Feasibility Study

Transcription

Feasibility Study

May 2013
Feasibility Study
Bowie Indoor Sports Facility
Bowie, MD
Prepared For: City of Bowie, MD
Prepared by: The Sports Facilities Advisory
Feasibility Study ♦ Bowie Indoor Sports Facility ♦ Bowie, MD
May 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 4
PROJECT INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLGY...................................................................................................... 9
Planning and Strategy ......................................................................................................................... 10
Site Visit and Market Research ........................................................................................................... 10
Public Survey ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Facility Designss .................................................................................................................................. 11
Financial Forecasting ........................................................................................................................... 13
PROJECT TEAM & ADVISORY BOARD .................................................................................................................. 15
City of Bowie ........................................................................................................................................ 15
The Sports Facilities Advisory ............................................................................................................. 15
Waldon Studio Architects .................................................................................................................... 16
PROGRAMMING AND PRODUCTS/SERVICES ....................................................................................................... 17
Public Survey Results .......................................................................................................................... 17
Needs and Utilization Analysis ........................................................................................................... 18
Revenue Sources ................................................................................................................................... 18
Projected Revenue of Products and Services ....................................................................................... 20
MARKET ANALYSIS .........................................................................................................22
FACILITY LOCATION & SITE OPTIONS ................................................................................................................ 23
MARKET DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................................................... 26
Key Demographics................................................................................................................................ 28
Demographic Comparison.................................................................................................................... 28
Potential Sports Participation ............................................................................................................. 28
Sports Participation – Public Survey .................................................................................................. 29
EXISITNG PROVIDER ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 31
MAP – AQUATIC PROVIDERS ............................................................................................................................... 32
MAP – COURT PROVIDERS ................................................................................................................................... 33
MAP – ICE PROVIDERS ......................................................................................................................................... 34
MAP – TURF PROVIDERS ...................................................................................................................................... 35
Existing Aquatic Providers.................................................................................................................. 36
Existing Court Providers ..................................................................................................................... 38
Existing Ice Providers .......................................................................................................................... 41
Existing Turf Providers ....................................................................................................................... 43
Summary of Existing Service Providers.............................................................................................. 45
NEEDS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................. 47
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................49
SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS ............................................................................................................. 50
FINANCING .......................................................................................................................................................... 65
CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................67
CONCLUSION & PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION ........................................................................................ 68
Contributors to Project Success ........................................................................................................... 70
Challenges to Project Success .............................................................................................................. 70
Next Steps............................................................................................................................................. 70
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................71
The Sports Facilities Advisory, LLC
Page 2
May 2013
Project Planning & Development
Page 3
May 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Sports Facilities Advisory (SFA) – with expertise in developing program plans, business
plans, financial forecasts and feasibility analyses, as well as consulting, operational
management, and design – has developed a third-party feasibility study and financial analysis
for the development of indoor, multi-sport community and recreation facilities in Bowie,
Maryland. The City of Bowie contracted SFA to analyze the feasibility and financial viability of
new indoor sports facilities. The purpose of the SFA analysis was to evaluate demand/need,
funding and operating models, and to provide recommendations to the City regarding the
same.
Summary of Project Scope
First, SFA met with City officials to more fully understand the project, objectives and
constraints. Then SFA conducted stakeholder meetings, site tours, existing service provider
tours, a stakeholder survey, public survey and in depth market and demographic research.
From there, SFA analyzed four unique facility models: aquatic, court, ice, and turf.
SFA analyzed a variety of factors, including population and sports participation demographics,
drive time analysis, site tours, stakeholder and public surveys, stakeholder interviews with over
90 representatives from each major sport in the community and others.
Based on these factors, SFA identified the square footage and other program requirements that
would be needed to serve the expressed and assessed community demand. This resulted in the
following basic program requirements which are further detailed within the feasibility study
and pro formas.
• Aquatic
o 34,596 square feet
o One (1) 50-meter competition pool
• Court
o Five (5) hardwood basketball courts (84’ x 50’)
o Six (6) volleyball courts (overlaying the basketball courts)
• Ice
o One (1) NHL regulation ice rink (200’ x 85’)
o One (1) Olympic regulation ice rink (200’ x 100’)
• Turf
o Two (2) unboarded turf fields (200’ x 100’)
o Four (4) batting cages (suspended and lowered over turf fields)
SFA then completed a financial analysis consisting of three primary factors:
1. The need for each facility
2. The construction and start-up costs associated with developing each facility
3. The ongoing operational costs associated with each facility
Page 4
May 2013
There are several concepts that are critical to the analysis that follows, including:
• The timing of the study does not necessarily reflect the timing of the project. The City
of Bowie originally scheduled this study to be conducted in 2017. City officials opted to
move the study up to 2013 and City staff requested that the analysis reflects a 2015
project initiation and a 2016 opening day. However, that does not mean that the
development of Bowie Indoor Sports Facility will follow the timeline implied in this study.
• This is a City of Bowie project. All information collected has been utilized in the
analysis, but because the project is being considered as a City-planned and City-funded
facility, the needs of Bowie residents have been weighed more heavily than those of
non-Bowie residents.
• The operating model is established. In existing facilities, the City of Bowie primarily
provides space for outside groups to conduct programs in City facilities and limits the
delivery of in-house programming. That has not changed in this analysis, but the
operating model of Bowie Ice Arena serves as the template for the other models,
including the court facilities.
• Sustainability is a goal. The City currently subsidizes both the Bowie City Gym and
Bowie Ice Arena because the operating model is not self-sustaining. In order to justify
the creation of Bowie Indoor Sports Facility, an attempt must be made to recover a higher
percent of cost. As such, recommendations have been made to build toward
sustainability.
• There is a budget. The analysis assumes 100% City financing. As such, there is a limit to
the amount of start-up and ongoing operating capital that can be allocated toward Bowie
Indoor Sports Facility. Although all four facilities have been analyzed and are prioritized,
that does not mean that they will all, or should all, be constructed.
To assist in the analysis, SFA partnered with Waldon Studio Architects (WSA), a local
architecture firm, to contribute to design recommendations and local construction codes. With
the help of Waldon Studio Architects, SFA projected construction and site work costs. Land and
site work costs depend on which location is chosen for the facility. SFA evaluated multiple sites
to determine whether they have the capacity to house the facility.
Summary of Market and Needs Analysis
The City of Bowie has over 55,000 people and features a median household income of $102,895
within a 15-minute drivetime, which is nearly double the national average. Sports participation
rates in the area are high relative to national averages and the area boasts more than 75 unique
youth and adult sports organizations. SFA conducted onsite stakeholder interviews, a
stakeholder survey, and a public survey to gauge the need for new sports amenities, the
utilization of current facilities, and the potential utilization of new facilities, financing options,
and other important data. Each of those factors was weighed as the recommended facility
models above were developed.
In order to determine the need for new facilities, SFA conducted key stakeholder interviews,
surveyed stakeholders and the general public, and conducted a projection based on SFA’s
proprietary methodology of weighing population, participation, existing facilities, and other
key factors. In this process, both residents and non-residents were invited to provide feedback
and data. However, resident and non-resident data was calculated and weighed independently
in order to ensure that the resulting recommendations gave priority to Bowie residents.
Page 5
May 2013
It is critical to understand the disparity between Bowie residents and non-Bowie residents as it
pertains to their use of facilities and their perceived need for more sports and recreation
inventory. The chart below displays the public survey results for the perceived need for more
aquatic, court, ice and turf facilities. “Bowie” columns represent incorporated resident responses
only, and “All” columns represent responses from all survey participants regardless of residency.
Highlighted values represent responses with more than 5% variance between Bowie respondents
and all respondents, demonstrating the significant difference between Bowie residents and nonBowie residents:
Definitely
Possibly
No
No Opinion
Aquatic
Bowie
All
72%
66%
20%
24%
4%
4%
4%
5%
Court
Bowie
All
72%
70%
17%
20%
6%
5%
5%
5%
Ice
Bowie
All
56%
67%
16%
13%
21%
15%
7%
5%
Turf
Bowie
All
76%
73%
18%
20%
3%
2%
4%
4%
SFA synthesized all of the data to project the number of pools/courts/ice sheets/fields that
would be needed over the course of the next five years to meet the demand. The following chart
demonstrates the City’s ability to meet the sport and recreation needs of Bowie residents if each
new facility is developed, assuming the Bowie City Gymnasium remains in operation and the
Bowie Ice Arena is closed and repurposed.
Need Summary
Need
Aquatic
Court
Ice
Turf
Total Need
Year 1
Total Need
Year 5
0.7
6.2
1.4
1.2
1
8.2
1.8
1.5
Total Pools/
Courts/
Sheets/Fields
1
9
2
2
Percent of Need
Met Year 1
Percent of Need
Met Year 5
143%
145%
143%
167%
100%
110%
111%
133%
Finally, SFA projected the utilization of each of the potential facilities. The percentages below
represent the total utilization in the busiest season for each facility.
Utilization Summary
Need
Year 1
Aquatic
73.73%
Court
68.64%
Ice
73.49%
Turf
58.59%
Year 2
81.10%
75.33%
78.97%
64.05%
Year 3
89.21%
83.33%
85.06%
70.04%
Year 4
93.67%
87.42%
89.94%
73.54%
Year 5
98.35%
91.72%
95.20%
77.22%
Summary of Financial Analysis
The tables on the following page summarize the financial findings produced by SFA. These
numbers are based on SFA’s proprietary formulas for financial forecasts (pro formas), the Bowie
market, stakeholder needs, and community needs. The projections are a reserved estimate and
are intended to provide a conservative baseline for assessing the level of sustainability.
Page 6
May 2013
Aquatic
Construction &
Start-Up Cost
Net Operating
(Loss)
Year 1
Net Operating
(Loss)
Year 5
$5,822,029
($658,788)
($590,702)
Net Operating Construction +
5 Year
(Loss)
Operations
5 Year
Cost
Cumulative
($3,133,320)
$8,955,349
Cost Recovery
Year 1
Cost Recovery
Year 5
0.42
0.54
The pro forma analysis for aquatic facilities found that the need in the City of Bowie supports
the development of a competition-pool facility. The aquatic facility will cost $5.82 million in
construction and start-up and require $3.13 million in subsidization in its first five years of
operation. In year 1, the aquatic facility will recover 42% of the cost to operate and improve to
54% cost recovery by year five.
Court
Construction &
Start-Up Cost
Net Operating
(Loss)
Year 1
Net Operating
(Loss)
Year 5
$7,588,346
($719,919)
($530,196)
(Loss)
5 Year
5 Year
Operations
Cumulative
Cost
($3,129,687)
$10,718,032
Cost Recovery
Year 1
Cost Recovery
Year 5
0.39
0.60
The pro forma analysis for court facilities in the City of Bowie takes into account the existing
gymnasium. SFA found that the need for courts in Bowie supports the development of a 5-court
facility in addition to the 4 existing courts at the Bowie Gymnasium. It is important to note that
in order to reach higher levels of sustainability, the court facility’s model includes a year-to-year
price escalation for court rentals. The price escalation will allow the City of Bowie to gradually
charge closer to market rates for court time. The new court facility will cost $7.59 million in
construction and start-up and the combination of both court facilities will require $3.13 million
in subsidization in its first five years of operation. In year 1, the combination of both court
facilities will recover 39% of the cost to operate and improve to 60% cost recovery by year 5.
Ice
Construction &
Start-Up Cost
Net Operating
(Loss)
Year 1
Net Operating
(Loss)
Year 5
$10,659,583
($362,368)
($224,339)
(Loss)
5 Year
5 Year
Operations
Cumulative
Cost
($1,513,315)
$12,172,898
Cost Recovery
Year 1
Cost Recovery
Year 5
0.70
0.84
The pro forma analysis for ice facilities found that the need in the City of Bowie supports the
development of a 2-sheet ice facility. The potential development of a new 2-sheet facility will
replace the existing Bowie Ice Arena. The ice facility will cost $10.66 million in construction and
start-up and require $1.51 million in subsidization in its first five years of operation. In year 1, the
ice facility will recover 70% of the cost to operate and improve to 84% cost recovery by year 5.
Turf
Construction &
Start-Up Cost
Net Operating
(Loss)
Year 1
Net Operating
(Loss)
Year 5
$6,219,650
($372,383)
($316,171)
(Loss)
5 Year
5 Year
Operations
Cumulative
Cost
($1,713,466)
$7,933,116
Cost Recovery
Year 1
Cost Recovery
Year 5
0.48
0.61
The pro forma analysis for turf facilities found that the need in the City of Bowie supports the
development of a 2-field facility. The turf facility will cost $6.22 million in construction and startup and require $1.71 million in subsidization in its first five years of operation. In year 1, the turf
facility will recover 48% of the cost to operate and improve to 61% cost recovery by year 5.
Page 7
May 2013
The SFA feasibility study indicates clear demand for each of the facilities analyzed. This
demand was assessed through stakeholder interviews, surveys, and an analysis of current
facility utilization.
SFA also reviewed the historic funding, pricing, and operating models within the City. When
applying the City’s historic funding, pricing and operating models to each of the new facility
models, SFA found a significant sustainability challenge. In fact, the analysis has revealed that
none of the analyzed facilities will have the ability to become self-sustaining without a change
in the project funding, pricing or operating model. Put simply user groups will need to pay
more for the use of new facilities and where possible, the user groups and/or other private
entities will need to contribute to working capital or construction costs. As such, SFA has
recommended that the City begin discussions with user groups to evaluate the potential for
new facilities to be developed as public/private partnerships.
There is a national trend toward the public/private partnership model for financing youth and
amateur sports complexes wherein user groups and private citizens contribute capital toward
construction costs in exchange for guaranteed space.
In this scenario, the City of Bowie would offer one or a combination of:
• Land
• Site work and site infrastructure
• Capital toward construction and start-up costs
• Working capital reserve to support the first two to three years of operating losses
that are normal for new startup operations of this type
In exchange, a private entity would pay for a portion of the cost of development and sign a
long-term use agreement at a pre-negotiated rate. In doing so, inventory for all user groups
could be increased at a lower expense to the City while inventory for the contributing private
group could be guaranteed during preferred times at preferred rates.
It should be noted that a public/private partnership could change the recommendations that
follow if the contribution is large enough to overcome comparative deficits in either need or
ongoing operational costs.
Recommendation
In accordance with the information provided throughout this study, SFA evaluated each facility
type in each of the three primary factors. The elements considered in each factor are as follows:
• Need: Bowie resident participation, non-Bowie resident participation, need as reported
by stakeholders, need as reported by individuals in the community, need currently
being met, intended utilization
• Construction Cost: Cost to build relative to other facility types
• Operational Cost: Cost to operate on an ongoing annual basis relative to other facility
types
Based on these factors and considering all of the information on the following pages, SFA’s
recommended priority for development is as follows:
1. Court
2. Aquatic
3. Ice
4. Turf
Page 8
May 2013
PROJECT INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
The Sports Facilities Advisory (SFA) was engaged to review the existing operational structure of
the Bowie City Gymnasium and the Bowie Ice Arena, as well as to complete a feasibility study
pertaining to the development of new indoor sports facilities in Bowie. SFA is an independent
sports facility consulting company which has provided planning, funding support,
development, and management services to a portfolio of more than $3 billion in planned and
operational sports complexes throughout the U.S. and overseas. SFA currently provides
operations and management services to more than $100 million in community sport and
recreation centers. SFA has also developed industry-leading forecasting calculators which allow
the firm to provide accurate financial forecasts based on market demographics, current
operations, comparable facilities, and emerging trends.
This document represents the analysis and
findings related to the development of new
indoor sports facilities in Bowie. Through
continual collaboration and information sharing
between the City of Bowie and the consultant
team, this document provides the narrative
behind the financial analysis and underlying
assumptions.
● ● ●
City of Bowie’s Objectives
To create a clear strategy for developing an
indoor sports facility that serves the citizens
of the City of Bowie by allowing local
organizations to increase sports and
recreation programming. The strategy is
based on:
1) Identifying the true needs of the
SFA was contracted for the following work and
community for indoor sports
deliverables:
inventory
1. Market and industry research
2) Projecting the construction and
encompassing demographics, drivetime,
start-up costs associated with
a program pricing analysis, a comparable
meeting those needs
facilities study, and stakeholder needs
3) Projecting the ongoing operational
costs associated with meeting those
2. Stakeholder and Public Surveys
needs
3. A review of market data and research
4) Prioritizing development based on a
related to this project
combination of need and cost
4. A review of existing business models
● ● ●
(Bowie Ice Arena and Bowie Gymnasium)
and identification of each facility’s role in future developments
5. A review and analysis of potential site locations
6. Presentation of the findings of the market study, interviews, and surveys
7. Production of a detailed 5-year financial forecast (pro forma)
8. Production of a complete feasibility study with recommendations for development
9. Presentation of the final report
Page 9
May 2013
Planning and Strategy
To begin the analytical process, the City of Bowie and SFA worked through several critical
strategy issues in the development of the business model and the financial projections for Bowie
Indoor Sports Facility; more specifically, preliminary demographic review and other market
characteristics:
• Product lines & services
• Developing Ideal Customer
Relationships© (ICR)
• The business model
• Local providers
• Facility components & amenities
• Staffing approaches
• Facility design considerations
• Facility differentiators
• Site planning and land acquisition
• Funding strategy
• Projected start-up costs
• Construction & pre-opening timeline
• Community needs and desired impact
• Potential strategic alliances
• Vision
• Facility utilization
• Major marketing strategies
This initial phase of work included discussions related to:
• Identifying and strengthening resources
• Transforming existing ideas into a
in preparation for financing
realistic plan
presentations
• Top reasons why facilities fail to meet
forecasted revenues
• Current trends in facility financing
(common loan terms, rates, equity) and
• Estimating timelines for funding,
involvement in the daily operations
construction/build-out, profitability, etc.
• Typical management and organizational
• Keys to successful facility ownership
structures
• What’s involved in raising capital for a
• And much more
new facility
Site Visit and Market Research
SFA then completed more in-depth market research and a needs assessment to arrive at
detailed pricing, team projections, and seasonality for the various sports, market demand, and
market reach. Three SFA resources traveled to Bowie and were on site from March 11-13, 2013.
While on site SFA met with the Sports Facility Planning Team (SFPT) and representatives from
Waldon Studio Architects (WSA). SFA, along with representatives from both groups, toured the
Bowie Ice Arena and Bowie Gymnasium as well as potential site locations and existing service
providers in the market. Also during the market visit, SFA conducted meetings with local
stakeholders and organizations representing the following sports (in order of the meetings):
• Basketball
• Soccer
• Football
• Baseball
• Swimming
• Ice Skating
• Softball
• Volleyball
• Lacrosse
• Ice Hockey
• Wrestling
• Cheer & Twirl
In total, 90 individuals from local organizations were invited, 63 confirmed that they would be
attending (70%), and 60 individuals attended (67% of total invitees, 95.2% of confirmed
attendees). In the eight weeks that followed the stakeholder meetings, SFA conducted an indepth stakeholder survey. The survey was distributed via email directly to individuals who
represent the 76 unique sports and recreation organizations in Bowie. SFA received 37
responses from unique organizations (48.7%). The purpose of the stakeholder meetings and
survey was to capture information related to the size of organizations, member incorporation,
past and current utilization, needs of sports and recreation facilities, and price sensitivity.
Page 10
May 2013
Public Survey
Vital to the mission of the City is to serve the residents of Bowie. SFA, with the help of the SFPT,
conducted a public survey to assess the community’s needs and desire for a new indoor sports
facility. The survey consisted of 36 questions aimed at gathering information pertaining to
recreational activities, current and potential utilization of aquatic, court, ice, and turf facilities,
seasonality of facility utilization, facility location preference, funding sources, and admission fees.
Paper and online surveys were available and distributed through a press release, City of Bowie
website, message boards, “Alert Bowie,” Bowie City Gymnasium, Bowie Ice Arena, Bowie Senior
Center Staff, and other methods. The online survey was “live” for three weeks while the Senior
Center survey was “live” for five weeks. In total, 924 public surveys were collected which
provided valuable data that is an accurate representation of the community of Bowie.
From there, SFA analyzed the existing Bowie Ica Arena and Bowie Gymnasium and created and
analyzed a total of four different business and operating models to find the best development
strategy for the City of Bowie. Based on this extensive research, SFA arrived at the
recommended facility models.
Facility Designs
After an in-depth analysis and multiple discussions revolving around the four new models, a
final design for each facility was determined. The recommendation takes into account current
needs, future needs, existing facilities, construction and start-up costs, and subsidization.
Note: The information below describes the analyzed facility and does not indicate the order in which the
facilities are recommended. Detailed facility designs are as follows:
Aquatic Facility
• 50-meter Competition Pool (164’ x 75’)
• Family Changing Rooms (three at 8’ x 8)
• Mezzanine Spectator Viewing (5,000 square • Lobby/Welcome Area (20’ x 20’)
feet)
• General Offices (two at 10’ x 10’)
• Pool Mechanical Room & Storage (1,500
• Restrooms (two at 25’ x 25’)
square feet)
• Parking (estimated 138 spaces)
• Locker Rooms w/ Showers (two at 40’ x 30’)
o 4 per 1000 square feet of building
Note: This recommendation is for the optimized design of the aquatic facility. Final designs for an aquatic
complex could include additional amenities such as a hydraulic lift for accessibility, a shallow water
instructional pool with zero-depth entry, a warm water rehabilitation pool, etc. Those additions would
enhance the ability to serve a wider range of participants but would decrease sustainability based on the
cost to construct and operate versus the increased revenue opportunities.
Page 11
May 2013
Court Facility
• Two NCAA regulation court spaces (100’ x • Restrooms (two at 25’ x 20’)
130’)
• Café with Seating and Storage (60’ x 60’)
o Two High School regulation cross-court
• Divisible Multi-Purpose Rooms (two at 60’
functionality (84’ x 50’)
x 25’)
• One High School regulation court space (90’ • Lobby/Welcome Area (40’ x 30’)
x 130’)
• Court Storage (100’ x 15’)
o Two youth regulation cross-court
• General Offices (four at 15’ x 15’)
functionality (74’ x 50’)
• Parking (estimated 245 spaces)
• Volleyball Courts (three at 60’ x 30’ over the
above court space)
• Locker Rooms (two at 30’ x 20’)
*Note: The court facility has been planned with hardwood courts. Hardwood is the only surface SFA
recommends for a court-based indoor sports facility, but SFA also recognizes the potential need to develop
a space that would be available for a wider variety of functions. If the City of Bowie elects to utilize the
court facility for anything other than court-based sports, SFA recommends considering vinyl floor
covering to lay over the hardwood when necessary before considering a non-hardwood surface.
Ice Facility
• NHL Ice Rink (200’ x 85’)
• Olympic Ice Rink (200’ x 100’)
• Stadium Seating for Event Rink (200’ x 25’)
• Skate and Equipment Rental (30’ x 30’)
• Zamboni and Equipment Storage (30’ x 30’)
• Coaches/Referee Rooms (two at 15’ x 15’)
• Locker Rooms (eight at 25’ x 20’)
• Alternate Girls Locker Rooms (two at 25’ x
20’)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DJ Area (8’ x 8’)
Storage (two at 30’ x 20’)
Lobby/Welcome Area (20’ x 20’)
Retail Area (25’ x 20’)
General Offices (two at 10’ x 10’)
Restrooms (two at 25’ x 25’)
Parking (estimated 280 spaces)
*Note: This assumes that the Bowie Ice Arena would be replaced by this two-sheet ice facility and the
Bowie Ice Arena building would be repurposed. After reviewing the blueprints for the Bowie Ice Arena,
SFA found that the most appropriate repurposing for indoor sports would be to convert the space into
either a single non-boarded turf field or – more cost effectively – a single boarded turf field (200’ x 85’)
using the existing dasher boards. However, in accordance with the rest of this study, turf is not
considered feasible in this operating model because of intended use and existing program providers. For
that reason, SFA would recommend determining alternative uses for the building that do not serve the
indoor sports need.
Turf Facility
• Unboarded Turf Fields (two at 200’ x 100’)
• Batting Cages/Pitching Tunnels (four at 75’
x 15’)
• Coaches Office (15’ x 15’)
• Storage (two at 30’ x 20’)
•
•
•
•
Lobby/Welcome Area (20’ x 20’)
General Offices (10’ x 10’)
Restrooms (two at 20’ x 20’)
Parking (estimated 210 spaces)
Page 12
May 2013
Financial Forecasting
An important component of SFA’s analysis was to examine the financing, pricing and operating
structures of the Bowie Ice Arena and the Bowie Gymnasium. The operating model adopted by
the City of Bowie is to provide space for outside organizations at a rate that allows program
providers to take advantage of low market rates in order to sustain their own programming at
the expense of the facility. What this means is that with the current operating model, facilities
rent space for outside organizations to run programs as opposed to running higher revenue
generating in-house programming. This model serves the needs of the community, however,
from a financial sustainability perspective, severely limits both facilities’ ability to generate
levels of revenue that could fully recover operating costs.
Bowie Ice Arena operates for 10 months out of the year, closing for annual maintenance from
May to June. The 40-year-old arena was originally developed as a seasonal facility operating
late October through early March. In 1996 the facility was updated and fully enclosed to allow
for a ten month operating season. The arena closes for two months every summer for
maintenance in order to continue operations. The facility currently recovers approximately 77%
of its $886,026 operating expenses, generating $689,901 in revenue in 2011-12. Bowie City
Gymnasium operates year-round and currently recovers 30% of its $533,313 operating expenses,
generating $162,332 in revenue in 2011-12.
Although the operational model is consistent between the Bowie City Gymnasium and the
Bowie Ice Arena, the facilities differ in their pricing structure. A natural conflict exists among
sports and recreation consumers between the expressed need for indoor sports facilities and the
willingness/ability/expectation to pay market rates to fulfill those needs. Bowie City
Gymnasium charges well under market rates for use of its facilities resulting in an inability to
cover a significant amount of its annual operating cost. The Bowie Ice Arena, on the other hand,
is able to generate enough revenue to cover a comparatively high level of its annual operating
cost because the City charges market rates for the use of the facility’s amenities.
While the existing operational model will remain, SFA recommends a transition towards a
pricing structure that more accurately represents market rates for the area. This structure
gradually helps increase the level of sustainability that existing and new facilities could
potentially achieve and is represented in the analyses of indoor sports facilities in Bowie. It
should be noted that SFA recognizes that such a shift would require approval from City
Council; if a different pricing structure is not approved, the financial analysis would need to be
altered and SFA’s final recommendations could change.
SFA completed its own comprehensive analysis of the market, existing providers, and
opportunities. The forecasts for each model and the subsequent recommendations were reached
through a combination of existing model analysis, community and sports organization needs,
and an application of SFA’s standard methodology for financial analysis and projections which
have been successfully implemented and proven accurate in the development of sports
complexes across the nation. The City of Bowie reviewed SFA’s final analysis and confirmed
that it is realistic and attainable; the result of the effort is a mutually approved and thorough
financial forecast with supporting documentation to assess the sustainability of the project.
The business models for new indoor sports facilities in Bowie will feature a product/service
mix focused heavily on rentals by outside organizations in soccer, lacrosse, football, baseball,
softball, basketball, volleyball, wrestling, cheerleading and twirl, ice hockey, figure skating, and
competitive and recreational swimming. Complementing the rentals, Bowie Indoor Sports Facility
Page 13
May 2013
will also offer instructional programs, summer camps, and birthday parties. By offering this
level of in-house programming, indoor sports facilities will have the opportunity to reach
higher levels of sustainability. By combining elements at one site, it is the desire of the City of
Bowie to create a hub of activity for the local community and to provide a space that meets the
ever-expanding need of Bowie’s active community and large number of sports and recreation
organizations.
The keys to success for Bowie Indoor Sports Facility include the City of Bowie’s ability to drive
traffic into the facility, continue the high level of commitment to customer service currently
exhibited in existing facilities, progress towards a more sustainable pricing structure, and secure
a financing structure that decreases the financial obligation of the City in capital and/or
operational costs. It should be noted that the City of Bowie is not a new operator in the area,
and it currently serves residents at the Bowie Ice Arena and Bowie Gymnasium. For that reason,
it already has a head start in communication, public relations, marketing, and a track record
with its customer base.
The City of Bowie and The Sports Facilities Advisory invite you to read this comprehensive
feasibility study and the accompanying financial forecast to learn more about the proposed new
indoor sports facilities in Bowie. The accompanying financial forecast includes detailed cash
flow projections for the first 5 years of operations.
Page 14
May 2013
PROJECT TEAM & ADVISORY BOARD
City of Bowie
A project team from the City of Bowie was assembled to support the work performed
throughout the course of this study. The project team assisted SFA in its efforts to conduct a
thorough market analysis, schedule interviews, distribute surveys, review information, and
provide details related to the local market. They were not tasked to provide any opinions, and
they had no role in analyzing data, creating projections, or making recommendations.
The City of Bowie project team included:
• Lawrence Pierce – Director, Department of Community Services
• Sally Hein – Assistant Director, Department of Community Services
• Nick Spurgeon – Park Operations Manager
• Matt Reno – Project Manager, Department of Community Services
• Carrie Robertson – Manager, Bowie Ice Arena
• Donna Hooper – Manager, Bowie City Gym
• Mark Shields – Wellness Coordinator, Bowie Senior Center
• Harlan Tucker – Community Recreation Committee
The Sports Facilities Advisory
The City of Bowie engaged The Sports Facilities Advisory (SFA)
to contribute third-party financial and feasibility analyses and
expertise for this indoor sports and recreation facility.
Operated by a team of accomplished sports facility operators,
business advisors, league sports experts, corporate team
development professionals, and facility design professionals;
SFA is a full-service consultancy firm specializing in the
planning, opening, and managing of sports and recreation facilities of all sizes and scope. SFA
assists clients in evaluating opportunities, developing new sport and recreation facilities – from
community centers to professional-level training and competition facilities – and managing or
optimizing existing operations. SFA’s work encompasses multisport and multipurpose centers,
performance training facilities, health/fitness centers, aquatic facilities, and outdoor complexes.
SFA was founded in 2003 to respond to the demand for professional planning as well as financial
and management services in the youth and amateur sports market. SFA currently provides
management oversight for numerous multipurpose facilities across the U.S. and throughout the
world. SFA has achieved ground-breaking results – both in a full-time and asset management
capacity – at facilities in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Michigan,
Indiana, Illinois, Texas, California, Saudi Arabia, Canada, The Bahamas, and other locations.
A true differentiator for SFA in the sports facilities industry is the depth of our team and the breadth
of our experience and expertise. SFA boasts the most recognized and esteemed staff of sports
business professionals and experts in this industry. Widely regarded as innovators and leaders in
youth/amateur sports planning and management, our team is driven by our commitment to
developing facilities that positively impact communities and families. The SFA staff includes sports
commissioners, successful sports and youth development entrepreneurs, multiple MBA’s, seasoned
operations and programming experts, and experienced accountants and business analysts. SFA
recruits talent from top organizations. In fact, our consultants have been advisers to such notable
clientele as Sony Pictures, Wyndham Resorts, Cornell University, George Mason University, The
Ohio State University, Ritz-Carlton, Nokia, Halliburton, and USAA. We bring this corporate and
Page 15
May 2013
leadership perspective to our work and in doing so SFA is having a positive impact on the level of
excellence throughout the youth and amateur sports industry.
Additionally, our team includes senior-level staff and GM’s who came to SFA from The House of
Blues, Downtown Disney, Gaylord Entertainment, Life Time Fitness, Ford Field (Home of the
Detroit Lions), the YMCA, the United States Army Special Forces, and the United States Marines, as
well as the management and operations of other venues such as theater companies and wineries.
We share this diversity with you to demonstrate that while we have significant experience in
tournaments, events, leagues, camps, and clinics; our approach grows from a well-rounded
background of professional experience both inside and outside of the traditional sports industry.
Since its inception in 2003, the SFA team has consulted on more than 60 operational sport,
recreation, and youth leadership centers across the country. SFA has also completed more than
100 financial forecasts and feasibility analyses for projects across the U.S. and internationally.
SFA is conservative in its market research and feasibility projections. More than 70% of the
projects analyzed by SFA result in a “Feasibility: No” or require significant changes to the
original business model, financing structure, or facility design.
Additional information can be found at www.sportadvisory.com.
Waldon Studio Architects
Walden Studio Architects (WSA) partnered with the City of Bowie and
SFA to contribute to design recommendations and local construction
codes as well as provide insights and expertise regarding construction
costs, site options, and site development costs.
WSA was founded by Ravi Waldon in March of 2003, and is located in
Columbia, Maryland, with an office in Washington, DC as well. WSA
has been involved in projects in nineteen states. WSA has a staff of 22
professionals who have a genuine love of architecture and design. WSA
believes that a passion for architecture yields ability to design creative,
functional buildings, and drives designers to go above and beyond basic requirements to design
facilities of excellence and beauty. WSA has extensive experience in the design and renovation
of community and recreational centers, ranging from simple renovations and upgrades to
completely new facilities. WSA’s core values revolve around design and technical excellence,
project management and quality assurance, sustainability, and the use of Building Information
Modeling (BIM). WSA is dedicated to providing communities with the quality of services and
work performance that will produce a facility design that goes beyond clients’ expectations and
vision.
Additional information can be found at www.waldonstudio.com.
Page 16
May 2013
PROGRAMMING AND PRODUCTS/SERVICES
Public Survey Results
In total, 924 individual responses to the Bowie Indoor Sports Facility public survey were collected
and analyzed. SFA split the responses into Bowie Residents (defined as someone who lives within
the incorporated City of Bowie limits) and Non-Residents. Bowie Residents accounted for 624 the
total responses while 290 were Non-Residents. The following charts represent regular consumers,
defined as anyone with a household member who participated more than 10 times in the last 12
months of each sport surface:
Regular Consumer Participation
A significant
percent of the
respondents
participate in
each sport. It is
important to note
the difference in
percent of
regular ice
consumers
between Bowie
Residents and All
Respondents
(+11.3% for All
Respondents).
SFA’s market
tour, stakeholder
meetings,
stakeholder
survey and
public survey
support the
analysis of the
four sport
surfaces.
The next chart displays the intended time of utilization of
future sports and recreation facilities:
Year-round intended utilization (86.2%) heavily outweighs
seasonal intended utilization. The results of the public survey
support the development of new indoor sports facilities.
Page 17
May 2013
Needs and Utilization Analysis
SFA conducted a thorough needs and utilization analysis in order to “right-size” each facility
according to the needs of the community. A combination of the stakeholder meetings, stakeholder
survey, public survey, and SFA’s methodology for projecting the amount of teams and
participants a facility will retain from the market, contribute to this analysis.
It is critical to understand the disparity between Bowie residents and non-Bowie residents as it
pertains to their use of facilities and perceived need for more inventory. The chart below
displays the public survey results for the perceived need for more aquatic, court, ice and turf
facilities. “Bowie” columns represent incorporated resident responses only, and “All” columns
represent responses from all survey participants regardless of residency. Highlighted values
represent responses with more than 5% variance between Bowie respondents and all respondents,
demonstrating the significant difference between Bowie residents and non-Bowie residents:
Definitely
Possibly
No
No Opinion
Aquatic
Bowie
All
72%
66%
20%
24%
4%
4%
4%
5%
Court
Bowie
72%
17%
6%
5%
Ice
All
70%
20%
5%
5%
Bowie
56%
16%
21%
7%
Turf
All
67%
13%
15%
5%
Bowie
76%
18%
3%
4%
All
73%
20%
2%
4%
The public survey confirms the analysis of the four sport and recreation facilities. It is important
to note the difference in perceived need for additional ice spaces between Bowie Residents and
Non-Residents (+11% for Non-Residents) as well as the perceived need for aquatic space between
Non-Residents and Bowie Residents (+6% for Bowie Residents).
Based on the stakeholder meetings, stakeholder survey, public survey, and SFA’s systems for
projecting program participation, SFA found that the City of Bowie currently has the need for 0.7
indoor pools, 6.2 courts, 1.4 ice sheets, and 1.2 indoor turf fields. Over the next five years projected
growth will push Bowie’s needs for the different sports surfaces to 1 indoor pool, 8.2 courts, 1.8
ice sheets, and 1.5 indoor turf fields.
If each facility was developed, the Bowie City Gymnasium remains in operation, and the Bowie
Ice Arena is closed and repurposed; then the needs for the four analyzed indoor sports facilities
result in the following utilization:
Utilization Summary
Need
Year 1
Aquatic
73.73%
Court
68.64%
Ice
73.49%
Turf
58.59%
Year 2
81.10%
75.33%
78.97%
64.05%
Year 3
89.21%
83.33%
85.06%
70.04%
Year 4
93.67%
87.42%
89.94%
73.54%
Year 5
98.35%
91.72%
95.20%
77.22%
Revenue Sources
Bowie Indoor Sports Facility will be designed as year-round facilities to meet sports programming,
player development, training, and community recreation needs. As such, the City of Bowie
acknowledges the necessity for a diverse mix of products/services and the implementation of
various programs and other offerings throughout the indoor facility. By providing these various
program spaces and amenities, Bowie Indoor Sports Facility will offer multiple athletic and
recreational activities to serve a wide range of user and community pursuits. The facilities will be
designed as rental spaces to host and grow the sports and recreation organizations of Bowie.
Below is a list of the various programs/revenue streams and product and service offerings to be
included in the first year of operation and beyond:
Page 18
May 2013
Aquatic
• Competitive Swimming
o Rentals
o Events
• Recreational Swimming
o Day & Monthly Passes
o Rentals
o Public Swim
Court
• Basketball
o Rentals
o Clinics & Camps
o Drop-in Play
• Volleyball
o Rentals
o Clinics & Camps
o Drop-in Play
o Events
Ice
• Ice Hockey
o Rentals
o Instructional Clinics
& Camps
o Drop-in Play
o Events
Turf
• Soccer
o Rentals
& Camps
o Drop-in Play
o Events
• Lacrosse
o Rentals
& Camps
o Drop-in Play
o Events
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Other Sports and
Recreational Activities
o Rentals
o Events
•
Wrestling
o Rentals
o Events
Other Sports & Rec
o Rentals
o Events
Cheerleading and Twirl
o Rentals
o Events
•
Figure Skating
o Rentals
o Clinics & Camps
o Drop-in Skating
o Public Skating
o Events
Other Sports & Rec
o Rentals
o Events
•
Football
o Rentals
& Camps
o Events
Baseball/Softball
o Rentals
& Camps
o Drop-in Play
Page 19
•
•
•
•
•
•
Youth Programming
o Full-Day and Halfday Camps
o Birthday Parties
Food & Beverage
o Concessions
o Vending
Youth Programming
o Birthday Parties
Food & Beverage
o Concessions
o Vending
Youth Programming
o Birthday Parties
Food & Beverage
o Concessions
o Vending
Other Sports and
Recreational Activities
o Rentals
o Events
Youth Programming
o Birthday Parties
Food & Beverage
o Concessions
o Vending
May 2013
Projected Revenue of Products and Services
The following tables illustrate the revenue (and percentage of revenue) that each product/service lends to the bottom line of each
facility. The specific revenue and expense projections can be found in the financial analysis section of this study and in the
accompanying detailed pro-forma. The “Projected Revenue of Products and Services” tables demonstrate the revenue base for each
indoor sports facility and how the various contributions increase and are distributed over the first five years of operations. It is
important to note that some secondary revenue-generating opportunities (i.e. seasonal offerings per market demand) have not been
included.
Aquatic
Projected Revenue of
Products and Services
Aquatic Rental
Aquatic Programs
Aquatic Events
Secondary Areas
Food & Beverage
Year 1
$
%
$382,104
80%
$23,600
5%
$27,000
6%
$6,250
1%
$39,959
8%
Year 2
$
%
$420,314
81%
$25,960
5%
$27,000
5%
$6,563
1%
$41,957
8%
Year 3
$
%
$485,463
82%
$29,984
5%
$28,350
5%
$6,891
1%
$44,055
7%
Year 4
$
$509,736
$31,483
$39,900
$7,235
$46,257
Total Revenue
$478,913
$521,794
$594,742
$634,612
Court
100%
100%
100%
Basketball Rental
Basketball Programs
Volleyball Rental
Volleyball Programs
Wrestling Rental
Cheer/Twirl Rental
Indoor Court Events
Court Rental
Secondary Areas
Food & Beverage
Year 1
$
%
$235,230
50%
$41,450
9%
$41,988
9%
$33,200
7%
$5,000
1%
$3,000
1%
$20,750
4%
$8,275
2%
$6,250
1%
$70,885
15%
Year 2
$
%
$287,709
54%
$43,523
8%
$50,937
9%
$34,860
6%
$6,160
1%
$3,696
1%
$20,750
4%
$9,103
2%
$6,563
1%
$74,429
14%
Year 3
$
%
$348,912
56%
$47,984
8%
$61,619
10%
$38,433
6%
$7,502
1%
$4,501
1%
$21,788
3%
$10,513
2%
$6,891
1%
$78,151
12%
Year 4
$
$399,802
$50,383
$70,186
$40,355
$8,639
$5,184
$30,975
$11,039
$7,235
$82,059
Total Revenue
$466,028
$537,728
$626,293
$705,856
100%
100%
100%
Page 20
%
80%
5%
6%
1%
7%
100%
%
57%
7%
10%
6%
1%
1%
4%
2%
1%
12%
100%
Year 5
$
$561,984
$34,710
$41,895
$7,597
$48,570
$694,756
Year 5
$
$455,580
$55,547
$79,877
$44,491
$9,872
$5,923
$32,524
$12,171
$7,597
$86,161
$789,743
%
81%
5%
6%
1%
7%
100%
%
58%
7%
10%
6%
1%
1%
4%
2%
1%
11%
100%
Growth Yr. 1 to Yr. 5
$
%
$179,880
47%
$11,110
47%
$14,895
55%
$1,347
22%
$8,611
22%
$215,844
45%
$
%
$220,350
94%
$14,097
34%
$37,889
90%
$11,291
34%
$4,872
97%
$2,923
97%
$11,774
57%
$3,896
47%
$1,347
22%
$15,276
22%
$323,715
69%
May 2013
Ice
Ice Hockey Rental
Ice Program Rental
Ice Programs
Ice Events
Secondary Areas
Food & Beverage
Year 1
$
%
$347,531
41%
$193,824
23%
$172,750
20%
$51,000
6%
$6,250
1%
$80,902
9%
Year 2
$
%
$364,908
41%
$203,515
23%
$181,388
20%
$51,000
6%
$6,563
1%
$84,947
10%
Year 3
$
%
$402,311
41%
$224,376
23%
$199,980
20%
$53,550
5%
$6,891
1%
$89,194
9%
Total Revenue
$852,257
$892,320
$976,301
Turf
Soccer Rental
Soccer Programs
Lacrosse Rental
Lacrosse Programs
Football Rental
Football Programs
Baseball/Softball Rental
Baseball/Softball Programs
Field Rental
Field Events
Secondary Areas
Food & Beverage
Total Revenue
100%
Year 1
$
%
$59,470
17%
$30,000
9%
$45,216
13%
$34,000
10%
$8,580
3%
$34,000
10%
$20,424
6%
$20,424
6%
$12,930
4%
$10,500
3%
$6,250
2%
$60,592
18%
$342,386
100%
Year 2
$
%
$65,417
18%
$31,500
9%
$49,738
14%
$35,700
10%
$9,438
3%
$35,700
10%
$22,466
6%
$22,466
6%
$14,223
4%
$10,500
3%
$6,563
2%
$63,622
17%
100% $367,333
100%
Year 3
$
%
$79,155
19%
$34,729
8%
$60,182
14%
$39,359
9%
$11,420
3%
$39,359
9%
$27,184
6%
$27,184
6%
$17,210
4%
$11,025
3%
$6,891
2%
$66,803
16%
100% $420,501
100%
Year 4
$
$422,426
$235,595
$209,979
$75,600
$7,235
$93,654
$1,044,489
Year 4
$
$83,112
$36,465
$63,192
$41,327
$11,991
$41,327
$28,544
$28,544
$18,070
$15,750
$7,235
$70,143
$445,700
Page 21
%
40%
23%
20%
7%
1%
9%
100%
%
19%
8%
14%
9%
3%
9%
6%
6%
4%
4%
2%
16%
100%
Year 5
$
$465,725
$259,743
$231,502
$79,380
$7,597
$98,337
$1,142,283
Year 5
$
$91,631
$40,203
$69,669
$45,563
$13,220
$45,563
$31,469
$31,469
$19,923
$16,538
$7,597
$73,650
$486,495
%
41%
23%
20%
7%
1%
9%
100%
%
19%
8%
14%
9%
3%
9%
6%
6%
4%
3%
2%
15%
$
%
$118,194
34%
$65,919
34%
$58,752
34%
$28,380
56%
$1,347
22%
$17,435
22%
$290,026
34%
$
%
$32,161
54%
$10,203
34%
$24,453
54%
$11,563
34%
$4,640
54%
$11,563
34%
$11,045
54%
$11,045
54%
$6,993
54%
$6,038
58%
$1,347
22%
$13,058
22%
100% $144,109
42%
May 2013
Market Analysis
Page 22
May 2013
FACILITY LOCATION & SITE OPTIONS
A suburb of Baltimore and Washington D.C. and located
in Prince George’s County, MD, Bowie is situated about
21 miles northeast of downtown Washington, D.C. and
about 27 miles southwest of downtown Baltimore.
Site Options
Following SFA’s tour of seven potential site locations, input
from the SFPT, and conversations with Waldon Studio
architects; SFA identified five final site locations that could
potentially support the Bowie Indoor Sports Facility. It is
important to note that if the City does not own the
property, land cost will be added and development time will increase.
Annapolis Road
Located at the confluence of Annapolis
Road (Route 450), Grenville Lane, and Old
Annapolis Road, this 61.5 acre site is
heavily wooded and has a downhill grade
sloping from the Old Annapolis Road side
to the Annapolis Road side. Coupled with
other factors this site could have difficulty
meeting regulatory standards and could
prove to be very expensive to develop. The
Annapolis Road site is in a prime location
in the middle of Bowie and along a major
route (Route 450). This site is owned by the City of Bowie.
Glen Allen Park
Glen Allen Park is located at the corner of
Mitchellville Road and Atlantis Drive. The
site is mostly clear of trees, is an existing
park, is in a prime location and is the
smallest site at 15.1 acres. The location is
attractive because it sits directly on
Mitchellville Road and is less than a mile
away from Bowie Ice Arena. This site is
owned by the City of Bowie.
Page 23
May 2013
Green Branch
The Green Branch site is a 261.9 acre space
located off of Crain Highway (Route 301)
and adjacent to the Bowie Baysox stadium.
The presence of the Bowie Baysox presents
the potential for synergies between the club
and a new indoor sports facility. The lot is a
combination of cleared and wooded space
and is by far the largest site. At 261.9 acres,
the location is too large for solely an indoor
sports facility. The Green Branch site is
located just off of a main route (Route 301)
and in an established sports and recreation
area adjacent to the Bowie BaySox. This site is owned by the Maryland National Capital Park
and Planning Commission.
Mitchellville Road
The Mitchellville Road site is a 35 acre
property located in the heart of Bowie
on Mitchellville Road across from Allen
Pond Park and the Bowie Ice Arena. This
lot is home to the Mitchellville Road Soccer
Fields which consist of five full size soccer
fields and two smaller youth soccer fields.
Developing an indoor sports facility here
would displace those fields. The
Mitchellville Road site is flanked by
residential neighborhoods; however current trees create a surrounding buffer. The site’s
proximity to the Bowie Ice Arena and current use make it a natural fit in a known and
established sports and recreation area. This site is owned by the Board of Education of Prince
George’s County.
Race Track
The Race Track property is located off of
Race Track road on the northern border of
Bowie. At 156.3 acres, the site is most likely
too large for just indoor sports facility use.
The site presents an interesting opportunity
to develop a total sports and recreation area
with outdoor amenities, green space, and
cultural attractions. Also, the site is adjacent
to Bowie State University which presents
opportunity for partnership. This site is
owned by the Southern Maryland Agricultural Association.
Page 24
May 2013
Based on SFA’s analysis, any of the five above sites will allow the facility and the City of Bowie
to attract Bowie residents for sport, recreation and community programs as outlined in the
financial forecast. It is SFA’s recommendation that in order to decide on a final site, the results
of this report should be considered as a basis for a development plan for Bowie Indoor Sports
Facility and that development plan should be factored into the master recreation plan as well as
a master site development plan.
Page 25
May 2013
MARKET DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Depending on the business model, different parameters are applied when analyzing a market
(demographics, participation, existing providers, etc.). For a sports and recreation facility located
in a densely populated region such as the Baltimore/Washington D.C. area, industry metrics
dictate that a 30-minute drive time area would serve as the “target market” from which to capture
facility participants and patrons for regular league, tournament, and training programs. Typically
SFA uses this 30-minute demarcation when analyzing the test facility against existing service
providers in the area and market reach for specific programming such as soccer, lacrosse,
baseball, softball, basketball, volleyball, etc. However, the objective of this project is to develop
indoor sports facilities that are dedicated for use by residents of the City of Bowie, people who
live within the incorporated city limits, and resident sports and recreation organizations. Taking
this objective into account, SFA prioritized the analysis by first considering the market defined as
just the incorporated City of Bowie limits and then supporting those findings with analysis of the
potential facility’s “target market.”
The maps on the following pages show 30- and 60-minute drivetimes overlying population
density and median household income. As demonstrated, there are pockets of high and low
density within the drivetime radii, but the median household income is relatively consistent
across zip codes and high when compared to national averages.
Page 26
May 2013
The map above depicts Bowie City Hall surrounded by 30-, and 60-minute drivetimes. The map illustrates population
by zip code, with the darker colors representing the denser areas.
The map above depicts Bowie City Hall surrounded by 30- and 60-minute drivetimes. The map illustrates median
household income by zip code, with the darker colors representing the higher income areas.
Page 27
May 2013
Key Demographics
As the table to the right
demonstrates, the Bowie market is a
heavily populated area. What stands
out about the demographic factors is
that the target market surrounding
Bowie City Hall is stable and
affluent. The surrounding area is
expected to experience moderate
population growth, the median age
in each of the drivetimes analyzed is
at least slightly higher than the U.S.
average; and the median household
income is significantly higher than
the national average.
Demographic Comparison
The table to the right shows a
comparison of total population
across the analyzed drivetimes as
well as the City of Bowie. SFA
identifies a 30-minute total
population of at least 500,000 as ideal
for a sports facility. New indoor
sports facilities in Bowie have the
opportunity to draw from a
population that surpasses that
metric. The City of Bowie identified
the population of the incorporated
city limits of Bowie as the “target
market” for any new indoor sports
facilities.
Potential Sports Participation
To project the number of teams Bowie
Indoor Sports Facility could potentially
capture from the current market, SFA
utilized local participation rates
reported by American Sports Data,
Inc. (ASD), the National Sporting
Goods Association (NSGA), and the
Sporting Goods Manufacturers
Association (SGMA). These reports
take into account only active sports
participants who play their respective
sport in an organized format a set
amount of times per year.
Key Demographic Factors
Category
Total Population
(2012 Estimate)
Total Population
(2017 Projection)
Expected Pop.
Change
(2012-2017)
Median Age
(U.S. = 36.95)
Median HH Income
10
15
30
minutes
minutes
minutes
49,721
105,196
766,107
50,417
109,509
786,026
1.40%
4.10%
2.60%
40
40
37
$93,994
$102,895
$78,653
(U.S. = $53,535)
Total Population Comparison
Category
Total Population
(2012 Estimate)
10
15
30
City of
minutes minutes minutes Bowie
49,721
105,196
766,107 55,232
Sports Participation - 30-minute Drivetime
Sport
Participation %
Baseball
3.60%
Basketball
8.93%
Football
4.68%
Soccer
6.23%
Softball
3.88%
Volleyball
2.58%
Futsal
1.70%
Lacrosse
1.31%
Ice Hockey
0.53%
Ice Skating
5.63%
Aquatics Exercise
1.85%
Fitness Swimming
6.33%
Swimming (recreational)
29.60%
Swimming (Competitive)
0.80%
* Note: existing providers are not factored into this “pool” of participants.
The “potential participants” are the number of individuals that the facility
and the management team could target for the respective activities. The actual
participants would result from a closing percentage of these “potential
participants.”
Page 28
May 2013
Sports Participation – Public Survey
The chart below shows the participation percentage of Bowie residents as reported in responses
to the public survey.
Participation by Sports
Bowie Residents
Recreational Swimming
Basketball
Soccer
Recreational Ice Skating
Competitive Swimming
Baseball
Ice Hockey
Lacrosse
Softball
Figure Skating
Street Hockey
Pool Therapy
Volleyball
Football
Martial Arts
Synchronized Ice Skating
Flag Football
Inline Hockey
Cheerleading
Field Hockey
Wrestling
Diving
None of the Above
46.5%
36.6%
34.8%
29.6%
24.8%
24.7%
23.0%
20.7%
16.3%
13.8%
13.0%
12.8%
12.7%
12.5%
9.6%
8.2%
7.9%
7.5%
5.9%
3.2%
2.9%
2.1%
2.6%
All of this data was incorporated into SFA’s analysis, however it is important to note that these
rates – compared to the participation chart on the previous page – are inflated because of the
fact that sports participants were more incentivized and more likely to complete the survey than
those who do not participate in any of these activities.
Page 29
May 2013
Further demonstrating the disparity between participation from Bowie residents and nonBowie residents, the chart below shows the participation percentage of non-Bowie residents as
reported in responses to the public survey.
Participation by Sport
Non-Bowie Residents
Recreational Swimming
Basketball
Soccer
Recreational Ice Skating
Competitive Swimming
Baseball
Ice Hockey
Lacrosse
Softball
Figure Skating
Street Hockey
Pool Therapy
Volleyball
Football
Martial Arts
Synchronized Ice Skating
Flag Football
Inline Hockey
Cheerleading
Field Hockey
Wrestling
Diving
None of the Above
40.0%
29.0%
38.3%
46.9%
11.4%
23.1%
61.0%
29.3%
12.1%
19.0%
29.7%
6.2%
9.3%
12.1%
8.6%
9.3%
7.9%
11.4%
5.2%
6.6%
1.4%
1.7%
0.3%
The full set of charts related to sports participation can be found in the presentation materials
document delivered separately.
Page 30
May 2013
EXISTING PROVIDER ANALYSIS
As can be expected in a market of this size with favorable key demographic factors, there are a
significant number of indoor existing providers in the area. In order to determine the share of
the market that Bowie Indoor Sports Facility can expect to capture, SFA performed an in-depth
analysis of the local providers. That analysis is based on the following factors:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Proximity to existing providers
Bowie residents’ use of existing providers
Sports and Programs offered relative to existing providers
Other services offered
Pricing advantages
Facility quality, aesthetics, and amenities
Existing providers within the desired demographic
Based on indoor aquatic, court, ice, and turf, Bowie Indoor Sports Facility must consider four
primary categories of similar providers: 1) Existing Aquatic Providers; 2) Existing Court
Providers; 3) Existing Ice Providers; and 4) Existing Turf Providers. A provider map for each of
those categories can be found on the pages that follow.
Page 31
May 2013
MAP – AQUATIC PROVIDERS
Bowie City Hall
1. Germantown Indoor Swim
Center (Competition)
2. Hanley Center Natatorium
(Competition)
3. Martin L. King Jr. Swim Center
4. Fairland Aquatic Center
(Competition)
5. Sport Fit Laurel Swim
6. Rollingcrest Splash Pool
7. Ellen Linson Swimming Pool
(UM)
8. Greenbelt Aquatic and Fitness
9. Theresa Banks Aquatic Center
10. Prince George’s Sport &
Learning Complex (Competition)
11. Robert I. Buckford Natatorium
(PGCC) (Competition)
12. SportFit Bowie
13. Kids First Swim School
14. Bowie State University
(Competition)
15. LA Fitness Gambrills
16. North Arundel Aquatic Center
(Competition)
17. Perry Hall Family Center
18. Big Vanilla Athletic Club
Pasadena
19. Severna Park Community
Center (Competition)
20. Big Vanilla Athletic Club
Arnold
21. Arundel Olympic Swim
Center
22. Edward T. Hall Indoor
Aquatic Center (Competition)
Page 32
May 2013
MAP – COURT PROVIDERS
Bowie City Hall
1. Meadowbrook Athletic Complex
(MAC)
2. Volleyball House and Soccer Arena
3. Howard County Sports Center
4. Maryland Juniors Sports Center
5. Maryland Sportsplex
6. LA Fitness Gambrills
7. Big Vanilla Athletic Club Pasadena
8. Severna Park Community Center
9. Big Vanilla Athletic Club Arnold
10. Robin Wood Recreation Center
11. Athletic Republic Bowie
12. Sport Fit Bowie
13. Bowie Community Center
14. YMCA PG County
15. Glenn Dale Community Center
16. Gold’s Gym Bowie
17. South Bowie Community Center
18. Maryland State Gym
19. Wilson Ennis Clubhouse
20. Capital Clubhouse
21. Barcroft Community Center
22. Discovery Sports Center
Page 33
May 2013
MAP – ICE PROVIDERS
Bowie City Hall
2. Tucker Road Ice Rink
3. Fort DuPont Ice Rink
4. Herbert Wells Ice Rink
5. Prince William Ice Center
6. Kettler Capitals Ice House
7. Cabin John Ice Rink
8. Wheaton Ice Rink
9. Garden Ice House
10. Piney Orchard Ice Arena
11. McMullen Hockey Arena
12. Mt. Pleasant Ice Arena
13. Reisterstown SportsPlex
14. Columbia Association Ice Rink
15. Rockville Ice Arena
16. SkateQuest
17. Ashburn Ice House
18. Skate Frederick
19. Hagerstown Ice & Sports
Complex
Page 34
May 2013
MAP – TURF PROVIDERS
Bowie City Hall
1. Indoor Sports Arena
2. Wilson Ennis Clubhouse
4. Athletic Republic
5. Athletic Performance Inc.
6. Maryland SportsPlex
7. Soccer Dome Anne Arundel County
8. Volleyball House and Soccer Arena
9. Extra Innings Elkridge
10. Soccer Dome Howard County
11. Laurel Golf Center
12. Prince George’s Sports and Learning
Center
13. Soccer Dome Prince George’s
County
14. Eppley Recreation Center (UM)
15. Rockville SportsPlex
16. Maryland SoccerPlex
17. Frederick Indoor Sports Center
18. Reisterstown SportsPlex
Page 35
May 2013
EXISTING AQUATIC PROVIDERS
Germantown Indoor Swim Center (www.montgomerycountymd.gov)
Located approximately 43.2 miles away in Boyds, Germantown Indoor Swim Center is a 60,000
square foot state-of-the-art indoor swim center that features competition, recreation, leisure,
hydrotherapy, diving platforms and a water slide.
Hanley Center Natatorium (www.gprep.org)
Located approximately 25.5 miles away in Rockville, Hanley Center Natatorium features an
indoor competition pool and a fitness center.
Martin L King Jr. Swim Center (www.montgomerycountymd.gov)
Located approximately 20.4 miles away in Silver Spring, Martin L King Jr. Swim Center features a
25-meter stretch pool with diving boards and a 5-meter platform.
Fairland Aquatic Center (www.pgparks.com)
Located approximately 20.4 miles away in Laurel, Fairland Aquatic Center features an indoor
competition pool, indoor gymnastics area, indoor and outdoor tennis courts, and a fitness center.
Sport Fit Laurel Swim (www.sportfitclubs.com/laurelswim)
Located approximately 14.6 miles away in Laurel, Sport Fit Laurel Swim features a fitness center
and an indoor pool.
Rollingcrest Splash Pool (www.pgparks.com)
Located approximately 15.3 miles away in Hyattsville, Rollingcrest Splash Pool features an indoor
aquatic center.
Ellen Linson Swimming Pool (UM) (www.pgparks.com)
Located approximately 14.7 miles away in College Park, Ellen Linson Swimming Pool (UM)
features a 50-meter outdoor Olympic-sized pool and outdoor courts.
Greenbelt Aquatic and Fitness (www.greenbeltmd.gov)
Located approximately 12.5 miles away in Greenbelt, Greenbelt Aquatic and Fitness features an
indoor pool and a fitness center.
Theresa Banks Aquatic Center (www.pgparks.com)
Located approximately 8.4 miles away in Glenarden, Theresa Banks Aquatic Center features an
indoor competition pool and a fitness room.
Prince George's Sports and Learning Complex (www.pgsportsandlearn.com)
Located approximately 10.6 miles away in Hyattsville, Prince George's Sports and Learning
Complex features a competition aquatic center, outdoor stadium, fitness center, field house, and
gymnastic center.
Robert I Bickford Natatorium (PGCC) (www.pgcc.edu)
Located approximately 9 miles away in Largo, Robert I Bickford Natatorium features a 50-meter
competition pool, a fitness room, and sport courts.
Page 36
May 2013
SportFit Bowie (www.sportfitclubs.com)
Located in Bowie, SportFit Bowie features a fitness center, courts, indoor pool, outdoor pool,
group exercise space, child care, and a pro shop.
Kids First Swim School (www.kidsfirstswimschools.com)
Located in Bowie, Kids First Swim School features a training pool designed for specially designed
for kids.
Bowie State University (www.bsubulldogs.com)
Located in Bowie, Bowie State University features a 25-yard swimming pool with seating capacity
of 196 people.
LA Fitness (www.lafitness.com)
Located approximately 8.2 miles away in Gambrills, LA Fitness features a fitness center, indoor
courts, group exercise space and indoor pool.
North Arundel Aquatic Center (www.aacounty.org)
Located approximately 16.5 miles away in Glen Burnie, North Arundel Aquatic Center features a
25-yard competition pool and a leisure pool.
Perry Hall Family Center (www.ymaryland.org)
Located approximately 39.5 miles away in Nottingham, Perry Hall Family Center features a
fitness center, a multi-purpose room, and community meeting space.
Big Vanilla Athletic Club Pasadena (www.bigvanilla.com)
Located approximately 25.5 miles away in Pasadena, Big Vanilla Pasadena features a fitness
center, group exercise space, pool, a community center, and courts.
Severna Park Community Center (www.severnaparkcommunitycenter.com)
Located approximately 20.8 miles away in Severna Park, Severna Park Community Center
features 2 pools, 3 dance studios, and a gymnasium.
Big Vanilla Athletic Club Arnold (www.bigvanilla.com)
Located approximately 19.3 miles away in Arnold, Big Vanilla Arnold features a fitness center,
group exercise space, pool, rock wall, indoor courts, and a community center.
Arundel Olympic Swim Center (www.aacounty.org)
Located approximately 12.5 miles away in Annapolis, Arundel Olympic Swim Center features an
indoor 50-meter competition pool with 1-meter diving boards.
Edward T Hall Indoor Aquatic Center (www.co.cal.md.us)
Located approximately 28.8 miles away in Frederick, Edward T Hall Indoor Aquatic Center
features a fitness room, an indoor 50-meter competition pool with diving boards, leisure pool, and
meeting rooms.
Page 37
May 2013
EXISTING COURT PROVIDERS
Meadowbrook Athletic Complex (MAC) (www.howardcountymd.gov)
Located approximately 30.7 miles away in Ellicott City, Meadowbrook Athletic Complex features
indoor courts for basketball, volleyball, field hockey, badminton, and more.
Volleyball House and Soccer Arena (www.vbhouse.com)
Located approximately 27.7 miles away in Elkridge, Volleyball House and Soccer Arena features
indoor turf field and volleyball courts.
Howard County Sports Center (www.howardcountysportscenter.com)
Located approximately 24.7 miles away in Elkridge, Howard County Sports Center features two
full length hard wood courts, concession area, private offices, and Kids FunZone.
Maryland Juniors Sports Center (www.mdjrssportscenter.com)
Located approximately 19.6 miles away in Jessup, Maryland Juniors Sports Center features indoor
courts and batting cage.
Maryland SportsPlex (www.mdsportsplex.com)
Located approximately 13.3 miles away in Millersville, Maryland SportsPlex features indoor
courts.
LA Fitness (www.lafitness.com)
Located approximately 8.2 miles away in Gambrills, LA Fitness features a fitness center, indoor
courts, group exercise space and indoor pool.
Big Vanilla Athletic Club Pasadena (www.bigvanilla.com)
Located approximately 25.5 miles away in Pasadena, Big Vanilla Pasadena features a fitness
center, group exercise space, pool, a community center, and courts.
Severna Park Community Center (www.severnaparkcommunitycenter.com)
Located approximately 20.8 miles away in Severna Park, Severna Park Community Center
features two pools, three dance studios, gymnasium, and meeting rooms.
Big Vanilla Athletic Club Arnold (www.bigvanilla.com)
Located approximately 19.3 miles away in Arnold, Big Vanilla Arnold features a fitness center,
group exercise space, pool, rock wall, indoor courts, and a community center.
Robin Wood Recreation Center
Located approximately 15.2 miles away in Annapolis, Robin Wood Recreation Center features
courts and provides the community with a recreation space.
Athletic republic (www.athleticrepublic.com)
Located in Bowie, Athletic republic is a state-of-the-art training center featuring a turf field, fitness
area, 2 lane track, and a pro shop.
SportFit Bowie (www.sportfitclubs.com)
Located in Bowie, SportFit Bowie features a fitness center, courts, indoor pool, outdoor pool,
group exercise space, child care, and a pro shop.
Page 38
May 2013
Bowie Community Center (www.pgparks.com)
Located in Bowie, Bowie Community Center features a gymnasium, fitness center, and
multipurpose space programmed to provide sports, arts, fitness, dance, crafts and other
recreational activities.
YMCA Prince Georges County (www.ymcadc.org)
Located in Bowie, YMCA Prince Georges County features a fitness center, indoor pool,
gymnasium, and child care.
Glenn Dale Community Center (www.pgparks.com)
Located approximately 5.8 miles away in Glenn Dale, Glenn Dale Community Center features a
gymnasium, fitness area, and multi-purpose room.
South Bowie Community Center (www.pgparks.com)
Located in Bowie, South Bowie Community Center features racquetball courts, a gymnasium,
conference rooms, a computer lab, teen area, and fitness center.
Gold’s Gym (www.goldsgym.com)
Located in Bowie, Gold’s Gym features a fitness center, group exercise space, and child care.
Maryland State Gym (www.youflip.com)
Located approximately 12.2 miles away in Upper Marlboro, Maryland State Gym features a
fitness center and a gymnasium for cheerleading, camps, tumbling and gymnastics.
Wilson Ennis Clubhouse (www.wilsonennisclubhouse.com)
Located approximately 24.8 miles away in Huntington, Ennis Wilson Clubhouse is an indoor
sports and training facility featuring batting cages, turf field, and multipurpose floor areas.
Capital Clubhouse (www.capitalclubhouse.com)
Located approximately 27.1 miles away in Waldorf, Capital Clubhouse features an ice rink, a
multi-sport court, and a rock climbing wall
Barcroft community center (www.arlingtonva.us)
Located approximately 25.6 miles away in Arlington, Barcroft community center features a multipurpose gymnasium, a fitness room, a fully-equipped gymnastics area, and a boxing training
gym.
Discovery Sports Center (www.mdsoccerplex.org)
Located approximately 43.5 miles away in Boyds, Discovery Sports Center features an eight
basketball/volleyball courts, 50,000 square feet of meeting and conference space, a virtual arcade,
concessions, and locker rooms.
Page 39
May 2013
School Gymnasiums
Below is a list of school gymnasiums that are currently used by Bowie residents. Keep in mind
that these school gyms are not weighed as heavily as other facilities because use is declining,
limited by school calendars, and hindered by operations that are not dedicated to sports use.
• Bowie High School
• Benjamin Tasker Middle School
• Samuel Ogle Middle School
• Northview Elementary School
• Pointer Ridge Elementary School
• Rockledge Elementary School
• C. Elizabeth Reig Regional School
Page 40
May 2013
EXISTING ICE PROVIDERS
multi-sport court, and a rock climbing wall
Tucker Road Ice Rink (www.pgparks.com)
Located approximately 23.3 miles away in Fort Washington, Tucker Road features an indoor ice
skating rink, a party room, and a spectator viewing room.
Fort DuPont Ice Rink (www.fdia.org)
Located approximately 15.2 miles away in Washington (DC), Fort Rink features an indoor ice
rink for public use.
Herbert Wells Ice rink (www.pgparks.com)
Located approximately 14.7 miles away in College Park, Herbert Ice rink features an ice rink for
public use and hockey lessons.
Prince William Ice Center (www.pwice.com)
Located approximately 52.1 miles away in Woodbridge, Virginia, Prince William features NHL
and Olympic-sized rinks for figure skating and ice hockey programs.
Kettler Capitals IcePlex (www.kettlercapitals.pointstreaksites.com)
Located approximately 25 miles away in Arlington, Virginia, Kettler IcePlex is a state-of-the-art
facility with 2 indoor NHL-sized ice rinks.
Cabin John Ice (www.montgomeryparks.org)
Located approximately 27.7 miles away in Rockville, Cabin John features an indoor ice rink
open year-round.
Wheaton Ice Arena (www.montgomeryparks.org)
Located approximately 21.7 miles away in Wheaton, Wheaton Wheaton features an NHL-sized
ice rink for recreation, hockey, speed skaters, and freestyle.
Garden Ice House (www.thegardensicehouse.pointstreaksites.com)
Located approximately 20.2 miles away in Laurel, Garden House features an ice rink for public
sessions, figure skating, and hockey.
Piney Orchard Ice Arena (www.frontline-connect.com)
Located approximately 10.9 miles away in Odenton, Piney Arena features an ice rink for hockey
and figure skating.
McMullen Hockey Arena (www.navysports.com)
Located approximately 18.2 miles away in Annapolis, McMullen Arena features an Olympicsized ice sheet for ice hockey.
Mt. Pleasant Ice Arena (www.mtpleasanticearena.com)
Located approximately 36.2 miles away in Baltimore, Mt. Pleasant features a full-sized ice rink
for public use, ice hockey, and skating.
Page 41
May 2013
Reisterstown SportsPlex (www.rtownsports.com)
Located approximately 44.8 miles away in Reisterstown, Reisterstown SportsPlex features an ice
rink and indoor turf field.
Columbia Association Ice Rink (www.columbiaassociation.com)
Located approximately 34.5 miles away in Columbia, Columbia Rink features an ice rink for
public use, skating, and hockey.
Rockville Ice Arena (www.rockvilleice.pointstreaksites.com)
Located approximately 35.1 miles away in Rockville, Rockville features an ice rink for public
use, hockey, and freestyle.
SkateQuest (www.skatequest.com)
Located approximately 41.5 miles away in Reston (VA), SkateQuest Quest features a twin sheet
indoor ice skating rink, a pro shop, and party rooms.
Ashburn Ice House (www.ashburnice.pointstreaksites.com)
Located approximately 52 miles away in Ashburn (VA), Ashburn Ice House features an ice rink
and a fitness center.
Skate Frederick (www.skatefrederick.com)
Located approximately 62.4 miles away in Frederick, Skate Frederick features 2 NHL-sized ice
rinks operating year round.
Hagerstown Ice & Sports Complex (www.hagerstownice.org)
Located approximately 82.3 miles away in Hagerstown, Hagerstown Ice & Sports Complex
features an NHL-sized rink, an arcade, and meeting rooms.
Page 42
May 2013
EXISTING TURF PROVIDERS
Indoor Sports Arena (www.isacomplex.com)
Located approximately 27.1 miles away in Stevensville, Indoor Sports Arena features a turf field
for soccer, lacrosse, adult leagues, and baseball/softball training.
Wilson Ennis Clubhouse (www.wilsonennisclubhouse.com)
Located approximately 28.4 miles away in Huntington, Ennis Wilson Clubhouse is an indoor
sports and training facility featuring batting cages, turf field, and multipurpose floor areas.
multi-sport court, and a rock climbing wall.
Athletic Republic (www.athleticrepublic.com)
Located in Bowie, Athletic republic is a state-of-the-art training center featuring a turf field, fitness
area, 2 lane track, and a pro shop.
Athletic Performance Inc. (www.athleticperformanceinc.com)
Located approximately 9.3 miles away in Gambrills, Athletic Performance Inc. features an indoor
turf field, 2 multi-sport courts, 6 indoor tennis courts, and a fitness center.
Maryland SportsPlex (www.mdsportsplex.com)
Located approximately 13.3 miles away in Millersville, Maryland SportsPlex features indoor
courts.
Soccer Dome Anne Arundel County (www.soccerdome.com)
Located approximately 21.7 miles away in Harmans, Soccer Dome Anne Arundel County features
3 unboarded indoor turf fields.
Volleyball House and Soccer Arena (www.vbhouse.com)
Located approximately 27.7 miles away in Elkridge, Volleyball House and Soccer Arena features
indoor turf field and volleyball courts.
Extra Innings (www.extrainnings-elkridge.com)
Located approximately 25.7 miles away in Elkridge, Extra Innings features batting cages, multiuse tunnels, and a training area.
Soccer Dome: Howard County (www.soccerdome.com)
Located approximately 21.7 miles away in Jessup, Soccer Dome Howard County features 3
unboarded indoor turf fields.
Laurel Golf Center (www.laurelgolfcenter.com)
Located approximately 15.6 miles away in Laurel, Laurel Golf Center features a golf driving
range, golf practice sand trap, and batting cages.
Prince George's Sports and Learning Complex (www.pgsportsandlearn.com)
Located approximately 10.6 miles away in Hyattsville, Prince George's Sports and Learning
Complex features an aquatic center, outdoor stadium, fitness center, field house, and gymnastic
center.
Page 43
May 2013
Soccer Dome: Prince George's County (www.soccerdome.com)
Located approximately 8.7 miles away in Hyattsville, Soccer Dome Prince George's County
features 4 unboarded turf fields and sports courts.
Eppley Recreation Center (UM) (www.crs.umd.edu)
Located approximately 16.5 miles away in College Park, Eppley Recreation Center UM features
an indoor pool, fitness center, and indoor courts.
Rockville SportsPlex (www.rockvillesports.com)
Located approximately 35.2 miles away in Rockville, Rockville SportsPlex features 3 turf fields, a
training area, 2 party rooms, and 3 courts.
Maryland SoccerPlex (www.mdsoccerplex.org)
Located approximately 43.5 miles away in Boyds, Maryland SoccerPlex features an indoor pool,
courts, 24 turf fields, 5 baseball/softball fields, a gold driving range, and an archery range.
Frederick Indoor Sports Center (www.frederickindoor.com)
Located approximately 62 miles away in Frederick, Frederick Indoor Sports Center features stateof-the-art indoor sports and training fields.
Reisterstown SportsPlex (www.rtownsports.com)
Located approximately 44.8 miles away in Reisterstown, Reisterstown SportsPlex features an ice
rink and indoor turf field.
Page 44
May 2013
SUMMARY OF EXISTING SERVICE PROVIDERS
Due to the broad scope of activities Bowie Indoor Sports Facility will offer its users, the facility
encounters a significant number of existing providers. Many of these facilities, however, are
located outside of the “immediate trade area,” defined as a 15-minute drive time, and the “local
trade area,” defined as a 30-minute drive time.
A 30-minute drivetime is the industry standard “local trade
area” for a sports facility, as patrons will typically drive
approximately 1/3 of the time that they will actually spend at
the facility. Given that the typical stay for a patron at a sports
facility is 1 ½ hours (60 minutes for competition or training
plus 15 minutes warm-up and 15 minutes post event or
workout); this means that patrons will typically drive 30
minutes each way.
●
●
●
●
●
●
‘Immediate’ Trade Area =
15 minutes
‘Local’ Trade Area =
30 minutes
The business model adopted by the City for indoor sports facilities that are dedicated to
residents of Bowie provides a significant advantage in the ability to retain users from the local
trade area over existing providers. Bowie residents will be more inclined to utilize dedicated
facilities that are within the industry standard 30-minute drivetime.
It is critical to understand that there is a significant difference between the quantity of existing
providers and the quality of existing providers. The Baltimore/Washington D.C. market is a
large, densely populated area, and it should come as no surprise that there are a wide range of
existing providers in the realms of sports and recreation. SFA’s practice is to identify every
existing facility and to weigh each one based on quality. The result is an accurate determination
of participation and market retention.
In the aquatic market, public survey respondents reported traveling outside the City of Bowie
to swim at twenty-two pools in Maryland. The Prince-Mont Swim League is comprised of over
forty swimming teams at the various pools across the state. There is currently no home pool for
the estimated 1,000 competitive swimmers in Bowie during the winter swimming season. There
is a significant opportunity for the City of Bowie to serve the need for swimming by providing
residents with a home pool. In year one, pool rentals, lane rentals, swimming events, swimming
passes, birthday parties, and youth programming are projected to yield a combined $478,913 in
revenue.
In the court market, the majority of Bowie residents reported using the Bowie City Gym over
other existing service providers in the area. The Bowie City Gym currently operates at
utilization capacity during peak season, and therefore potential users are forced travel to
outside existing service providers. The City of Bowie has a significant opportunity to serve the
full need for court space by providing additional court facilities. In year one, court rentals,
youth programming, instruction, birthday parties, open play, and court events are projected to
yield a combined $466,028 in revenue between Bowie City Gym and the new indoor court
facility.
Page 45
May 2013
In the ice market, public survey respondents reported traveling to eighteen existing providers in
addition to the Bowie Ice Arena. Bowie Ice Arena operates at capacity and is forced to close for
two months during the summer. Therefore the facility misses out on potential usage and
revenues. The City of Bowie has a significant opportunity to serve the need of the community,
which is currently higher than one ice sheet, by providing a new two ice sheet facility. In year
one ice rentals, open play, public skate, youth programming, instruction, birthday parties and
events are projected to yield a combined $852,257 in revenue.
In the turf market, Bowie residents reported traveling to nineteen existing service providers for
turf time. Many of these facilities are at full capacity during peak season, forcing Bowie
residents to travel over an hour to find turf time in some cases. The City of Bowie has a
significant opportunity to serve the need for turf space of its residents by providing turf
facilities that are within the local trade area. Although existing turf providers will inevitably
draw a portion of the market, participation, and interest, spending rates of Bowie residents in
turf sports are high enough to forecast $342,386 in year one revenue from turf rentals, events,
youth programming, instruction, birthday parties, open play and events.
In summary, Bowie Indoor Sports Facility will benefit from the strong size of the market, high
sports participation rates, and high income levels in the area. While there are a significant
number of existing providers, there is room for a thoughtfully planned, well-managed facility
dedicated to the residents of Bowie to operate in the market.
Page 46
May 2013
NEEDS ANALYSIS
SFA analyzed the need for each facility according to data gathered through stakeholder
meetings, the stakeholder survey, the public survey, and an analysis of the Bowie market using
SFA’s calculations for forecasting a facility’s ability to retain participants. The objectives of this
analysis were:
1. Determine the types of facilities needed by Bowie residents
2. Determine the utilization of these facilities
3. Right-size the facility according the utilization projections
4. Demonstrate to the City how development of indoor sports facilities impacts the needs
of the community
The charts below demonstrate the perceived need of each facility by Bowie Residents, those
living within the incorporated City of Bowie limits, and all respondents.
The public survey results demonstrate the need for each type of facility. It is important to
observe that the perceived need for additional ice space 11% higher among all respondents as
compared to just Bowie Residents. The objective of the City of Bowie is to develop facilities
dedicated to meeting the needs of residents.
SFA projected the utilization of each of the potential facilities assuming that the Bowie City
Gymnasium remains in operation while the Bowie Ice Arena ceases operation and is
repurposed.
Utilization Summary
Need
Year 1
Aquatic
73.73%
Court
68.64%
Ice
73.49%
Turf
58.59%
Year 2
81.10%
75.33%
78.97%
64.05%
Year 3
89.21%
83.33%
85.06%
70.04%
Page 47
Year 4
93.67%
87.42%
89.94%
73.54%
Year 5
98.35%
91.72%
95.20%
77.22%
May 2013
The following chart demonstrates the City’s current ability to meet the sport and recreation
needs of Bowie residents if no new facilities are developed.
Needs Summary – Adding No New Facilities
Need
Aquatic
Court
Ice
Turf
Total Need
Year 1
Total Need
Year 5
Current
Facilities
Percent of Need
Met Year 1
Percent of Need
Met Year 5
0.7
6.2
1.4
1.2
1
8.2
1.8
1.5
0
4
1
0
0%
65%
71%
0%
0%
49%
56%
0%
The total need year one is Bowie’s current need for each amenity. Currently, the community of
Bowie needs .7 indoor pools, 6.2 courts, 1.4 ice sheets and 1.2 indoor turf fields. The projected
growth over the next five years shows that in year five the community of Bowie will need 1
indoor pool, 8.2 courts, 1.8 ice sheets, and 1.5 indoor turf fields. Current facilities accounts for
the four courts and one ice sheet already operated in the City of Bowie. Currently, the City of
Bowie is meeting 0% of the need for indoor aquatics, 65% of need for courts, 71% of the need for
ice sheets, and 0% of the need for indoor turf fields. Five years from now, assuming that no new
facilities are built, the City of Bowie will be meeting 0% of the need for indoor aquatics, 49% of
the need for courts, 56% of the need for ice sheets, and 0% of the need for indoor turf fields. It is
important that any new development be designed in order to meet not only the current need
but the growth in that need as well.
The following chart demonstrates the City’s ability to meet the sport and recreation needs of
Bowie residents if each new facility is developed, assuming the Bowie City Gymnasium remains
in operation and the Bowie Ice Arena is closed and repurposed.
Needs Summary – If Adding New Facilities
Need
Aquatic
Court
Ice
Turf
Total Need
Year 1
Total Need
Year 5
0.7
6.2
1.4
1.2
1
8.2
1.8
1.5
Total Pools/
Courts/
Sheets/Fields
1
9
2
2
Percent of Need
Met Year 1
Percent of Need
Met Year 5
143%
145%
143%
167%
100%
110%
111%
133%
Page 48
May 2013
Financial Analysis
Page 49
May 2013
SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
The City of Bowie retained SFA to construct a detailed pro-forma/financial analysis to
determine whether any of the facilities needed by the community can be developed with an
operational model that will become self-sustaining or if they would require 100% financing by
the city and annual subsidization.
Current operations at the Bowie City Gymnasium and Bowie Ice Arena require annual
subsidization from the City of roughly 70% and 23%, respectively. The reason these facilities are
not self-sustaining is because the City has adopted an operational model that provides space for
outside organizations at a rate that allows program providers to take advantage of low market
rates in order to sustain their own programming at the expense of the facility. With the current
operating model, facilities rent space for outside organizations to run programs as opposed to
running higher revenue generating in-house programming. Although the facilities effectively
meet some of the needs of the community, this model does not provide the opportunity for
either facility to fully recover costs.
SFA was also engaged to identify potential strategies for facilities development and
management that provide higher cost recovery and better opportunities for facilities to achieve
financial self-sufficiency. SFA utilized the City’s current facilities operational model in its
analysis. The analysis found that it is unlikely that any of the facilities could become selfsustaining in the current model. If 100% cost recovery is a goal, a dramatic shift needs to take
place in the financing approach, pricing for programs, and/or operating procedures.
The Chart below demonstrates the current rate Bowie Ice Arena and Bowie City Gymnasium
charge per hour of time, the market rate per hour of time and the percent of the market rate that
each facility is charging:
Facility
Bowie Ice Arena
Bowie City Gym
Current Rate (Hour)
$270*
$15
Market Rate (Hour)
$275
$50
Percent of Market Rate
98%
30%
* Note: A rate increase to $270/per hour has been approved for Bowie Ice Arena.
SFA has observed that there is an inherent conflict, in some activities, between the demand
expressed for indoor sports facilities and the willingness/ability/expectation to pay a rate
sufficient to cover the cost of meeting that demand. The fact that the Bowe Ice Arena is able to
charge near market rates allows the facility to be more self-sustaining than the Bowie City Gym.
SFA’s analysis and strategies for facility management include assumptions and
recommendations that provide higher cost recovery and better opportunities for facilities to
achieve financial self-sufficiency.
Page 50
May 2013
Assumptions/Recommendations Reflected in Financial Forecasts
The overall operating budget is generally a component of the overall service philosophy of the
facility’s primary purpose. The following assumptions and recommendations are incorporated
with the City’s historic facility operational model to increase the level of sustainability that
facilities can achieve. The City of Bowie and SFA recognize that to fulfill this objective, facilities
must follow these assumptions and recommendations:
1. Aquatic and Turf facilities will charge as close to market rates as possible.
2. A new ice facility will continue the Bowie Ice Arena’s pricing structure of near market
rates with a year to year escalation.
3. A new ice facility will replace the existing Bowie Ice Arena, transferring usable equipment
to the new facility and allowing the old facility to be repurposed.
4. The new and existing court facilities will use a price escalation to gradually approach
market rates for court time. (Note that SFA understands that such an escalation is subject to
approval; if a gradual rate increase is not approved, the financial model shifts and the resulting
recommendation could be altered.)
5. The City of Bowie will run in-house youth programming, birthday parties and instruction.
These higher revenue generating programs will positively contribute to any facility’s level
of cost recovery.
With success in each of those five areas, Bowie Indoor Sports Facility can expect to achieve the
revenue and expense projections outlined in the tables below.
Page 51
May 2013
Aquatic
The chart below summarizes all revenue and expenses for the facility:
Total Facility Revenue & Expenses- AQUATIC
Revenue
Aquatic Rental
Aquatic Programs
Aquatic Events
Secondary Areas
Food & Beverage
Total Revenue
Year 1
$382,104
$23,600
$27,000
$6,250
$39,959
$478,913
Year 2
$420,314
$25,960
$27,000
$6,563
$41,957
$521,794
Year 3
$485,463
$29,984
$28,350
$6,891
$44,055
$594,742
Year 4
$509,736
$31,483
$39,900
$7,235
$46,257
$634,612
Year 5
$561,984
$34,710
$41,895
$7,597
$48,570
$694,756
Expenses
Aquatic Rental
Aquatic Programs
Aquatic Events
Secondary Areas
Food & Beverage
Total Cost of Goods Sold
Year 1
$74,745
$12,956
$2,700
$1,250
$26,700
$118,351
Year 2
$82,220
$13,003
$2,700
$1,313
$28,035
$127,270
Year 3
$90,441
$14,693
$2,835
$1,378
$29,437
$138,784
Year 4
$94,964
$15,323
$3,990
$1,447
$30,908
$146,632
Year 5
$99,712
$16,678
$4,190
$1,519
$32,454
$154,553
$360,562
75%
$394,524
76%
$455,958
77%
$487,980
77%
$540,204
78%
$563,390
$0
$226,200
$156,000
$73,760
$1,019,350
213%
$580,292
$0
$230,724
$159,120
$76,117
$1,046,253
201%
$597,701
$0
$235,338
$162,302
$78,605
$1,073,946
181%
$615,632
$0
$240,045
$165,548
$80,867
$1,102,092
174%
$634,101
$0
$244,846
$168,859
$83,100
$1,130,906
163%
($658,788)
-138%
($651,729)
-125%
($617,988)
-104%
($614,112)
-97%
($590,702)
-85%
Gross Margin
% of Revenue
Facility Expenses
Operating Expense
Management Payroll
Lifeguard Payroll
Payroll Taxes/Benefits/Bonus
Total Operating Expenses
% of Revenue
Net Operating (Loss)
% of Revenue
Annual Debt Service
Total Net (Loss)
Cost Recovery
$0
($658,788)
0.42
$0
($651,729)
0.44
$0
($617,988)
0.49
$0
($614,112)
0.51
$0
($590,702)
0.54
Note that the subcategory of “operating expenses” has been omitted. That line accounts for a specific set of
administrative/overhead expenses that will be incurred but are not scalable to each individual facility type.
Total operating expenses for the facility would likely range from $100,000-$200,000 annually, depending on
which line items would be encapsulated by existing City of Bowie services (e.g. legal fees). If more than one
facility were to be built, these costs would not increase dramatically, so it is impossible to assign a proportion of
expense to each facility. In order to have a reliable side-by-side analysis, those costs are not shown.
Page 52
May 2013
Payroll
The following table represents the estimated payroll structure required for the programming at
the aquatic facility:
Management Payroll Summary - Aquatic
Management Position
Mgmt. Assump
Aquatic Manager
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
$62,400
$63,648
$64,921
$66,219
$67,544
Assistant Aquatic Manager
$52,000
$53,040
$54,101
$55,183
$56,286
Aquatic Supervisor
$31,200
$31,824
$32,460
$33,110
$33,772
Mktg & Bus. Dev. Dir./Bookkeeper
$9,100
$9,282
$9,468
$9,657
$9,850
Facility Manager
$9,100
$9,282
$9,468
$9,657
$9,850
$62,400
$226,200
$63,648
$230,724
$64,921
$235,338
$66,219
$240,045
$67,544
$244,846
Admin
6000 hours at $10 (120/week)
Total Management Payroll
Payroll - Lifeguards
Management Position
Lifeguards
Mgmt. Assump
250 hours/wk at $12
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
$156,000
$159,120
$162,302
$165,548
$168,859
$156,000
$159,120
$162,302
$165,548
$168,859
The chart below shows the total payroll summary. Note only management/lifeguard salaries and
payroll taxes/benefits are shown in the “Total Facility Revenue & Expenses” chart on the page
above. This is because all non-management salaries are considered a direct expense and therefore
are encompassed in the “Total Cost of Goods Sold” line.
Payroll Summary - Aquatic
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Instructor
Total Payroll Summary
Aquatic Manager
Assistant Aquatic Manager
Aquatic Supervisor
Facility Manager
Admin
Subtotal Management Payroll
Aquatic Staff
Aquatic Event Staff
Lifegaurds
Maintenance Staff
Food and Beverage Staff
Subtotal Sport Admin Staff
Aquatic Program Instructors
Subtotal Instructors (COGS)
Mgmt. Assump
6 months prior
6 months prior
6 months prior
6 months prior
6 months prior
3 months prior
1 month prior
1 month prior
1 month Prior
1 month prior
1 month prior
Pre-Open
$31,200
$26,000
$15,600
$4,550
$4,550
$15,600
$97,500
$6,404
$225
$13,000
$1,681
$757
$22,066
Year 1
$62,400
$52,000
$31,200
$9,100
$9,100
$62,400
$226,200
$76,845
$2,700
$156,000
$20,170
$9,082
$264,796
$9,440
$9,440
Year 2
$63,648
$53,040
$31,824
$9,282
$9,282
$63,648
$230,724
$84,320
$2,700
$159,120
$20,775
$9,536
$276,450
$10,384
$10,384
Year 3
$64,921
$54,101
$32,460
$9,468
$9,468
$64,921
$235,338
$92,541
$2,835
$162,302
$21,398
$10,012
$289,089
$11,994
$11,994
Year 4
$66,219
$55,183
$33,110
$9,657
$9,657
$66,219
$240,045
$97,064
$3,990
$165,548
$22,040
$10,513
$299,155
$12,593
$12,593
Year 5
$67,544
$56,286
$33,772
$9,850
$9,850
$67,544
$244,846
$101,812
$4,190
$168,859
$22,701
$11,039
$308,601
$13,884
$13,884
$119,566
$5,565
$500,436
$22,260
$2,400
$49,100
$73,760
$574,196
$517,558
$22,928
$2,472
$50,717
$76,117
$593,675
$536,421
$23,616
$2,546
$52,443
$78,605
$615,026
$551,793
$24,324
$2,623
$53,920
$80,867
$632,660
$567,331
$25,054
$2,701
$55,345
$83,100
$650,430
Per Diem
Payroll Subtotal
Health Insurance
Payroll Services
Payroll Taxes
Payroll Taxes/Benefits Totals
Total Payroll
3 employees @ 500
10.00% of payroll (
$11,957
$17,522
Page 53
May 2013
Facility Expenses
The following table represents the expenses for the facility:
Facility Expenses - AQUATIC
Expense
Alarm System Maintenance
Facility Maintenance & Cleaning Expense
Facility/Medical Supplies
Lawn Care
Maint. & Repairs
Pool Chemicals
Utility - Electricity Expense
Utility - Natural Gas Expense
Utility - Water Expense
Total Facility Expense
Mgmt. Assump.
$0.55/SF
$300/Mo
$2.60/SF
$9/SF
$1.20/SF
$.65/SF
Cost Recovery and Subsidization
Construction &
Start-Up Cost
Net Operating
(Loss)
Year 1
Net Operating
(Loss)
Year 5
$5,822,029
($658,788)
($590,702)
Year 1
$1,325
$20,170
$10,600
$954
$95,348
$37,100
$330,050
$44,007
$23,837
$563,390
Year 2
$1,365
$20,775
$10,918
$983
$98,208
$38,213
$339,952
$45,327
$24,552
$580,292
Year 3
$1,406
$21,398
$11,246
$1,012
$101,154
$39,359
$350,150
$46,687
$25,289
$597,701
Year 4
$1,448
$22,040
$11,583
$1,042
$104,189
$40,540
$360,655
$48,087
$26,047
$615,632
Year 5
$1,491
$22,701
$11,930
$1,074
$107,315
$41,756
$371,474
$49,530
$26,829
$634,101
Aquatic
(Loss)
5 Year
5 Year
Operations
Cumulative
Cost
($3,133,320)
$8,955,349
Page 54
Cost Recovery
Year 1
Cost Recovery
Year 5
0.42
0.54
May 2013
Court
Total Facility Revenue & Expenses- Total COURT
Revenue
Basketball Rental
Basketball Programs
Volleyball Rental
Volleyball Programs
Wrestling Rental
Cheer/Twirl Rental
Indoor Court Events
Court Rental
Secondary Areas
Food & Beverage
Total Revenue
Year 1
$235,230
$41,450
$41,988
$33,200
$5,000
$3,000
$20,750
$8,275
$6,250
$70,885
$466,028
Year 2
$287,709
$43,523
$50,937
$34,860
$6,160
$3,696
$20,750
$9,103
$6,563
$74,429
$537,728
Year 3
$348,912
$47,984
$61,619
$38,433
$7,502
$4,501
$21,788
$10,513
$6,891
$78,151
$626,293
Year 4
$399,802
$50,383
$70,186
$40,355
$8,639
$5,184
$30,975
$11,039
$7,235
$82,059
$705,856
Year 5
$455,580
$55,547
$79,877
$44,491
$9,872
$5,923
$32,524
$12,171
$7,597
$86,161
$789,743
Expenses
Basketball Rental
Basketball Programs
Volleyball Rental
Volleyball Programs
Secondary Areas
Cheer/Twirl Rental
Indoor Court Events
Court Rental
Secondary Areas
Food & Beverage
Year 1
$19,163
$19,362
$2,924
$16,212
$375
$225
$2,075
$422
$1,250
$47,364
$109,372
Year 2
$21,043
$18,589
$3,194
$15,628
$413
$248
$2,075
$442
$1,313
$49,732
$112,676
Year 3
$23,111
$20,250
$3,491
$16,995
$454
$272
$2,179
$463
$1,378
$52,219
$120,812
Year 4
$24,249
$21,262
$3,654
$17,845
$476
$286
$3,098
$475
$1,447
$54,830
$127,622
Year 5
$25,443
$23,172
$3,826
$19,415
$500
$300
$3,252
$488
$1,519
$57,572
$135,487
$356,656
77%
$425,053
79%
$505,481
81%
$578,234
82%
$654,256
83%
$373,821
$0
$421,720
$94,633
$186,400
$1,076,575
231%
$385,036
$0
$430,154
$97,248
$190,128
$1,102,566
205%
$396,587
$0
$438,757
$99,961
$193,931
$1,129,235
180%
$408,485
$0
$447,533
$102,712
$197,809
$1,156,538
164%
$420,739
$0
$456,483
$105,464
$201,765
$1,184,452
150%
($719,919)
-154%
($677,513)
-126%
($623,755)
-100%
($578,304)
-82%
($530,196)
-67%
Gross Margin
% of Revenue
Facility Expenses
Operating Expense
Management Payroll
Existing Facility & Operating Expenses
% of Revenue
% of Revenue
Annual Debt Service
Total Net (Loss)
Cost Recovery
$0
($719,919)
0.39
$0
($677,513)
0.44
$0
($623,755)
0.50
$0
($578,304)
0.55
$0
($530,196)
0.60
Total operating expenses for the facility would likely range from $100,000-$200,000 annually, depending
on which line items would be encapsulated by existing City of Bowie services (e.g. legal fees). If more than
one facility were to be built, these costs would not increase dramatically, so it is impossible to assign a
proportion of expense to each facility. In order to have a reliable side-by-side analysis, those costs are not
shown.
Page 55
May 2013
Payroll
the court facility. (Note: includes a pay increase for the court manager to act as the General
Manager of Bowie Indoor Sports Facility due to court’s position as the number one
recommendation):
Management Payroll Summary - Court
Management Position
Mgmt. Assump
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
GM (And Court Manager) 1
$93,600
$95,472
$97,381
$99,329
$101,316
$60,320
$61,526
$62,757
$64,012
$65,292
Assistant Court Manager 1
$65,520
$66,830
$68,167
$69,530
$70,921
$49,920
$50,918
$51,937
$52,976
$54,035
Court Supervisor 1
$40,560
$41,371
$42,199
$43,043
$43,903
Court Supervisor 2
$31,200
$31,824
$32,460
$33,110
$33,772
$9,100
$9,282
$9,468
$9,657
$9,850
Facility Manager
$9,100
$9,282
$9,468
$9,657
$9,850
$62,400
$421,720
$63,648
$430,154
$64,921
$438,757
$66,219
$447,533
$67,544
$456,483
Admin
6000 hours at $10 (120/week)
The chart below shows the total payroll summary. Note only management salaries and payroll
taxes/benefits are shown in the “Total Facility Revenue & Expenses” chart on the page above.
This is because all non-management salaries are considered a direct expense and therefore are
encompassed in the “Total Cost of Goods Sold” line.
Payroll Summary - Court
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Instructor
Instructor
Court Supervisor 1
Court Supervisor 2
Facility Manager
Admin
Basketball Staff
Volleyball Staff
Wrestling Staff
Cheer/Twirl Staff
Court Rental Staff
Indoor Court Event Staff
Court Maintenance Staff
Basketball Program Instructors
Volleyball Instructors
Mgmt. Assump
Pre-Open
6 months prior
$30,160
6 months prior
$24,960
6 months prior
6 months prior
6 months prior
3 months prior
$15,600
$4,550
$4,550
$15,600
$95,420
$1,967
$599
$31
$19
$35
$173
$2,982
$1,343
$7,148
1 month prior
1 month prior
1 month prior
1 month prior
1 month prior
1 month prior
1 month prior
1 month prior
Per Diem
Per Diem
Payroll Subtotal
Health Insurance
Payroll Services
Payroll Taxes
Total Payroll
6 employees @ 500
10.00% of payroll (
$102,568
$10,290
$10,257
$20,547
Year 1
$93,600
$60,320
$65,520
$49,920
$40,560
$31,200
$9,100
$9,100
$62,400
$421,720
$23,603
$7,184
$375
$225
$422
$2,075
$35,780
$16,110
$85,774
$12,435
$9,960
$22,395
Year 2
$95,472
$61,526
$66,830
$50,918
$41,371
$31,824
$9,282
$9,282
$63,648
$430,154
$25,705
$7,667
$413
$248
$442
$2,075
$36,854
$16,916
$90,318
$13,057
$10,458
$23,515
Year 3
$97,381
$62,757
$68,167
$51,937
$42,199
$32,460
$9,468
$9,468
$64,921
$438,757
$28,006
$8,188
$454
$272
$463
$2,179
$37,959
$17,762
$95,282
$14,395
$11,530
$25,925
Year 4
$99,329
$64,012
$69,530
$52,976
$43,043
$33,110
$9,657
$9,657
$66,219
$447,533
$29,388
$8,586
$476
$286
$475
$3,098
$39,098
$18,650
$100,057
$15,115
$12,106
$27,221
Year 5
$101,316
$65,292
$70,921
$54,035
$43,903
$33,772
$9,850
$9,850
$67,544
$456,483
$30,840
$9,004
$500
$300
$488
$3,252
$40,271
$19,582
$104,237
$16,664
$13,347
$30,011
$529,889
$41,340
$2,544
$50,749
$94,633
$624,522
$543,987
$42,580
$2,620
$52,047
$97,248
$641,235
$559,965
$43,858
$2,699
$53,404
$99,961
$659,925
$574,811
$45,173
$2,780
$54,759
$102,712
$677,523
$590,732
$46,529
$2,863
$56,072
$105,464
$696,196
Page 56
May 2013
Facility Expenses
Facility Expenses - COURT
Expense
Lawn Care
Maint. & Repairs
Utility Expense
Mgmt. Assump.
$0.55/SF
$300/Mo
$2.60/SF
$2.25/SF
Construction &
Start-Up Cost
Net Operating
(Loss)
Year 1
Net Operating
(Loss)
Year 5
$7,588,346
($719,919)
($530,196)
Year 1
$1,325
$35,780
$10,600
$10,600
$169,143
$146,373
$373,821
Year 2
$1,365
$36,854
$10,918
$10,918
$174,217
$150,765
$385,036
Year 3
$1,406
$37,959
$11,246
$11,246
$179,443
$155,288
$396,587
Year 4
$1,448
$39,098
$11,583
$11,583
$184,827
$159,946
$408,485
Year 5
$1,491
$40,271
$11,930
$11,930
$190,371
$164,745
$420,739
Court
(Loss)
5 Year
5 Year
Operations
Cumulative
Cost
($3,129,687)
$10,718,032
Page 57
Cost Recovery
Year 1
Cost Recovery
Year 5
0.39
0.60
May 2013
Ice
Total Facility Revenue & Expenses- ICE
Revenue
Ice Hockey Rental
Ice Program Rental
Ice Programs
Ice Events
Secondary Areas
Food & Beverage
Total Revenue
Year 1
$347,531
$193,824
$172,750
$51,000
$6,250
$80,902
$852,257
Year 2
$364,908
$203,516
$181,388
$51,000
$6,563
$84,947
$892,320
Year 3
$402,311
$224,376
$199,980
$53,550
$6,891
$89,194
$976,301
Year 4
$422,426
$235,595
$209,979
$75,600
$7,235
$93,654
$1,044,489
Year 5
$465,725
$259,743
$231,502
$79,380
$7,597
$98,337
$1,142,283
Expenses
Ice Hockey Rental
Ice Program Rental
Ice Programs
Ice Events
Secondary Areas
Food & Beverage
Year 1
$13,987
$31,081
$81,774
$5,100
$1,250
$54,057
$187,250
Year 2
$14,686
$27,639
$78,502
$5,100
$1,313
$56,760
$184,000
Year 3
$15,421
$29,912
$86,322
$5,355
$1,378
$59,598
$197,985
Year 4
$16,192
$31,403
$90,533
$7,560
$1,447
$62,578
$209,712
Year 5
$17,001
$34,005
$99,585
$7,938
$1,519
$65,707
$225,755
$665,008
78%
$708,320
79%
$778,316
80%
$834,776
80%
$916,528
80%
$620,634
$0
$333,320
$73,422
$1,027,376
121%
$639,253
$0
$339,986
$75,123
$1,054,362
118%
$658,431
$0
$346,786
$77,135
$1,082,352
111%
$678,184
$0
$353,722
$79,400
$1,111,306
106%
$698,529
$0
$360,796
$81,541
$1,140,867
100%
($362,368)
-43%
($346,042)
-39%
($304,036)
-31%
($276,529)
-26%
($224,339)
-20%
Gross Margin
% of Revenue
Facility Expenses
Operating Expense
Management Payroll
% of Revenue
% of Revenue
Annual Debt Service
Total Net (Loss)
Cost Recovery
$0
($362,368)
0.70
$0
($346,042)
0.72
$0
($304,036)
0.76
$0
($276,529)
0.79
$0
($224,339)
0.84
shown.
Page 58
May 2013
Payroll
the ice facility:
Management Payroll Summary - Ice
Management Position
Mgmt. Assump
Ice Manager
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
$93,600
$95,472
$97,381
$99,329
$101,316
Assistant Ice Manager
$65,520
$66,830
$68,167
$69,530
$70,921
Ice Arena Supervisor
$41,600
$42,432
$43,281
$44,146
$45,029
Ice Arena Facility Specialist
$52,000
$53,040
$54,101
$55,183
$56,286
$9,100
$9,282
$9,468
$9,657
$9,850
Facility Manager
$9,100
$9,282
$9,468
$9,657
$9,850
$62,400
$333,320
$63,648
$339,986
$64,921
$346,786
$66,219
$353,722
$67,544
$360,796
Admin
6000 hours at $10 (120/week)
Payroll Summary - Ice
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Instructor
Ice Manager
Assistant Ice Manager
Ice Arena Supervisor
Ice Arena Facility Specialist
Facility Manager
Admin
Ice Hockey Staff
Ice Program Staff
Ice Event Staff
Maintenance Staff
Ice Program Instructors
Mgmt. Assump
6 months prior
6 months prior
6 months prior
6 months prior
6 months prior
6 months prior
3 months prior
1 month prior
1 month prior
1 month prior
1 month prior
1 month prior
Pre-Open
$46,800
$32,760
$20,800
$26,000
$4,550
$4,550
$15,600
$151,060
$1,166
$1,032
$425
$3,403
$1,532
$7,558
Year 1
$93,600
$65,520
$41,600
$52,000
$9,100
$9,100
$62,400
$333,320
$13,987
$12,390
$5,100
$40,836
$18,387
$90,700
$69,100
$69,100
Year 2
$95,472
$66,830
$42,432
$53,040
$9,282
$9,282
$63,648
$339,986
$14,686
$10,580
$5,100
$42,061
$19,306
$91,734
$72,555
$72,555
Year 3
$97,381
$68,167
$43,281
$54,101
$9,468
$9,468
$64,921
$346,786
$15,421
$11,104
$5,355
$43,323
$20,271
$95,475
$79,992
$79,992
Year 4
$99,329
$69,530
$44,146
$55,183
$9,657
$9,657
$66,219
$353,722
$16,192
$11,655
$7,560
$44,623
$21,285
$101,315
$83,991
$83,991
Year 5
$101,316
$70,921
$45,029
$56,286
$9,850
$9,850
$67,544
$360,796
$17,001
$12,233
$7,938
$45,961
$22,349
$105,483
$92,601
$92,601
$158,618
$7,155
$493,120
$28,620
$2,400
$42,402
$73,422
$566,542
$504,275
$29,479
$2,472
$43,172
$75,123
$579,398
$522,253
$30,363
$2,546
$44,226
$77,135
$599,388
$539,028
$31,274
$2,623
$45,504
$79,400
$618,428
$558,880
$32,212
$2,701
$46,628
$81,541
$640,422
Per Diem
Payroll Subtotal
Health Insurance
Payroll Services
Payroll Taxes
Total Payroll
4 employees @ 500
10.00% of payroll (
$15,862
$23,017
Page 59
May 2013
Facility Expenses
Facility Expenses - ICE
Expense
Lawn Care
Maint. & Repairs: Equipment
Maint. & Repairs: Building
Utility Expense
Mgmt. Assump.
$0.55/SF
$300/Mo
$2.60/SF
$4.75/SF
Construction &
Start-Up Cost
Net Operating
(Loss)
Year 1
Net Operating
(Loss)
Year 5
$10,659,583
($362,368)
($224,339)
Year 1
$1,325
$40,836
$10,600
$954
$21,200
$193,043
$352,676
$620,634
Year 2
$1,365
$42,061
$10,918
$983
$21,836
$198,835
$363,256
$639,253
Year 3
$1,406
$43,323
$11,246
$1,012
$22,491
$204,800
$374,154
$658,431
Year 4
$1,448
$44,623
$11,583
$1,042
$23,166
$210,944
$385,378
$678,184
Year 5
$1,491
$45,961
$11,930
$1,074
$23,861
$217,272
$396,939
$698,529
Ice
(Loss)
5 Year
5 Year
Operations
Cumulative
Cost
($1,513,315)
$12,172,898
Page 60
Cost Recovery
Year 1
Cost Recovery
Year 5
0.70
0.84
May 2013
Turf
Total Facility Revenue & Expenses- TURF
Revenue
Soccer Rental
Soccer Programs
Lacrosse Rental
Lacrosse Programs
Football Rental
Football Programs
Field Rental
Field Events
Secondary Areas
Food & Beverage
Total Revenue
Year 1
$59,470
$30,000
$45,216
$34,000
$8,580
$34,000
$20,424
$20,424
$12,930
$10,500
$6,250
$60,592
$342,386
Year 2
$65,417
$31,500
$49,738
$35,700
$9,438
$35,700
$22,466
$22,466
$14,223
$10,500
$6,563
$63,622
$367,333
Year 3
$79,155
$34,729
$60,182
$39,359
$11,420
$39,359
$27,184
$27,184
$17,210
$11,025
$6,891
$66,803
$420,501
Year 4
$83,112
$36,465
$63,192
$41,327
$11,991
$41,327
$28,544
$28,544
$18,070
$15,750
$7,235
$70,143
$445,700
Year 5
$91,631
$40,203
$69,669
$45,563
$13,220
$45,563
$31,469
$31,469
$19,923
$16,538
$7,597
$73,650
$486,495
Expenses
Soccer Rental
Soccer Programs
Lacrosse Rental
Lacrosse Programs
Football Rental
Football Programs
Field Rental
Field Events
Secondary Areas
Food & Beverage
Year 1
$7,502
$14,160
$5,670
$15,600
$975
$15,600
$3,330
$16,329
$1,740
$1,050
$1,250
$40,486
$123,692
Year 2
$8,144
$13,608
$6,147
$12,196
$1,073
$14,952
$3,663
$15,701
$1,824
$1,050
$1,313
$42,511
$122,180
Year 3
$8,850
$14,818
$6,672
$13,405
$1,180
$16,299
$4,029
$17,092
$1,916
$1,103
$1,378
$44,636
$131,379
Year 4
$9,239
$15,558
$6,960
$14,076
$1,239
$17,114
$4,231
$17,947
$1,967
$1,575
$1,447
$46,868
$138,222
Year 5
$9,647
$16,949
$7,263
$15,474
$1,301
$18,664
$4,442
$19,547
$2,021
$1,654
$1,519
$49,212
$147,692
$218,694
64%
$245,152
67%
$289,122
69%
$307,478
69%
$338,803
70%
$313,164
$0
$223,080
$54,833
$591,076
173%
$322,559
$0
$227,542
$56,137
$606,237
165%
$332,235
$0
$232,092
$57,766
$622,094
148%
$342,202
$0
$236,734
$59,397
$638,334
143%
$352,468
$0
$241,469
$61,037
$654,974
135%
($372,383)
-109%
($361,085)
-98%
($332,972)
-79%
($330,855)
-74%
($316,171)
-65%
Gross Margin
% of Revenue
Facility Expenses
Operating Expense
Management Payroll
% of Revenue
% of Revenue
Annual Debt Service
Total Net (Loss)
Cost Recovery
$0
($372,383)
0.48
$0
($361,085)
0.50
$0
($332,972)
0.56
$0
($330,855)
0.57
$0
($316,171)
0.61
Note that subcategory of “operating expenses” has been omitted. That line accounts for a specific set of
shown.
Page 61
May 2013
Payroll
the turf facility:
Management Payroll Summary - Turf
Management Position
Mgmt. Assump
Turf Manager
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
$60,320
$61,526
$62,757
$64,012
$65,292
Assisstant Turf Manager
$50,960
$51,979
$53,019
$54,079
$55,161
Turf Supervisor
$31,200
$31,824
$32,460
$33,110
$33,772
$9,100
$9,282
$9,468
$9,657
$9,850
Facility Manager
$9,100
$9,282
$9,468
$9,657
$9,850
$62,400
$223,080
$63,648
$227,542
$64,921
$232,092
$66,219
$236,734
$67,544
$241,469
Admin
6000 hours at $10 (120/week)
Payroll Summary - Turf
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Mgmt
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Turf Manager
Assisstant Turf Manager
Turf Supervisor
Facility Manager
Admin
Soccer Staff
Lacrosse Staff
Football Staff
Baseball/Softball Staff
Field Rental Staff
Field Event Staff
Maintenance Staff
Soccer Program Instructors
Lacrosse Program Instructors
Football Program Instructors
Baseball/Softball Program Instructors
Payroll Subtotal
Health Insurance
Payroll Services
Payroll Taxes
Total Payroll
Mgmt. Assump
6 months prior
6 months prior
6 months prior
6 months prior
6 months prior
3 months prior
1 month prior
1 month prior
1 month prior
1 month prior
1 month prior
1 month prior
1 month prior
1 month prior
Pre-Open
$30,160
$25,480
$15,600
$4,550
$4,550
$15,600
$95,940
$905
$753
$361
$606
$145
$88
$2,549
$1,148
$6,554
Year 1
$60,320
$50,960
$31,200
$9,100
$9,100
$62,400
$223,080
$10,862
$9,030
$4,335
$7,275
$1,740
$1,050
$30,585
$13,771
$78,647
$9,000
$10,200
$10,200
$10,320
$39,720
Year 2
$61,526
$51,979
$31,824
$9,282
$9,282
$63,648
$227,542
$11,672
$6,919
$4,601
$7,805
$1,824
$1,050
$31,502
$14,459
$79,832
$9,450
$10,710
$10,710
$10,836
$41,706
Year 3
$62,757
$53,019
$32,460
$9,468
$9,468
$64,921
$232,092
$12,555
$7,482
$4,884
$8,379
$1,916
$1,103
$32,447
$15,182
$83,948
$10,419
$11,808
$11,808
$11,947
$45,981
Year 4
$64,012
$54,079
$33,110
$9,657
$9,657
$66,219
$236,734
$13,129
$7,811
$5,128
$8,798
$1,967
$1,575
$33,421
$15,942
$87,770
$10,940
$12,398
$12,398
$12,544
$48,280
Year 5
$65,292
$55,161
$33,772
$9,850
$9,850
$67,544
$241,469
$13,731
$8,157
$5,385
$9,237
$2,021
$1,654
$34,423
$16,739
$91,346
$12,061
$13,669
$13,669
$13,830
$53,229
$102,494
$5,565
$341,447
$22,260
$2,400
$30,173
$54,833
$396,280
$349,080
$22,928
$2,472
$30,737
$56,137
$405,217
$362,021
$23,616
$2,546
$31,604
$57,766
$419,787
$372,784
$24,324
$2,623
$32,450
$59,397
$432,181
$386,044
$25,054
$2,701
$33,282
$61,037
$447,080
Per Diem
Per Diem
Per Diem
Per Diem
3 employees @ 500
10.00% of payroll (
$10,249
$15,814
Page 62
May 2013
Facility Expenses
Facility Expenses - TURF
Expense
Lawn Care
Maint. & Repairs
Utility Expense
Mgmt. Assump.
$0.55/SF
$300/Mo
$2.60/SF
$2.25/SF
Construction &
Start-Up Cost
Net Operating
(Loss)
Year 1
Net Operating
(Loss)
Year 5
$6,219,650
($372,383)
($316,171)
Year 1
$1,325
$30,585
$10,600
$954
$144,581
$125,119
$313,164
Year 2
$1,365
$31,502
$10,918
$983
$148,919
$128,872
$322,559
Year 3
$1,406
$32,447
$11,246
$1,012
$153,386
$132,738
$332,235
Year 4
$1,448
$33,421
$11,583
$1,042
$157,988
$136,720
$342,202
Year 5
$1,491
$34,423
$11,930
$1,074
$162,728
$140,822
$352,468
Turf
(Loss)
5 Year
5 Year
Operations
Cumulative
Cost
($1,713,466)
$7,933,116
Page 63
Cost Recovery
Year 1
Cost Recovery
Year 5
0.48
0.61
May 2013
Operating Expenses
The subcategory of “operating expenses” has been omitted from each facility analysis. That line
accounts for a specific set of administrative/overhead expenses that will be incurred but are not
scalable to each individual facility type. Total operating expenses for the facility would likely
range from $100,000-$200,000 annually, depending on which line items would be encapsulated by
existing City of Bowie services (e.g. legal fees). If more than one facility were to be built, these
costs would not increase dramatically, so it is impossible to assign a proportion of expense to each
facility. In order to have a reliable side-by-side analysis, those costs are not shown. The following
table represents an estimate of the operating expenses of a new indoor sports facility in Bowie:
Operating Expenses
Expense
Accounting Fees
Amortization
Bank Service Charges
Communications
Consulting Fees
Credit Card Expense
Dues and Subscriptions
Employee Uniforms
Exchange Expense
General Advertising
Insurance-Property
Insurance-Liability
Insurance-Workman's Comp
Interest Expense
Legal Fees
Licenses, Permits
Management Fees
Office Supplies
Photocopier Lease
Postage & Freight
Real Estate Tax
Rent- Building Lease
Software- Facility Management
Software- Office
Travel and Education
Mgmt. Assump
Year 1
$5,300
Year 2
$5,459
Year 3
$5,623
Year 4
$5,791
Year 5
$5,965
Misc Banking Fees
Phone/Cable
TBD (Various annual consulting fees.)
50% of Sales (3% fee)
Magazines/Publications
$2,544
$6,360
$0
$25,397
$530
$5,000
$2,620
$6,551
$0
$27,940
$546
$2,500
$2,699
$6,747
$0
$31,747
$562
$2,575
$2,780
$6,950
$0
$34,350
$579
$2,652
$2,863
$7,158
$0
$37,835
$597
$2,732
$0
$15,900
$19,080
$25,440
$12,720
$0
$12,720
$5,300
$0
$10,600
$5,088
$4,240
$0
$0
$8,077
$3,180
$10,600
$178,077
$0
$10,000
$19,652
$26,203
$13,102
$0
$13,102
$5,459
$0
$10,918
$5,241
$4,367
$0
$0
$8,320
$3,275
$10,918
$176,172
$0
$10,300
$20,242
$26,989
$13,495
$0
$13,495
$5,623
$0
$11,246
$5,398
$4,498
$0
$0
$8,569
$3,374
$11,246
$184,427
$0
$10,609
$20,849
$27,799
$13,899
$0
$13,899
$5,791
$0
$11,583
$5,560
$4,633
$0
$0
$8,826
$3,475
$11,583
$191,610
$0
$10,927
$21,475
$28,633
$14,316
$0
$14,316
$5,965
$0
$11,930
$5,727
$4,772
$0
$0
$9,091
$3,579
$11,930
$199,812
$1500/month
$2000/month
$1000/month
Food Licenses, etc
office and cleaning
Estimate
Online Scheduling Software
MS Office
Page 64
May 2013
FINANCING
The primary objectives of the consulting engagement with SFA – established in support of the
City’s and citizens’ desire not to raise taxes – were to:
1. Determine community demand
2. Determine whether any of the facilities needed by the community can be developed and
managed in a manner so as to become self-sustaining or if they would require 100%
financing by the city and ongoing subsidization
3. Identify potential strategies for facilities development and management that provide
higher cost recovery and better opportunities for facilities to achieve financial selfsufficiency.
Through SFA’s analysis and research into the City’s ability to create sustainable operations
which would not increase taxes, SFA has surmised that there is a conflict between the demand
expressed by user groups for indoor sports facilities and the willingness/ability/expectations of
those same groups to pay a rate sufficient to cover the operating costs required to meet these
demands.
To address this, SFA recommends an exploration of public/private partnerships.
Following in the footsteps of professional sports stadiums and arenas, there is a national trend
toward the public/private partnership model for financing youth and amateur sports
complexes. Municipalities and private ownership groups have been able to build mutually
beneficial relationships wherein user groups and private citizens contribute capital toward
construction costs in exchange for guaranteed space.
In this scenario, the City of Bowie would offer one or a combination of:
• Land
• Site work and site infrastructure
• Capital toward construction and start-up costs
• Working capital reserve to support the first two to three years of operating losses
that are normal for new startup operations of this type.
In exchange, a private entity would pay for a portion of the cost of development and sign a
long-term use agreement at a pre-negotiated rate. In doing so, inventory for all user groups
could be increased at a lower expense to the City while inventory for the contributing private
group could be guaranteed during preferred times at preferred rates.
The proposed Bo Jackson’s Elite Sports facility in Hilliard, Ohio is an example of a
public/private partnership. The City of Hilliard is providing capital for land and site
development with a minimal lease to the facility. In return, the City’s Parks and Recreation
Department will have free use of the facility for 40 hours a week during off-peak times. Bo
Jackson’s Elite Sports will cover costs to construct and operate the facility.
Houston Amateur Sports Park is the product of a similar partnership. Competitive Edge Sports
Performance owns and operates the facility that was developed and constructed by the City of
Houston and the Houston Parks Board LGC. The City of Houston provided $5 million to
Page 65
May 2013
develop the facility and leases it to Competitive Edge Sports Performance for a minimal fee. The
project has seen such success that a second phase is currently being planned.
There are several other financing models that have been discussed – including bond financing,
donations, use of existing reserves, fundraising, tax increases, and user fees – and each of these
may still be a viable element in the overall financing. However, SFA recommends that the City
engages in serious discussions with user group organizations to more fully explore
public/private partnership opportunities.
SFA recommends that private contribution toward development and operating costs is used as
one of the criteria in determining which facilities are developed and in which order. The exact
amount of capital and pricing requirements were not included in the SFA scope, but can be
provided to the City.
It should be noted that an alternate financing structure could change the recommendations that
follow if the contribution is large enough to overcome comparative deficits in either need or
ongoing operational costs.
Page 66
May 2013
Conclusion
Page 67
May 2013
CONCLUSION & PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION
The City of Bowie contracted the Sports Facilities Advisory (SFA) to make a recommendation
for the development of Bowie Indoor Sports Facility. SFA’s work encompassed the analysis of four
facility types: aquatic, court, ice, and turf.
The resulting recommendations are based on three primary factors:
1. The need for each facility
2. The construction and start-up costs associated with developing each facility
3. The ongoing operational costs associated with each facility
In accordance with the information provided throughout this study, SFA evaluated each facility
type in each of the three primary factors. The elements considered in each factor are as follows:
• Need: Bowie resident participation, non-Bowie resident participation, need as reported
by stakeholders, need as reported by individuals in the community, need currently
being met, intended utilization
• Construction Cost: Cost to build relative to other facility types
• Operational Cost: Cost to operate on an ongoing annual basis relative to other facility
types
Based on these factors and considering all of the information on the preceding pages, SFA’s
recommended priority for development is as follows:
1. Court
2. Aquatic
3. Ice
4. Turf
The synopsis of each facility type in recommended order is below:
Court
• Need: The court facility, including the existing Bowie City Gym, has the highest need of
all the facilities.
• Construction Cost: The need can be met with a relatively moderate construction cost
($7.58 million).
• Operational Cost: The court facility has a low rate of cost recovery (60% in year 5
requiring $530,000 in subsidization for both facilities) because of the low rates charged
by the City and the duplication of expenses caused by operating two facilities. It should
be noted that SFA included an escalated rate in its analysis, and the cost recovery is
dependent on the City opting to increase rates in line with SFA’s recommendations.
• Notes: If the City opts to maintain current rates or chooses to “cap” rates below SFA’s
endorsement, the amount of annual subsidization would increase and court could drop
to a lower position on the recommendations list.
Page 68
May 2013
Aquatic
• Need: The aquatic facility has a moderate need compared to the other facilities,
assuming that recreational swimming (which has the highest rate of participation of any
reported activity) will comprise a relatively low amount of utilization in the
recommended competition pool.
• Construction Cost: The need can be met for less construction capital than any other
facility ($5.82 million)
• Operational Cost: The aquatic facility will recover the least on an annual basis (54% in
year 5 requiring $590,000 in subsidization). It will cost the City more on an annual basis
to operate a pool than it will to operate any other amenity, and if the City is unequipped
to commit to that obligation the aquatic facility would not be recommended so highly.
• Notes: One of the key factors to the aquatic facility being recommended ahead of ice is
that there is no current inventory for Bowie aquatic participants to be served by the City,
creating an impact that cannot be matched through the development of any other
facility.
Ice
•
•
•
•
Turf
•
•
•
•
Need: The ice facility is second to court in demand. It is worth noting once again that the
need for ice is greatly increased by the participation of non-Bowie residents.
Construction Cost: The ice facility will cost much more than any other facility to
develop ($10.66 million).
Operational Cost: The ice facility offers the highest cost recovery rate of any other
model (84% in year 5 requiring $224,000 in subsidization), so the City’s tolerance for
subsidizing facilities could make the ice facility more appealing as compared to other
facility types.
Notes: The cost of construction is one of the primary reasons the ice facility ranks third
on the recommendations list. Based on SFA’s experience, the ice facility is most likely to
be of interest for public/private partnership; if a private group were to offer capital to
decrease construction costs, the ice facility could move up the recommendation list.
Need: The turf facility has the lowest demand, primarily due to the intended seasonality
of the facility. Although in the busiest seasons it would be heavily utilized, the facility
would be severely underutilized for half of the year in this operating model.
Construction Cost: The turf facility will cost second least of any of the facilities ($6.22
million).
Operational Cost: The turf facility has a cost recovery that is very similar to court but
has an annual cost closer to ice (61% cost recovery in year 5 requiring $316,000 in
subsidization).
Notes: The indoor turf facility is the only facility SFA believes should not be considered
for development; although an indoor turf facility could be viable for a private group, the
City is in the business of offering space to existing program providers. Since there are no
key groups established around indoor turf programming, this facility does not fit the
objectives of Bowie Indoor Sports Facility.
Based on the information above, SFA has outlined the “Contributors to Success,” “Challenges to
Success,” and “Next Steps” for the City of Bowie.
Page 69
May 2013
Contributors to Project Success
For the Bowie Indoor Sports Facility project, several positive factors can be found, and these
“Contributors to Project Success” are listed below:
• Sports Participation: The City of Bowie’s residents displayed a great amount enthusiasm
for the project and showcased the high sports participation levels present in the community.
Throughout the stakeholder meetings, stakeholder survey, and public survey, the residents
of Bowie proved that there is a need for additional space for each type of facility.
• Market and Demographics: Situated in a community with an ideal demographic makeup,
the local market can support another facility. The income and spending trends in this local
area are outstanding, and such demographics bode well for a sports facility when it comes
to programming and pricing. The Baltimore/Washington D.C. area has a very strong sports
market and it is expected that this facility can capitalize on interest and participation as soon
as the doors open.
• City of Bowie Track Record: The management of the Bowie Ice Arena and Bowie Gymnasium
currently operates successful programming and has a foundation of an active customer base.
The track record for delivering quality service to an already established customer base gives
any new facility or operation a head start in marketing new services, attracting new user
groups, and establishing a book of business that will achieve financial projections.
Challenges to Project Success
As is the case with many new developments, there are many obstacles to overcome along the
path to creating and maintaining a sports facility that is economically viable and financially
sustainable. SFA has outlined these “Challenges to Project Success” below:
• Capital Costs: The project is slated to be financed through the City, meaning that all
construction and start-up costs would be covered through public funding. Although there
are several ways to structure the construction of this type of facility, without a secondary
capital source the City will have to utilize existing funds, incur debt, or – most likely – a
combination of both.
• Ongoing Subsidization: Bowie Indoor Sports Facility is planned as a subsidized operation due
to the City’s model of creating space for outside groups to implement programs in City-run
facilities. Although this is not an uncommon model for a City, it obligates money in
perpetuity for any facility that could be developed.
• Market Rates: In order to mitigate the need for ongoing subsidization, the City of Bowie
would have to charge full market rate for space. While the City is close to doing that in the
Bowie Ice Arena, the model that has been established at Bowie City Gym challenges the
ability to increase rates at existing facilities and charge market rates at new facilities.
Next Steps
In identifying the positive contributors to success as well as acknowledging the existing
challenges listed above, SFA believes this analysis to be an accurate model for how new
facilities in Bowie will perform. For next steps, SFA recommends the following:
1. Explore Financing Options
5. Design a Floor Plan that Allows for
2. Explore Increasing In-House
Future Development
Programming Options
6. Obtain Building Cost Estimates
3. Determine the Final Development Plan
7. Development of a Full Pre-Opening
4. Acquire a Site for Development
Timeline
If steps are taken to address the issues listed above, SFA feels that this could be a successful
facility and viable business model in Bowie. If the City of Bowie should determine that any such
subsequent work is needed beyond this financial forecast and feasibility study, SFA can provide
any such materials and support.
Page 70
May 2013
APPENDIX
See Supporting Documents under separate cover.
Page 71

Feasibility Study

Transcription

Similar documents

PGCRC Baysox 2016

I don`t know where I`m going from here, but I

FIX THAT SPORTS BRAIN

Mid-Week January 27, 2016

kc sports club brochure

Who is the JBHS Football Booster Club?

Prelude 9x12 HS Cover

Quick Facts

Classifieds - Bowie News