attorney authority concerns matters within the applicable criminal-law jurisdiction; a dataset inconsistency, a public-record request or an audit question does not automatically constitute a prosecutable offense or grant a prosecutor authority to adjudicate private contracts, declare a tax unlawful or determine statewide tourism economics. Courts, the Attorney General, records custodians, auditors and local elected officials have distinct legal roles.

Verified unrelated state court example and outcome: the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Brooke v. Reed, 2025 OK 86 (Nov. 25, 2025), Case No. 121604, vacated the Court of Civil Appeals opinion and affirmed the district court’s order. The opinion holds that the Open Records Act does not invariably require native-format emails with embedded metadata. This is a statewide records-format precedent, not an Enid/Garfield tournament controversy or a verdict on any youth-sports operator.

For alleged Enid-specific litigation, use Oklahoma State Courts Network official dockets and actual authenticated filings/judgments; no Enid youth-sports court case, defendant, legal finding or disposition is independently established by the county spreadsheet. Mere docket mentions or unverified internet claims should never be transformed into allegations or court outcomes.

11. Enid Oklahoma Open Records Act request: documented submission, verification pending

Documented research correspondence: On October 23, 2026, at 7:53 a.m., the Brian Crawford Memorial research archive contains the emailed submission to the City of Enid’s records contact with the City’s completed/signed official form and a three-page Attachment A covering January 1, 2001–October 23, 2026. The official City open-records page supplies the current intake instructions. The research archive confirms outgoing submission; it does not by itself prove that an agency acknowledgment, tracking number, production, fee waiver or finding was received. As of this draft, those later statuses are not verified.

Requested evidence addresses historic venue names/parcel map, deeds and controlling entity; field reservation and event-day use calendars; league/promoter/USSSA agreements; rent/fees/refunds; actual entry/gate/concession deposits, service/vendor rights, umpire payment custody; City maintenance and capital expense ledgers; 2013/2024/2025 multi-sports planning and 2026 grant records; 2026 hotel-tax implementation, actual distribution and financing. The request calls for electronic records, rolling production, and advance fee consultation above $25. No demand for the City to invent new analyses is asserted.

Further collaborative custodian checks may include the City Clerk/Accounting, Garfield County Clerk, County Fairgrounds Trust and nonprofit youth league representatives where each lawfully holds responsive material. A request to the City is not proof that it must possess independent private nonprofit ledgers; ownership, custody and disclosure exemptions must be established. The Oklahoma Open Records Act, 51 O.S. §24A.1 et seq. governs covered records, lawful exceptions and remedies.

12. Right of response, public-interest questions and correction protocol

This report invites a written, document-supported response from the City of Enid, Garfield County, relevant nonprofit youth league operators and any actual owner/manager of the two source facility-label groups. A reply can clarify whether the Enid Baseball Complex label was a second set of Crosslin fields, whether league days were admission-bearing, which entity paid officials, and whether a tournament was shortened, refunded, canceled or booked at another venue. The absence of a response is not an admission.

Public-benefit checklist: compare field priority for resident youth vs visitor tournaments; scholarship and affordable access policies; transparent nondiscriminatory booking; field-hour allocation; independent city and county contributions; maintenance and replacement costs; insurance and injury protections; actual tax receipts; enforceable contracts and concessions stewardship. All should be measured against authentic contemporaneous records and verified service outcomes, not the model's combined dollar magnitude.

Evidence tiers: verified = primary municipal records, signed contracts, independent receipts or authenticated court decision specific to a claim; dataset-derived = source-coded inputs and replicable arithmetic with unverified real-world occurrence; unresolved = owner or alias, historical rates, actual event/cancellation, financial custody, league-day gate assumptions, tax allocations and unanswered records. Log each future update by date, affected statement, new source, correction and recalculated county/municipality/facility sum; preserve the previous version, allow substantiated right of reply and publish corrections prominently.

13. Evidence register and source hierarchy

1. Authoritative analytic source: user-provided AIUSSSA - HVIOG 9-20-2026.csv, 20,305 rows/65 original columns, Garfield exact-county filtered 166 rows. Source numeric rate differences preserved. Supplementary locally generated county and facility reconciliation plus event-level alias watchlist accompany the article.
2. City of Enid — Crosslin Park listing (official municipal facility).
3. Visit Enid — Crosslin Park, two baseball complexes (local visitor organization).
4. City of Enid — Parks and Recreation (municipal service responsibility).
5. Enid municipal park-use code, § 7-2-1.
6. Enid City Accounting: audit and budget indexes, FY2025 audit.
7. City of Enid FY2025 independent financial audit (PDF).
8. Oklahoma State Auditor & Inspector: Garfield County FY2023 financial statement and auditor report, issued 2025 (PDF).
9. Oklahoma State Auditor audit search.
10. City of Enid hotel-tax proposal and projection page.
11. Published public legal notice — Enid Ordinance No. 2026-12, June 6, 2026.
12. City of Enid official Open Records Request intake.
13. Research archive (not a public web source): email submission record Oct. 23, 2026 (7:53 a.m.), completed City request form, three-page Enid Open Records Request Attachment A 2026-10-23.pdf. Response not verified at drafting.
14. Oklahoma Open Records Act statutory reference.
15. Oklahoma District Attorneys Council: DA District 4.
16. Oklahoma State Courts Network: official dockets.
17. Oklahoma Supreme Court opinion: Brooke v. Reed, 2025 OK 86.

An official listing supports that a facility exists; it does not independently establish ownership of every named field in historical dataset rows. An audit establishes only its stated reporting entity, period and scope. A legal precedent should be interpreted by its holding and disposition, not offered as evidence of a local dispute. A public request establishes an attempt to obtain evidence, not the content of unproduced records.