y - Weston Inc.

Transcription

y - Weston Inc.

Confidential
CITY OF RICHMOND
PARTNERING COUNTIES CORPORATE SPONSORS
ARENA MARKET VALIDATION AND
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
VOLUME I OF III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PRESENTED BY:
BARRETT SPORTS GROUP, LLC
POPULOUS SPORTS ARCHITECTS
WESTON SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT
Januaryy 27,, 2011
PRELIMINARY REPORT – SUBJECT TO REVISION
Preliminary Draft – Subject to Revision
Page 0
Confidential
Page 1
Confidential
Table of Contents
I.
Introduction
II.
Market Analysis
III.
Market Surveys
y
A. General Public Survey
B. Corporate Base Survey
IV. Preliminaryy Facilityy Characteristics
V.
Potential Arena Sites
VI. Construction Cost Estimates
VII. Financial Analysis
VIII. Economic Impact
p Analysis
y
IX. Major Development Considerations
X.
Next Steps
p
Limiting Conditions and Assumptions
Page 2
Confidential
I. INTRODUCTION
Page 3
Confidential
I.
Introduction

The Consultingg Team is Pleased to Present Preliminaryy Findings
g in Connection with the Arena
Market Validation and Financial Feasibility Study

Major Goals and Objectives
g
Market Demand
 Evaluate Local and Regional
 Site Analysis
 Prepare Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates
 Evaluate Financial Feasibility
 Evaluate Financing Alternatives (Case Studies Included /To be Completed – Next Phase)
 Evaluate Economic and Fiscal Impacts

Richmond Coliseum Opened in 1971
 Seating Capacity
– Hockey Configuration
– Basketball Configuration
– 360 Degree
D
C fi
Configuration
ti
– 270 Degree Configuration (End Stage)
 “Luxury” Suites
 “Club”
Club Seats
 Lacks Modern Amenities/Quality Finishes
 Requires Significant Infrastructure Improvements
13,410 (Announced)
10,454
11,038
12 217
12,217
10,385
12
668
Page 4
Confidential
II. Market Analysis
Page 5
Confidential
II.
Market Analysis
 Comprehensive Review of Demographic Characteristics of Comparable Markets
1. Median Market Area Comparison
A. CBSA Designation
i. Arena/Stadium Seat Inventory
B. Geographic Ring Comparison
i. 10 Mile Ring Statistics
ii. 20 Mile Ring Statistics
iii. 30 Mile Ring Statistics
C. Drive Time Comparison
i 20 Minute
i.
Mi
S i i
Statistics
ii. 30 Minute Statistics
 High Level Minor League Hockey (e.g.,
(e g AHL/ECHL) Demographic Characteristics were
Evaluated but Not Included in this Report
Page 6
Confidential
II.
Market Analysis
General Observations
 Median Market Summary Comparison
p
 Population
– Richmond Market is Generally Comparable to Other Markets
– Below Market Average Based on 30 Mile Ring
– Estimated Growth Rate is Comparable to Other Markets
 Households
– Richmond Market is Comparable to Other Markets
 Income
– Richmond Market is Above Other Markets
– Number of High Income Households is Generally Comparable to Other Markets
 Unemployment
– Unemployment Rate is Comparable to Other Markets
Page 7
Confidential
II.
Market Analysis
 C
Corporate Base
B
– Comparable to Market Average Based on Number of Companies with $50.0 Million or
More in Sales
– Comparable
p
to Market Average
g Based on Number of Companies
p
with 500 or More
Employees
 Media Market
– Below
B l Market
M k Average
A
B d on TV Homes
Based
H
– Below Market Average Based on Radio Population
 Seat Inventory
– Below Market Average in Terms of Existing Inventory of Stadium /Arena Seats
» Low Inventory of Existing Seats, Luxury Suites and Club Seats
– Ratio of Population and High Income Households per Seat Above Average
– Ratio of Population and High Income Households per Suite / Club Seat Above Average
– Ratio of Large Companies to Number of Suites / Club Seats Above Average
Page 8
Confidential
II.
Market Analysis
Competitive Facilities
 Competitive Facilities in Immediate Market Vicinity Provide Limited Direct Competition to
Proposed Arena
– Events/Tenants
E t /T
t
– Premium Seating Leasing
– Advertising/Sponsorship
– Other
 Facilities Located in Neighboring Communities (e.g, Charlottesville/Hampton/Norfolk)
Provide Direct Competition (Significant Issue)
– Events/Tenants
– Other
 John Paul Jones Arena Provides Most Significant Source of Competition
– State-of-the-Art Facility
– Large Capacity
– Events/Tenants
– Premium Seating Leasing (Limited)
Page 9
Confidential
II.
Market Analysis
Promoter/User Interviews
 Richmond Coliseum Lacks Amenities of Newer Facilities and is a Challenging Venue for Events
 Loading Dock
 Rigging
 Backstage Areas/Star Areas
p
to Current Configuration
g
 Promoters Would Prefer More Seats in the Lower Bowl as Compared
 Richmond Market Loses Events to John Paul Jones Arena Due to Size/Condition of the Richmond
Coliseum
 Promoters Would Prefer Richmond Market Over Charlottesville
g there are Few Shows that Currentlyy Need Capacity
p y of a Large
g Arena
 Promoters Acknowledged
(16,000+)
 Ticket Tax/Facility Fees are Potential Deterrents for Promoters/Acts – Current Rate 7.0%
 New/Renovated Arena Should Attempt to Maximize 270 and 180 Degree Configurations
Page 10
Confidential
II.
Market Analysis
 CAA Representatives Indicated Capacity Over 16,000+ Would Not be Desirable
 Prefer a Downtown Site
 Premium
Premi m Seating is Not a Significant Issue
Iss e
 CAA would Consider Long-Term Agreement – Desire Office Space (At Arena or Other Site)
 Agreement Recently Extended through 2014
 NCAA Representatives Indicated Minimum Capacity of 12,000 for Tournament Early Rounds
 Richmond Would Potentially be a Considered Market
 Significant Competition on the East Coast to Host Tournament
 ACC Representatives Indicated Capacity Between 18,000 to 20,000+ Would Likely be Required
 Richmond Would be an Attractive Market (Nine Universities within Driving Distance)
 ACC Focusing
F
i on Newer
N
A
Arenas
– Amenities/Seating
A
iti /S ti Characteristics
Ch
t i ti
 Greensboro will Host Four of Five Next Tournaments (ACC Based in Greensboro)
 Two Minor League Hockey Ownership Groups Expressed Significant Interest in New/Renovated
Arena (AHL/ECHL Options)
Page 11
Confidential
II.
Market Analysis
 AHL Representatives Indicated Potential Interest in the Richmond Market
 Richmond is a Good Fit Geographically for the League
 Arena Size is Important – Curtain System to 7,000 Seats
 ECHL Representatives Indicated Potential Interest in the Richmond Market
 Arena Size is Important – 13,000 Seats is Big
 Deal Structure (Rent/Revenue Sharing) is Critically Important
 Generally Prefer Downtown Arenas
 WNBA Representatives Indicated Potential Interest in the Richmond Market (League has Not
C d t d Detail
Conducted
D t il Research)
R
h)
 Richmond is a Top 10 TV Market for the League
 Corporate Support is Important
 Prefer Arenas with Less than 18,000 Seats – Curtain System is Important
 NBA D League Representatives Indicated Potential Interest in the Richmond Market (League has
Not Conducted Detail Research)
 Condition of the Coliseum is Issue with Market
 Prefer Arena with Approximately 6,000 Seats – Curtain System is Important
Page 12
Confidential
III.
MARKET SURVEYS
Page 13
Confidential
III.
Market Surveys
Market Surveys
 Market Surveys were Conducted to Further Assess Potential Demand
 Web-Based
W b B d Surveys
S
 Telephone Interviews
 Approximately 1,670 Web
Web-Based
Based Surveys Completed
 General Public Surveys (1,516)
 Corporate Base (154)
 Summary Results Included Herein Reflect Expressions of Interest for Respondents Surveyed – Must
Consider Expression of Interest vs Actual Buying Decision, and Sample Size vs Total Universe to
Assess (Extrapolate) Demand
 Given the Nature of the Surveys, the Research Does Not Focus on Development of a Specific
Probability Percentage or Margin of Error But Utilizes Results as a Guide and Comparative Tool
 Results Included Herein are Provided for Illustrative Purposes – Given Regional Nature of
Responses for Certain Questions, Corporate Survey Results May Understate Total Demand
Page 14
Confidential
III.
Market Surveys
Market Surveys – General Public
 Approximately 79% (1,201) of Respondents Live and/or Work in the Greater Richmond Area
 Balance
B l
off Survey
S
R
Respondents
d
Vi i the
Visit
h Greater
G
Ri h
Richmond
d Area
A at Least
L
1 Time
Ti per Year
Y
 Approximately 45% (680) of Respondents were Aware that a Renovation or New Arena
Development
p
was Being
g Studied
 Approximately 86% (1,300) of Respondents Support the Ongoing Efforts to Renovate the Richmond
Coliseum or Build a New Arena
 Only 18% (271) of Respondents Believe that the Existing Sports and Entertainment Facilities in the
Greater Richmond Area Adequately Meet the Needs of Residents
 Approximately 63% (950) of Respondents Believe that the Existing Sports and Entertainment
Facilities in the Greater Richmond Area Do Not Adequately Meet the Needs of Residents
 R
Respondents
d t Generally
G
ll Supported
S
t d a Renovated
R
t d Richmond
Ri h
d Coliseum
C li
or Construction
C t ti off a New
N
Downtown Arena Over Building a New Arena Outside of Downtown or Doing Nothing
Page 15
Confidential
III.
Market Surveys
 Approximately 89% (1,346) of Respondents Believe that a Renovated Coliseum or New Arena
Development Would be a Benefit to the Community
 Approximately 99% (1,503) of Respondents Would Potentially Attend an Event at a Renovated
Coliseum or New Arena Development
 Approximately 68% (1,031) of Respondents Indicated that a Renovation of the Richmond Coliseum
or the Development of a Downtown Arena Would Potentially Cause Them to Spend More Time at
Downtown Restaurants, Bars, Retailers, etc. Before and After Events
 Approximately 82% (1,246) of Respondents Indicated that that a Renovation of the Richmond
Coliseum or the Development of a Downtown Arena Would Potentially Contribute to the
Development of New Downtown Restaurants, Bars, Retailers, Hotels, etc.
Page 16
Confidential
III.
Market Surveys
Market Surveys
y – Corporate
p
Base
 Approximately 98% (154) of Respondents are Located or Conduct Business in the Greater
Richmond Area
 Approximately 91% (140) of Respondents Support the Ongoing Efforts to Renovate the
Richmond Coliseum or Build a New Arena
 Respondents Generally Supported Construction of a New Downtown Arena or Renovated
Richmond Coliseum Over Building a New Arena Outside of Downtown or Doing Nothing
 Respondents Strongly Opposed Doing Nothing and Maintain Status Quo – Not Renovating
Coliseum or Building a New Arena
 Respondents were Asked if they Would Potentially be Interested in Leasing Premium Seating at
a Renovated Richmond Coliseum or New Arena
 Luxury Suites
 Loge Boxes
 Club
Cl b Seats
Page 17
Confidential
III.
Market Surveys
Market Surveys
y – Corporate
p
Base
 Relatively Low Demand for Luxury Suites
 Potential to Offer Suite-Sharing Opportunities to Increase Demand
 Moderate to Strong Demand for Loge Boxes
 Significant Price Sensitivity
 Moderate to Strong Demand for Club Seats
 Significant Price Sensitivity
 Relatively Low to Moderate Demand for Naming Rights
 Moderate Demand for Advertising
Page 18
Confidential
IV.
Preliminary Facility Characteristics
Page 19
Confidential
IV.
Preliminary Program Recommendations
 Arena Characteristics






Capacity – 360 Degree
Capacity – 270 Degree (End Stage)
Luxury Suites
Loge Boxes
Club Seats
Parking (Public Sector Spaces – Revenue to Arena)
15,000
15
000
14,000
15 – 25
15 – 20
500 – 650
1,000
 Event Mix








Minor League Hockey (e.g., AHL/ECHL)
NBA D League
CAA Tournaments
NCAA Tournaments
Arena Football
Concerts/Family Shows
Conventions/Meetings
Other
Page 20
Confidential
IV.
 Capacity Comparison – Richmond Coliseum and Proposed Arena
 Final Proposed Arena Design May Provide Opportunity to Increase Capacity Based on
Configurations
Capacities - Based on 270 Degree Configuration (End Stage Concert)
360 Degree - (1)
270 Degree
180 Degree
Hockey
Basketball
Richmond
Coliseum
12,217
10,385
8,315
10,454
11,038
Proposed
Arena
15,000
14,000
12,000
13,000
13,500
Net
Increase
2,783
3,615
3,685
2,546
2,462
Notes: Proposed capacities are estimates - detailed analysis to be completed.
Arena configuration and curtain system will be important factor on capacities
((e.g.,
g , horseshoe shape,
p , etc.))
(1) Coliseum management indicated largest set-up has been for 12,800 seats.
Capacity listed at 13,410.
Page 21
Confidential
IV.
 Capacity Comparison – John Paul Jones Arena and Proposed Arena
Configurations
360 Degree
270 Degree
180 Degree
Hockey
y
Basketball
John Paul
Jones Arena
15,405
14,075
12,719
NA
14,858
Proposed
Arena
15,000
14,000
12,000
13,000
,
13,500
Difference
(405)
(75)
(719)
NA
(1,358)
Percentage
Difference
-3%
-1%
-6%
NA
-10%
Notes: Proposed capacities are estimates - detailed analysis to be completed. Arena
configuration and curtain system will be important factor on capacities (e.g., horseshoe
shape etc.)
shape,
etc )
Page 22
Confidential
V. Potential Arena Sites
Page 23
Confidential
V.
Site Selection – Key Considerations
ARENA PROGRAM
• Multi-Purpose
Multi Purpose Event Center
• 15,000+ Seats
• 20-30
20 30 Suites
• 500 Club Seats
• On
On-site/Adjacent
site/Adjacent Premium
customer parking spaces – 500
spaces.
SITE REQUIREMENTS
• Urban Sites
Site Area Requirement
• Suburban Sites
Desirable: 6 acres
Minimum: 5.05 acres
Desirable: 65 acres
without public transit
• Site Configuration allows acceptable building
configuration and exterior spaces
• Ability to build or lease parking spaces for premium
customers adjacent to arena
• Proximity
i i to adequate
d
parking
ki andd transit
i within
i hi ½
mile
• Ability to accommodate service functions and
television truck parking
Page 24
Confidential
V.
Site Selection – Key Considerations
Urban Design Factors
• Adequate site area and dimension
• Configuration
• Public perception
• Fan experience
• Visibility
• Safety and security
Economic Factors
• Property availability and relative costs
• Displacement and relocation
• Compensation
• Development Costs
• Leverage community assets
• Promote development and investment
• Potential positive impact on community
Transportation Factors
• Pedestrian circulation
• Vehicular access
• Public transportation
• Parking quantity
• Parking proximity
Timing Factors
• Acquisition timing
• Approvals
• Ownership issues
• Zoning
• Restrictions
Site and Utility Factors
• Utility infrastructure
• Environmental quality
Intangibles
• Public Support
• Risk
Page 25
Confidential
V.
Site Selection – Preliminary Screening
 Seven Sites Evaluated – Preliminary Screening
 Site #1
Existing Coliseum Site
 Site #2
City Parking Lots Site (8th-10th Streets)
 Site #3
The Diamond Site
 Site #4
ABC Site
 Site #5
City Stadium Site
 Site #6
John Perel Property Site
 Site #7
Mayo’s Island Site
 Preliminary Site Evaluation Identified Four Preferred Sites
Page 26
Confidential
V.
Page 27
Confidential
V.
Site Selection – Additional Screening
Page 28
Confidential
V.
Page 29
Confidential
V.
Page 30
Confidential
V.
Page 31
Confidential
VI.
Construction Cost Estimates
Page 32
Confidential
VI.
Concept Estimate
 Preliminary Cost Estimate Prepared by Weston and Populous with Input from Hunt Construction
 Preliminary Cost Estimate Provided for Illustrative Purposes
 Construction Costs of Several Comparable Facilities were Evaluated
 Estimates
E ti t Adjusted
Adj t d for
f 2012 Construction
C t ti Start,
St t Regional/Local
R i l/L l Market
M k t Conditions,
C diti
Et
Etc.
 Site Utilities and Environmental Issues may have Impact on Cost
 Preliminary Cost Estimate Does Not Include the Following





Land Acquisition
Off-Site
Off
Site Infrastructure
Relocation
Parking Structure (If Any)
Other
Page 33
Confidential
VI.
Concept Estimate
Arena Design and Construction
Survey
Design
Environmental
Pre-Construction
Owner Testing/Geo-Tech
Owner FF&E
Insurance
Arena Construction
Contingency
Arena Construction Administration
Project Management Fee and Reimbursement
Project
j Management Consultants/Contingency
l
/
i
Legal
Public Information
Arena Authority Administrative Expense
Construction
C
t ti and
dL
Land
dA
Acquisition
i iti
Site Acquisition
Demolition/Site Preparation
Richmond Coliseum Demolition
Other/Contingency
Total
Cost Estimate
$136,350,000
$50,000
$10,500,000
$150,000
$225,000
$1,500,000
$2,500,000
$1,500,000
$113,925,000
$6,000,000
$4,200,000
$2,000,000
$
$500,000
$1,000,000
$200,000
$500,000
$6 623 000
$6,623,000
To be Determined
$1,123,000
$3,500,000
$2,000,000
$147,173,000
Page 34
Confidential
VII.
Financial Analysis
Page 35
Confidential
VII.
Financial Analysis
Financial Analysis
 Completed Analysis of Potential Financial and Operating Characteristics of a New Downtown
Richmond Arena to Understand Potential Net Operating Income Generated by Proposed Facility
 BSG has Made Significant Assumptions Related to the Proposed Arena
Arena’ss Operating Revenues
and Expenses
 Information Obtained from Comparable Facilities and Our Database on Arena Operations
 In Order to Obtain Accurate and Relevant Information, BSG Agreed to Maintain Confidentiality
of Facilities
 Operating Data Gathered from Over 36 Comparable Sports and Entertainment Facilities – List
N
Narrowed
d to 20 Facilities
F ili i Based
B d on:
 Market Demographics
 Physical Characteristics (Age, Capacity, Premium Seating, Etc.)
 Tenants
 Climate
 Others
 Facilities Providing Information are Referred to as Arena A, B, C, etc.
 Arena Reference Letters have been Randomly Adjusted to Further Protect Identity
Page 36
Confidential
VII.
Financial Analysis
Financial Analysis
 Comparable Data has been Adjusted, as Appropriate, to Reflect Current Dollars
 Baseline Assumptions Adjusted to Reflect Variables








Market Demographics
Ph i l Characteristics
Physical
Ch
t i ti (Age,
(A Capacity,
C
it Premium
P
i
S ti
Seating,
Et )
Etc.)
Tenant/Event Mix
Number of Professional and Collegiate Sports Franchises
Other Entertainment Alternatives
Climate
Cost of Living
Other
Page 37
Confidential
VII.
Financial Analysis
Cash Flow Summary
 Although Assumptions Appear Reasonable Based on Current and Anticipated Market Conditions,
Actual Results Depend on Actions of Arena Owner, Management, Tenants, and Other Factors
Both Internal and External to Project, which Frequently Vary
 It is Important to Note that Because Events and Circumstances May Not Occur as Expected, there
May be Significant Differences Between Actual Results and those Estimated in this Analysis, and
th
those
Diff
Differences
M Be
May
B Material
M t i l
 As Illustrated in the Following Table, the Cash Flow Analysis Prepared Indicates Arena would be
able to Generate a Positive Cash Flow from Operations
 Net Cash Flow from Operations (Before Consideration of Capital Replacement Reserve) would
be Approximately $891,000 in Year 1
 Consideration should be Given to Establishing a Capital Repair, Replacement, and Improvement
Fund
 Consideration should be Given to Developing Co-Promotion Account to Assist Management in
Attracting Events/Shows to the Market
Page 38
Confidential
VII.
Financial Analysis
Cash Flow Summary
y ((Continued))
ARENA SUMMARY
($ in 000s)
Year
1
2
3
4
5
137
649
137
649
137
633
137
617
137
617
$985
$998
468
425
705
59
249
793
$1,016
$1,052
484
442
730
61
258
793
$1,043
$1,108
501
460
741
61
267
777
$1,071
$1,167
518
478
751
60
276
761
$1,105
$1,230
536
497
778
63
286
761
TOTAL REVENUES
$4,681
$4,834
$4,956
$5,084
$5,256
OPERATING EXPENSES
Arena Operating Expenses
Staffing
General and Administrative
Utilities
Management Fee
$1,540
1,020
980
250
$1,594
1,056
1,014
259
$1,650
1,093
1,050
268
$1,707
1,131
1,087
277
$1,767
1,170
1,125
287
TOTAL EXPENSES
$3 790
$3,790
$3 922
$3,922
$4 060
$4,060
$4 202
$4,202
$4 349
$4,349
$891
$912
$896
$882
$907
Number of Events
Annual Paid Attendance
OPERATING REVENUES (Net)
Total Rental Revenue
Premium Seating Revenue
Advertising
Naming Rights
Concessions
Novelties
Parking
Other (Facility Fee/Rebate/Etc.)
Fee/Rebate/Etc )
NET CASH FLOW
Page 39
Confidential
VII.
Financial Analysis
Sensitivity Analysis
BASE CASE
NET CASH
FLOW
ADMISSIONS TAX
7.0%
$891
$650
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
ADJUSTMENT
NET IMPACT
ADJUSTED
CASH FLOW
ADMISSIONS TAX
7.0%
Number of Other Events
Increase
Decrease
10%
(10%)
$239
($239)
$1,130
$652
$715
$585
Average Paid Attendance - (1)
Increase
Decrease
10%
(
(10%)
)
$189
(
($178)
)
$1,081
$713
$712
$588
Premium Seating - Average Price
Increase
Decrease
10%
(10%)
$145
($145)
$1,036
$746
$650
$650
Premium Seating - Occupancy - (2)
Increase
Decrease
10%
(10%)
$105
($105)
$997
$786
$653
$647
Advertising
Increase
Decrease
10%
(10%)
$47
($47)
$938
$844
$650
$650
Naming Rights
Increase
Decrease
10%
(10%)
$43
($43)
$934
$849
$650
$650
Concessions/Novelties Per Capitas
Increase
Decrease
10%
(10%)
$76
($76)
$967
$815
$650
$650
Operating Expenses
Increase
Decrease
10%
(10%)
(
($379)
)
$379
$512
$1,270
$650
$650
ASSUMPTION
(1) - Reflects general seating attendance only - does not include premium seating.
(2) - Increased occupancy may assume additional inventory for illustrative purposes.
Page 40
Confidential
VIII. Economic Impact Analysis
Page 41
Confidential
Economic/Fiscal Impacts – Overview
 Construction and Operation of the Proposed Arena will Generate Economic and Fiscal Impacts in
the Greater Richmond Area




City of Richmond
Chesterfield County
Hanover County
Henrico County
 Economic Impacts Typically Measured by






Direct Spending (Initial Spending)
Indirect Spending (Dollars Spent through Interaction of Local Industries)
I d d Spending
Induced
S di (Dollars
(D ll Spent
S t through
th
h Household
H
h ld Spending
S di Patterns)
P tt
)
Fiscal Impacts
Employment Impacts
Labor Income Impacts
Page 42
Confidential
Economic/Fiscal Impacts – Overview
 Findings Included Herein Reflect Evaluation of Gross Economic and Fiscal Impacts to be Generated
by the Proposed Arena
Actual Results Depend on Actions of Arena, Management, Tenants, and Other Factors Both Internal
and External to Project,
j
which Frequently
q
y Varyy
those Differences May Be Material
Page 43
Confidential
Economic/Fiscal Impacts – Construction
 Construction of the Proposed Arena will Generate Considerable Economic Impacts for the
Greater Richmond Area During the Construction Period (Presented in 2012 Dollars)
 Figures Reflect Gross Impacts
PROPOSED ARENA ((DOWNTOWN RICHMOND))
Direct Economic Output
Indirect Economic Output
Induced Economic Output
Total Economic Output
Full-Time Equivalent Employment
Labor Income
Construction
(2012 Dollars)
$93,810,000
$39,050,000
$38,840,000
$171,700,000
1,114
$60,370,000
 N
Note: 60% off Labor/Materials
L b /M
i l Expenditures
E
di
S
Sourced
d in
i the
h Local
L l Market
M k Based
B d on Local
L l
Construction Industry Input
Page 44
Confidential
Economic/Fiscal Impacts – Construction
 Construction of the Proposed Arena will Generate Fiscal Impacts for the Greater Richmond Area
on a One-Time Basis (Presented in 2012 Dollars)
PROPOSED ARENA (DOWNTOWN RICHMOND)
Construction
((2012 Dollars))
Hotel Occupancy Tax Revenue
Hotel Sales Revenue
Hotel Tax Rate
Car Rental Tax Revenue
Car Rental Revenue
Car Rental Rate
Sales Tax Revenues
State Sales Tax Rate
State Sales Tax Revenue
Local Sales Tax Rate
Local Sales Tax Revenue
$19,887
8.00%
$1,591
$113,478
4.00%
$4,539
$1,376,000
4.0%
$1,100,723
1.0%
$275 181
$275,181
 Note: 60% of Labor/Materials Expenditures Sourced in the Local Market Based on Local
Page 45
Confidential
Economic/Fiscal Impacts
p
– Operations
p
 On-Going Operations of the Proposed Arena will Produce Considerable Economic Impacts for the
Greater Richmond Area on an Annual Basis (Presented in 2014 Dollars)
 Arena Operations
 Non-Resident Spending
Annual Operations
(2014 Dollars)
$25,990,000
$12,050,000
$9,790,000
$47,830,000
Labor Income
894
$15,300,000
 Figures Reflect Gross Impacts – Must Consider Existing Impacts and Potential Reductions in Future
Page 46
Confidential
Economic/Fiscal Impacts – Operations
 On-Going Operations of the Proposed Arena will Produce Fiscal Impacts for the Greater
Richmond Area on an Annual Basis (Presented in 2014 Dollars)
PROPOSED
O OS
ARENA
A
A ((DOWNTOWN
O
O
RICHMOND)
C
O )
Annual Operations
(2014 Dollars)
Hotel Sales Revenue
Hotel Tax Rate
$1,793,353
$1
793 353
8.00%
$143,468
Car Rental Revenue
Car Rental Rate
$52,147
4.00%
$2,086
Sales
S
l T
Tax Revenues
R
$826,000
$826
000
4.0%
$660,433
1.0%
$165 108
$165,108
 Figures Reflect Gross Impacts – Must Consider Existing Impacts and Potential Reductions in
Future
Page 47
Confidential
Other Benefits
 Proposed Downtown Arena Generates Other Significant Impacts for the Greater Richmond Area
that are Less Explicit and More Difficult to Quantify
 Catalyst for Redevelopment
 Catalyst for Economic Development
 National (and Potentially International) Exposure
 Community Pride and Identity
 Prestige Associated with Facility/Teams/Events
 Improved Quality of Life/Additional Entertainment Alternatives
 Team/Facility Contributions and Donations to Local Charities/Causes
 New Marketing/Advertising Opportunities for Local (and National) Businesses
 Other
Page 48
Confidential
IX.
Major Development Considerations
Page 49
Confidential
IX.
Opportunities
 New Downtown Arena Appears to be a Viable Project in Terms of Market and Financial Feasibility
 Operating Surplus as Compared to Current Deficit
 Corporate Community and General Public Surveys Indicate Potential Support
 Quality of Life Benefits
 Potential to Attract Regional and National Events – Regional Events Center/Draw
 Potential to Add Entertainment Alternatives to Market
 Potential Catalyst for Redevelopment/Revitalization
 Opportunity for Mixed-Use Destination Oriented Development
 Potential
P t ti l Synergy
S
with
ith Other
Oth Richmond
Ri h
d Facilities
F iliti – Potential
P t ti l Operating
O
ti andd Financial
Fi
i l Benefits
B fit
 Limited Competition in the Immediate Market
 Professional Sports (Collegiate Sports Present Competition)
 No State
State-of-the-Art
of the Art Public Assembly Facilities
 Region Appears to be a “Good-Fit” for Sports Events/Concerts/Family Shows/Conferences/Etc.
 Promoters/Users Prefer Richmond Market
 Significant Economic Impact Associated with Construction and Ongoing Operations
Page 50
Confidential
IX.
Challenges
 Project Costs/Funding – Significant Issue
 Public/Private Investment
 Public Sector Participation (Feasibility to be Determined)
 Potential Corporate Support – Historical
 Premium Seating
 Advertising/Sponsorship
 Regional Competition
 John Paul Jones Arena
 SportsQuest Development – Potential Arena
 $250 Million, 250 Acre Mixed Use Sports Complex in Chesterfield County, VA
 West
W Campus
C
to Include
I l d Indoor
I d
A
Arena
– Approximately
A
i
l 6,500
6 500 Seats
S
(T
(Target
D
December
b 2012)
 Public/Private Partnership
 Anchor Tenant Commitment
 Minor League Hockey
 WNBA/NBA D League
Page 51
Confidential
IX.
Other Considerations
 Larger Arena Consideration (18,000+ Seats)
 Limited Additional Events (ACC Tournament – Frequency Issue)
 Impact
p on Anchor Tenants ((Event Related Expenses)
p
)
 Market Limitations for Major League Consideration (e.g. NBA/NHL)
 Corporate Base
 Media Market
– Television
– Radio
Page 52
Confidential
X. Next Steps
Page 53
Confidential
X.
Next Steps
Next Steps
 Evaluate Financing Alternatives and Prepare Definitive Sources/Uses of Funds
 Coliseum
li
Study
d Group to Review
i Draft
f Report
 Consulting Team to Finalize Report
 Develop Strategy to Generate Consensus/Support for Project
 Retain Project Advisor to Guide Planning Process
 Evaluate Viability of Mixed-Use Destination Oriented Development
 Develop
D l Private
Pi
S
Sector
O
Outreach
h Plan
Pl
 Attract Potential “Anchor” Tenants and Local Ownership Group(s) (AHL/ECHL/NBA D
League/WNBA/Etc.)
g
)
Page 54
Confidential
LIMITING CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Page 55
Confidential
This analysis is subject to our contractual terms, as well as the following limiting conditions and assumptions:
 The analysis has been prepared for internal decision making purposes of the Client only and shall not be used for any other
purposes without the prior written permission of Barrett Sports Group, LLC.
 The analysis includes findings and recommendations; however, all decisions in connection with the implementation of such
findings and recommendations shall be Client’s responsibility.
 Ownership and management of the arena are assumed to be in competent and responsible hands.
hands Ownership and
management can materially impact the findings of this analysis.
 Any estimates of historical or future prices, revenues, rents, expenses, occupancy, net operating income, mortgage debt
service, capital outlays, cash flows, inflation, capitalization rates, yield rates or interest rates are intended solely for
analytical purposes and are not to be construed as predictions of the analysts. They represent only the judgment of the
authors based on information provided by operators and owners active in the market place, and their accuracy is in no way
guaranteed.
d
 Our work has been based in part on review and analysis of information provided by unrelated sources which are believed
accurate, but cannot be assured to be accurate. No audit or other verification has been completed.
 Current and anticipated market conditions are influenced by a large number of external factors. We have not knowingly
withheld any pertinent facts, but we do not guarantee that we have knowledge of all factors which might influence the
operating potential of the facility. Due to rapid changes in the external factors, the actual results may vary significantly
from estimates presented in this report.
 The analysts reserve the right to make such adjustments to the analyses, opinions, and conclusions set forth in this report as
may be required by consideration of additional data or more reliable data which may become available.
 The analysis is intended to be read and used as a whole and not in parts. Separation of any section or page from the main
body of the report is expressly forbidden and invalidates the analysis.
 Possession of the analysis does not carry with it the right of publication. It shall be used for its intended purpose only and by
the parties to whom it is addressed. Other parties should not rely on the findings of this report for any purpose and should
perform their own due diligence.
 Our performance of the tasks completed does not constitute an opinion of value or appraisal, or a projection of financial
performance or audit of the facility in accordance with generally accepted audit standards. Estimates of value (ranges) have
been prepared to illustrate current and possible future market conditions.
 The analysis shall not be used in any matters pertaining to any financing, or real estate or other securities offering,
registration, or exemption with any state or with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission.
 No liability is assumed for matters which are legal or environmental in nature.
Page 56
Confidential
CITY OF RICHMOND
VOLUME II OF III
FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRESENTED BY:
Januaryy 27,, 2011
Page 0
Confidential
Page 1
Confidential
Table of Contents
I
I.
Introduction
II.
Market Analysis
III
III.
Market Surveys – General Public Survey
IV. Market Surveys – Corporate Base Survey
V
V.
VI. Potential Arena Sites
VII Construction Cost Estimates
VII.
VIII. Financial Analysis
IX Economic Impact Analysis
IX.
X.
XI Next Steps
XI.
Page 2
Confidential
I. INTRODUCTION
Page 3
Confidential
I.
Introduction

The Consulting Team is Pleased to Present our Preliminary Findings

The Consulting Team Consists of the Following Entities




Barrett Sports Group, LLC – Feasibility/Economic Impact/Financing
Populous Sports Architects – Site Selection/Architecture Program
W t Sports
Weston
S t & Entertainment
E t t i
t – Construction/Cost
C t ti /C t Estimating
E ti ti
Major Goals and Objectives






Evaluate Local and Regional Market Demand
Site Analysis
Prepare Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates
Evaluate
l
Financial
i
i l Feasibility
ibili
Evaluate Financing Alternatives (Case Studies Included /To be Completed – Next Phase)
Evaluate Economic and Fiscal Impacts
Page 4
Confidential
I.
Introduction

A l d Demographics
Analyzed
D
hi off Local
L l andd Regional
R i l Market
M k t Areas
A
(C
(Current
t andd Estimated)
E ti t d)








Population
Households
Income
Age
Unemployment
Corporate Base
Television/Radio Market
Other

Analyzed Facility Characteristics of Competitive Facilities

Analyzed Performance of Comparable Facilities

Evaluated Performance of Facilities in Comparable Markets

C d
Conducted
d Market
M k Surveys
S
(G
(General/Corporate)
l/C
)

Prepared Preliminary Programming for Renovated Richmond Coliseum or New Arena

Evaluated Site Options

Prepared Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate
Page 5
Confidential
I.
Introduction
 Financial Analysis





Evaluated Local Economic Data
Reviewed Operating Revenue and Expense Data for Comparable Facilities
Developed Cash Flow Model
Estimated Operating Revenues and Expenses
Developed Sensitivity Matrix
 Economic
E
i andd Fiscal
Fi l Impact
I
A l i
Analysis




Reviewed Project Related Construction Cost Estimates
Estimated Tenant and Arena Operating
p
g Characteristics
Estimated Direct Fan Spending
Prepared and Configured Economic Impact Model
 Major Development Considerations
Page 6
Confidential
II. MARKET ANALYSIS
Page 7
Confidential
A. Demographic Overview
Page 8
Confidential
A.
Demographic Overview
Richmond, VA
 Richmond, Virginia (Richmond) is
Located in Eastern Virginia
 Approximately
70
Miles
Southeast of Charlottesville, VA
 Approximately
75
Miles
Northwest of Hampton, VA
 Approximately
95
Miles
Northwest of Norfolk, VA
 Approximately
pp o
a e y 110
0 Miles
es Sou
South
of Washington D.C.
 Approximately 155 Miles North
of Raleigh,
Raleigh NC
Note: Distances Above Reflect Driving Distances
Page 9
Confidential
A.
General Market Overview
 City/County Borders
Page 10
Confidential
A.
 According to Claritas 2010, a Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) is an area consisting of a
conglomeration of counties. A CBSA is further defined as a metropolitan or micropolitan CBSA.
A Metropolitan CBSA consists of a geographic area with an urban core population of at least
50,000.
,
A Micropolitan
p
CBSA consists of a ggeographic
g p
area with an urban core ppopulation
p
of
between 10,000 and 49,999.
Page 11
Confidential
A.
 Market Demographics Also Evaluated Based on Geographic Ring Designation
Page 12
Confidential
A.
 Market Demographics Also Evaluated Based on Drive Time Designation
Page 13
Confidential
A.
General Market Overview – Population
Chesterfield
Hanover
Henrico
Geographic Rings
City
County
County
County
CBSA
10 Miles
2015 Projection
199,490
332,847
106,574
311,969 1,302,514
572,383
986,459 1,166,578
502,842
779,652
1,054,478
2010 Estimate
199,893
310,434
100,426
297,092 1,241,094
557,430
941,838 1,114,263
491,713
750,190
1,010,107
2000 Census
197,790
259,903
86,320
262,300 1,096,957
525,546
836,649
991,255
468,074
682,103
904,818
1990 Census
202,783
,
209,547
,
63,306
,
217,881
,
949,244
,
494,453
,
724,665
,
862,127
,
444,048
,
606,845
,
794,370
,
Growth 2010-2015
-0.20%
7.22%
6.12%
5.01%
4.95%
2.68%
4.74%
4.70%
2.26%
3.93%
4.39%
Growth 2000-2010
1.06%
19.44%
16.34%
13.26%
13.14%
6.07%
12.57%
12.41%
5.05%
9.98%
11.64%
Growth 1990-2000
-2.46%
24.03%
36.35%
20.39%
15.56%
6.29%
15.45%
14.98%
5.41%
12.40%
13.90%
20 Miles
Drive Time
30 Miles
15 Minutes 20 Minutes 30 Minutes
Population
Source: Claritas 2010.
Page 14
Confidential
A.
General Market Overview – Population Clusters
Page 15
Confidential
A.
General Market Overview – Households
Chesterfield
Hanover
Henrico
Geographic Rings
Drive Time
City
County
County
County
CBSA
10 Miles
20 Miles
30 Miles
2015 Projection
82,500
123,990
38,773
129,067
509,238
235,536
390,634
456,925
209,360
312,836
415,555
2010 Estimate
83,482
114,685
36,454
122,762
484,006
229,614
372,794
435,822
205,060
301,163
397,816
2000 Census
84,549
93,772
31,121
108,121
425,100
217,139
330,859
386,295
195,942
274,155
355,786
1990 Census
85,224
73,554
22,628
89,138
361,794
201,058
282,736
330,303
183,138
240,921
307,722
Growth 2010-2015
-1.18%
8.11%
6.36%
5.14%
5.21%
2.58%
4.79%
4.84%
2.10%
3.88%
4.46%
Growth 2000-2010
-1.26%
-0.79%
22.30%
27.49%
17.14%
37.53%
13.54%
21.30%
13.86%
17.50%
5.75%
8.00%
12.67%
17.02%
12.82%
16.95%
4.65%
6.99%
9.85%
13.79%
11.81%
15.62%
Households
Growth 1990-2000
Source:
Sou
ce: Claritas
C a tas 2010.
0 0.
Page 16
Confidential
A.
General Market Overview – Household Clusters
Page 17
Confidential
A.
General Market Overview – Income
Chesterfield
Hanover
Henrico
Geographic Rings
Drive Time
City
County
County
County
CBSA
10 Miles
20 Miles
30 Miles
2010 Est. Average HH Income
$57,783
$88,253
$93,116
$79,852
$76,491
$66,676
$78,736
$77,518
$63,516
$74,177
$77,061
2010 Est. Median HH Income
$39,685
$72,641
$77,888
$61,774
$60,072
$51,140
$61,336
$60,771
$48,657
$57,805
$59,962
2010 Est. Per Capita Income
$24,823
$32,786
$34,047
$33,325
$30,253
$27,870
$31,495
$30,710
$26,918
$30,135
$30,733
11,230
34,312
12,335
29,398
111,930
39,764
90,553
103,279
32,105
65,276
93,060
Income
HHs w/ Income $100,000
Page 18
Confidential
A.
General Market Overview – Income
Page 19
Confidential
A.
General Market Overview – Corporate
p
Base
Rank Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Virginia Commonwealth University Health System
Capital One Financial Corp.
HCA Inc
Inc.
Dominion Resources Inc. (incl. HQ)
Bon Secours Richmond Health System
Altria Group Inc. (incl. HQ)
SunTrust Banks Inc.
Ukrop's Super Markets Inc. (incl. HQ)
WellPoint Inc.
Bank of America Corp.
Wells Fargo and Co.
Verizon Virginia Inc.
Food Lion LLC
DuPont
United Parcel Service Inc.
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
The Kroger Co.
University of Richmond
Genworth Financial Inc. (incl. HQ)
Southside Regional Medical Center
y
International Inc.
Honeywell
Smurfit-Stone Container Corp.
Supervalu Inc.
B B and T Corp.
Lowe's Cos. Inc.
Employees
7,244
6,828
6 679
6,679
5,721
5,626
4,613
3,815
3,331
3,050
2,900
2,858
2,789
2,729
2,679
,
2,318
1,866
1,737
1,380
1,313
1,250
1,249
1,081
1,050
1,034
1,007
Rank Company
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
The Home Depot Inc.
Media General Inc. (incl. HQ)
Pfizer
CarMax Inc. (incl. HQ)
Tyson Foods Inc.
Shamin Hotels (incl. HQ)
Target Corp.
J.C. Penney Co. Inc.
Mondial Assistance (incl. HQ)
Comcast
Markel Corp. (incl. HQ)
Estes Express Lines (incl. HQ)
MeadWestvaco Corp. (incl. HQ)
Hunton and Williams LLP (incl. HQ)
ColonialWebb Contractors ((incl. HQ)
Q)
Northrop Grumman
Owens and Minor
Southern States
Westminster Canterbury
McGuireWoods LLP
YMCA of Greater Richmond
Alstom Power
Bostwick Labs
Kraft Foods
Walgreens
Employees
1,000
991
991
987
900
885
864
844
800
786
777
758
730
728
717
669
658
642
614
601
596
584
556
551
521
Source: Richmond Times-Dispatch, April 26, 2010, and Greater Richmond Partnership, Inc.
Page 20
Confidential
A.
General Market Overview – Education
 Virginia Commonwealth University
A
Approximately
i t l 32,000
32 000 Students
St d t
 211 Degree Programs Offered
 NCAA Division I Athletics – Colonial Athletic Association (CAA)
 University of Richmond
 Approximately 4,300 Students
 5 Schools Offering Nearly 60 Degree Programs
 NCAA Division I Athletics – Atlantic 10 (A10) Conference in Most Sports
– Colonial Athletic Association (CAA) in Football and Women’s Golf
 Virginia Union University
 24 Undergraduate Majors, 2 Masters and 1 Doctorate Program(s) Offered
 NCAA Division II Athletics – Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association (CIAA)
Page 21
Confidential
A.
 Other








Stratford
St
tf d University
U i
it
Virginia State University
Randolph-Macon College
Union Presbyterian
y
Seminaryy
J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College
John Tyler Community College
ITT Technical Institute
ECPI College of Technology
Page 22
Confidential
A.
 Richmond Public School System
 Kindergarten to 12th Grade
– Elementary
El
S h l 28
Schools:
– Middle Schools: 8
– High Schools: 8
– Alternative Schools: 3
– Elementary School Enrollment: 12,128
– Middle School Enrollment: 4,455
– High School Enrollment: 5,874
– Alternative School Enrollment: 537
 Programs for the Gifted Include (Selected)
– The International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme
– The International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme
– Special Program for Academically and Creative Excellence (SPACE)
– Summer Residential Governor’s School
Page 23
Confidential
A.
General Market Overview – Transportation
 Highway Transportation
 Interstate Highways
– II-64,
64, II-95,
95, II-195,
195, II-295
295
 Toll Roads (Operated by Richmond Metropolitan Authority)
– Downtown Expressway
– Powhite Parkway
 Air Transportation
 Richmond International Airport (RIC)
– More than 3.5 Million Passengers Annually
– Eight
Ei ht Major
M j Airlines
Ai li
(7 Domestic
D
ti / 1 International)
I t
ti l)
» AirTran
» American Airlines
» Continental Airlines
» Delta
» Jet Blue Airways
» United
» US Airways
» Air Canada
Page 24
Confidential
A.
General Market Overview – Transportation
 Railway Service (Amtrak)
 Main Street Station (RVM)
– Northeast Regional
 Staples Mill Road Station (RVR)
– Carolinian
C li i / Piedmont
Pi d
t
– Northeast Regional
– Silver Service / Palmetto
 Public Transportation
 GRTC Transit System (Bus)
– Local Commuters
– Express Riders
– City-to-City
– VCU Students
– Active
A ti Seniors
S i
Page 25
Confidential
B.
Comparable Market Analysis
Page 26
Confidential
B.
 Comprehensive Review of Demographic Characteristics of Comparable Markets
1. Median Market Area Comparison
A. CBSA Designation
i. Arena/Stadium Seat Inventory
B. Geographic Ring Comparison (Appendix A)
i. 10 Mile Ring Statistics
ii. 20 Mile Ring Statistics
iii. 30 Mile Ring Statistics
C. Drive Time Comparison (Appendix B)
i 20 Minute
i.
Mi
S i i
Statistics
ii. 30 Minute Statistics
 High Level Minor League Hockey (e.g.
(e g AHL/ECHL) Demographics Characteristics Were
Evaluated but Not Included in this Report
Page 27
Confidential
MEDIAN MARKET COMPARISON
Page 28
Confidential
B.
Median Market Overview
 Comparable Market Selection Based on 2010 Population
 20 Markets Compared to the Richmond, VA CBSA (Richmond)
–
–
10 Markets Ranking Immediately Above Richmond by Population
10 Markets
M k t Ranking
R ki Immediately
I
di t l Below
B l Richmond
Ri h
d by
b Population
P
l ti
10 Markets - Above
Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC
Indianapolis-Carmel, IN
A i
Austin-Round
d Rock,
k TX
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI
Jacksonville, FL
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN
10 Markets - Below
Oklahoma City, OK
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner,
Ol
ii
LA
A
Salt Lake City, UT
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Birmingham-Hoover, AL
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY
Rochester, NY
Tucson, AZ
Fresno, CA
 Demographic Comparison Focuses
Foc ses on Several
Se eral Key
Ke Factors that Impact Market Demand for
Arena Projects
Page 29
Confidential
B.
Discussion of Terminology
 Analysis Evaluates Richmond and Comparable Markets Based on Population
 Ri
Richmond
h
d Will Measure
M
as 1) Comparable
C
bl to the
h Median
M di Markets;
M k
or 2) Above
Ab
the
h Median
M di
Markets; or 3) Below the Median Markets
 Definition of “Comparable”
p
–
Within 1 Standard Deviation from the Median Market Average (Note: Relative Rank
and Average May Still be Above/Below Median Markets)
 Definition of “Above”
–
More than 1 Standard Deviation Above the Median Market Average
 Definition
D fi i i off “Below”
“B l ”
–
More than 1 Standard Deviation Below the Median Market Average
Note: Comparable/Above/Below Determination Adjusted if Richmond as a % of the Median Market
Average is Less than 80% or Greater than 125% as a Percentage of Median Market Average
Page 30
Confidential
MEDIAN MARKET COMPARISON – CBSA DESIGNATION
Page 31
Confidential
B.
Median Market Comparison
CBSA Designation
Population
 Richmond Represents the
Midpoint of the Comparable
Range Based on 2010
Population
 Richmond 2015 Population
and
d Estimated
E ti t d % Growth
G
th are
Comparable to the Median
Market Averages
Market
Austin-Round Rock, TX
Milwaukee Waukesha West Allis,
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West
Allis WI
Jacksonville, FL
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Richmond, VA
Oklahoma City, OK
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA
S lt Lake
Salt
L k City,
Cit UT
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Rochester, NY
Tucson, AZ
Fresno, CA
A
Average
(1)
2010
Population
(000s)
1,780.7
1,748.2
1,704.0
1,670.7
1,596.0
1,591.9
1 542 2
1,542.2
1,372.2
1,298.3
1,261.2
1,241.1
1,228.5
1,195.7
1,194.2
1 150 8
1,150.8
1,149.2
1,130.1
1,117.2
1,033.5
1,033.0
937.9
1 336 8
1,336.8
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2015
Population
(000s)
2,002.8
1,844.2
1,921.9
1,704.9
1,727.7
1,580.4
1 551 3
1,551.3
1,498.3
1,333.2
1,303.1
1,302.5
1,288.1
1,208.3
1,264.4
1 240 7
1,240.7
1,322.5
1,162.0
1,085.1
1,024.6
1,122.8
1,014.0
1 410 0
1,410.0
Rank
21
1
3
2
5
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
16
14
15
10
17
19
20
18
21
Est. %
Growth
2010-2015
12.47%
5.49%
12.79%
2.05%
8.25%
-0.72%
0 59%
0.59%
9.19%
2.69%
3.32%
4.95%
4.85%
1.06%
5.88%
7 82%
7.82%
15.09%
2.82%
-2.87%
-0.86%
8.70%
8.12%
Rank
21
3
10
2
16
6
19
18
4
15
13
11
12
17
9
8
1
14
21
20
5
7
5 34%
5.34%
(1) - Excludes Richmond, VA.
Page 32
Confidential
B.
CBSA Designation
Households
 Richmond is Comparable to
the Median Market Average
in Terms of 2010 and 2015
Households
th Median
the
M di Market
M k t Average
A
in Terms of Estimated %
Growth
Market
Allis WI
Jacksonville, FL
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Oklahoma City, OK
Richmond, VA
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Tucson, AZ
Rochester, NY
Salt Lake City, UT
Fresno, CA
Average (1)
2010
Households
(000s)
687.8
682.4
629.6
626.3
624.1
621.8
614 7
614.7
536.1
510.5
490.0
485.0
484.0
466.4
457.4
457.2
449.5
438.4
405.5
399.9
376.6
290.1
512.5
Rank
a
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2015
Households
(000s)
775.9
720.2
706.1
643.1
677.2
618.4
622 2
622.2
588.6
530.9
506.0
510.2
509.2
471.9
447.5
486.0
464.5
503.6
440.9
397.4
406.7
311.3
541.4
Rank
a
21
1
2
3
5
4
7
6
8
9
12
10
11
15
17
14
16
13
18
20
19
21
Est. %
Growth
2010-2015
12.80%
5.54%
12.15%
2.69%
8.50%
-0.55%
1 23%
1.23%
9.78%
4.00%
3.26%
5.18%
5.21%
1.17%
-2.18%
6.30%
3.32%
14.86%
8.73%
-0.62%
8.00%
7.29%
Rank
a
21
2
10
3
16
6
19
17
4
13
15
12
11
18
21
9
14
1
5
20
7
8
5.57%
Page 33
Confidential
B.
CBSA Designation
Income
 Ri
Richmond
h
d Average
A
H
Household,
h ld Median
M di Household
H
h ld andd Per
P Capita
C it Income
I
I di t
Indicators
are Above
Ab
Median Market Averages
 Richmond Households with Income of $100,000+ is Comparable to the Median Market Average
Market
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Salt Lake City, UT
Richmond, VA
Jacksonville, FL
Rochester, NY
Fresno, CA
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Tucson, AZ
Oklahoma City, OK
Buffalo Niagara Falls,
Buffalo-Niagara
Falls NY
Average (1)
Average
Household
Income
$85,522
$77,784
$76,594
$76,523
$76,491
$73,049
$72,274
$71,897
$71,449
$71,023
$70,443
$69,518
$67,128
$66,891
$66,077
$63,946
$63,431
$63,348
$62,911
$62,119
$61 425
$61,425
$69,668
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Median
Household
Income
$67,127
$61,130
$58,887
$60,773
$60,072
$55,666
$57,979
$56,206
$55,163
$54,624
$55,101
$52,798
$52,765
$48,852
$48,041
$48,731
$46,432
$47,247
$46,471
$47,307
$47 272
$47,272
$53,429
Rank
21
1
2
5
3
4
8
6
7
9
11
10
12
13
14
16
15
21
19
20
17
18
Per Capita
Income
$33,743
$29,874
$28,552
$25,247
$30,253
$28,418
$27,779
$28,434
$28,179
$27,961
$28,341
$27,418
$26,405
$26,848
$25,527
$26,110
$19,947
$24,118
$24,944
$24,794
$25 468
$25,468
$26,905
Rank
21
1
3
4
17
2
6
10
5
8
9
7
11
13
12
15
14
21
20
18
19
16
HHs w/ Income
$100,000+
(000s)
136.4
107.2
145.5
84.2
111.9
139.9
127.8
134.5
137.8
104.1
122.1
116.4
74.9
81.4
82.2
83.5
47.7
79.1
63.9
74.1
73 6
73.6
Rank
21
4
10
1
12
9
2
6
5
3
11
7
8
17
15
14
13
21
16
20
18
19
100.8
Page 34
Confidential
B.
CBSA Designation
Age
 Richmond is Comparable to the
Median Market Averages in
Terms of Average Age
Median Market Averages in
T
Terms
off Median
M di Age
A
Market
Salt Lake City, UT
Fresno, CA
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Oklahoma City, OK
Jacksonville, FL
Richmond, VA
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY
KY-IN
IN
Tucson, AZ
Rochester, NY
A
Average
(1)
Average
Age
33.5
33.7
34.9
35.2
35.9
36.1
36.3
36.6
36.8
36.9
37.6
37.8
37.9
38.1
38.3
38.3
38.6
39.0
39.2
39.4
40.2
37 1
37.1
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
Median
Age
31.6
31.0
33.8
35.1
35.9
35.4
36.0
35.0
35.7
36.6
37.5
37.3
37.9
37.8
38.4
38.3
37.3
38.6
38.8
39.5
40.0
Rank
21
2
1
3
5
8
6
9
4
7
10
13
11
15
14
17
16
12
18
19
20
21
36 5
36.5
Page 35
Confidential
B.
CBSA Designation
Unemployment
 Richmond
Unemployment
is
Comparable to the Median Market
Average
 Note: Unemployment Reflects the
Percentage of Unemployed Over
T t l Work
Total
W k Force
F
A il bl andd
Available
Does Not Include Population
Characterized as “Not in Work
Force”
Market
Salt Lake City, UT
Oklahoma City, OK
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Richmond, VA
Austin-Round
Austin
Round Rock, TX
Rochester, NY
Tucson, AZ
p
IN
Indianapolis-Carmel,
Jacksonville, FL
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Fresno, CA
Average (1)
Unemployment
Rate
2.84%
3.19%
3.56%
3.73%
3.73%
3.86%
3.92%
3.96%
3.98%
4.01%
4.06%
4.09%
4.12%
4.31%
4.36%
4.38%
4.47%
4.66%
4.83%
5.88%
6.06%
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
4.21%
Page 36
Confidential
B.
CBSA Designation
Media Markets
 Richmond Television Homes and
Radio Population are Below Median
Market Averages
 Size of the Television and Radio
Markets Typically Provides an
I di ti
Indication
off Potential
P t ti l Local
L l Media
M di
Revenues (if any) for a Professional
Franchise
Market
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Salt Lake City
City, UT
Oklahoma City, OK
Jacksonville, FL
Memphis TN-MS-AR
Memphis,
TN MS AR
Fresno, CA
Richmond, VA
Tucson, AZ
Rochester, NY
Average (1)
2010 TV
Homes
(000s)
1,147.9
1,119.8
1,107.8
1,019.0
1,010.6
944 1
944.1
901.8
742.1
709.9
694.0
679.1
678.7
668.3
667 7
667.7
633.9
633.2
619.6
579.2
554.0
465.1
392.2
770.7
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2010 Radio
Population
(000s)
2,008.6
1,388.8
1,332.1
1,254.7
1,048.3
1 735 7
1,735.7
1,453.3
891.0
1,329.4
1,105.8
1,144.4
1,412.1
960.6
1 069 1
1,069.1
1,003.7
968.0
1,365.7
751.0
944.9
864.9
939.7
Rank
21
1
5
7
9
13
2
3
19
8
11
10
4
16
12
14
15
6
21
17
20
18
1,201.3
Source: Nielsen 2010 and Arbitron 2010.
Note: Radio population estimated by Portable People Meter (in select markets) or by Continuous Measurement.
Page 37
Confidential
B.
CBSA Designation
Corporate Base
Median Market Average in Terms of
Companies with Sales $50+ Million
Median Market Average in Terms of
Companies
i with
i h 500+ Employees
l
Market
Salt Lake City, UT
Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord,, NC-SC
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Oklahoma City, OK
Jacksonville, FL
Austin-Round Rock,
Rock TX
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Richmond, VA
Rochester, NY
Tucson, AZ
F
Fresno,
CA
Average (1)
Companies
w/ $50+mm
Sales
153
153
122
120
110
101
101
94
91
93
90
90
84
82
78
77
76
71
63
32
25
92
Rank
21
1
1
3
4
5
6
6
8
10
9
11
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Companies
w/ 500+
Employees
118
122
89
107
93
57
99
71
61
76
111
113
88
71
70
58
98
69
67
58
42
Rank
21
2
1
9
5
8
20
6
12
17
11
4
3
10
12
14
18
7
15
16
18
21
82
Source: Dun and Bradstreet 2010.
Page 38
Confidential
B.
Median Market Comparison – Arena/Stadium Seat Inventory
 Consideration Given to Arenas and Stadiums with a Minimum of Approximately 5,000 Seats
 Based on Review of Limited Available Public Information
 Arena/Stadium Inventory Located within Richmond CBSA Market






Verizon Wireless Arena at the Stuart C. Siegel Center (Virginia Commonwealth University)
The Diamond
Robins Center (University of Richmond)
Robins Stadium (University of Richmond)
Rogers Stadium (Virginia State University)
Richmond Coliseum (Existing)
 Reviewed, but Did Not Include, the Following Facilities Located within Richmond CBSA Market






Richmond International Raceway
City Stadium
Greater Richmond Convention Center Arena
Arthur Ashe Athletic Center
Sports Backers Stadium
SportsQuest Arena (Planning Stage)
Page 39
Confidential
B.
CBSA Designation
Population per Seat
 Richmond
Ri h
d is
i Below
B l
th Median
the
M di Market
M k t Average
A
i Terms
in
T
off Seat
S t Inventory
I
t
(E i ti /E i ti &
(Existing/Existing
Planned)
 Richmond is Above the Median Market Average in Terms of Population per Seat (Existing/Existing
& Planned)
Existing Inve ntory
Marke t
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, T N
Austin-Round Rock,, T X
Salt Lake City, UT
Fresno, CA
T ucson, AZ
Memphis, T N-MS-AR
Jacksonville, FL
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Oklahoma City, OK
Richmond, VA
Rochester, NY
2010
Population
(000s)
Se at
Inve ntory
1,596.0
1,117.2
1,780.7
1,748.2
1,704.0
,
1,130.1
1,670.7
1,194.2
1,150.8
937.9
1,033.0
1,298.3
1,372.2
1,261.2
1,149.2
1,195.7
1,542.2
1,228.5
1,241.1
1,033.5
1,591.9
246,756
150,203
148,424
147,303
144,852
,
127,891
122,136
118,925
107,900
105,001
102,562
96,319
96,000
93,675
92,000
81,700
74,700
73,883
58,716
38,340
32,303
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Pop. pe r
Se at
6.5
7.4
12.0
11.9
11.8
8.8
13.7
10.0
10.7
8.9
10.1
13.5
14.3
13.5
12.5
14.6
20.6
16.6
21.1
27.0
49.3
Existing & Planne d Inve ntory
Rank
21
21
20
12
13
14
19
8
17
15
18
16
9
7
10
11
6
4
5
3
2
1
Inve ntory
Change
Se at
Inve ntory
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,100
0
0
5,000
0
0
30,075
0
0
0
0
3,615
0
0
246,756
150,203
148,424
147,303
144,852
,
127,891
122,136
122,025
107,900
105,001
107,562
96,319
96,000
123,750
92,000
81,700
74,700
73,883
62,331
38,340
32,303
Pop. pe r
Seat
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
12
11
13
14
7
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
6.5
7.4
12.0
11.9
11.8
8.8
13.7
9.8
10.7
8.9
9.6
13.5
14.3
10.2
12.5
14.6
20.6
16.6
19.9
27.0
49.3
Rank
21
21
20
11
12
13
19
8
16
14
18
17
9
7
15
10
6
3
5
4
2
1
Average - (1)
1,336.8
110,044
14.7
111,952
14.5
(1) Excludes Richmond, VA.
Sources: Claritas 2010, 2010 AudArena, 2010 Sports Business Resource Guide and Fact Book, and industry research.
Note: Richmond, VA, Indianapolis-Carmel, IN, Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI and Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN exclude motorsport and horse racing seat inventory.
Page 40
Confidential
B.
 Inventory Change
 Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN
– Renovation and Expansion of Papa John’s Cardinal Stadium (University of Louisville)
– KFC Yum! Center (Downtown Louisville Arena) (Recently Opened)
 Richmond,, VA
– Assumes the Existing Facility is Replaced by a New Arena
– For Illustrative Purposes, Replacement Facility to Include 14,000 Seats, 25 Luxury
Suites and 650 Club Seats
 New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA
– Renovation and Expansion of Louisiana Superdome
 Tucson, AZ
– Renovation and Expansion of Arizona Stadium (University of Arizona)
Page 41
Confidential
B.
 Inventory Change – Projects Not Included in Inventory Analysis
City OK
 Oklahoma City,
– Phased Renovation and Expansion of Ford Center (Seating Bowl Improvements Already
Complete)
 Birmingham-Hoover, AL
– New Birmingham-Jefferson Convention Complex Stadium
 Tucson
Tucson, AZ
– New Convention Center Arena
Page 42
Confidential
B.
CBSA Designation
Households w/ Income $100,000+ per Two Seats
 Richmond
Ri h
d is
i Above
Ab
th Median
the
M di Market
M k t Average
A
i Terms
in
T
off High
Hi h Income
I
H
Households
h ld per Two
T
Seats (Existing/Existing & Planned)
Existing Inve ntory
Marke t
Rochester, NY
Richmond, VA
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Jacksonville FL
Jacksonville,
Austin-Round Rock, T X
Oklahoma City, OK
Memphis, T N-MS-AR
S lt Lake
Salt
L k City,
Cit UT
T ucson, AZ
Fresno, CA
HHs w/
Income
$100,000+
(000 )
(000s)
Se at
IInve ntory
t
134.5
74.9
111.9
136.4
122.1
107.2
104 1
104.1
127.8
145.5
74.1
139.9
137.8
83.5
79.1
84 2
84.2
82.2
81.4
63.9
73.6
116.4
47.7
32,303
38,340
58,716
81,700
74,700
92,000
96 000
96,000
122,136
144,852
73,883
148,424
147,303
93,675
96,319
107 900
107,900
118,925
127,891
102,562
150,203
246,756
105,001
Rank
21
21
20
19
16
17
15
13
7
5
18
3
4
14
12
9
8
6
11
2
1
10
Existing & Planne d Inve ntory
HHs w/
Income
$100k+ pe r
T Se
Two
S ats
t
8.3
3.9
3.8
3.3
3.3
2.3
22
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.6
16
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Inve ntory
Ch
Change
Se at
IInve ntory
t
0
0
3,615
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,075
0
0
3,100
0
5,000
0
0
0
32,303
38,340
62,331
81,700
74,700
92,000
96 000
96,000
122,136
144,852
73,883
148,424
147,303
123,750
96,319
107 900
107,900
122,025
127,891
107,562
150,203
246,756
105,001
Rank
21
21
20
19
16
17
15
14
8
5
18
3
4
7
13
10
9
6
11
2
1
12
HHs w/
Income
$100k+ pe r
T Se
Two
S ats
t
8.3
3.9
3.6
3.3
3.3
2.3
22
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.4
1.6
16
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
Average - (1)
100.8
110,044
2.2
111,952
2.2
Page 43
Confidential
B.
CBSA Designation
Households w/ Income $100,000+ per Two Club Seats
 Richmond is Below the Median Market Average in Terms of Number of Club Seats
(Existing/Existing & Planned) and Above Average in Terms of High Income Households per Two
Club Seats (Existing)
Existing Inve ntory
Marke t
T ucson, AZ
Richmond, VA
Fresno, CA
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Salt Lake City, UT
Oklahoma City, OK
Memphis,
hi T N-MS-AR
Jacksonville, FL
Rochester, NY
HHs w/
Income
$100,000+
(000s)
63.9
111.9
134.5
127.8
47.7
122.1
107.2
145.5
84.2
74.1
83.5
136.4
81.4
79.1
139.9
104.1
116.4
137.8
73.6
82.2
74.9
Club Seat Rank
Inventory
20
270
668
1,200
1,252
600
3,260
2,955
4,167
2,694
2,620
3,400
5,602
3,702
4,758
13,864
11,116
14,112
17,240
9,378
14,800
NA
20
18
17
16
19
12
13
9
14
15
11
7
10
8
4
5
3
1
6
2
NA
HHs w/
Income
$100k+ per
Two Seats
473.5
335.1
224.2
204.2
159.0
74.9
72.5
69.9
62.5
56.6
49.1
48.7
44.0
33.2
20.2
18.7
16.5
16.0
15.7
11.1
NA
Existing & Planned Inventory
Rank
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
NA
Inventory
Change
200
-18
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
0
4,604
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Club Se at Rank
Inventory
20
470
650
1,200
1,252
600
3,300
2,955
4,167
2,694
2,620
8,004
5,602
3,702
4,758
13,864
11,116
14,112
17,240
9,378
14,800
NA
20
18
17
16
19
12
13
10
14
15
7
8
11
9
4
5
3
1
6
2
NA
HHs w/
Income
$100k+ pe r
Two Se ats
272.0
344.4
224.2
204.2
159.0
74.0
72.5
69.9
62.5
56.6
20.9
48.7
44.0
33.2
20.2
18.7
16.5
16.0
15.7
11.1
NA
Rank
20
2
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
14
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
NA
Average - (1)
100.8
6,157
87.9
6,412
75.8
Page 44
Confidential
B.
CBSA Designation
Companies per Luxury Suite
 Richmond is Below the Median Market Average in Terms of Number of Luxury Suites
 Above Average in Terms of High Sales Volume Companies per Suite
 Above Average in Terms of Companies with 500+ Employees per Suite
Existing Inventory
Market
Luxury
Suite
Inventory
Rank
21
Companies
p
w/ $50+mm
Sales pe r
Suite
Rank
21
Existing and Planned Inventory
Companies
p
w/ 500+
Employee s
per Suite
Rank
21
Inventory
Change
Luxury
Suite
Inventory
Rank
21
C ompanies
p
w/ $50+mm
Sales per
Suite
Rank
21
C ompanies
p
w/ 500+
Employees
per Suite
Rank
21
27
21
3.7
1
2.1
2
0
27
21
3.7
1
2.1
2
Richmond, VA
31
19
2.5
2
3.2
1
13
44
18
1.7
3
2.2
1
41
18
2.3
3
1.9
4
0
41
19
2.3
2
1.9
4
Oklahoma City, OK
62
16
1.5
4
1.1
8
0
62
16
1.5
4
1.1
8
66
15
1.4
5
1.7
5
0
66
15
1.4
5
1.7
5
118
10
1.3
6
1.0
9
(5)
113
12
1.4
6
1.0
9
Rochester, NY
58
17
1.2
7
1.2
7
0
58
17
1.2
7
1.2
7
84
14
1.1
8
1.3
6
0
84
14
1.1
8
1.3
6
T ucson, AZ
31
19
1.0
9
1.9
3
0
31
20
1.0
9
1.9
3
141
8
0.9
10
0.6
11
0
141
9
0.9
10
0.6
11
Raleigh-Cary, NC
118
10
0.9
11
0.8
10
0
118
11
0.9
11
0.8
10
101
12
0.8
12
0.6
13
108
209
6
0.4
18
0.3
20
201
6
0.8
13
0.6
12
0
201
7
0.8
12
0.6
12
Jacksonville, FL
130
9
0.7
14
0.5
15
0
130
10
0.7
13
0.5
14
Memphis, T N-MS-AR
148
7
0.5
15
0.5
14
0
148
8
0.5
14
0.5
13
223
4
0.5
16
0.4
18
0
223
4
0.5
15
0.4
17
211
5
0.4
17
0.4
17
0
211
5
0.4
16
0.4
16
324
1
0.4
18
0.3
19
0
324
1
0.4
17
0.3
18
268
2
0.3
19
0.3
21
0
268
2
0.3
19
0.3
21
225
3
0.3
20
0.3
20
0
225
3
0.3
20
0.3
19
95
13
0.3
21
0.4
16
0
95
13
0.3
21
0.4
15
Salt Lake City, UT
Fresno, CA
Average - (1)
134
1.0
0.9
139
1.0
0.9
Page 45
Confidential
B.
p
 Population
– Richmond Market is Generally Comparable to Other Markets
– Below Market Average Based on 30 Mile Ring
 Households
– Richmond Market is Comparable to Other Markets
 Income
– Richmond Market is Above Other Markets
– Number of High Income Households is Generally Comparable to Other Markets
 Unemployment
– Unemployment Rate is Comparable to Other Markets
Page 46
Confidential
B.
 C
Corporate Base
B
– Comparable to Market Average Based on Number of Companies with $50.0 Million or
More in Sales
– Comparable
p
to Market Average
g Based on Number of Companies
p
with 500 or More
Employees
 Media Market
– Below
B l Market
M k Average
A
B d on TV Homes
Based
H
– Below Market Average Based on Radio Population
 Seat Inventory
– Below Market Average in Terms of Existing Inventory of Stadium /Arena Seats
» Low Inventory of Existing Seats, Luxury Suites and Club Seats
– Ratio of Population and High Income Households per Seat Above Average
– Ratio of Population and High Income Households per Suite / Club Seat Above Average
– Ratio of Large Companies to Number of Suites / Club Seats Above Average
Page 47
Confidential
B.
 Median Market Summary – CBSA Demographic Overview
M di Market
Median
M k t Summary
S
- CBSA D
Demographic
hi O
Overview
i
Comparison to
Statistical Measure
Rank 21
Market Average
2010 Population
2015 Population
Est. % Growth 2010-2015
11
12
11
Comparable
Comparable
Comparable
2010 Households
2015 Households
Est. % Growth 2010-2015
12
11
11
Comparable
Comparable
Comparable
Average Household Income
Median Household Income
Per Capita Income
HHs w/ Income $100,000+
5
4
2
9
Above
Above
Above
Comparable
Average Age
Median Age
12
11
Comparable
Comparable
Unemployment Rate
6
Comparable
2010 TV Homes
2010 Radio Population
19
17
Below
Below
Companies w/ $50+mm Sales
Companies w/ 500+ Employees
17
7
Comparable
Comparable
Page 48
Confidential
B.
 Median Market Summary – Arena/Stadium Inventory
Median Market Summary - CBSA Demographic Overview
Rank 21
Comparison to
Market Average
Seat Inventory (Existing)
Seat Inventory (Existing and Planned)
Population per Seat (Existing)
Population per Seat (Existing and Planned)
HHs with Income $100k+ per Two Seats (Existing)
HHs with Income $100k+ per Two Seats (Existing and Planned)
19
19
3
4
3
3
Below
Below
Above
Above
Above
Above
Club Seat Inventory
y ((Existing)
g)
Club Seat Inventory (Existing and Planned)
HHs with Income $100k+ per Two Club Seats (Existing)
HHs with Income $100k+ per Two Club Seats (Existing and Planned)
18
18
2
1
Below
Below
Above
Above
Luxury Suite Inventory (Existing)
Luxury Suite Inventory (Existing and Planned)
Companies with Sales $50mm+ per Luxury Suite (Existing)
Companies with 500+ Employees per Luxury Suite (Existing)
Companies with Sales $50mm+ per Luxury Suite (Existing and Planned)
Companies with 500+ Employees per Luxury Suite (Existing and Planned)
19
18
2
1
3
1
Below
Below
Above
Above
Above
Above
Statistical Measure
Page 49
Confidential
B.
 Median Market Summary – Geographic Rings Designation Overview
Statistical Measure
Median Market Summary - Geographic Rings Designation Overview
10 Mile
20 Mile
Rank
Comparison to
Rank
Comparison to
Rank
21
Market Average
21
Market Average
21
30 Mile
Comparison to
Market Average
2010 Population
2015 Population
Est. % Growth 2010-2015
18
17
10
Comparable
Comparable
Comparable
17
16
12
Comparable
Comparable
Comparable
16
15
12
Below
Below
Comparable
2010 Households
2015 Households
Est. % Growth 2010-2015
15
16
11
Comparable
Comparable
Comparable
16
17
12
Comparable
Comparable
Comparable
16
15
12
Comparable
Comparable
Comparable
Per Capita Income
HHs w/ Income $100,000+
6
4
4
9
Comparable
Comparable
Comparable
Comparable
3
3
2
10
Above
Above
Above
Comparable
4
4
2
11
Above
Above
Above
Comparable
Average Age
Median Age
14
14
Comparable
Comparable
13
12
Comparable
Comparable
12
12
Comparable
Comparable
Unemployment Rate
9
Comparable
7
Comparable
8
Comparable
Page 50
Confidential
B.
 Median Market Summary – Drive Time Designation Overview
Median Market Summary - Drive Time Designation Overview
20 Minute
30 Minute
Rank
Comparison to
Rank
Comparison to
Statistical Measure
21
Market Average
21
Market Average
2010 Population
Pop lation
2015 Population
Est. % Growth 2010-2015
12
12
11
Comparable
Comparable
Comparable
14
13
12
Comparable
Comparable
Comparable
2010 Households
2015 Households
Est. % Growth 2010-2015
11
13
11
Comparable
Comparable
Comparable
13
14
12
Comparable
Comparable
Comparable
Per Capita Income
HHs w/ Income $100,000
$100,000+
3
3
3
6
Above
Above
Above
Above
3
4
3
9
Above
Above
Above
Comparable
Average Age
Median Age
13
14
Comparable
Comparable
13
12
Comparable
Comparable
Unemployment Rate
7
Comparable
9
Comparable
Page 51
Confidential
C.
Page 52
Confidential
C.
 Existing and Planned Competitive Inventory of Arenas/Stadiums in the Richmond Market will
Impact the Operations of the Proposed Arena
 Direct Competition from Comparable Arenas, as well as, Indirect Competition from Stadiums,
Amphitheatres, Performing Arts Centers (to a Lesser Degree), and Other Entertainment Alternatives
Must be Considered





Patrons
Tenants
Advertising/Sponsorships
Premium Seating
Other
 Venues in Surrounding Markets including Charlottesville, Hampton, and Norfolk (Among Others)
Represent Additional Competitive Threats




Recent Construction
g
Seating
g Capacity
p y
Significant
Premium Seating Inventory
Professionally Operated
Page 53
Confidential
C.
Primary Facilities – In Market
 Verizon Wireless Arena at Stuart C. Siegel Center
 Opened: 1998
 Primary Tenant: Virginia Commonwealth University
Athletics
 Seats: 7,500
 Luxury Suites: 0
 Club
Cl b Seats:
S t 0
 Robins Center
p
1972
 Opened:
 Primary Tenant: University of Richmond Athletics
 Seats: 9,171
 Club
Cl b Seats:
S
0
Page 54
Confidential
C.
Primary
y Facilities – Surroundingg Markets
 John Paul Jones Arena
 Location: Charlottesville, VA
 Opened: 2006
 Primary Tenant: University of Virginia Athletics
 Operator: SMG
 Capacity
– Basketball Configuration
14,858
– 360 Degree Configuration
15,405
– 270 Degree Configuration (End Stage) 14,075
 Distance from Richmond, VA: 69 Miles
Page 55
Confidential
C.
Primary
 Scope Arena
 Location: Norfolk, VA
 Opened: 1971
 Primary Tenant: Norfolk Admirals (AHL)
 Operator: Seven Venues
 Seats: 13,300
 Club Seats: 0
Page 56
Confidential
C.
Primary
 Hampton Coliseum
 Location: Hampton, VA
 Opened: 1970
 Primary Tenant: NA
 Operator: City of Hampton
 Seats: 13,800
 Club Seats: 0
 Ted Constant Convocation
 Location: Norfolk, VA
 Opened: 2002
 Primary Tenant: Old Dominion University Athletics
 Operator: Global Spectrum
 Seats: 9,400
 Luxury Suites:16
 Club Seats: 862
Page 57
Confidential
C.
Other Noteworthyy Facilities – In-Market
 Richmond International Raceway
 Location: Richmond, VA
 Opened: 1946
 Owner / Operator: Int’l Speedway Corp.
 Seats: 112,029
 Significant Premium Seating Inventory
– Luxury Suites: 40
– Club
Cl b Seats:
S t 700
– Capital One Corporate Hospitality Pavilion/Torque Club/Pit Stop Club
 NASCAR, Izod IndyCar and Other Events
– Hosts Two NASCAR Doubleheader Weekends Annually
» NASCAR Sprint Cup Series
» NASCAR Nationwide Series
– Hosts One Izod IndyCar Series Race Annually
 The Diamond
 Opened: 1985 (2009 Renovation)
 Primary Tenant: Richmond Flying Squirrels (Double-A )
 Seats: 9,600
 Club Seats: 0
Page 58
Confidential
C.
Secondary Facilities – In-Market
 University of Richmond Stadium (City Stadium)
 Location: Richmond, VA
 Opened:
O
d 1929
 Seats: 21,319
 E. Claiborne Robins Stadium – University of Richmond






Location: Richmond, VA
Renovated: 2010
Primary Tenant: University of Richmond Athletics
Seats: 8,700
8 700
Luxury Suites: 7
Club Seats: 0
 Rogers Stadium – Virginia State University




Location: Petersburg, VA
Opened: 1950
g
State Universityy Athletics
Primaryy Tenant: Virginia
Seats: 13,500
Page 59
Confidential
C.
Secondary
 William & Mary Hall
 Opened: 1970
 Seats: 11,300
 Luxury Suites / Club Seats: 0 / 0
 Primary Tenant: The College of William & Mary Athletics
 Harbor Park
 Opened: 1993
 Seats: 12,067
 Primary Tenant: Norfolk Tides (Triple A)
Page 60
Confidential
C.
Secondary
y Facilities – Surroundingg Markets ((Continued))
 Foreman Field at S.B. Ballard Stadium
 Opened: 1936
 Seats: 26,000
 Primary Tenant: Old Dominion University Athletics
 Other
 Hampton University Convocation Center
 William J. Zable Stadium (The College of William & Mary)
 Armstrong Stadium (Hampton University)
Page 61
Confidential
C.
 General Observations
 Competitive Facilities in Immediate Market Vicinity Provide Limited Direct Competition to
Proposed Arena
– Events/Tenants
E t /T
t
– Premium Seating Leasing
– Other
 Facilities Located in Neighboring Communities (e.g, Charlottesville/Hampton/Norfolk)
Provide Direct Competition (Significant Issue)
– Events/Tenants
– Other
 John Paul Jones Arena Provides Most Significant Source of Competition
– State-of-the-Art Facility
– Large Capacity
– Events/Tenants
– Premium Seating Leasing (Limited)
Page 62
Confidential
D. Comparable Facility Overview
Page 63
Confidential
D.
Comparable Facility Overview
Median Market Analysis
y
 Identified the Following Primary Comparable Facilities – Median Market Analysis
 Markets May Include More than One Facility (e.g., Norfolk (Scope Arena), Salt Lake City
(Energy Solutions Arena),
Arena) Oklahoma City (Cox Convention Center Arena),
Arena) etc.)
etc )
Market
Oklahoma City, OK
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Jacksonville, FL
Fresno, CA
Indianapolis
Carmel, IN
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Salt Lake City, UT
Birmingham Hoover AL
Birmingham-Hoover,
Tucson, AZ
Rochester, NY
Arena
KFC Yum! Center
Cedar Park Center
Ford Center
Dunkin' Donuts Center
Time Warner Cable Arena
FedexForum
Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Arena
Save Mart Center
Ted Constant Convocation Center
Conseco Fieldhouse
New Orleans Arena
RBC Center
Maverik Center
Bridgestone Arena
HSBC Arena
Bradley Center
Bartow Arena
XL Center
McKale Memorial Center
Blue Cross Arena
Opened
2010
2009
2009 R
2008 R
2005
2004
2003
2003
2002
1999
1999
1999
1997
1996
1996
1988
1988
1975
1973
1955
Capacity Suites Club Seats
22,000
75
2,854
8,700
24
545
20,817
36
2,620
14,572
20
0
20,200
60
2,600
18,119
59
1,642
16,000
28
1,116
15,585
40
0
9,400
16
862
18,500
69
2,640
18,000
56
2,800
19,500
66
2,000
10,500
41
1,750
22,669
72
1,100
21,500
80
2,500
20,000
52
500
8 500
8,500
0
0
16,500
46
302
14,500
0
0
14,000
25
0
Average
16,478
Average - Excluding NBA/NHL
13,660
A
Average
-E
Excluding
l di NBA/NHL/Since
NBA/NHL/Si
1990
13 822
13,822
Sources: Claritas 2010, 2010 Audarena, 2010 Sports Business Resource Guide and Fact Book, and industry research.
Note: Capacity listed represents arenas' maximum capacity.
43
29
35
Primary Tenant
Basketball
Hockey
NCAA
NBADL
AHL
NBA
NCAA
AHL
NBA
AHL
NBA / NCAA
NCAA
NCAA
NCAA
NBA / WNBA
NBA
NCAA
NHL
ECHL
NHL
NHL
NBA / NCAA
AHL
NCAA
NCAA
AHL
NCAA
AHL
Other
AFL
AFL
NLL
AFL
NLL
1,292
675
1 018
1,018
Page 64
Confidential
D.
Median Market Analysis
y
 Premium Seating Pricing (Excluding NBA/NHL Arenas)
In-Market Arenas Premium Seating Inventory and Pricing Overview
Market
Fresno,, CA
Jacksonville, FL
Arena
KFC Yum! Center
Cedar Park Center
Save Mart Center
Salt Lake City, UT
Maverik Center
Tucson, AZ
Rochester NY
Rochester,
Bartow Arena
XL Center
McKale Memorial Center
Blue Cross Arena
Average
Opened Capacity
2010
22,000
2009
8,700
2008 R
14,572
2003
15,585
,
2003
16,000
2002
9,400
1997
10,500
1988
8,500
1975
16,500
1973
14,500
1955
14 000
14,000
13,660
Luxury
Suites Low Price High Price
75
$85,000
$92,000
24
$50,000
$75,000
20
$50,000
$50,000
40
$45,000
,
$65,000
,
28
NA
NA
16
$22,000
$22,000
41
$45,000
$65,000
0
NA
NA
46
$35,000
$55,000
0
NA
NA
25
$40 000
$40,000
$50 000
$50,000
29
$46,500
$59,250
Club
Seats Low Price High Price
2,854 $1,500
$1,500
545
$1,500
$1,500
0
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
1,116
NA
NA
862
$3,000
$3,000
1,750
$920
$920
0
NA
NA
302
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
675
$1,730
$1,730
NA - Not Available/Not Applicable.
Source: 2010 Revenues from Sports Venues and industry research.
Note: RSV statistics may differ somewhat from the actual indicators of certain facilities and have been provided for illustrative purposes only.
Page 65
Confidential
D.
Minor League
g Hockeyy Analysis
y
 Identified the Following Facilities – AHL Hockey Arenas
Team
Abbotsford Heat
Texas Stars
Providence Bruins
Charlotte Checkers
Manitoba Moose
Houston Aeros
Toronto Marlies
H h B
Hershey
Bears
San Antonio Rampage
Bridgeport Sound Tigers
Manchester Monarchs
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins
Grand Rapids Griffins
Lake Erie Monsters
Albany Devils
Milwaukee Admirals
Hamilton Bulldogs
Peoria Rivermen
Worcester Sharks
Rockford Ice Hogs
Chicago Wolves
Adirondack Phantoms
Hartford Wolf Pack
Portland Pirates
Oklahoma City Barons
Binghamton Senators
Springfield Falcons
Norfolk Admirals
Rochester Americans
Syracuse Crunch
Average
Average - Since 1990
Arena
Abbotsford Entertainment & Sports Centre
Cedar Park Center
MTS Centre
Toyota Center
Ricoh Coliseum
Gi C
Giant
Center
AT&T Center
The Arena at Harbor Yard
Verizon Wireless Arena
Mohegan Sun Arena at Casey Plaza
Van Andel Arena
Quicken Loans Arena
Times Union Center
Bradley Center
Copps Coliseum
Peoria Civic Center Arena
DCU Center
Rockford MetroCentre
Allstate Arena
Glens Falls Civic Center
XL Center
Cumberland County Civic Center
Cox Convention Center Arena
Broome County Veterans Memorial Arena
MassMutual Center
Scope Arena
Blue Cross Arena
Onondaga County War Memorial
Year
2009
2009
2008 R
2005
2004
2003
2003
2002
2002
2001
2001
1999
1996
1994
1990
1988
1985
1982
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1973
1972
1972
1971
1955
1951
Hockey
p y
Capacity
8,500
6,800
12,993
14,100
15,000
18,500
9,200
10 500
10,500
18,500
10,000
10,019
8,300
11,500
20,562
15,000
18,633
17,500
10,400
14,000
8,900
18,000
17,380
15,418
7,800
13,339
5,475
8,820
10,500
9,337
6 700
6,700
Luxury
Suites
20
24
20
60
46
92
38
40
54
41
34
32
44
88
25
52
10
0
NA
11
40
0
46
0
NA
0
0
0
25
0
Club Seats
200
545
0
2,600
1,500
2,860
1,100
688
NA
1,300
600
624
1,800
2,336
0
500
0
0
0
120
0
0
302
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
12,389
12,632
30
44
610
1,154
Source: 2010 Revenues from Sports Venues, 2010 Sports Business Resource Guide and Fact Book, theAHL.com and industry research.
Page 66
Confidential
D.
Minor League
g Hockeyy Analysis
y
 Identified the Following Facilities – AHL Hockey Arenas (Since 1990)
Team
T
Abbotsford Heat
Texas Stars
Providence Bruins
Charlotte Checkers
Manitoba Moose
Houston Aeros
Toronto Marlies
Hershey Bears
San Antonio Rampage
Manchester Monarchs
Lake Erie Monsters
Albany Devils
Arena
A
Cedar Park Center
MTS Centre
Toyota Center
Ricoh Coliseum
Giant Center
AT&T Center
Van Andel Arena
Quicken Loans Arena
Times Union Center
Average
Average - Excluding NBA Arenas
Year
Y
2009
2009
2008 R
2005
2004
2003
2003
2002
2002
2001
2001
1999
1996
1994
1990
Hockey
C
Capacity
it
8,500
6,800
12,993
14,100
15,000
,
18,500
9,200
10,500
18,500
10,000
10,019
8,300
11,500
20,562
15,000
Luxury
S it
Suites
20
24
20
60
46
92
38
40
54
41
34
32
44
88
25
Cl b S
Club
Seats
t
200
545
0
2,600
1,500
,
2,860
1,100
688
NA
1,300
600
624
1,800
2,336
0
12,632
10,710
44
33
1,154
760
Source: 2010 Revenues from Sports Venues, 2010 Sports Business Resource Guide and Fact Book, theAHL.com and industry research.
Page 67
Confidential
D.
Minor League
g Hockeyy Analysis
y
 Premium Seating – AHL Hockey Arenas (Excluding NBA Arenas)
Team
Abbotsford Heat
Texas Stars
Providence Bruins
Manitoba Moose
Toronto Marlies
Hershey Bears
M h
Manchester
M
Monarchs
h
Albany Devils
Hamilton Bulldogs
Peoria Rivermen
Worcester Sharks
Rockford Ice Hogs
Chicago Wolves
Adirondack Phantoms
Hartford Wolf Pack
Portland Pirates
Oklahoma City Barons
Binghamton Senators
Springfield Falcons
Norfolk Admirals
Rochester Americans
Syracuse Crunch
AHL Premium Seating Inventory and Pricing Overview
Luxury
Suites Low Price
Opened
Arena
Cedar Park Center
MTS Centre
Ricoh Coliseum
Giant Center
V i
Verizon
Wi
Wireless
l Arena
A
Van Andel Arena
Times Union Center
Copps Coliseum
Peoria Civic Center Arena
DCU Center (1)
Rockford MetroCentre
Allstate Arena
Glens Falls Civic Center
XL Center
Cumberland County Civic Center
Cox Convention Center Arena
Broome County Veterans Memorial Arena
MassMutual Center
Scope Arena
Blue Cross Arena
Onondaga County War Memorial
Average
2009
2009
2008 R
2004
2003
2002
2001
2001
1999
1996
1990
1985
1982
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1973
1972
1972
1971
1955
1951
High Price
Club
Seats
Low Price
High Price
20
24
20
46
38
40
41
34
32
44
25
10
0
NA
11
40
0
46
0
NA
0
0
0
25
0
$33,000
$50,000
$50,000
$40,000
$44,000
$40,000
$16,000
$49 500
$49,500
$35,000
$30,000
$48,000
$30,000
NA
NA
$45,000
$37,500
NA
$35,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$40,000
NA
$47,500
$75,000
$50,000
$60,000
$61,000
$55,000
$35,000
$49 500
$49,500
$37,500
$35,000
$48,000
$30,000
NA
NA
$45,000
$37,500
NA
$55,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$50,000
NA
200
545
0
1,500
1,100
688
1,300
600
624
1,800
0
0
0
0
120
0
0
302
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
$1,500
$1,500
NA
$1,705
$2,200
$590
$1,295
$1 600
$1,600
$1,500
$859
NA
NA
NA
NA
$2,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$1,750
$1,500
NA
$1,705
$2,388
$590
$1,295
$1 600
$1,600
$2,000
$859
NA
NA
NA
NA
$2,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22
$38,938
$48,188
366
$1,475
$1,569
Source: 2010 Revenues from Sports Venues, 2010 Sports Business Resource Guide and Fact Book and industry research.
Note: AHL overview reflects 2010-2011 realignment.
(1) - DCU Center has been excluded from suite inventory and pricing averages. DCU Center has 2 suites priced at $4,000.
Page 68
Confidential
D.
Minor League
g Hockeyy Analysis
y
 Identified the Following Facilities – ECHL Hockey Arenas
Team
Arena
Year
Hockey
Capacity
Toledo Walleye
Ontario Reign
Victoria Salmon Kings
Stockton Thunder
G i tt Gladiators
Gwinnett
Gl di t
Las Vegas Wranglers
Reading Royals
Elmira Jackals
Trenton Devils
Bakersfield Condors
Florida Everblades
Greenville Road Warriors
Idaho Steelheads
Utah Grizzlies
South Carolina Stingrays
Alaska Aces
Wheeling Nailers
Kalamazoo Wings
Cincinnati Cyclones
Lucas County Arena
Citizens Business Bank Arena
Save On Foods Memorial Centre
Stockton Events Center
Th A
The
Arena att G
Gwinnett
i tt Center
C t
Orleans Arena
Reading Sovereign Center
First Arena
Sun National Bank Center
Rabobank Arena
Germain Arena
Bi-Lo Center
Qwest Arena
Maverik Center
North Charleston Coliseum
Sullivan Sports Arena
WesBanco Arena
Wings Stadium
U.S. Bank Arena
2009
2008
2006
2005
2003
2003
2001
2000
1999
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
1993
1983
1976
1974
1948
7,667
9,500
7,000
10,000
11 000
11,000
7,000
7,200
3,974
8,600
10,200
7,000
7,404
5,006
10,500
12,000
6,500
7,600
5,595
16,949
20
36
0
24
36
22
20
31
32
27
26
30
38
41
8
0
0
0
39
850
770
1,000
500
1 390
1,390
220
850
800
1,150
1,000
0
1,000
1,000
1,750
0
0
0
0
0
8,458
8
458
8,270
23
26
646
819
Average
Average - Since 1990
Luxury
Suites
Club Seats
Source: 2010 Revenues from Sports Venues, 2010 Sports Business Resource Guide and Fact Book, ECHL.com and industry research.
Page 69
Confidential
D.
Minor League
g Hockeyy Analysis
y
 Premium Seating – ECHL Hockey Arenas
ECHL Premium Seating Inventory and Pricing Overview
Team
Alaska Aces
Bakersfield Condors
Cincinnati Cyclones
Elmira Jackals
Fl id Everblades
Florida
E bl d
Greenville Road Warriors
Gwinnett Gladiators
Idaho Steelheads
Kalamazoo Wings
Las Vegas Wranglers
Ontario Reign
Reading Royals
South Carolina Stingrays
Stockton Thunder
Toledo Walleye
Trenton Devils
Utah Grizzlies
Victoria Salmon Kings
Wheeling Nailers
Arena
Sullivan Sports Arena
Rabobank Arena
U.S. Bank Arena
First Arena
G
Germain
i Arena
A
Bi-Lo Center
The Arena at Gwinnett Center
Qwest Arena
Wings Stadium
Orleans Arena
Citizens Business Bank Arena
Reading Sovereign Center
North Charleston Coliseum
Stockton Events Center
Lucas County Arena
Sun National Bank Center
Maverik Center
Save On Foods Memorial Centre
WesBanco Arena
Average
Opened
1983
1998
1948
2000
1998
1998
2003
1997
1974
2003
2008
2001
1993
2005
2009
1999
1997
2006
1976
Luxury
Suites
0
27
39
31
26
30
36
38
0
22
36
20
8
24
20
32
41
0
0
Low Price
NA
$25,000
$45,000
$8,500
$45 000
$45,000
NA
$50,000
$17,000
NA
$75,000
$50 000
$50,000
$34,000
$45,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$45,000
,
NA
NA
High Price
NA
$75,000
$60,000
$24,000
$45 000
$45,000
NA
$70,000
$40,000
NA
$75,000
$80 000
$80,000
$34,000
$45,000
$35,000
$55,000
$60,000
$65,000
,
NA
NA
Club
Seats
0
1,000
0
800
0
1,000
1,390
1,000
0
220
770
850
0
500
850
1,150
1,750
,
1,000
0
Low Price
NA
$870
NA
$532
NA
NA
$1,500
$805
NA
$1,850
$1 150
$1,150
$880
NA
$1,750
$1,360
$973
$920
$792
NA
High Price
NA
$870
NA
$532
NA
NA
$1,700
$1,035
NA
$1,850
$1 150
$1,150
$880
NA
$1,750
$1,360
$973
$920
$1,042
NA
23
$39,964
$54,500
646
$1,115
$1,172
Source: 2010 Revenues from Sports
p
Venues,, 2010 Sports
p
Business Resource Guide and Fact Book and industry
y research.
Note: ECHL overview reflects 2010-2011 realignment.
Page 70
Confidential
E. Promoter/User Interviews
Page 71
Confidential
E.
 Richmond Coliseum Lacks Amenities of Newer Facilities and is a Challenging Venue for Events
 Loading Dock
 Rigging
 Backstage Areas/Star Areas
p
to Current Configuration
g
 Promoters Would Prefer More Seats in the Lower Bowl as Compared
 Richmond Market Loses Events to John Paul Jones Arena Due to Size/Condition of the Richmond
Coliseum
 Promoters Would Prefer Richmond Market Over Charlottesville
g there are Few Shows that Currentlyy Need Capacity
p y of a Large
g Arena
 Promoters Acknowledged
(16,000+)
 Ticket Tax/Facility Fees are Potential Deterrents for Promoters/Acts – Current Rate 7.0%
 New/Renovated Arena Should Attempt to Maximize 270 and 180 Degree Configurations
Page 72
Confidential
E.
 CAA Representatives Indicated Capacity Over 16,000+ Would Not be Desirable
 Prefer a Downtown Site
 Premium Seating is Not a Significant Issue
 CAA Would Consider Long-Term Agreement – Desire Office Space (At Arena or Other Site)
 Agreement Recently Extended through 2014
 NCAA Representatives Indicated Minimum Capacity of 12,000 for Tournament Early Rounds
 Richmond Would Potentially be a Considered Market
 Significant Competition on the East Coast to Host Tournament
 ACC Representatives Indicated Capacity Between 18,000 to 20,000+ Would Likely be Required
 Richmond Would be an Attractive Market (Nine Universities within Driving Distance)
 ACC Focusing on Newer Arenas – Amenities/Seating Characteristics
 Greensboro will Host Four of Five Next Tournaments (ACC Based in Greensboro)
 Two Minor League Hockey Ownership Groups Expressed Significant Interest in New/Renovated
Arena (AHL/ECHL Options)
Page 73
Confidential
E.
 AHL Representatives Indicated Potential Interest in the Richmond Market
 Arena Size is Important – Curtain System to 7,000 Seats
 ECHL Representatives Indicated Potential Interest in the Richmond Market
 Arena Size is Important – 13,000 Seats is Big
 Generally Prefer Downtown Arenas
 WNBA Representatives Indicated Potential Interest in the Richmond Market (League has Not
C d t d Detail
Conducted
D t il Research)
R
h)
 Richmond is a Top 10 TV Market for the League
 Corporate Support is Important
 Prefer Arenas with Less than 18,000 Seats – Curtain System is Important
 NBA D League Representatives Indicated Potential Interest in the Richmond Market (League has
Not Conducted Detail Research)
 Condition of the Coliseum is Issue with Market
 Prefer Arena with Approximately 6,000 Seats – Curtain System is Important
Page 74
Confidential
E.
 Balancing the Needs of Potential Arena Tenants Is Key to Optimizing Seating Capacity
Local Partners
Minor League Hockey
Public Partners
• City of Richmond
• Chesterfield County
• Hanover County
• Henrico County
Private Partners
• Altria Group Inc.
• Dominion Resources Inc.
• Genworth Financial Inc.
• MeadWestvaco
Concert Promoters
Desired End Stage Configuration
Capacity: 12,000-13,000+
(On Occasion, Acts Generate
Attendance of 15,000+)
Preference for Greater Portion of Lower
Bowl Seats and Maximizing Arena
Intimacy
College Basketball
NCAA Tournament Minimum
Capacity: 12,000
AHL Average Attendance: 5,193
AHL Home Venues of 13,000+: 13
ECHL Average Attendance: 4,563
ECHL Home Venues of 13,000+: 1
NBA Affiliates
CAA Tournament Desired Capacity:
Less Than 16,000
ACC Tournament Desired Capacity:
20,000+
Conventions
Jehovah’s Witnesses:
Maximum Audience: Typically 10,000
(Nature and Length of Events Require
Proper Lighting and Sufficient Restrooms)
NBDL Desired Capacity: 6,000
Family Shows
Richmond is a Top 10 Television
Market for the WNBA
Page 75
Confidential
F. Potential Tenant Mix
Page 76
Confidential
F.
Potential Tenant Mix
Minor League
g Hockeyy
 North American Minor League System Consists of a Combination of Affiliated and Independent
Leagues
 Two Primary NHL Affiliated Leagues
 AHL (Highest Level of North American Minor League Hockey)
– Generally Each NHL Team has an Exclusive Affiliation with One AHL Club
– Occasionally an NHL Team Will Not be Able to Negotiate a Satisfactory Affiliate
Agreement and is Forced to Spread its Prospects to Various Minor League Clubs
 ECHL
– Presently 18 of 19 ECHL Teams Have at Least One NHL Affiliate
– Several NHL Teams Share ECHL Affiliations with Another NHL Team
– Presently 5 of 30 NHL Teams Do Not Have an ECHL Affiliate
g
Comprised
p
of Players
y Drafted byy NHL Clubs Out of Canadian Juniors,, Collegiate
g
 Both Leagues
Hockey or International Leagues
Page 77
Confidential
F.
North American Minor League
g Hockeyy Summaryy
 Primary U.S. Independent Leagues – CHL/USHL
 Both Leagues Comprised of Players Not Under the Control of NHL Clubs
 CHL Recently Merged with IHL
 AHL is the Most Stable of the Affiliated and Independent Leagues
Page 78
Confidential
F.
AHL Franchise Map (2010
(2010-2011)
2011)
Page 79
Confidential
F.
Minor League
g Hockeyy Overview – AHL
 Average Announced Attendance
 Announced Figures Illustrated
Below are Typically Higher than
Actual/Turnstile Attendance
Note: Reflects 2009-10 Teams
and Does Not Reflect 2010-11
League Composition
Average Attendance
Team
2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Hershey
8,770
8,987
9,520
Manitoba
7,807
7,769
8,086
Chicago
7,474
7,316
7,963
Grand Rapids
6,898
7,448
7,016
W-B/Scranton
7,667
6,984
6,270
Providence
6,107
6,343
6,770
Lake Erie
5,974
5,934
6,484
Houston
6,280
5,982
5,770
Manchester
6,706
5,882
5,293
Milwaukee
5,517
5,878
6,027
Syracuse
5 442
5,442
5 211
5,211
5 294
5,294
Rochester
6,835
4,080
4,236
San Antonio
4,520
5,167
5,235
Portland
4,861
4,828
4,345
Hamilton
4,575
4,624
4,374
Peoria
4,441
4,019
4,560
Bridgeport
4,196
4,528
4,092
Hartford
4,405
4,190
4,188
Norfolk
4,241
4,109
3,855
Toronto
4,348
3,728
4,070
Worcester
4,344
3,902
3,672
Rockford
3,826
3,909
3,978
Binghamton
4,069
3,917
3,629
Albany
3 940
3,940
3 539
3,539
3 751
3,751
Springfield
3,481
3,952
3,644
Lowell
2,102
2,293
2,498
Texas
NA
NA
5,355
Adirondack
NA
NA
4,018
Abbotsford
NA
NA
3,897
Iowa
3,789
4,322
NA
Philadelphia
6,679
6,459
NA
Quad City
3,523
3,035
NA
League
5,270
5,115
5,100
3-Year
Average Rank
9,092
1
7,887
2
7,584
3
7,121
4
6,974
5
6,407
6
6,131
7
6,011
8
5,960
9
5,807
10
5 316
5,316
11
5,050
12
4,974
13
4,678
14
4,524
15
4,340
16
4,272
17
4,261
18
4,068
19
4,049
20
3,973
21
3,904
22
3,872
23
3 743
3,743
24
3,692
25
2,298
26
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5,230
Source: AHL.com.
Page 80
Confidential
F.
ECHL Franchise Map (2010
(2010-2011)
2011)
Page 81
Confidential
F.
Minor League
g Hockeyy Overview – ECHL
 Average Announced Attendance
 Announced Figures Illustrated
Below are Typically Higher than
Actual/Turnstile Attendance
Note: Reflects 2009-10 Teams
and Does Not Reflect 2010-11
League Composition
Average
g Attendance
3-Year
Team
2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 Average
Stockton
6,648
6,218
6,031
6,299
Florida
6,033
5,633
5,463
5,710
Charlotte
5,978
5,311
5,518
5,602
Bakersfield
5,628
5,545
5,265
5,479
Gwinnett
5,656
5,559
5,166
5,460
Reading
5,430
5,005
4,943
5,126
South Carolina
5,009
5,001
4,824
4,945
Victoria
4,871
4,923
4,369
4,721
Alaska
4,717
4,682
4,697
4,699
Las Vegas
4 970
4,970
4 621
4,621
4 350
4,350
4 647
4,647
Idaho
4,389
3,954
3,949
4,097
Utah
3,834
3,656
4,119
3,870
Elmira
3,525
3,332
3,661
3,506
Cincinnati
2,523
3,104
3,887
3,171
Trenton
3,315
2,754
2,509
2,859
Wheeling
2 829
2,829
2 923
2,923
2 727
2,727
2 826
2,826
Johnstown
2,346
2,212
2,053
2,204
Ontario
NA
5,856
6,451
NA
Toledo
NA
NA
6,294
NA
Kalamazoo
NA
NA
3,433
NA
Dayton
3,663
3,679
NA
NA
F
Fresno
5 035
5,035
3 284
3,284
NA
NA
Mississippi
3,845
3,156
NA
NA
Phoenix
3,347
3,025
NA
NA
Augusta
2,835
2,722
NA
NA
Columbia
3,056
NA
NA
NA
Pensacola
2,804
NA
NA
NA
Texas
2,052
NA
NA
NA
League
4,174
4,181
4,485
4,425
Source: ECHL.com.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Page 82
Confidential
F.
Arena Football
 Primary U.S. Arena/Indoor Football League is the Arena Football League (AFL)
 Original AFL Founded in 1987
 Continuous Play from 1987 to 2008
 Founded Development League (af2) in 1999
 December 2008 AFL Cancelled the 2009 Season (Financial Difficulties)
– Sought to Improve Business Model
 August 2009 AFL Declared Bankruptcy
– af2 Subsequently Folded in September 2009
 December 2009 Arena Football One Completed the Purchase of the Assets of the Defunct AFL
 February 2010 Arena Football One Re-Branded Entity as the Arena Football League
– Launched Inaugural Season in April 2010
» Single Entity League
» NFL Network Broadcast Deal (Initial One Year Term)
» 2010 Average Attendance: 8,154, Excluding Season’s Last Week (Down from 12,957
in 2008)
» 18 Teams
T
f the
for
th 2011 Season
S
Page 83
Confidential
F.
Arena Football
 Three Other Noteworthy Competitive Arena Football Leagues
 Indoor Football League (IFL)
– Created in 2008, Currently with 22 Teams
– Formed via Merger of the Intense Football League and United Indoor Football
 Southern Indoor Football League (SIFL)
– Founded in 2008, Currently with 16 Teams
– Merged
g with American Indoor Football Association East ((AIFA East)) in November 2009
» AIFA East and AIFA West Split Along Regional Lines to Minimize Travel Expenses
 AIFA West
– AIFA Originally Formed in 2006
– Four Teams Remain in AIFA West
 Richmond Hosts Both an SIFL Team and a IFL Team
 Richmond Raiders – SIFL
– Home
H
G
Games
Pl d att the
Played
th Richmond
Ri h
d Coliseum
C li
– 2010 Average Home Attendance: 2,884 (For Games Disclosed)
 Richmond Revolution – IFL
– 2010 Home Games Played at the Arthur Ashe Athletic Center
– Plan to Move to SportsQuest Arena
– 2010 Average Home Attendance: NA
Page 84
Confidential
F.
Arena Football League (AFL) Franchise Map (2011)
Page 85
Confidential
F.
Indoor Football League (IFL) Franchise Map (2011)
Page 86
Confidential
F.
Southern Indoor Football League (SIFL) Franchise Map (2011)
Page 87
Confidential
F.
Other
 CAA Basketball Tournament
 NCAA Games/Tournaments
 High School Tournaments
 WNBA
 NBA Development League
 Indoor Lacrosse
 Concerts
 Family Shows
 Boxing/Mixed Martial Arts
 Conventions/Conferences/Trade
C
ti /C f
/T d Shows/Meetings
Sh
/M ti
 Religious Events
 Other
Page 88
Confidential
III.
MARKET SURVEYS – GENERAL PUBLIC
Page 89
Confidential
III.
Overview
 Approximately 42,445 Web-Based Surveys Distributed – 1,516 Surveys Completed
Probability Percentage or Margin of Error But Utilizes Results as a Guide and Comparative Tool
 Results Included Herein are Provided for Illustrative Purposes
Note: Total Surveys Distributed Above Does Not Include Surveys Randomly Forwarded or
Completed Through Other Non-Approved Distribution Methods (If Any)
Page 90
Confidential
III.
A. Completed Surveys
B. Facilityy Event/Attendance
C. Existing Sports and Entertainment Facilities
D. Renovated Coliseum/New Arena Development
E Project Support
E.
F. Miscellaneous
G. Demographics
H. General Comments
Page 91
Confidential
A.
Completed Surveys
Completed Surveys – Summary of Findings
 Approximately 79% (1,201) of Respondents Live and/or Work in the Greater Richmond Area
 Of the Approximately 21% (315) of Respondents that Do Not Live and/or Work in the Greater
Richmond Area:
 Approximately
A
i
l 26% (83) Visit
Vi i Richmond
Ri h
d 1-2
1 2 Times
Ti
per Year
Y
 Approximately 22% (68) Visit Richmond 3-4 Times per Year
 Approximately 52% (164) Visit Richmond 5+ Times per Year
Note: 13 Respondents were Screened out of Survey – Do Not Live/Work/Visit Richmond
 Approximately 45% (680) of Respondents were Aware that a Renovation or New Arena
Development was Being Studied
Page 92
Confidential
A.
Completed Surveys
 Completed Surveys by Respondents Residence/Place of Work
Live/Work in Greater Richmond Area
100%
75%
50%
79%
25%
21%
0%
Yes
No
Page 93
Confidential
A.
Completed Surveys
 Annual Visits by Respondents that Do Not Live/Work in the Greater Richmond Area
Visits to the Greater Richmond Area
100%
75%
50%
52%
25%
26%
22%
0%
1 to 2 Visits
Annually
3 to 4 Visits
Annually
5 or More Visits
Annually
Page 94
Confidential
A.
Completed Surveys
 Study Awareness
Aware Proposed Renovation or New Arena was being
Studied
100%
75%
50%
25%
45%
55%
0%
Yes
No
Page 95
Confidential
B.
Facility/Event Attendance
Facility/Event Attendance – Summary of Findings
 Approximately 77% (1,173) of Respondents have Attended an Event at the Richmond Coliseum
in the Past 12 Months
 Respondents Generally Rated the Following Reasons Why They Did Not Attend More Events at
the Richmond Coliseum
 Highest Scores
– Not Interested
– Condition of the Richmond Coliseum
 Lowest Scores
– Traffic
 Other Reasons Cited
– No Hockey
– Economy
– Quality of Acoustics
Page 96
Confidential
B.
Richmond Coliseum Attendance
Attended an Event at Richmond Coliseum
in the Past 12 Months
100%
75%
50%
65%
25%
23%
10%
0%
Yes, 1 to 2
Events
Yes, 3 to 4
Events
3%
Yes, 5 or
More Events
No
Page 97
Confidential
B.
Richmond Coliseum Attendance
 Respondents Rated the Following Reasons Why They Did Not an Event at the Richmond
Coliseum in the Past 12 Months
Reasons Not Attending an Event at Richmond
Coliseum in the Past 12 Months
No Interest in Event
66%
Condition of the Richmond Coliseum
24%
Cost of Events
21%
P ki
Parking
21%
Not Enough Spare Time
15%
Location of the Richmond Coliseum
15%
Safety Concerns
15%
Traffic
9%
Other
17%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Page 98
Confidential
B.
Facility/Event Attendance – Summary of Findings
 Respondents were Asked if They had Attended an Event(s) at other Local/Regional Facilities
(Non-Stadiums) in the Past 12 Months
 Highest Scores
– Landmark Theatre
– Verizon
V i
Wi l Arena
Wireless
A
at the
h Siegel
Si l Center
C
– John Paul Jones Arena
– Verizon Center (Washington, D.C.)
 Lowest Scores
– Ted Constant Convocation Center
– Norfolk Scope Arena
– Hampton Coliseum
Page 99
Confidential
B.
Other Local/Regional Facilities Attendance
Attended at Least One Event at the Following
Facilities in the Past 12 Months
46%
Landmark Theatre
Verizon Wireless Arena at the
Siegel Center
30%
John Paul Jones Arena
25%
Verizon Center (Washington, D.C.)
25%
17%
Richmond Center Stage
15%
Hampton Coliseum
14%
Robins Center
11%
Norfolk Scope Arena
0%
8%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Page 100
Confidential
C.
Existing Sports and Entertainment Facilities
Existing Sports and Entertainment Facilities – Summary of Findings
 Only 18% (271) of Respondents Believe that the Existing Sports and Entertainment Facilities in
the Greater Richmond Area Adequately Meet the Needs of Residents
 Approximately 63% (950) of Respondents Believe that the Existing Sports and
Entertainment Facilities in the Greater Richmond Area Do Not Adequately Meet the Needs
of Residents
 Approximately 54% (818) of Respondents Do Not Believe that the Richmond Coliseum is
Adequate to Attract Sporting Events
Adequate to Attract Concerts
Adequate to Attract Family Shows
Adequate to Attract Meetings/Conferences
Page 101
Confidential
C.
Community Needs
"I believe that the existing
g sports
p
and entertainment
facilities in the Greater Richmond Area adequately
meet the current needs of community residents."
50%
40%
30%
20%
36%
27%
10%
14%
19%
4%
0%
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Page 102
Confidential
C.
Adequacy/Inadequacy of the Richmond Coliseum to Attract Sporting Events
"I believe that the Richmond Coliseum is adequate to
attract sporting events (minor league hockey, minor
league basketball, arena football, etc.)."
50%
40%
30%
20%
31%
23%
10%
19%
21%
6%
0%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Page 103
Confidential
C.
Adequacy/Inadequacy of the Richmond Coliseum to Attract Concerts
attract concerts."
50%
40%
30%
20%
30%
30%
10%
15%
19%
6%
0%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Page 104
Confidential
C.
Adequacy/Inadequacy of the Richmond Coliseum to Attract Family Shows
attract family shows (circus, etc.)."
50%
40%
30%
20%
27%
10%
12%
34%
19%
8%
0%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Page 105
Confidential
C.
Adequacy/Inadequacy of the Richmond Coliseum to Attract Meetings/Conferences
attract meetings/conferences."
50%
40%
30%
20%
25%
26%
26%
17%
10%
6%
0%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Page 106
Confidential
D.
Renovated Coliseum/New Arena Development
Renovated Coliseum/New Arena Development – Summary of Findings
 Respondents Generally Supported a Renovated Richmond Coliseum or Construction of a New
Downtown Arena Over Building a New Arena Outside of Downtown or Doing Nothing
 Approximately 89% (1,346) of Respondents Believe that a Renovated Coliseum or New Arena
Development Would be a Benefit to the Community
 Approximately 99% (1,503) of Respondents Would Potentially Attend an Event at a Renovated
Coliseum or New Arena Development
 Respondents Generally Rated the Following Events as the Most Likely They Would Attend
 Highest Scores
– Concerts
C
– Family Shows
– NCAA Tournaments
Page 107
Confidential
D.
Arena Development Options
Numerical Ranking
(1= Strongly Oppose; 5= Strongly Support)
3.53
Renovate Richmond Coliseum
Build New Arena in
Downtown Richmond
3.38
Build New Arena Outside of
Downtown Richmond
3.00
Do Not Renovate Coliseum or
Build New Arena
0.00
1.77
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Page 108
Confidential
D.
Build New Arena in Downtown Richmond
60%
60%
45%
45%
30%
30%
32%
15%
12%
11%
28%
16%
15%
14%
0%
18%
24%
29%
0%
Strongly
Oppose
Moderately
Oppose
Neutral
Moderately
Support
Strongly
Support
Strongly
Oppose
Build New Arena Outside of Downtown Richmond
60%
45%
45%
30%
30%
24%
16%
18%
20%
22%
Moderately
Oppose
Neutral
Strongly
Oppose
Moderately
Oppose
Neutral
Moderately
Support
Strongly
Support
Strongly
Support
59%
15%
15%
19%
3%
0%
0%
Moderately
Support
Do Nothing - Maintain Status Quo
60%
15%
15%
Strongly
Oppose
Moderately
Oppose
Neutral
Moderately
Support
3%
Strongly
Support
Page 109
Confidential
D.
Benefit to Community
"II believe that a renovated Richmond Coliseum or
new arena in Richmond would be a benefit to the
community."
60%
45%
57%
30%
32%
15%
7%
0%
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
3%
Disagree
2%
Strongly
Disagree
Page 110
Confidential
D.
Arena Utilization
Potentially Attend Event at
New Arena or Renovated Coliseum
60%
45%
68%
30%
15%
25%
7%
0%
Definitely
Yes
Probably
Yes
Maybe
1%
Probably
No
0%
Definitely
No
Page 111
Confidential
D.
Arena Utilization – Types of Events
Types of Events to Potentially Attend at New Arena or
Renovated Coliseum
(1= Definitely No, 5=Definitely Yes)
4.23
Concerts
Family Shows (Disney/etc.)
NCAA Tournaments
Professional Ice Show
Minor League Hockey
Meetings/Conferences
Arena Football
Minor League Basketball
Hi h School
High
S h l Tournaments
T
t
Rodeo
Thrill/Dirt Show
Indoor Soccer
Indoor Lacrosse
Wrestling
0.00
3.48
3 43
3.43
2.98
2.94
2.89
2.85
2.61
2 61
2.61
2.56
2.42
2.34
2.12
2.12
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Page 112
Confidential
D.
 Approximately 68% (1,031) of Respondents Indicated that a Renovation of the Richmond
Coliseum or the Development of a Downtown Arena Would Potentially Cause Them to Spend
More Time at Downtown Restaurants, Bars, Retailers, etc. Before and After Events
 Approximately 82% (1,246) of Respondents Indicated that that a Renovation of the Richmond
Coliseum or the Development of a Downtown Arena Would Potentially Contribute to the
Development of New Downtown Restaurants, Bars, Retailers, Hotels, etc.
Page 113
Confidential
D.
Spend More Time Downtown
Spend More Time at Downtown Establishments
(Before/After Events)
60%
45%
30%
33%
15%
35%
17%
12%
3%
0%
Definitely
Yes
Probably
Yes
Maybe
Probably
No
Definitely
No
Page 114
Confidential
D.
Downtown Development
Contribute to Development of Downtown
60%
45%
30%
41%
41%
15%
13%
4%
0%
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
1%
Strongly
Disagree
Page 115
Confidential
E.
Project Support
Project Support – Summary of Findings
 Approximately 86% (1,300) of Respondents Support the Ongoing Efforts to Renovate the
 Approximately 41% (88) of Respondents that Do Not Support the Ongoing Efforts Would Likely
Support the Efforts if the Economy were in a Better Condition
Page 116
Confidential
E.
Project Support
Project Support
Support Project Efforts
60%
45%
30%
54%
32%
15%
10%
0%
Strongly
Support
Moderately
Support
Neutral
2%
Moderately
Oppose
1%
Strongly
Oppose
Page 117
Confidential
E.
Project Support
Project Support
Would Support Project Efforts if
Economy were in Better Condition
60%
45%
30%
35%
37%
15%
16%
6%
6%
0%
Definitely
Yes
Probably
Yes
Maybe
Probably
No
Definitely
No
Page 118
Confidential
F.
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous – Summary of Findings
 Approximately 36% (531) of Respondents Believe that the Richmond Market Would Potentially
Support an NBA Franchise (38% Indicated it Would Not)
Support an NHL Franchise (43% Indicated it Would Not)
Do you believe that the Richmond market would
support an NBA or NHL franchise?
NBA
40%
NHL
27%
24%
30%
20%
27%28%
21%
18%
16%
14%
15%
11%
10%
0%
Definitely
Not
Probably
Not
Maybe
Probably
Yes
Definitely
Yes
Page 119
Confidential
G.
Demographics
Demographics
65 or over
4%
Prefer Not
to Indicate
1%
Prefer Not to
Indicate
1% Doctorate
Degree
Professional
3%
Degree
3%
Demographics
Age
25 or under
4%
Demographics
High School
Education
Some
College
19%
Master’s
Degree
17%
45 to 64
40%
26 to 44
50%
Production/Tec
h
Sales
3%
5%
Clerical
5%
Associates
A
i
Degree
8%
Bachelor’s
Degree
41%
Other, please Demographics
specify
Occupation
10%
Prefer Not to
Indicate
6%
Active Military
0%
Retired
Student
8%
2%
Graduate
7%
Some High
School
0%
Demographics
Income
$25,001 to
$0 to $25,000
2%
Managerial
19%
Professional
37%
Service
4%
$50,000
12%
Prefer Not
to Indicate
19%
Over $100,000
31%
$50,001 to
$75,000
16%
$75,001 to
$100,000
20%
Page 120
Confidential
H.
General Comments
 Approximately 420 Respondents Provided Additional Comments to the Survey
 Common Topics Included
 Coliseum Needs to be Replaced/Renovated
 Hockey
H k is
i a Desired
D i d Tenant
T
t
 Support for Downtown Site/Support for Suburban Site
 Acoustics in the Coliseum Need to be Improved
 Appreciate the Opportunity to Voice Opinion
Page 121
Confidential
IV.
MARKET SURVEYS – CORPORATE BASE
Page 122
Confidential
IV.
Market Surveys – Corporate Base
Overview
 Approximately 1,300+ Web-Based Surveys Distributed – 154 Surveys Completed
 Chamber of Commerce (1,129)
 Venture Richmond (200+)
 Summary Tables Included Herein Reflect Expressions of Interest for Respondents Surveyed –
Must Consider Expression of Interest vs Actual Buying Decision, and Sample Size vs Total
Universe to Assess (Extrapolate) Demand
P b bili Percentage
Probability
P
or Margin
M i off Error
E
B Utilizes
But
U ili
R l as a Guide
Results
G id andd Comparative
C
i Tool
T l
 Results Included Herein are Provided for Illustrative Purposes – Given Regional Nature of
Responses for Certain Questions, Corporate Survey Results May Understate Total Demand
Note: Total Surveys Distributed Above Does Not Include Surveys Randomly Forwarded or
Completed Through Other Non-Approved Distribution Methods (If Any)
Page 123
Confidential
IV.
Market Surveys – Corporate Base
A. Completed Surveys
B. Project Support
C. Renovated Coliseum/New Arena Development
D. Luxury Suites
E. Loge Boxes
F. Club Seats
G Naming
G.
N i Rights/Advertising
Ri h /Ad
ii
H. Miscellaneous
Page 124
Confidential
A.
Completed Surveys
Completed Surveys
 Approximately 98% (154) of Respondents are Located or Conduct Business in the Greater
Richmond Area
Company Located or Conducts Business
in Greater Richmond Area
100%
75%
50%
98%
25%
2%
0%
Yes
No
Page 125
Confidential
B.
Project Support
 Approximately 91% (140) of Respondents Support the Ongoing Efforts to Renovate the
 Approximately 93% (13) of Respondents that Do Not Support the Ongoing Efforts Would Likely
Support the Efforts if the Economy were in a Better Condition
Page 126
Confidential
B.
Project Support
Support Efforts
100%
75%
50%
62%
25%
29%
5%
0%
Strongly
Support
Moderately
Support
Neutral
3%
Moderately
Oppose
1%
Strongly
Oppose
Page 127
Confidential
B.
Project Support
Would Support Project Efforts if
Economy were in Better Condition
60%
45%
30%
43%
15%
29%
21%
7%
0%
Definitely
Yes
Probably
Yes
Maybe
Probably
No
0%
Definitely
No
Page 128
Confidential
C.
 Respondents Generally Supported Construction of a New Downtown Arena or Renovated
Richmond Coliseum Over Building a New Arena Outside of Downtown or Doing Nothing
 Approximately 66% (102) of Respondents Support the Construction of a New Downtown Arena
 Approximately
A
i
l 49% (75) off Respondents
R
d
S
Support
the
h Renovation
R
i off the
h Richmond
Ri h
d Coliseum
C li
 Approximately 24% (37) of Respondents Support Construction of a New Arena Outside of
Downtown
 Approximately 81% (124) of Respondents Oppose Doing Nothing – Not Renovating the
Coliseum or Building a New Arena
Page 129
Confidential
C.
Numerical Ranking
(1= Strongly Oppose; 5= Strongly Support)
Build New Arena in
Downtown Richmond
3.81
Renovate Richmond
Coliseum
3.11
Build New Arena
Outside of Downtown
Richmond
2.38
Do Not Renovate
Coliseum or Build
New Arena
1.60
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Page 130
Confidential
C.
Build New Arena in Downtown Richmond
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
19%
16%
16%
16%
26%
10%
8%
16%
0%
0%
Strongly
Oppose
Moderately
Oppose
Neutral
Moderately
Support
Strongly
Oppose
Strongly
Support
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
40%
Moderately
Oppose
Neutral
Strongly
Support
67%
20%
19%
17%
12%
14%
12%
14%
3%
0%
0%
Strongly
Oppose
Moderately
Support
Do Nothing - Maintain Status Quo
Build New Arena Outside of Downtown Richmond
20%
40%
20%
32%
Moderately
Oppose
Neutral
Moderately
Support
Strongly
Support
Strongly
Oppose
Moderately
Oppose
Neutral
Moderately
Support
3%
Strongly
Support
Page 131
Confidential
D.
Luxury Suites
Overview
 Typical/Traditional Amenities (Per Survey Description)















Preferred
P
f
d parking
ki
Exclusive/private entrances
Exclusive lounge areas
Climate control
Upscale furnishings
Wider, padded comfortable seats
Excellent sight lines
Television monitors
Waiter/waitress service
Upscale food and catering services
C i
Concierge
service
i
Private restrooms
Wet bar
Telephones
Ice makers
Page 132
Confidential
D.
Luxury Suites
Luxury Suites – Summary of Findings
 Respondents were Asked if they Would Potentially be Interested in Leasing State-of-the-Art
Luxury Suites at a Renovated Richmond Coliseum or a New Arena
 Respondents were Advised that Luxury Suite Included 12 Season Tickets to High Level Minor
League Hockey (e.g. AHL/ECHL) and Rights to Purchase Tickets to Other Events
 Interest in Purchasing Luxury Suites – Before Pricing
 Approximately 47% (72) of Respondents Indicated Some Interest
 Interest at Various Price Points (Interest = Definitely Yes/Probably Yes/Maybe)
 $50,000 – 27% (19)
 $35,000 – 38% (27)
 $25,000
$25 000 – 60% (43)
 Si
Significant
ifi t Increase
I
i Demand
in
D
d att $25,000
$25 000 Level
L l as Indicated
I di t d by
b Definitely
D fi it l Yes/Probably
Y /P b bl
Yes Respondents (6% to 24%)
Page 133
Confidential
D.
Luxury Suites
Luxury
y Suites – Summaryy of Findings
g
 Interest in Suite Sharing or Co-Op Opportunities (Price Below Lowest Level)
 Approximately
pp
y 93% ((27)) of Respondents
p
Interested in Suite Sharingg
 Commitment Term
 Respondents Indicated a Preference for Shorter Commitment Terms (3 to 5 Years)
 Respondents Asked to Indicate Interest Level in Luxury Suite Amenities from (1) Definitely Not
Important to (5) Definitely Important
 Highest Scores
 Private Suite Level Restroom
 Premium Catering Menu
Pl
Please
See
S Support
S
t Tables
T bl for
f Findings
Fi di
by
b Category
C t
Page 134
Confidential
D.
Luxury Suites
Luxury Suite Interest (Before Price) – Total (154)
Interest in Leasing Luxury Suites
(Before Pricing)
80%
60%
40%
53%
41%
20%
6%
0%
Yes
Maybe, Depends
Maybe
on Price
No
Page 135
Confidential
D.
Luxury Suites
Interest Level at Various Price Points – Total (72)
Interest in Leasing Luxury Suites
(After Pricing)
Yes
Maybe
No
74%
80%
63%
60%
36%
40%
28%
21%
20%
6%
40%
24%
10%
0%
$50 000
$50,000
$35 000
$35,000
$25 000
$25,000
Page 136
Confidential
D.
Luxury Suites
Interest in Suite Sharing or Co
Co-op
op Opportunities – Total (29)
Interest in Suite-Sharing or Co-op Opportunities
80%
60%
76%
40%
20%
14%
3%
0%
Definitely
Yes
3%
Probably
Yes
Maybe
Probably
No
3%
Definitely
No
Page 137
Confidential
D.
Luxury Suites
Impact of Escalation Rates on Length of Commitment Term
Relationship between Escalation Rate
and Lease Term for Luxury Suites
80%
60%
40%
20%
37%
33%
3%
0%
3 Years with 5 Years with 7 Years with
7% Annual 5% Annual 3% Annual
Escalation Escalation Escalation
9%
19%
10 Years Other, please
with 2%
specify
Annual
Escalation
Page 138
Confidential
D.
Luxury Suites
Desired Luxury Suite Amenities
Luxury Suite Amenities
(1= Definitely Not Important; 5= Definitely Important)
Private Suite Level Restroom Area
4.19
Premium Catering/Menu
3.93
Private Restroom In Suite
3 81
3.81
Access to Private Restaurant/Lounge
3.73
Standard Suite Furniture Packages
3.64
Access to Suites During Non-Events
3.61
S i Waiter-Waitress
i
i
Service
S i
In-Suite
3.54
Valet Parking
3.34
Option to Personally Furnish Suite
3.01
Business Center
0.00
2.56
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Page 139
Confidential
E.
Loge Boxes
Loge Boxes












4 to
t 6 Seats
S t
Preferred parking
Wider, padded comfortable seats on wheels
Drink rails/counters
Television monitors
Waiter/waitress service
Upscale food and catering services
C i
Concierge
service
i
Access to restricted area restrooms
Page 140
Confidential
E.
Loge Boxes
Loge Boxes – Summary of Findings
 Survey Respondents were Asked if they Would Potentially be Interested in Purchasing Loge
Boxes at a Renovated Richmond Coliseum or a New Arena
 Respondents were Advised that Loge Box Included 4 Season Tickets to High Level Minor
League Hockey (e.g. AHL/ECHL) and Rights to Purchase Tickets to Other Events
 Interest in Purchasing Loge Box – Before Pricing
 $15
$15,000
000 – 51% (40)
 $10,000 – 71% (56)
 $5,000 – 95% (75)
Page 141
Confidential
E.
Loge Boxes
Loge
g Boxes – Summaryy of Findings
g
 Significant
g
Increase in Demand at $5,000
,
Level as Indicated by
y Definitelyy Yes/Probablyy Yes
Respondents (11% to 42%)
 Commitment Term
Please See Support Tables for Findings by Category
Page 142
Confidential
E.
Loge Boxes
Loge Box Interest (Before Price) – Total (154)
Interest in Leasing Loge Boxes
(Before Pricing)
80%
60%
40%
47%
49%
20%
4%
0%
Yes
Maybe, Depends
Maybe
on Price
No
Page 143
Confidential
E.
Loge Boxes
Interest in Leasing Loge Boxes
(After Pricing)
Yes
Maybe
No
80%
56%
60%
53%
49%
42%
39%
40%
20%
29%
11%
15%
5%
0%
$15 000
$15,000
$10 000
$10,000
$5 000
$5,000
Page 144
Confidential
E.
Loge Boxes
and Lease Term for Loge Boxes
80%
60%
40%
20%
35%
40%
1%
0%
8%
16%
with 2%
specify
Annual
Escalation
Page 145
Confidential
F.
Club Seats
Club Seats









Preferred
P
f
d parking
ki
Wider, padded comfortable seats with extra legroom/cup holders
Upscale food services
Private concessions areas
Concierge service
Access to restricted area restrooms
Page 146
Confidential
F.
Club Seats
Club Seats – Summaryy of Findings
g
 Survey Respondents were Asked if they Would Potentially be Interested in Purchasing Club
Seats at a Renovated Richmond Coliseum or a New Arena
 Respondents were Advised that the Club Seat Premium Would be in Addition to the Cost of
Season Tickets for a High Level Minor League Team (e.g. AHL/ECHL) and Club Seat Holders
Would have First Right of Refusal to Purchase Tickets to Other Events
 Interest in Club Seats (Before Pricing)
 $1,000 – 69% (62)
 $750 – 76% (68)
 $500 – 87% (78)
Page 147
Confidential
F.
Club Seats
Club Seats – Summary of Findings
 Significant Increase in Demand at $500 Level as Indicated by Definitely Yes/Probably Yes
Respondents (24% to 47%)
 Number of Seats Likely Purchased
 Respondents Indicated a Likely Purchase of 4.8 ($1,000) to 3.7 ($500) Club Seats
 Commitment Term
Please See Support Tables for Findings by Category
Page 148
Confidential
F.
Club Seats
Club Seats (Before Price) – Total (154)
Interest in Leasing Club Seats
(Before Pricing)
80%
60%
40%
50%
20%
42%
8%
0%
Yes
Maybe, Depends
Maybe
on Price
No
Page 149
Confidential
F.
Club Seats
Interest in Leasing Club Seats
(After Pricing)
Yes
Maybe
No
80%
60%
40%
47%
46%
44%
40%
31%
30%
24%
24%
13%
20%
0%
$1 000
$1,000
$750
$500
Page 150
Confidential
F.
Club Seats
Number of Club Seats
Number of Club Seats to Purchase
5.0
40
4.0
3.0
4.8
4.6
3.7
2.0
1.0
0.0
$1 000
$1,000
$750
$500
Page 151
Confidential
F.
Club Seats
and Lease Term for Club Seats
80%
60%
40%
20%
45%
33%
4%
0%
5%
13%
with 2%
specify
Annual
Escalation
Page 152
Confidential
G.
Naming Rights/Advertising
Overview
 Respondents Were Asked to Indicate if They Were Potentially Interested in Naming Rights to a
Renovated Richmond Coliseum or a New Arena
 Respondents Were Advised of Potential Benefits/Rights Associated with Naming Rights





Facility Name
Advertising Opportunities
Luxury Suite
Other Tickets
Other
 Respondents Were Advised that Local/Regional Corporations are the Typical Buyer of Naming
f Many
for
M
C
Communities
iti
Page 153
Confidential
G.
Summary of Findings
 Approximately 11% (17) of Respondents Indicated an Interest in Naming Rights – Before Pricing
(Interest = Yes/Maybe, Depends on Price)
 $750
$750,000
000 – Approximately 24% (4)
 $500,000 – Approximately 24% (4)
 $250,000 – Approximately 24% (4)
 Interest at Various Price Points (Interest = Definitely Yes/Probably Yes)
 $750,000 – Approximately 0% (0)
 $500,000
$
– Approximately 6% (1)
 $250,000 – Approximately 6% (1)
 Approximately
pp
y 49%
% ((75)) of Respondents
p
Indicated an Interest in Advertisingg – No Pricingg Tested
Page 154
Confidential
G.
Naming Rights (Before Price) – Total (154)
Interest in Purchasing Naming Rights
(Before Pricing)
100%
75%
50%
89%
25%
0%
0%
Yes
11%
Maybe, Depends
Maybe
on Price
No
Page 155
Confidential
G.
Interest in Purchasing Naming Rights
(After Pricing)
Yes
Maybe
No
100%
76%
76%
76%
75%
50%
24%
18%
25%
0%
18%
6%
6%
$500 000
$500,000
$250 000
$250,000
0%
$750 000
$750,000
Page 156
Confidential
G.
Interest Level in Advertising – Total (154)
Interest in Advertising/Sponsorship
60%
45%
30%
38%
15%
25%
27%
9%
1%
0%
Definitely
Yes
Probably
Yes
Maybe
Probably
No
Definitely
No
Page 157
Confidential
H.
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous – Summary of Findings
Support an NBA Franchise (51% Indicated it Would Not)
Support an NHL Franchise (58% Indicated it Would Not)
Do you believe that the Richmond market would
support an NBA or NHL franchise?
40%
NBA
40%
NHL
31%
30%
20%
24%23%
20%
18%
18%17%
6%
10%
3%
0%
Definitely
Not
Probably
Not
Maybe
Probably
Yes
Definitely
Yes
Page 158
Confidential
V. PRELIMINARY FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS
Page 159
Confidential
V.
Preliminary Program Recommendations
 Arena Characteristics
 Capacity – 360 Degree
15 000
15,000
 Capacity – 270 Degree (End Stage)
14,000
 Luxury Suites
15 – 25
 Loge Boxes
15 – 20
 Club Seats
 Parking (Public Sector Spaces – Revenue to Arena)
500 – 650
1,000
Page 160
Confidential
V.
 Capacity Comparison – Richmond Coliseum and Proposed Arena
Configurations
360 Degree - (1)
270 Degree
180 Degree
Hockey
Basketball
Richmond
Coliseum
12,217
10,385
8,315
10,454
11,038
Proposed
Arena
15,000
14,000
12,000
13,000
13,500
Net
Increase
2,783
3,615
3,685
2,546
2,462
Notes: Proposed capacities are estimates - detailed analysis to be completed.
Arena configuration and curtain system will be important factor on capacities
((e.g.,
g , horseshoe shape,
p , etc.))
(1) Coliseum management indicated largest set-up has been for 12,800 seats.
Capacity listed at 13,410.
Page 161
Confidential
V.
 Capacity Comparison – John Paul Jones Arena and Proposed Arena
Configurations
360 Degree
270 Degree
180 Degree
Hockey
y
Basketball
John Paul
Jones Arena
15,405
14,075
12,719
NA
14,858
Proposed
Arena
15,000
14,000
12,000
13,000
,
13,500
Difference
(405)
(75)
(719)
NA
(1,358)
Percentage
Difference
-3%
-1%
-6%
NA
-10%
Notes: Proposed capacities are estimates - detailed analysis to be completed. Arena
configuration and curtain system will be important factor on capacities (e.g., horseshoe
shape etc.)
shape,
etc )
Page 162
16,478
16,500
18,000
18,119
18,500
19,500
20,000
20,200
20,817
21,500
22,000
22,669
XL Center
New O
Orleans Arena
FedexForum
Conseeco Fieldhouse
RBC Center
Bradley Center
B
Time Warnerr Cable Arena
Ford Center
HSBC Arena
KFC Yum! Center
Bridggestone Arena
16,000
Jacksonnville Veterans …
Average
15,585
Savve Mart Center
14,0000 - 15,000
14,572
Dunkin' D
Donuts Center
15,000
Richmond, VA (Preliminary)
14,500
14,000
McKa le Mem
moria l Center
Bluee Cross Arena
13,660
1 0,500
99,400
10,000
Average - Excludinng NBA/NHL
Maverik Center
M
Ted Constantt Convocation…
8,,700
0
Cedaar Park Center
5,000
8,,500
V.
Bartow Arena
B
Confidential
Preliminary
y Arena Inventoryy Summaryy
 Proposed Seating Capacity Comparable with Arenas in Evaluated Markets
Arenas in Comparable Markets – Seating Capacity
25,000
20 000
20,000
Page 163
0
10
69
72
75
80
66
52
60
446
59
41
443
56
400
Save M art Center
Maveerik Center
Average
XL Center
X
Brad ley Center
New Orleaans Arena
FeddexForum
Time Warner Caable Arena
RB
BC Center
Conseco F
Fieldhouse
Bridgestoone Arena
KFC Yum
m! Center
HSBC Arena
30
366
40
Foord Center
29
28
Jacksonvillee Veterans …
Avverage - Excluding N
NBA/NHL
25
Blue Crross Arena
15 - 255
24
Ceda r Paark Center
20
Richmond, VA (Preeliminary)
20
Dunkin' Donuuts Center
Ted Consta nt Connvocation… 16
McKale Memorrial Center 0
V.
Barttow Arena 0
Confidential
Preliminary
 Proposed Luxury Suite Inventory Comparable to the Average of Arenas in Median Markets
(Excluding NBA / NHL Venues) – Based on Survey Demand
Arenas in Comparable Markets – Luxury Suites
80
70
60
50
Page 164
0
2,500
2,600
2,620
2,640
2,800
2,854
Time Warner Caable Arena
Foord Center
Conseco F
Fieldhouse
New Orleaans Arena
KFC Yum
m! Center
1,500
HSB
BC Arena
22,000
1,7750
Maverik Center
BC Center
RB
1,6642
FeddexForum
1,29 2
1,1166
Jacksonvillee Veterans …
Average
1,1000
862
675
Bridgestoone Arena
Ted Consta nt Connvocation…
Avverage - Excluding N
NBA/NHL
500 - 6550
545
500
1,000
Richmond, VA (Preeliminary)
Cedar Paark Center
Bradlley Center
302
500
XL Center
X
Blue Crooss Arena 0
McKale Memorrial Center 0
Save Maart Center 0
Dunkin' Donuuts Center 0
V.
Barttow Arena 0
Confidential
Preliminary
 Proposed Club Seat Inventory Comparable to the Average of Arenas in Median Markets
(Excluding NBA / NHL Venues) – Based on Survey Demand
 Does Not Include Loge Box Inventory
Arenas in Comparable Markets – Club Seats
3,000
,
2,500
2,000
Page 165
Confidential
VI.
POTENTIAL ARENA SITES
Page 166
Confidential
VI.
 Site #1
 Site #2
 Site #3
The Diamond Site
 Site #4
ABC Site
 Site #5
City Stadium Site
 Site #6
 Site #7
Page 167
Confidential
VII.
Site Requirements
 Urban Sites
 Site Area
– Desirable
– Minimum
 Suburban Sites
– Desirable
6.0 Acres
5.05 Acres
65.0 Acres
Without Public Transit
 Site Configuration Allows Acceptable Building Configuration and Exterior Spaces
 Ability to Build/Lease Parking Spaces for Premium Customers Adjacent to Arena
 Proximity to Adequate Parking and Transit within ½ Mile
 Ability to Accommodate Service Functions and Television Truck Parking
Page 168
Confidential
VI.
Preliminary Analysis – Evaluation Categories
 Urban Design Factors
 Analyze the Site in Relation to the Framework of the Market
 Identifies
Id tifi Civic
Ci i Design
D i Potential
P t ti l
 Consider the Overall Fan Experience
 Adequate Site Arena and Configuration
 Transportation Factors
 Determines the Convenience a Site Offers for Pedestrians and Automobiles Access
 Parking Numbers and Public Transit Connections
 Site Factors
 Site Characteristics which Influence the Design and Overall Cost
 Utility Capacity and Relocation
 Cost and Economical Factors
 Potential Acquisition, Demolition, and Relocation Costs
 Timing Factors
 Potential Significant Delays
Page 169
Confidential
VI.
Page 170
Confidential
VI.
Additional Analysis – Evaluation Categories
 Urban Design Factors
 Adequate Site Arena and Dimension
Configuration
 Public Perception
 Fan Experience
 Visibility
 Safety
S f t andd Security
S
it
 Transportation Factors
 Pedestrian Circulation
 Vehicular Access
 Public Transportation
 Parking Quantity
 Parking Proximity
 Site and Utility Factors
 Utility Infrastructure
 Environmental
i
l Quality
Q li
 Economic Factors
 Property Availability/Relative Cost
 Displacement and Relocation
 Compensation
 Development Costs
 Leverage Community Assets
 Promote Development and Investment
 Potential Positive Impact on Community
 Timingg Factors
 Acquisition Timing
 Approvals
 Ownership Issues
 Zoning
 Restrictions
 Intangibles
 Public Support
 Risk
Page 171
Confidential
VI.
Page 172
Confidential
VI.
Site Selection – Additional Screeningg
(Weighted Average)
Page 173
Confidential
VI.
Adequate site area and dimension
Configuration
Public perception
Fan experience
Visibility
Safety
y and security
y
Subtotal
Transportation
Pedestrian circulation
Vehicular access
Public transportation
Parking quantity
Parking proximity
Subtotal
Utility infrastructure
Environmental quality
Subtotal
Economic factors
Property availability and relative costs
Displacement and relocation
Compensation
Development Costs
Leverage community assets
Promote development and investment
Potential positive impact on community
Subtotal
Ti i Factors
Timing
F t
Acquisition timing
Approvals
Ownership issues
Zoning
Restrictions
Subtotal
Intangibles
Public Support
Risk
Subtotal
TOTAL POINTS
Site 1
Coliseum
Site 2
City Lots
Site 3
Diamond Site
Site 4
ABC Site
4
4
4
4
4
4
24
2
1
4
4
4
4
19
4
3
3
2
2
2
16
4
3
3
2
3
2
17
3
1
4
2
2
12
4
2
4
2
2
14
2
4
4
4
4
18
2
4
4
3
4
17
4
3
7
4
4
8
4
1
5
4
3
7
2
1
4
1
3
3
4
18
3
3
4
2
4
4
4
24
4
4
2
4
2
1
4
21
3
3
2
3
2
2
4
19
1
3
4
4
4
16
3
4
2
4
3
16
4
3
3
4
4
18
2
3
2
3
3
13
3
1
4
81
4
2
6
87
3
3
6
84
3
3
6
79
Page 174
Confidential
VII.
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
Page 175
Confidential
VII.
Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates
Concept Estimate
 Preliminary Cost Estimate Prepared by Weston and Populous with Input from Hunt Construction
 Preliminary Cost Estimate Provided for Illustrative Purposes
 Construction Costs of Numerous Comparable Facilities were Evaluated
 Estimates
E ti t Adjusted
Adj t d for
f 2012 Construction
C t ti Start,
St t Local
L l Market
M k t Conditions,
C diti
Et
Etc.
 Site Utilities and Environmental Issues may have Impact on Cost
 Preliminary Cost Estimate Does Not Include the Following





Land Acquisition
Off-Site
Off
Site Infrastructure
Relocation
Parking Structure (If Any)
Other
Page 176
Confidential
VII.
Concept Estimate
Arena Design and Construction
Survey
Design
Environmental
Pre-Construction
Owner Testing/Geo-Tech
Owner FF&E
Insurance
Arena Construction
Contingency
Arena Construction Administration
Project Management Fee and Reimbursement
Project Management Consultants/Contingency
Legal
Public Information
Arena Authority Administrative Expense
Construction and Land Acquisition
Site Acquisition
Demolition/Site Preparation
Richmond Coliseum Demolition
Other/Contingency
Total
Cost Estimate
$136,350,000
$50,000
$10,500,000
$150,000
$225,000
$1,500,000
$2,500,000
$1,500,000
$113,925,000
$6,000,000
$4,200,000
$2,000,000
$500,000
$1,000,000
$200,000
$500,000
$6,623,000
To be Determined
$1,123,000
$3,500,000
$2,000,000
$147,173,000
Page 177
Confidential
VII.
Renovation Alternative – Other
 Richmond Coliseum Renovation Alternative was Considered and Evaluated on a Limited Basis
 Richmond Coliseum Facility Structural Survey and Building Systems Analysis (Performed by
SMBW Architects PC,
PC Wiss Janney Elstner Associates,
Associates Inc.,
Inc and HCYu and Associates) – October
2009 Identified the Following Issues with the Coliseum













Rainwater is Entering the Building (Roof/Sidewalls)
Water is Enteringg Below Grade Spaces
p
though
g Leaks in the Plaza Pavingg
Cracking in the Brick Façade of the Building Indicates Instability of the Brick Façade
Settlement and Movement Cracking is Evident in the Masonry and Concrete Systems Forming
the Building Enclosure
Water Infiltration has Caused Rust/Deterioration within the Wall/Roof Systems of the Building
Arena Floor Slab has Settled and Need to be Replaced
Roof and Roof Substructure Past Anticipated Service Life and Need to be Replaced
Roof Gutters/Drains have Rotted Out Letting Rainwater Directly into the Building
Replacement of the Roof and Roof Substructure System Could Limit the Main Roof
Roof’ss Load
Carrying and Rigging Capacity
Coliseum’s Glazing (Windows) and Entry Doors Need Major Repairs or Replacement
“Microbial Growth” (Possibly Mold) has been Seen in the Stucco Ceilings in the Concourses
Colise m is Currently
Coliseum
C rrentl Not Suitable
S itable for a Post Event
E ent Storm Shelter,
Shelter but
b t could
co ld be Upgraded
Coliseum would Never be Suitable as a Storm Shelter During a Hurricane (Few, if any, Arenas
are Suitable Because of Long-Span Roofs)
Page 178
Confidential
VII.
Renovation Alternative – Other
 Estimated Cost for Deferred Maintenance and Identified Repairs is Approximately $18.0 to $20.0
Million (Not Including Remediation for Microbial Growth)
 Additional Seating Capacity Required to Attract Additional Events – Likely in Upper Bowl
 Promoters Would Prefer More Seats in the Lower Bowl as Compared to Current Configuration
 B
Based
d on Goals
G l andd Objectives
Obj ti
Id tifi d by
Identified
b the
th Planning
Pl i Group,
G
th Recommended
the
R
d d Program
P
Cannot Efficiently be Accommodated in a Renovated Coliseum
Page 179
Confidential
VIII. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Page 180
Confidential

Richmond Coliseum Opened
p
in 1971

Seating Capacity
– Hockey Configuration
– Basketball
B k tb ll Configuration
C fi
ti
– 360 Degree Configuration
– 270 Degree Configuration (End Stage)
13,410 (Announced)
10,454
11 038
11,038
12,217
10,385
Note: Coliseum Management has Indicated a Maximum Set-Up Capacity of 12,800

“Luxury” Suites

“Club” Seats

Major
j Tenants/Events
– CAA Basketball Tournament
– Richmond Raiders (SIFL)
– Concerts
– Family Shows
– Conventions/Conferences/Meetings
12
668
Page 181
Confidential

Richmond Coliseum Operating Information
# of Events
Attendance
Richmond Coliseum
Unaudited
2008
2009
2010
99
112
83
435,429
466,903
406,295
Revenues
Direct Event, Net
Concessions
N lt
Novelty
Parking
Luxury Suites
Advertising/Sponsorship
Facility Fees & Rebates
Other
Total Revenues
$400,054
$743,469
$105 647
$105,647
$68,045
$234,807
$126,614
$470,765
$56,762
$2,206,163
$255,276
$880,239
$53 575
$53,575
$70,696
$122,245
$121,135
$313,485
$14,033
$1,830,684
$279,911
$517,066
$30 673
$30,673
$64,373
$69,203
$101,221
$384,651
$14,471
$1,461,569
Expenses
Executive
Finance
Marketing
Operations
Overhead
Box Office
Food & Beverage
Total Expenses
$169,185
$272,248
$219,087
$956,938
$979,999
$170,634
$345,822
$3,113,913
$223,799
$286,855
$207,957
$784,166
$1,007,381
$152,117
$349,350
$3,011,625
$228,801
$249,847
$164,670
$644,666
$783,488
$139,751
$298,424
$2,509,647
Net Operating Income
($907,750) ($1,180,941) ($1,048,078)
Source: Richmond Coliseum.
Page 182
Confidential

Richmond Coliseum Operating Information
Events
Hockey
Indoor Football
Sporting Events
Concerts
F il Shows
Family
Sh
Entertainment
Assemblies
Coventions
Miscellaneous
Total
T t l Attendance
Total
Att d
-T
Turnstile
til
Hockey
Indoor Football
Sporting Events
Concerts
Family Shows
Entertainment
Assemblies
Coventions
Miscellaneous
Total
Average Attendance - Turnstile
Hockey
Indoor Football
Sporting Events
Concerts
Family Shows
Entertainment
Assemblies
Coventions
Miscellaneous
Source: Richmond Coliseum.
2009
2010
31
0
7
16
27
5
14
6
6
112
0
8
7
7
20
15
14
9
3
83
74,360
0
27,792
86,280
87,763
34 389
34,389
91,800
29,825
34,694
466,903
0
20,011
38,771
33,693
77,835
69 458
69,458
89,574
73,127
3,826
406,295
2,399
2
399
0
3,970
5,393
3,250
6,878
6 557
6,557
4,971
5,782
0
2,501
5,539
4,813
3,892
4,631
6 398
6,398
8,125
1,275
Page 183
Confidential
Financial Analysis
 Completed Analysis of Potential Financial and Operating Characteristics of a New Downtown
Richmond Arena to Understand Potential Net Operating Income Generated by Proposed Facility
 BSG has Made Significant Assumptions Related to the Proposed Arena
Arena’ss Operating Revenues
and Expenses
 Information Obtained from Comparable Facilities and Our Database on Arena Operations
 In Order to Obtain Accurate and Relevant Information, BSG Agreed to Maintain Confidentiality
of Facilities
 Operating Data Gathered from Over 36 Comparable Sports and Entertainment Facilities – List
N
Narrowed
d to 20 Facilities
F ili i Based
B d on:
 Market Demographics
 Physical Characteristics (Age, Capacity, Premium Seating, Etc.)
 Tenants
 Climate
 Others
 Facilities Providing Information are Referred to as Arena A, B, C, etc.
 Arena Reference Letters have been Randomly Adjusted to Further Protect Identity
Page 184
Confidential
Financial Analysis
 Comparable Data has been Adjusted, as Appropriate, to Reflect Current Dollars
 Baseline Assumptions Adjusted to Reflect Variables








Market Demographics
Ph i l Characteristics
Physical
Ch
t i ti (Age,
(A Capacity,
C
it Premium
P
i
S ti
Seating,
Et )
Etc.)
Tenant/Event Mix
Number of Professional and Collegiate Sports Franchises
Other Entertainment Alternatives
Climate
Cost of Living
Other
Page 185
Confidential
Project Description
 Based on the Program Described in the
Market Analysis Section
ARENA CHARACTERISTICS
Capacity - Maximum
15,000
Capacity - End Stage
14,000
Luxury Suites (Including Game Day/Reserved)
25
Loge Boxes
20
Club Seats
500
1,000
Parking (Public Sector Spaces - Revenue to Arena)
Events
EVENT MIX
Average Paid
Attendance - (1)
Total Paid
Attendance
Sporting Events
Minor League Hockey
Collegiate (CAA/NCAA/etc.)
Arena Football
NBA D League
40
6
7
25
4,755
10,000
4,000
3,000
190,192
60,000
28,000
75,000
Concerts
12
5,667
68,000
Family Shows
Circus
Sesame Street
Barney/Wiggles/Other
24
3,979
95,500
3
1
7,500
5,000
22,500
5,000
4
15
7,500
5,000
30,000
75,000
Other Sporting Events
Thrill/Dirt Shows/WWE
Professional Ice Skating
Miscellaneous
Conventions
Assemblies
Total
137
649,192
(1) Reflects weighted average. Events and average attendance may not equal total attendance.
Page 186
Confidential
Proposed Arena – Revenue Assumptions
Page 187
Confidential
A.
Event Mix
 Potential Types of Events Include
 Sporting Events (e.g., Minor League Hockey, Minor League Basketball, Arena Football, etc.)
 Family Shows (e.g., Circus, Barney, etc.)
 Tournaments (e.g., CAA, NCAA, etc.)
 Ice Shows
 Rodeo
 Thrill/Dirt
Th ill/Di Shows/WWE
Sh
/WWE
 Concerts
 Meetings/Banquets/Conferences
 Other
 Number of Events per Comparable Vary Significantly Due to a Variety of Factors Including:
Tenant Mix;
i Market
k Competition;
ii
Age; Amenities;
i i etc.
Page 188
Confidential
A.
Event Mix
 Number of Events Ranged from a Low of 97 to a High of 401. Average Number of Events was
Approximately 176
 For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed the Proposed Arena would Host 137 Events
(Including Conventions/Assemblies). In FY 2010, the Coliseum Hosted 83 Events – Three Year
Average, 98 Events.
 Higher Activity Facilities are Often Part of Larger Complex Operating in Conjunction with
Convention Center, Performing Arts Center, etc. or have Different Accounting/Reporting
Methods:
Number of Events
401




400
Meetings
Banquets
Conferences
Other
327
300
272
215
200
100
97
109
115
116
123
128
139
150
154
154
155
158
176
137
0
Page 189
Confidential
A.
Total Attendance
 Attendance at the Comparables Vary Significantly Due to a Variety of Factors Including: Tenant
Mix; Market Competition; Age; Amenities; Accounting/Reporting Policies etc.
 Total Attendance Ranged from a Low of Approximately 239,000 to a High of Approximately 1.0
Million. Average Annual Attendance was Approximately 495,000.
 We Have Assumed Total Turnstile Attendance of Approximately 559,000
559 000 and Paid Attendance of
Approximately 574,000 (Excluding Assemblies Attendance) for the Proposed Arena (Year 1).
Attendance for Selected Events is Expected to Decrease Somewhat After Year 1.
Attendance (000s)
1 000
1,000
1,000
800
595
600
512
684 685
650 682
559
495
411 412 418
367 381 386
323 328 347
400
239
200
0
Page 190
Confidential
A.
Rental Revenues
 Rental Revenues are Expected to
Provide a Source of Revenue in the
p
Arena
Proposed
 Rental
Revenues
are
Generally
Determined by a Percentage of Ticket
Sales,, Flat Use Fees ((Annual or OneTime), or Other Methods
 Rental Rates Among Comparables May
y Significantly
g
y Depending
p
g on a
Vary
Number
of
Factors
Including:
Methodology of Calculations; Age and
Design of Facility; and Team/Event
Performance
Per Game
Minimum
Sporting Events
Minor League Hockey
C ll i t (CAA/NCAA/etc.)
Collegiate
(CAA/NCAA/ t )
Arena Football
NBA D League
Concerts
$5,500
$10,000
$10
000
$5,500
$5,000
$15,000 - $25,000
Percentage
8.00%
8.00%
8
00%
8.00%
8.00%
8.00%
$5,000
8.00% - 10.00%
$5,500
$5,000
10.00%
10.00%
Miscellaneous
Conventions
Assemblies
$5,000
$5,000
10.00%
10.00%
Family Shows
Circus
Sesame Street
Page 191
Confidential
A.
Average
g Ticket Price
 Ticket Prices Vary Considerably Among
the Comparable Arenas
 Factors that Impact Ticket Prices Include,
Among
Others:
Market
Demand,
Entertainment
Alternatives,
Income
Levels,, Team Performance,, etc.
Average Ticket
Price
Sporting Events
Minor League Hockey
Collegiate (CAA/NCAA/etc
(CAA/NCAA/etc.))
Arena Football
NBA D League
$15.00
$15 00
$15.00
$15.00
$13.00
Concerts
$25.00 - $35.00
Family Shows
Circus
Sesame Street
B
/Wi l /Oth
$12.00 - $20.00
g
$15.00
$25.00
$
Miscellaneous
Conventions
Assemblies
$15.00
$0.00
Page 192
Confidential
A.
Advertising
g Revenues
 Advertising Revenues are Generally Derived from the Following Sources
 Display Advertising: Signage Throughout the Concourses, Concession Stands, and Other
C
Common
A
Areas
i the
in
th Building
B ildi
 Scoreboard Advertising:
Video Message Boards
Fixed Signage, Electronic Advertising on the Scoreboard, and
 Basketball Advertising: Advertising on the Basketball Standards, Basketball Floor, Ball
Carts, Scorers’ Table and Players Benches
 Dasherboard Advertising: Signage on the Hockey Dasherboard
 It is Important to Note that Direct Comparison of Advertising Revenue is Difficult
 Trade and Barter Arrangements
 Revenue Sharing
 Gross Advertising vs Net Advertising
 Overall
ll Sponsorship
hi Revenues
Page 193
Confidential
A.
Advertising
g Revenues
 Annual Advertising Revenues for Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $5,000 to
Approximately $1.5 Million. Average Annual Advertising Revenue was Approximately $550,000.
 For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed Annual Arena-Only Advertising Revenues of $550,000.
Prominent and Well Integrated Signage and Sponsorships Could Cause the Advertising Revenue
Assumption to be Higher (Founding Partner Program Should be Considered). In FY 2010, the
Coliseum Reported Advertising/Sponsorship Revenue of Approximately $101,000.
Advertising (000s)
$1,529
$1,600
$1,135
$1,200
$851 $887
$800
$466 $494
$400
$5
$86 $120 $123 $135
$565
$663
$576 $624
$962
$751
$550 $550
$225 $256
$0
Page 194
Confidential
A.
Naming Rights Revenues
 Many Sports Facilities have Licensed the Name of the Facility to Major Corporations or
Individual Donors
 Often Difficult to Gather Complete Information Regarding Naming Rights (“Arms-Length
Transactions”)
 Historically, Publicly Owned Stadiums and Arenas Named After City, County, or to Memorialize
Significant Individual or Group
 Selling Naming Rights of Publicly Owned Facility to an Unrelated Corporation can be
Considered a Major Political Issue (Commercialization of Sports)
 Selling of Naming Rights Represents Significant Source of Revenue
 Naming
Na
g Rights
g s Fees
ees Typically
yp ca y Paid
a d oon Annual
ua Basis,
as s, bu
but have
ave bee
been Paid
a d as Up
Upfront
o Co
Contribution
bu o
to Reduce Debt
 Sale of Naming Rights Can Represent Significant Source of Contractually Obligated Income
 Naming Rights Income can Potentially Offset a Portion of Costs Normally Incurred by Taxpayers
to Finance Facility
Page 195
Confidential
A.
Naming Rights Revenues (Continued)
 Value of Naming Rights Transaction can Often be Misunderstood and Misrepresented
 Reported in Generic Terms
 Naming Rights have been Sold to a Variety of Corporations (in Additional to Individuals) in the
Following Industries










Financial Services
Beverage
Retail
Computer
Media
Airline
Automobile
Consumer Product
Communications
Other
h
Page 196
Confidential
A.
Naming
g Rights
g
Revenues ((Continued))
 Variety of Factors to Consider in Valuing and Comparing Naming Rights Deals from Purchaser
and Seller Perspectives








Regional/National/International Media Exposure
Market Size and Demographic Profile
Number and Profile of Major Tenants
yp of Facilityy Events
Number and Type
Facility Attendance
Facility Location/Visibility
Location of Naming Rights Signage
Deal Structure and Other Amenities
 Value of Naming Rights to Purchaser is a Function of Following Factors






Number of Impressions/Exposures
Brand Exclusivity
Public Relations/Community Image
Sponsorship/Cross Promotion Opportunities
Tax Deductible Expense (as applicable)
Other
Page 197
Confidential
A.
Naming Rights Revenues (Continued)
 Naming Rights Deals in Small to Mid-Size
Markets are Illustrated to the Right
 Given Strong Level of Corporate Support
Locally, We have Assumed Annual
Namingg Rights
g
Advertisingg Revenues of
$500,000, Plus 4.0% Annual Escalation (10
Year Agreement, $6.0 Million)
 It is Important to Note that Naming Rights
Revenues May be Included as Part of
Arena Financing Plan
Arena
Qwest Center of Omaha
Wells Fargo Arena
BOK Center
Allstate Arena
Sears Center
Sovereign Center
Intrust Bank Arena
Alerus Center
Germain Arena
Verizon Arena
MTS Centre
DCU Center
MassMutual Center
CenturyTel Center
Giant Center
Ricoh Coliseum
iWireless Center
Comcast Arena
Times Union Arena
John Labatt Centre
ShoWare Center
Blue Cross Arena
Santa Ana Star Center
US Cellular Arena
The Dow Event Center
Rabobank Arena
Wachovia Arena
WesBanco Arena
Verizon Wireless Center
Toyota Center
Hershey Centre
US Cellular Coliseum
General Motors Centre
K R kC
K-Rock
Centre
t
WFCU Centre
Credit Union Centre
Essar Centre
Budweiser Events Center
Big Sandy Superstore Arena
Interior Savings Centre
First Arena
Save-On Foods Arena
Gateway Arena
First Mariner Arena
Pepsi Coliseum
Covellie Centre
y, State
City,
Omaha, NE
Des Moines, IA
Manchester, NH
Tulsa, OK
Rosemont, IL
Hoffman Estates, IL
Reading, PA
Wichita, KS
Providence, RI
Grand Forks, ND
Estero, FL
North Little Rock, AR
Winnipeg, Canada
Worcester, Mass.
Springfield, MA
Bossier City, LA
Hershey, PA
Toronto, Canada
Moline, IL
Everett, WA
Albany, NY
London, Canada
Kent, WA
Rochester, NY
Rio Rancho, NM
Milwaukee, WI
Saginaw, MI
Bakersfield, CA
Wilkes-Barre, PA
Wheeling, WV
Mankato, MN
Kennewick, WA
Mississauga, Canada
Bloomington, IL
Oshawa, Canada
Ki t Canada
Kingston,
C d
Windsor, Canada
Saskatoon, Canada
Sault St. Marie, Canada
Loveland, CO
Huntington, WV
Kamloops, Canada
Elmira, NY
Victoria, Canada
Sioux City,
City IA
Baltimore, MD
Indianapolis, IN
Youngstown, OH
Total Value
((Millions))
$14.00
$11.50
$11.40
$11.00
$10.00
$10.00
$9.00
$8.75
$8.30
$7.20
$7.00
$6.00
$5.90
$5.20
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$4.80
$4.25
$3.70
$3.50
$3.29
$3.18
$3.00
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.30
$2.30
$2.20
$2.10
$2.00
$1.75
$1.65
$1 65
$1.65
$1.62
$1.60
$1.50
$1.50
$1.40
$1.06
$1.00
$1.00
$0 75
$0.75
$0.75
$0.17
$0.12
Years
15
20
15
20
10
10
30
25
10
20
20
20
10
10
NA
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
5
6
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
10
Indefinite
10
5
3
Annual Value
((Millions)) Expires
p
$0.93
$0.58
$0.76
$0.55
$1.00
$1.00
$0.30
$0.35
$0.83
$0.36
$0.35
$0.30
$0.59
$0.52
NA
$0.50
$0.50
$0.48
$0.43
$0.37
$0.35
$0.33
$0.32
$0.20
$0.50
$0.42
$0.25
$0.25
$0.23
$0.23
$0.11
$0.21
$0.20
$0.18
$0.17
$0 17
$0.17
$0.16
$0.16
$0.15
$0.08
$0.14
$0.11
$0.10
$0.10
NA
$0.08
$0.03
$0.04
2018
2025
2016
2027
2011
2016
2030
2034
2011
2020
2018
2019
2015
2014
NA
2010
2012
2013
2017
2017
2016
2012
2019
2013
2011
2012
2013
2015
2010
2014
2018
2015
2011
2015
2016
2018
2018
2013
2018
2023
2012
2015
2010
2014
NA
2012
2011
2012
Source: Sports Business Journal Resource Guide and Fact Book 2010.
Page 198
Confidential
A.
Luxury
y Suite Revenue
 Luxury Suite Prices Vary Considerably Based on Numerous Factors, Including: Age of Facility;
Market; Corporate Base; Premium Seat Demand; Amenities; etc.
 Annual Luxury Suite Revenue in Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $45,000 to
Approximately $1.6
$ Million. Average Annual Luxury Suite Revenue was Approximately $658,000.
$
 Based on Corporate Surveys and Estimated Market Demand, We have Assumed Approximately
$540,000 of Gross Luxury Suite Revenue (Plus Approximately $56,000 in Event Day Revenue). In
FY 2010,
2010 the Coliseum Reported Luxury Suite Revenue of $69,200.
$69 200
 Assumption Based Primarily on: Development of 25 Luxury Suites (18 Leased/3 Reserved/2
Available for Game Day); Luxury Suite Gross Price of $30,000 (Includes Hockey Tickets)
Luxury Suite Revenue (000s)
$2,000
$1,546$1,563$1,593
$1,500
$1,204$1,246
$1,069
$943
$1,000
$658
$462
$500
$45
$50
$55 $103
$168
$224
$538
$540
$313 $357 $360
$0
Page 199
Confidential
A.
Loge
g Box Revenue
 Loge Boxes are a Relatively New Premium Seating Concept – Limited Comparables
 Based on Corporate Surveys and Estimated Market Demand, We have Assumed Approximately
$180,000 of Gross Loge Box Revenue
 Assumption Based Primarily on: Development of 20 Loge Boxes (18 Leased; Loge Box Gross Price
of $10,000 (Includes Hockey Tickets))
Page 200
Confidential
A.
Club Seat Revenue
 Club Seat Prices Vary Considerably Based on Numerous Factors, Including: Age of Facility;
Market; Corporate Base; High Net-Worth Individuals; Premium Seat Demand; Amenities; etc.
u C
Club
ub Se
Seat Revenue
eve ue in Co
Comparable
p b e Facilities
c es Ranged
ged from
o Approximately
pp o
e y $$10,000
0,000 too
 Annual
Approximately $724,000. Average Annual Club Seat Revenue was Approximately $274,000.
 Based on Market Surveys, We have Assumed Approximately $405,000 of Net Club Seat Premium
 A
Assumption
ti Based
B d on: Development
D l
t off 500 Club
Cl b Seats
S t (450 Leased);
L
d) Club
Cl b Seat
S t Gross
G
P i off
Price
$1,500 (Includes Hockey Tickets)
Club Seat Revenue (000s)
$800
$724
$580
$600
$439
$470
$405
$400
$274
$200
$115
$10
$14
$38
$74
$0
Page 201
Confidential
A.
Concessions Revenue
 Concessions are Anticipated to Provide
Significant Revenue
 Concession Spending is Typically Higher at
Newer Facilities than Older Facilities Due to
Increased Number of Points-of-Sale and
p
Locations
Improved
 Based on the Anticipated Event Mix and
Turnstile Attendance, We have Assumed
Concessions per Capitas as Follows
Concessions Per
Capitas
Sporting Events
g Hockey
y
Minor League
Arena Football
NBA D League
Concerts
C
$5.00 - $
$
$7.50
Family Shows
Circus
Sesame Street
$2.50 - $4.00
Miscellaneous
Conventions
Assemblies
$8.00
$8.00
$5.00
$6.00
$6.00
$4.00
$0 - $4.00
Page 202
Confidential
A.
Concessions Revenue
 Annual Concessions Revenues for Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $84,000 to
Approximately $1.4 Million. Average Annual Concessions Revenue was Approximately $732,000.
 For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed Annual Net Concessions of $705,000 (After Revenue
Sharing). In FY 2010, the Coliseum Reported Net Concessions Revenue of $517,000
Concessions (000s)
$1,600
$1,412
$1,273
$1,200
$1,074
$
, $1,097
$800
$639
$713
$824
$733 $770 $784
$857
$917
$732 $705
$483 $517
$400
$299
$330 $375
$84
$0
Page 203
Confidential
A.
Novelties Revenue
 Novelties Revenues are Typically Retained
by Tenant or Act
 Facility Occasionally Receives
Share of Novelties Revenues
Nominal
 B
Based
d on the
th Anticipated
A ti i t d Event
E t Mix
Mi andd
Turnstile Attendance, We have Assumed
Novelties per Capitas as Follows
Novelties Per
Capitas
Sporting Events
g Hockey
y
Minor League
Arena Football
NBA D League
Concerts
C
Family Shows
Circus
Sesame Street
Miscellaneous
Conventions
Assemblies
$1.50
$1.50
$1.25
$1.25
$4.00 - $
$
$6.00
$0 - $6.00
$2.50 - $5.00
$0.00
Page 204
Confidential
A.
Novelties Revenue
 Annual Novelties Revenues for Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $20,000 to
Approximately $359,000. Average Annual Novelties Revenue was Approximately $110,000.
 For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed Annual Net Novelties of $59,000 (After Revenue
Sharing). In FY 2010, the Coliseum Reported Net Novelties Revenue of $30,700.
Novelties (000s)
$500
$400
$359
$275
$300
$232
$184
$200
$100
$40 $40 $41 $50
$20 $21 $24 $29
$103
$76 $88
$121
$133 $144
$110
$59
$0
Page 205
Confidential
A.
Parking
g Revenues
 Facility Location will Impact the Number of Required Parking Spaces – Downtown Facilities
Typically Require Fewer Controlled Parking Spaces
 Parking Revenue in Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $13,000 to Approximately
$2.6 Million. Average Parking Revenue was Approximately $469,000 ($298,000 Excluding
Outliers).
 F
For Analytical
A l ti l Purposes,
P
W have
We
h
A
Assumed
d Arena
A
M
Management
t will
ill Secure
S
Off Sit Parking
Off-Site
P ki
Agreements for Arena Events for 1,000 Public Sector Spaces. We have Assumed Approximately
$249,000 of Net Parking Revenue Generated by Proposed Facility (After Revenue Sharing). In FY
2010, the Coliseum Reported Net Parking Revenue of $64,400.
Parking (000s)
$3,000
$2,629
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$753
$500
$13
$58
$75
$150
$199
$232
$322
$336
$388
$468
$469
$249
$0
Page 206
Confidential
A.
Other Revenues
 Proposed Arena will Generate
Additional Miscellaneous Revenues,
c ud g:
Including:
 Facility Fee
 Convenience Charge Rebate
 Credit Card Fees
 Interest Income
 Other
Facility
Fee
Sporting Events
Minor League Hockey
Arena Football
NBA D League
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
$4.00
$4.00
$4.00
$4.00
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Concerts
$1.00
65.0%
$7.50
30.0%
Family Shows
Circus
Sesame Street
$1.00
65.0%
$4.00
30.0%
Other
O
h Sporting
S
i Events
E
$1 00
$1.00
65 0%
65.0%
$4 00
$4.00
30 0%
30.0%
$1.00
$0.00
$0
00
65.0%
0 0%
0.0%
$4.00
$0.00
$0
00
30.0%
0 0%
0.0%
Miscellaneous
Conventions
Assemblies
Convenience Charge Rebate
% Sold by
Average
% to
Service
Charge
Facility
Page 207
Confidential
B.
Proposed Arena – Expense Assumptions
Page 208
Confidential
B.
Staffing Expense
 Staffing Expenses Vary Considerably Due to Several Factors, Including: Local Wage Levels; Event
Mix/Schedules; Accounting Policies/Procedures; Overhead Allocations; Contract Labor Policies;
and Reimbursement Polices for Game/Event Related Staffing Expenses
 Staffing Expense in Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $1.0 Million to
Approximately $2.5 Million. Average Staffing Expense was Approximately $1.5 Million.
 For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed Approximately $1.5 Million of Staffing Expenses at the
P
Proposed
d Arena
A
(I l di Benefits).
(Including
B fi ) In
I FY 2010,
2010 the
h Coliseum
C li
R
Reported
d Net
N Staffing
S ffi Expenses
E
off
$1.1 Million.
Staffing (000s)
$
$3,000
$2,456
$2,500
$2,000
$1,390 $1,448
$1,500
$1,055 $1,071
$1,579
$1,682 $1,725 $1,736
$1,501 $1,540
$1 186
$1 184 $1,186
$1,184
$1,000
$500
$0
Page 209
Confidential
B.
Utilities Expense
 Utilities Expense Vary Considerably Due to Several Factors, Including: Event Mix/Schedules and
Local Climate, etc.
 Utilities Expense in Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $598,000 to Approximately
$1.5 Million. Average Utilities Expense was Approximately $976,000.
 For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed Approximately $980,000 of Utilities Expense at the
Proposed Facility. In FY 2010, the Coliseum Reported Utilities Expenses of $577,000.
Utilities (000s)
$2,000
$1,500
$1,289 $1,322
$1,050 $1,054
$890
$1,000
$598
$602
$630
$634
$1,425
$1,516
$976
$980
$703
$500
$0
Page 210
Confidential
B.
Insurance Expense
 Insurance Typically Reflects an Important Expense for Operations
 Tenants May Share in Insurance Expenses or Facility Covered by Municipality Umbrella Policy
 Events of 9/11 have Caused Insurance Costs to Increase Significantly
 Insurance Expense in Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $29,000 to Approximately
$206,000. Average Insurance Expense was Approximately $113,000.
 For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed Approximately $150,000 of Insurance Expense at the
Proposed Facility. In FY 2010, the Coliseum Reported Insurance Expense of $103,000.
Insurance (000s)
$250
$206
$200
$163
$150
$122
$100
$60
$50
$64
$76
$135
$164
$150
$138
$113
$85
$29
$0
Page 211
Confidential
B.
Repairs and Maintenance Expense
 Repairs and Maintenance Expense Vary Due to a Number of Factors, Including: Age and Condition
of Facility; Accounting Policies/Procedures; etc.
 Repairs and Maintenance Expense in Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $43,000 to
Approximately $390,000. Average Repairs and Maintenance Expense was Approximately
$186,000.
 For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed Approximately $200,000 of Repairs and Maintenance
Expense at the Proposed Facility. In FY 2010, the Coliseum Reported Repairs and Maintenance
Expense of $183,000.
Repairs and Maintenance (000s)
$500
$390
$400
$302
$318
$300
$193
$200
$100
$86
$102
$106
$193
$194
$186
$200
$123
$43
$0
Page 212
Confidential
B.
Management Fee Expense
 Some Facilities Hire an Outside Manager or Team Affiliate for Management of Facility
 Management Fee Typically Consists of Base Fee and Incentive Fee
 Management Fee Expense in Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $75,000 to
Approximately $634,000. Average Management Fee Expense was $213,000.
 For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed a $250,000 Management Fee. In FY 2010, the
Coliseum Reported Management Fees of $71,000 – No Incentive Fees were Paid.
Management Fee (000s)
$800
$634
$600
$500
$517
$447
$400
$311
$250
$200
$75
$115
$159
$173
$181
$0
Page 213
Confidential
B.
Other Expenses
 Supplies
 Equipment Rental
 Promotions/Marketing
 General and Administrative Expenses
 Photocopying
 Printing
 Office Supplies
 Travel
 Entertainment
 Other General and Administrative Expenses
 Security Expenses
 Other Operating Expenses
Page 214
Confidential
B.
Total Operating Expenses
 Total Operating Expenses in Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $1.5 Million to
Approximately $6.6 Million. Average Total Operating Expenses were $3.6 Million.
 For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed Approximately $3.8 Million of Total Operating
Expenses at the Proposed Facility Based on the Proposed Size, Tenant Mix, Etc. In FY 2010, the
Coliseum Reported Operating Expenses of $2.5 Million, Down from $3.0 Million in Prior Years.
Total Operating Expenses (000s)
$8,000
$6,556
$6 000
$6,000
$5,217
$3,944 $3,994
$3,747 $3,914
$3,543 $3,687
$4,000
$4,331
$4,539 $4,656
$3,593
$3,790
$2,991 $3,026 $3,028
$2,110
$2 000
$2,000
$2,604
$2,394 $2,445
$1,547
$0
Note: Total operating expenses do not include game day expenses, capital repairs expenses, capital leases, and other non-operating expenses.
Page 215
Confidential
B.
Other Miscellaneous Expenses
 Concession Expenses
 Concessions Assumed to be Managed and Subject to Cost of Goods Sold (COGS), Concession
Operating Expenses, and Profit Margin (Collectively “Expenses”)
 Total Concession Expenses Assumed to be 60.0% of Gross Concession Sales on Weighted
g Basis
Average
 Novelty Expenses
 Novelties Assumed to be Managed by Concessionaire, Tenant, or Other Third Party
 Novelties Assumed to be Managed and Subject to Cost of Goods Sold (COGS), Operating
Expenses, and Profit Margin (Collectively “Expenses”)
 Total Novelty Expenses Assumed to be 80.0% of Gross Novelty Sales on Weighted Average
Basis
 Parking Expenses
 Parking Expenses Assumed to be 25.0% of Gross Parking Revenues
Page 216
Confidential
B.
Other Miscellaneous Expenses
p
 Game Day Expenses
 Event Set-Up/Tear Down, Staffing, Ticket Takers, Security, Clean-Up, etc.
 Significant Portion, or All, of Game Day Expense are Often Reimbursed by Event/Tenant
 Property Taxes
 No Property
p y Taxes have been Assumed
 Capital Replacement Reserve
 Initial Funding and Annual Deposit Assumed To be Determined
Page 217
Confidential
C.
Cash Flow Summary
Page 218
Confidential
C.
Cash Flow Summary
Cash Flow Summary
Actual Results Depend on Actions of Arena Owner, Management, Tenants, and Other Factors
B th Internal
Both
I t
l andd External
E t
l to
t Project,
P j t which
hi h Frequently
F
tl Vary
V
Mayy be Significant
g
Differences Between Actual Results and those Estimated in this Analysis,
y
and
 As Illustrated in the Following Table, the Cash Flow Analysis Prepared Indicates Arena would be
able to Generate a Positive Cash Flow from Operations
 Net Cash Flow from Operations (Before Consideration of Capital Replacement Reserve) would
be Approximately $891,000 in Year 1
 Consideration should be Given to Establishing a Capital Repair, Replacement, and Improvement
Fund
 Consideration should be Given to Developing Co-Promotion Account to Assist Management in
Attracting Events/Shows to the Market
Page 219
Confidential
C.
Cash Flow Summary
Cash Flow Summary
y ((Continued))
ARENA SUMMARY
($ in
i 000s)
000 )
Year
1
2
3
4
5
137
649
137
649
137
633
137
617
137
617
$220
67
39
125
32
144
230
129
$985
$221
70
40
130
33
149
239
134
$1,016
$220
68
42
135
34
155
249
139
$1,043
$220
67
43
141
35
161
259
145
$1,071
$220
69
45
146
37
168
269
151
$1,105
$456
137
405
468
425
705
59
249
793
$3,696
$479
144
429
484
442
730
61
258
793
$3,819
$502
151
455
501
460
741
61
267
777
$3,913
$527
158
482
518
478
751
60
276
761
$4,012
$553
166
511
536
497
778
63
286
761
$4,150
TOTAL REVENUES
$4,681
$4,834
$4,956
$5,084
$5,256
OPERATING EXPENSES
Arena Operating Expenses
Staffing
General and Administrative
Utilities
Management Fee
Non-Recoverable
Non
Recoverable Event Related Expenses
$1,540
1,020
980
250
0
$1,594
1,056
1,014
259
0
$1,650
1,093
1,050
268
0
$1,707
1,131
1,087
277
0
$1,767
1,170
1,125
287
0
TOTAL EXPENSES
$3,790
$3,922
$4,060
$4,202
$4,349
$891
$912
$896
$882
$907
Number of Events
Annual Paid Attendance
OPERATING REVENUES
Rent
Minor League Hockey
Collegiate Basketball (CAA/NCAA/Etc.)
Indoor Football
NBDL
Thrill/Dirt Show/WWE
Family Shows
Concerts
Miscellaneous Events
Total Rental Revenue
Other Revenue Sources (Net)
Luxury Suite Premium
Loge Box Premium
Club Seat Premium
Advertising
N i Rights
Naming
Ri ht
Concessions
Novelties
Parking
Other (Facility Fee/Rebate/Etc.)
Total Other Revenue Sources
NET CASH FLOW
Page 220
Confidential
C.
Cash Flow Summary
Sensitivity Analysis
BASE CASE
NET CASH
FLOW
ADMISSIONS TAX
7.0%
$891
$650
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
ADJUSTMENT
NET IMPACT
ADJUSTED
CASH FLOW
ADMISSIONS TAX
7.0%
Number of Other Events
Increase
Decrease
10%
(10%)
$239
($239)
$1,130
$652
$715
$585
Average Paid Attendance - (1)
Increase
Decrease
10%
(
(10%)
)
$189
(
($178)
)
$1,081
$713
$712
$588
Premium Seating - Average Price
Increase
Decrease
10%
(10%)
$145
($145)
$1,036
$746
$650
$650
Premium Seating - Occupancy - (2)
Increase
Decrease
10%
(10%)
$105
($105)
$997
$786
$653
$647
Advertising
Increase
Decrease
10%
(10%)
$47
($47)
$938
$844
$650
$650
Naming Rights
Increase
Decrease
10%
(10%)
$43
($43)
$934
$849
$650
$650
Concessions/Novelties Per Capitas
Increase
Decrease
10%
(10%)
$76
($76)
$967
$815
$650
$650
Operating Expenses
Increase
Decrease
10%
(10%)
(
($379)
)
$379
$512
$1,270
$650
$650
ASSUMPTION
(1) - Reflects general seating attendance only - does not include premium seating.
(2) - Increased occupancy may assume additional inventory for illustrative purposes.
Page 221
Confidential
C.
Cash Flow Summary
 For Illustrative Purposes, Below is a Summary of Net Operating Income Statistics for Comparable
Facilities
$2,000,000+
$1,000,000 - $1,999,999
$500,000
,
- $999,999
,
$0 - $499,999
Net Operating Loss
# of Comparables
1
5
2
3
9
 Facilities in Other Markets May be able to Achieve Higher (or Lower) Net Operating Income






Market
M
k t Demographics
D
hi
Physical Characteristics
Anchor Tenants
Entertainment Alternatives
Other
Page 222
Confidential
C.
Cash Flow Summary
 For Illustrative Purposes, Below is a Summary of Net Operating Income Statistics for Comparable
Facilities
Net Operating Income (000s)
$3,000
$0
($3,000)
Page 223
Confidential
IX.
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Page 224
Confidential
IX.
Economic Impact Analysis
Overview
 Construction and Operation of the Proposed Arena will Generate Economic and Fiscal Impacts in
the Greater Richmond Area




City of Richmond
Chesterfield County
Hanover Countyy
Henrico County
 Economic Impacts Typically Measured by






Direct Spending (Initial Spending)
Indirect Spending (Dollars Spent through Interaction of Local Industries)
Induced Spending (Dollars Spent through Household Spending Patterns)
Fiscal Impacts
Employment Impacts
Labor Income Impacts
p
Page 225
Confidential
IX.
Overview
 Findings Included Herein Reflect Evaluation of Gross Economic and Fiscal Impacts to be Generated
by the Proposed Arena
Actual Results Depend on Actions of Arena, Management, Tenants, and Other Factors Both Internal
and External to Project,
j
which Frequently
q
y Varyy
Page 226
Confidential
IX.
Methodology
 Gross Expenditure and Economic Multiplier Approach was Used to Quantify Economic Impacts
 Basis of Approach is that Spending on Goods and Services Creates Demand within Particular
Industries
 Initial Spending is Referred to as “Direct”
Direct Spending and Defined as Purchases of Goods and
Services Resulting from Economic Event
 Exchanges or Re-Sales of Goods and Services Purchased During Preceding Periods are Not
Counted
 A Portion of Each “Direct” Dollar Spent is Re-Spent, Generating Additional or “Indirect”
Economic
co o c Benefits
e e s
 Result of Process is that $1 in Direct Spending Increases Final Demand by More than $1 –
“Multiplier Effect”
Page 227
Confidential
IX.
Methodology
gy ((Continued))
 Analysis Utilizes the IMPLAN Type SAM Multiplier
A
Accounts
t for
f the
th Social
S i l Security
S
it andd Income
I
T Leakage
Tax
L k
 Institution Savings
 Commuting
 “Substitution Effect” Considered
 Tax Impacts were Estimated Impacts Estimated Based on Current Statutory Rates and Estimated
New Economic Activity
Page 228
Confidential
IX.
Multiplier Effect
 Introduction of New Money Into Economy Begins Cycle in Which Money is Re-Spent Several
Times by Different Parties
 Turnover of Each $1 is Projected through Use of Economic Multiplier Applied to Initial
Expenditure
 Multiplier Conveys that Additional Spending into a Finite Economy will Lead to Secondary
S di
Spending
 Cycle Continues Until Initial $1 has Experienced Leakage Sufficient to End Its Economic Cycle
 Purchases Outside Region
 Taxes Paid Outside Region
 Individual Savings
 Multiplier Illustrates a More Realistic Image of Economic System where Direct Consumption
Leads to Various Levels of Indirect Consumption
 Employment Multipliers are Similar to Output Multipliers
 Employment Multipliers Estimate Number of Jobs Created/Supported within Economic Region
Based on Every $1.0 Million in Direct Spending
Page 229
Confidential
IX.
Estimated Multipliers
 Regional Economic Impact Model Developed by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG)
 Economic Multipliers
p
Estimate Impacts
p
Associated with Gross Expenditures
p
 Use of Multipliers Requires Identification of Each Industry or Economic Event
 MIG Combines National Averages for Industries and Production Functions with 2008 Data from the
Federal Government, Including:
 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
 U.S.
S Census
C
Bureau
 U.S. Department of Agriculture
 U.S. Geological Survey
 MIG has Identified Approximately 440 Economic Sectors
 MIG Provides Two Types of Multipliers
 Type I
 Type SAM (Utilized Herein)
Page 230
Confidential
IX.
Estimated Multipliers
 Type SAM Utilizes Social Accounting Matrix Information to Capture Inter-Institutional Transfers
 Type SAM Accounts for the Following
 Social Security Leakage
 Income Tax Leakage
 Institution
I tit ti Savings
S i
 Commuting
 Multipliers Utilized
Input
Arena Construction
Arena Operations
Hotell Spending
S di
Restaurant and Bar Spending
Food and Beverage Store Spending
Gasoline Station Spending
Miscellaneous Retail Store Spending
Car Rental Spending
Other Transportation Spending
Output
Multiplier
1.868
1.920
1 06
1.706
1.718
1.757
1.604
1.707
1.874
1.625
Employment
Multiplier
1.875
1.256
1 43
1.437
1.277
1.335
1.380
1.258
2.082
1.268
Page 231
Confidential
IX.
Substitution Effect
 Direct Spending Leads to Reduced Spending Within Other Sectors of Economy
 Economic Event which Generates $1 of Economic Output Actually Generates Less than $1 in
New Net Spending
 Magnitude Varies Significantly Depending Upon Circumstances
 Demand
 Alternatives
 Expenditure Size
 Disposable Income
 Savings
 Magnified when Demand is Relatively Fixed, Many Alternatives Available, and Expenditure is
Large
Page 232
Confidential
IX.
 Findings Included Herein Reflect Evaluation of Gross Economic and Fiscal Impacts – Does Not
Account for Spending Currently in Market
 Proposed Arena Would Attract New Events and Generate Additional Spending
 Increased Activity and Spending in Downtown
 New Sports Franchises
 New Events Not Currently Held in Market
 Increased Number of Out-of-Town Visitors to Attend Events in the Greater Richmond Area
 Increased Spending at Proposed Arena for Advertising/Premium Seating/Etc.
Seating/Etc
 Increased Spending on Concessions/Novelties Resulting from Increased Points-of-Sale and
New Restaurant/Club Options
 Potential Ancillary Development Opportunities
Page 233
Confidential
IX.
Government Revenue Impacts
 Estimated Based on Current Statuary Tax Rates and Estimated New Economic Activity
 Regional Input/Output Model Developed Specifically for City and Counties to Estimate
Government Revenue Impacts
 Model Incorporates National Industry and Production Function Averages with 2008 Data from
U.S. Department of Commerce
Page 234
Confidential
IX.
Major Study Efforts
 Prepared Preliminary Cost Estimate of the Proposed Arena to be Included in MIG Model







Site Preparation
On-Site Infrastructure Requirements
Demolition
Hard and Soft Construction Costs
Project Management
Project Contingency
Other
 Estimated Direct Spending to be Generated by Proposed Arena within the Greater Richmond
Area. Key Operating Variables Include







Attendance
Average Ticket Price
Parking Rates
Premium Seat Pricing
Advertising Revenue
Per Capita Spending on Concessions
Per Capita Spending on Novelties
Page 235
Confidential
IX.
Major Study Efforts
 Conducted Fan Patron Surveys (648 Completed) at Three Local Events to Understand Out-ofFacility Spending by Non-Residents
 Michael Buble (July 6, 2010) – 349 Surveys Completed
 Dane Cook (November 5, 2010) – 190 Surveys Completed
 Tony Bennett (November 5, 2010) – 109 Surveys Completed
 Non-Resident Spending Behavior was Evaluated







Hotels
Restaurants/Bars
Gasoline Stations
Grocery Stores
Convenience Stores
Other Retail Establishments
Car Rental
Page 236
Confidential
IX.
Major Study Efforts
 Customized Input/Output Economic Model to Estimate Economic Output and Employment
Multipliers
 Estimated Tax Impacts




Sales Tax
Hotel Occupancy Tax
Car Rental Tax
Meals Tax (Not Estimated)
Page 237
Confidential
IX.
Flow Chart
ECONOMIC/FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY – CONSTRUCTION
LEAKAGES
Outside
Labor
Labor and Material
Expenditure
LEAKAGES
Outside
Material
Local Labor and Material
Expenditure
LEAKAGES
Outside
Taxes
LEAKAGES
DIRECT ECONOMIC/FISCAL
IMPACTS
Economic Output
Job Creation
Municipal Revenues
Respending
Outside
Region
Savings
MULTIPLIER EFFECT
(Respending of Initial Dollars)
Labor
Goods
Services
TOTAL ECONOMIC/FISCAL IMPACTS - CONSTRUCTION
Page 238
Confidential
IX.
Flow Chart
ECONOMIC/FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY – OPERATIONS
SPENDING
Facility/Tenant Generated
Spending
Out-of-Facility
Spending
$ Ticket Sales
$ Parking
$ Concessions
$ Novelties
$ Advertising
$ Luxury Suites
$ League Receipts
$ Media Revenue
$F
Food/Gas
d/G
$ Beverages
$ Convenience
$ Hotel/Lodging
$ Other
LEAKAGES
Outside
Purchases
LEAKAGES
DIRECT ECONOMIC/FISCAL
IMPACTS
Economic Output
Job Creation
Municipal Revenues
Outside
Taxes
Respending
Outside
Region
Savings
MULTIPLIER EFFECT
(Respending of Initial Dollars)
Labor
Goods
Services
TOTAL ECONOMIC/FISCAL IMPACTS - OPERATIONS
Page 239
Confidential
IX.
Summary of Results – Construction
 Construction of the Proposed Arena will Generate Considerable Economic Impacts for the
Greater Richmond Area During the Construction Period (Presented in 2012 Dollars)
Full-Time
F
ll Ti Equivalent
E i l Employment
E l
Labor Income
Construction
(2012 Dollars)
$93,810,000
$39,050,000
$38,840,000
$171,700,000
1,114
1
114
$60,370,000
 N
Note: 60% off Labor/Materials
L b /M
i l Expenditures
E
di
S
Sourced
d in
i the
h Local
L l Market
M k Based
B d on Local
L l
Page 240
Confidential
IX.
Summary of Results – Construction
 Construction of the Proposed Arena will Generate Fiscal Impacts for the Greater Richmond Area
During the Construction Period (Presented in 2012 Dollars)
Construction
((2012 Dollars))
Hotel Sales Revenue
Hotel Tax Rate
Car Rental Revenue
Car Rental Rate
Sales Tax Revenues
$19,887
8.00%
$1,591
$113,478
4.00%
$4,539
$1,376,000
4.0%
$1,100,723
1.0%
$275 181
$275,181
 Note: 60% of Labor/Materials Expenditures Sourced in the Local Market Based on Local
Page 241
Confidential
IX.
Summary of Results – Operations
 On-Going Operations of the Proposed Arena will Generate Considerable Economic Impacts for
the Greater Richmond Area on an Annual Basis (Presented in 2014 Dollars)
 Annual Arena Operations
 Non-Resident Spending
Annual Operations
(2014 Dollars)
$25,990,000
$12,050,000
$9,790,000
$47,830,000
Labor Income
894
$15,300,000
Page 242
Confidential
IX.
Summary of Results – Operations
 On-Going Operations of the Proposed Arena will Generate Fiscal Impacts for the Greater
Richmond Area on an Annual Basis (Presented in 2014 Dollars)
Annual Operations
(2014 Dollars)
Hotel Sales Revenue
Hotel Tax Rate
$1,793,353
8.00%
$143,468
C Rental
Car
R
l Tax
T Revenue
R
Car Rental Revenue
Car Rental Rate
$52,147
4.00%
$2,086
Sales Tax Revenues
$826,000
4.0%
$660,433
1.0%
$165,108
Page 243
Confidential
IX.
Other Economic Benefits
 Proposed Downtown Arena Generates Other Significant Impacts for the Greater Richmond Area
that are Less Explicit and More Difficult to Quantify
 Catalyst for Redevelopment
 Catalyst for Economic Development
 National (and Potentially International) Exposure
 Community Pride and Identity
 Prestige Associated with Facility/Teams/Events
 Improved Quality of Life/Additional Entertainment Alternatives
 Team/Facility Contributions and Donations to Local Charities/Causes
 New Marketing/Advertising Opportunities for Local (and National) Businesses
 Other
Page 244
Confidential
X. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Page 245
Confidential
X.
Opportunities
 New Downtown Arena Appears to be a Viable Project in Terms of Market and Financial Feasibility
 Operating Surplus as Compared to Current Deficit
 Corporate Community and General Public Surveys Indicate Potential Support
 Quality of Life Benefits
 Potential to Attract Regional and National Events – Regional Events Center/Draw
 Potential to Add Entertainment Alternatives to Market
 Potential Catalyst for Redevelopment/Revitalization
 Opportunity for Mixed-Use Destination Oriented Development
 Potential
P t ti l Synergy
S
with
ith Other
Oth Richmond
Ri h
d Facilities
F iliti – Potential
P t ti l Operating
O
ti andd Financial
Fi
i l Benefits
B fit
 Limited Competition in the Immediate Market
 Professional Sports (Collegiate Sports Present Competition)
 No State
State-of-the-Art
of the Art Public Assembly Facilities
 Region Appears to be a “Good-Fit” for Sports Events/Concerts/Family Shows/Conferences/Etc.
 Promoters/Users Prefer Richmond Market
 Significant Economic Impact Associated with Construction and Ongoing Operations
Page 246
Confidential
X.
Challenges
 Potential Corporate Support – Historical
 Premium Seating
 Advertising/Sponsorship
g p
p
 Regional Competition
 John Paul Jones Arena
 SportsQuest Development – Potential Arena
 $250 Million, 250 Acre Mixed Use Sports Complex in Chesterfield County, VA
 West Campus to Include Indoor Arena – Approximately 6,500 Seats (Target 2012)
 Public/Private Partnership
 Anchor Tenant Commitment
 Minor League Hockey
 WNBA/NBA D League
 Project Costs/Funding – Significant Issue
 Public/Private Investment
 Public Sector Participation (Feasibility to be Determined)
Page 247
Confidential
X.
 Larger Arena Consideration (18,000+ Seats)
 Limited Additional Events ((ACC Tournament – Frequency
q
y Issue))
 Impact on Anchor Tenants (Event Related Expenses)
 Market Limitations for Major League Consideration (e.g. NBA/NHL)
 Corporate Base
 Media Market
– Television
– Radio
Page 248
Confidential
XI.
NEXT STEPS
Page 249
Confidential
XI.
Next Steps
 Evaluate Financing Alternatives and Prepare Definitive Sources/Uses of Funds
 Coliseum Study Group to Review Draft Report
 Consulting Team to Finalize Report
 Develop Strategy to Generate Consensus/Support for Project
 Retain Project Advisor to Guide Planning Process
 Evaluate Viability of Mixed-Use Destination Oriented Development
 Develop Private Sector Outreach Plan
 Attract Potential “Anchor” Tenants and Local Ownership Group(s) (AHL/ECHL/NBA D
League/WNBA/Etc.)
Page 250
Confidential
Page 251
Confidential
hands Ownership and
guaranteed.
d
Page 252
Confidential
CITY OF RICHMOND
VOLUME III OF III
APPENDIX
PRESENTED BY:
Januaryy 27,, 2011
Page 0
Confidential
Page 1
Confidential
Table of Contents
Appendix A – Demographics (Geographic Rings)
Appendix B – Demographics (Drive Time)
Appendix C – Large Arena Events
Appendix D – NCAA/ACC Tournament Sites
Appendix E – Site Analysis
Appendix F – Arena Development Case Studies
Appendix
pp
G – SportsQuest
p
Development
p
Page 2
Confidential
APPENDIX A
DEMOGRAPHICS (GEOGRAPHIC RINGS)
Page 3
Confidential
MEDIAN MARKET COMPARISON – GEOGRAPHIC RINGS
10 MILE RING DESIGNATION
Page 4
Confidential
10 Mile Ring Designation
Population
Median Market Average in Terms
of 2010 and 2015 Population
Median Market Average in Terms
off Estimated
E ti t d % Growth
G
th
Market
Tucson, AZ
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River,, RI-MA
Fresno, CA
Salt Lake City, UT
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Rochester NY
Rochester,
Jacksonville, FL
Oklahoma City, OK
Richmond, VA
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Average (1)
2010
Population
(000s)
891.3
770.4
746.3
718.9
701.0
676.6
666.9
666.9
666.5
654.4
628.1
626.3
611.9
611 8
611.8
588.5
579.8
569.1
557.4
505.9
503.9
322.4
635.3
Rank
k
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2015
Population
(000s)
881.3
772.8
787.3
772.0
750.9
668.5
667.7
718.7
740.5
654.9
659.9
721.7
585.5
604 5
604.5
618.4
594.6
569.3
572.4
522.8
490.4
315.9
654.9
Rank
k
21
1
3
2
4
5
9
10
8
6
12
11
7
16
14
13
15
18
17
19
20
21
Est. %
Growth
2010-2015
-1.13%
0.32%
5.50%
7.39%
7.11%
-1.20%
0.13%
7.77%
11.11%
0.07%
5.06%
15.24%
-4.32%
-1.19%
1 19%
5.08%
2.56%
0.03%
2.68%
3.35%
-2.69%
-2.02%
Rank
k
21
16
12
6
4
5
18
13
3
2
14
8
1
21
17
7
11
15
10
9
20
19
2.91%
Page 5
Confidential
Households
Median Market Average in
Terms of 2010 and 2015
Population
M di
Median
M k t Average
Market
A
i
in
Terms of Estimated % Growth
Market
Tucson, AZ
Ch l tt G t i C
Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord,
d NC-SC
NC SC
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Rochester, NY
Oklahoma City, OK
Jacksonville, FL
Richmond VA
Richmond,
Salt Lake City, UT
Fresno, CA
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Average (1)
2010
Households
(000s)
360.3
315.6
296.1
289.2
285.8
282.5
272 0
272.0
263.1
260.8
247.3
243.8
243.1
237.7
237.0
229 6
229.6
225.4
225.3
217.7
210.2
194.9
131.1
251 9
251.9
Rank
R
k
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2015
Households
(000s)
356.5
317.4
313.2
311.0
288.6
303.1
304 1
304.1
259.8
251.2
285.1
244.6
239.9
244.3
250.6
235 5
235.5
238.3
225.3
233.3
217.3
190.6
129.2
260 2
260.2
Rank
R
k
21
1
2
3
4
7
6
5
9
10
8
12
14
13
11
16
15
18
17
19
20
21
Est. %
Growth
G
2010-2015
-1.06%
0.58%
5.79%
7.54%
0.97%
7.29%
11 81%
11.81%
-1.24%
-3.66%
15.32%
0.32%
-1.29%
2.75%
5.72%
2 58%
2.58%
5.76%
0.00%
7.15%
3.35%
-2.20%
-1.46%
Rank
R
k
21
16
13
6
3
12
4
2
17
21
1
14
18
10
8
11
7
15
5
9
20
19
3 17%
3.17%
Page 6
Confidential
Income
 Richmond Income Indicators are Comparable to the Median Market Averages
Market
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Salt Lake City, UT
Richmond VA
Richmond,
Fresno, CA
Rochester, NY
Jacksonville, FL
Allis WI
Tucson, AZ
Oklahoma City, OK
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Average (1)
Average
g
Household Rank
Income
21
$82,715
1
$77,704
2
$69,374
3
$67,668
4
$67,594
5
6
$66 676
$66,676
$66,302
7
$64,989
8
$64,744
9
$63,447
10
$62,589
11
$62,319
12
$58,564
13
$58 120
$58,120
14
$57,735
15
$56,991
16
$56,568
17
$54,794
18
$53,238
19
$53,056
20
$46,042
21
$62,228
Median
Household Rank
Income
21
$63,335
1
$57,852
2
$49,855
6
$51,668
3
$47,491
9
4
$51 140
$51,140
$50,382
5
$47,116
10
$48,945
8
$44,838
12
$49,590
7
$44,463
14
$45,047
11
$44 591
$44,591
13
$41,389
17
$44,353
15
$41,081
18
$42,014
16
$40,908
19
$40,733
20
$32,567
21
$46,411
Per Capita Rank
Income
21
$32,921
1
$31,159
2
$28,591
3
$24,504
10
$27,552
5
4
$27 870
$27,870
$26,114
8
$21,403
20
$26,170
7
$26,749
6
$24,197
11
$25,008
9
$23,811
13
$23 776
$23,776
14
$23,863
12
$23,653
16
$23,071
17
$23,767
15
$22,980
18
$21,970
19
$18,064
21
$24,966
HHs w/ Income
$100,000+ Rank
(000s)
21
67.4
1
55.1
2
46.4
7
38.8
11
50.8
3
9
39 8
39.8
48.1
4
37.9
12
43.1
8
31.9
16
36.9
13
46.8
6
30.5
17
47 7
47.7
5
19.1
20
39.5
10
35.3
14
33.4
15
30.5
18
25.0
19
16.4
21
39.0
Page 7
Confidential
Age
 Richmond Average Age and
Median Age are Comparable
to the Median Market
Averages
Market
Fresno,, CA
Salt Lake City, UT
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Oklahoma City, OK
Raleigh-Cary,
g
y, NC
Tucson, AZ
Jacksonville, FL
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin,, TN
Richmond, VA
Rochester, NY
Hartford-West
Hartford
West Hartford
Hartford-East
East Hartford, CT
Average (1)
Average
Age
31.3
32.9
33.6
34.2
34.4
34.9
35.0
35.4
35.8
36.0
36.3
36.7
37.1
37.3
37.6
37.9
38.4
38.7
38.8
39.4
39.5
36.2
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Median
Age
33.9
35.1
35.0
36.1
35.8
36.5
35.5
35.6
37.7
36.3
36.9
37.1
37.4
38.1
38.3
38.7
39.1
38.9
39.2
39.2
40.1
Rank
21
1
3
2
7
6
9
4
5
13
8
10
11
12
14
15
16
18
17
19
19
21
37.1
(1) - E
Excludes
l d Richmond,
Ri h
d VA.
VA
Page 8
Confidential
Unemployment
 Richmond Unemployment is
Market Average
Market
Salt Lake City, UT
Oklahoma City, OK
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News,
News VA-NC
Rochester, NY
Richmond, VA
Tucson, AZ
Allis WI
Fresno, CA
Jacksonville, FL
Hartford West Hartford
Hartford-West
Hartford-East
East Hartford
Hartford, CT
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Average (1)
Unemployment
Rate
3.18%
3.70%
3.87%
4.14%
4.17%
4 22%
4.22%
4.24%
4.28%
4.57%
4.58%
4.98%
5 00%
5.00%
5.04%
5.05%
5.06%
5.15%
5.37%
5 41%
5.41%
5.70%
5.71%
8.88%
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
4.89%
Page 9
Confidential
Page 10
Confidential
Population
Population
th Median
the
M di Market
M k t Average
A
Growth
Market
A i R
Austin-Round
dR
Rock,
k TX
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Salt Lake City, UT
Jacksonville, FL
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Oklahoma City, OK
Louisville/Jefferson County,
County KY-IN
KY IN
Tucson, AZ
Richmond, VA
Fresno, CA
Rochester NY
Rochester,
Average (1)
2010
Population
(000s)
1,433.7
1,383.2
1,360.8
1,328.7
1,326.1
1 325 3
1,325.3
1,232.7
1,199.8
1,176.9
1,106.7
1,034.5
1,030.0
1 009 3
1,009.3
998.8
992.2
947.7
941.8
891.9
826.1
807 1
807.1
708.9
1,106.0
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2015
Population
(000s)
1,509.5
1,558.0
1,377.2
1,328.4
1,319.4
1 482 6
1,482.6
1,407.9
1,291.6
1,186.2
1,196.8
1,049.9
1,080.6
1 035 3
1,035.3
1,070.5
963.0
1,028.3
986.5
939.4
894.3
801 6
801.6
718.7
1,162.0
Rank
21
2
1
5
6
7
3
4
8
10
9
13
11
14
12
17
15
16
18
19
20
21
Est. %
Growth
2010-2015
5.29%
12.64%
1.20%
-0.02%
-0.51%
11 87%
11.87%
14.21%
7.65%
0.79%
8.14%
1.49%
4.91%
2 57%
2.57%
7.18%
-2.95%
8.50%
4.74%
5.32%
8.26%
-0.69%
0 69%
1.38%
Rank
21
10
2
16
18
19
3
1
7
17
6
14
11
13
8
21
4
12
9
5
20
15
4.86%
Page 11
Confidential
Households
Households
th Median
the
M di
M k t Average
Market
A
Growth
Market
Austin-Round Rock,, TX
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Jacksonville, FL
Oklahoma City, OK
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Salt Lake City, UT
Richmond, VA
Tucson, AZ
Rochester, NY
Fresno, CA
Average (1)
2010
Households
(000s)
564.1
541.2
532.3
514.7
507.2
499.2
474.9
462.4
432.2
416.5
410.4
409.6
399.0
394.8
390.8
372.8
370.3
346.8
314.8
287.4
261.4
426.5
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2015
Households
(000s)
593.7
611.2
534.5
512.6
515.7
554.8
541.6
466.9
469.2
430.0
431.5
400.2
428.0
402.6
422.0
390.6
401.7
366.3
312.9
292.9
280.8
448.5
Rank
21
2
1
5
7
6
3
4
9
8
11
10
16
12
14
13
17
15
18
19
20
21
Est. %
Growth
2010-2015
5.24%
12.94%
0.42%
-0.41%
1.66%
11.14%
14.04%
0.98%
8.56%
3.25%
5.15%
-2.28%
7.28%
1.98%
7.98%
4.79%
8.50%
5.63%
-0.62%
1.92%
7.44%
Rank
21
10
2
18
19
16
3
1
17
4
13
11
21
8
14
6
12
5
9
20
15
7
5.04%
Page 12
Confidential
Income
 Richmond Household and Per Capita Income Indicators are Above Median Market Averages
 Richmond
Ri h
d Households
H
h ld with
ith Income
I
off $100,000+
$100 000+ is
i Comparable
C
bl to
t the
th Median
M di Market
M k t Average
A
Market
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Richmond, VA
Salt Lake City, UT
Jacksonville, FL
Birmingham-Hoover,
Birmingham
Hoover, AL
Rochester, NY
Fresno, CA
Oklahoma City, OK
Tucson, AZ
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Average (1)
Average
Household Rank
Income
21
$83,712
1
$78,877
2
3
$78,736
$78,320
4
$77,754
5
$77,145
6
$73,772
7
$72,947
8
$72,286
9
$71,595
10
$71,163
11
$70,530
12
$68,834
13
$67,538
14
$64,469
15
$64,271
16
$63,195
17
$63,186
18
$62,507
19
$62,215
20
$
$61,172
21
$70,274
Median
Household Rank
Income
21
$65,701
1
$61,174
4
3
$61,336
$59,643
5
$61,587
2
$58,468
6
$54,404
11
$57,130
7
$55,109
9
$54,931
10
$57,083
8
$49,648
14
$53,584
12
$52,061
13
$47,166
17
$48,262
15
$47,845
16
$45,524
21
$46,141
19
$46,135
20
$
$46,728
18
$53,416
Per Capita Rank
Income
21
$33,239
1
$30,632
3
2
$31,495
$29,732
5
$25,518
16
$30,371
4
$29,713
6
$28,621
9
$28,713
8
$28,166
10
$27,282
12
$28,862
7
$27,258
13
$27,324
11
$20,586
21
$26,741
14
$25,395
17
$24,830
18
$24,683
19
$23,972
20
$
$25,535
15
$27,359
HHs w/ Income
$100,000+ Rank
(000s)
21
130.3
1
119.1
4
10
90.6
119.2
3
90.8
9
121.5
2
83.4
12
115.1
6
117.0
5
86.3
11
100.5
7
57 5
57.5
19
62.7
16
97.6
8
44.5
21
68.9
13
65.3
15
56.6
20
57.7
18
60.9
17
65.8
14
86.0
Page 13
Confidential
Age
Averages
Market
Fresno, CA
Salt Lake City, UT
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Oklahoma City, OK
M
Memphis,
hi TN
TN-MS-AR
MS AR
Tucson, AZ
Jacksonville, FL
Richmond, VA
Rochester, NY
Average (1)
Average
Age
31.1
31.6
33.9
34.6
34.9
35.3
35 4
35.4
35.8
36.0
36.6
37.1
37.1
37.4
37.7
37.9
38.4
38.6
38.7
39.0
39.6
40.0
36.5
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Median
Age
33.8
33.6
34.7
35.0
36.4
36.4
36 0
36.0
36.1
35.7
38.0
37.0
37.1
37.7
37.8
38.1
38.9
38.9
38.5
38.8
39.3
40.2
Rank
21
2
1
3
4
8
8
6
7
5
14
10
11
12
13
15
18
18
16
17
20
21
37.0
Page 14
Confidential
Unemployment
 Richmond Unemployment is Comparable
to the Median Market Average
Market
Salt Lake City, UT
Oklahoma City, OK
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Austin Round Rock,
Austin-Round
Rock TX
Richmond, VA
Rochester, NY
Tucson, AZ
Mil
k W k h W t Allis,
Alli WI
Jacksonville, FL
Charlotte Gastonia Concord NC-SC
NC SC
Fresno, CA
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Average (1)
Unemployment
Rate
2.74%
3.17%
3.47%
3.60%
3.71%
3 77%
3.77%
3.83%
3.99%
4.14%
4.15%
4.18%
4 20%
4.20%
4.27%
4.43%
4.46%
4.48%
4.59%
4 63%
4.63%
4.83%
5.52%
6.09%
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
4.22%
Page 15
Confidential
Page 16
Confidential
Population
 Richmond is Below the
Median Market Average in
Terms of 2010 and 2015
Population
th Median
the
M di
M k t Average
Market
A
Growth
Market
Salt Lake City, UT
p
, IN
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Jacksonville, FL
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Oklahoma
kl h
City,
i OK
Richmond, VA
Tucson, AZ
Fresno, CA
Rochester, NY
Birmingham Hoover AL
Birmingham-Hoover,
Average (1)
2010
Population
(000s)
2,240.1
2,105.3
1,934.8
1,713.4
1,700.8
1,694.1
,
1,618.4
1,583.9
1,521.5
1,330.0
1,254.3
1,199.3
1,189.7
1,153.5
1,132.7
1,114.3
1,030.3
1,027.9
1,025.4
953.1
921 7
921.7
1,416.5
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2015
Population
(000s)
2,238.1
2,119.7
2,171.8
1,874.8
1,711.7
1,789.7
,
1,824.3
1,794.4
1,544.4
1,439.3
1,362.5
1,236.0
1,218.4
1,211.7
1,100.1
1,166.6
1,123.2
1,083.1
1,113.3
945.9
943 5
943.5
1,492.3
Rank
21
1
3
2
4
8
7
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
18
15
16
19
17
20
21
Est. %
Growth
2010-2015
-0.09%
0.68%
12.25%
9.42%
0.64%
5.64%
12.73%
13.29%
1.50%
8.22%
8.63%
3.06%
2.42%
5.04%
-2.87%
4.70%
9.02%
5.37%
8.58%
-0.76%
2 36%
2.36%
Rank
21
19
17
3
4
18
9
2
1
16
8
6
13
14
11
21
12
5
10
7
20
15
5.26%
Page 17
Confidential
Households
Households
th Median
the
M di
M k t Average
Market
A
Growth
Market
g
y NC
Raleigh-Cary,
Salt Lake City, UT
Jacksonville, FL
Oklahoma City,
City OK
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Richmond, VA
Tucson, AZ
Rochester, NY
Fresno,, CA
Average (1)
2010
Households
(000s)
854.5
814.9
748.4
675.9
661.8
607.9
598.9
567.4
543.0
522.0
488.7
484.9
463.3
456 3
456.3
450.3
435.8
406.8
396.5
369.7
369.2
318.1
539.9
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2015
Households
(000s)
854.6
821.1
842.2
684.4
699.3
687.5
671.2
579.0
594.6
565.8
533.4
503.1
453.3
480 7
480.7
463.2
456.9
444.2
419.1
367.7
380.0
342.8
569.4
Rank
21
1
3
2
6
4
5
7
9
8
10
11
12
16
13
14
15
17
18
20
19
21
Est. %
Growth
2010-2015
0.01%
0.77%
12.53%
1.25%
5.67%
13.10%
12.07%
2.05%
9.51%
8.40%
9.14%
3.76%
-2.17%
5 35%
5.35%
2.88%
4.84%
9.18%
5.72%
-0.55%
2.94%
7.75%
%
Rank
21
19
18
2
17
10
1
3
16
4
7
6
13
21
11
15
12
5
9
20
14
8
5.47%
Page 18
Confidential
Income
 Richmond Household and Per Capita Income Indicators are Above Median Market Averages
 Richmond
Ri h
d Households
H
h ld with
ith Income
I
off $100,000+
$100 000+ is
i Comparable
C
bl to
t the
th Median
M di Market
M k t Average
A
Market
Salt Lake City, UT
Ri h
Richmond,
d VA
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Jacksonville, FL
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis,
Allis WI
Rochester, NY
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Tucson, AZ
Fresno, CA
Oklahoma City, OK
Average (1)
Average
Household Rank
Income
21
$79,084
1
$78,948
2
$78,206
3
4
$77 518
$77,518
$77,222
5
$76,476
6
$72,702
7
$72,629
8
$71,991
9
$71,621
10
$71,096
11
$69 699
$69,699
12
$69,666
13
$68,203
14
$64,324
15
$64,301
16
$63,954
17
$63,747
18
$63,561
19
$62,810
20
$61,429
21
$70,084
Median
Household Rank
Income
21
$62,141
2
$61,562
3
$62,775
1
4
$60 771
$60,771
$59,333
5
$59,096
6
$55,566
8
$55,078
11
$55,548
9
$55,227
10
$57,250
7
$54 644
$54,644
12
$50,575
14
$53,650
13
$48,834
15
$47,807
17
$46,558
21
$47,018
19
$46,755
20
$47,866
16
$47,343
18
$53,731
Per Capita Rank
Income
21
$30,978
1
$30,458
3
$24,953
18
2
$30 710
$30,710
$28,830
5
$29,618
4
$28,307
8
$28,731
6
$28,408
7
$28,110
10
$27,240
12
$27 972
$27,972
11
$28,136
9
$26,873
13
$26,271
14
$24,541
20
$24,905
19
$25,420
16
$19,908
21
$25,077
17
$25,447
15
$27,009
HHs w/ Income
$100,000+ Rank
(000s)
21
210.4
2
218.3
1
126.5
8
11
103 3
103.3
140.2
5
143.0
4
150.9
3
105.6
10
135.7
6
97.1
12
112.4
9
131 5
131.5
7
72.3
16
71.5
17
80.3
13
74.8
14
66.7
19
65.7
20
52.3
21
71.5
18
74.4
15
110.1
Page 19
Confidential
Age
Averages
Market
Salt Lake City, UT
Fresno, CA
Oklahoma City, OK
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Jacksonville, FL
Richmond, VA
T
Tucson,
AZ
Rochester, NY
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River,, RI-MA
Average (1)
Average
Age
30.6
30.9
33.7
34.9
35.1
35.4
35.5
35.9
36.1
36.9
37.2
37.2
37 7
37.7
37.7
37.9
38.3
38.6
38.6
38.7
39.0
40.0
36.4
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Median
Age
32.8
33.7
34.8
36.5
35.4
36.4
36.1
36.3
36.1
36.9
37.2
37.6
38 9
38.9
37.9
37.9
38.3
39.0
38.5
38.9
39.1
40.2
Rank
21
1
2
3
9
4
8
5
7
5
10
11
12
17
13
13
15
19
16
17
20
21
37.0
((1)) - Excludes Richmond,, VA.
Page 20
Confidential
Unemployment
Market Average
Market
Salt Lake City,
City UT
Oklahoma City, OK
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Rochester NY
Rochester,
Richmond, VA
Tucson, AZ
I di
li C
l IN
Jacksonville, FL
Charlotte Gastonia Concord NC-SC
NC SC
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Fresno, CA
Average (1)
Unemployment
Rate
2 65%
2.65%
3.13%
3.41%
3.57%
3.78%
3.94%
3 96%
3.96%
3.99%
4.02%
4.04%
4.05%
4.06%
4 33%
4.33%
4.36%
4.44%
4.49%
4.51%
4.62%
4 77%
4.77%
5.86%
5.96%
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
4.20%
Page 21
Confidential
APPENDIX B
DEMOGRAPHICS (DRIVE TIME)
Page 22
Confidential
MEDIAN MARKET COMPARISON – DRIVE TIME
20 MINUTE DESIGNATION
Page 23
Confidential
Appendix B - Demographics (Drive Time)
20 Minute Designation
Population
Population
th Median
the
M di Market
M k t Average
A
Growth
Market
Salt Lake City, UT
Oklahoma City, OK
N O
New
Orleans-Metairie-Kenner,
l
M t ii K
LA
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Richmond, VA
Jacksonville FL
Jacksonville,
Fresno, CA
Rochester, NY
Tucson, AZ
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Birmingham-Hoover,
Birmingham
Hoover, AL
Average (1)
2010
Population
(000s)
1,039.3
976.9
949.4
859.8
844.1
840.3
808 6
808.6
793.6
778.9
775.5
766.7
750.2
742.6
739 8
739.8
728.8
700.1
669.0
663.4
655.6
647.0
396 4
396.4
768.8
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2015
Population
(000s)
1,033.2
1,069.2
938.9
911.7
879.8
850.1
850 0
850.0
802.7
892.2
865.6
769.8
779.7
745.9
786 0
786.0
769.3
672.3
720.5
656.8
703.9
637.4
385 9
385.9
797.1
Rank
21
2
1
3
4
6
8
9
10
5
7
13
12
15
11
14
18
16
19
17
20
21
Est. %
Growth
2010-2015
-0.59%
9.44%
-1.10%
6.04%
4.23%
1.17%
5 11%
5.11%
1.15%
14.54%
11.62%
0.40%
3.93%
0.45%
6 25%
6.25%
5.57%
-3.96%
7.70%
-1.01%
7.37%
-1.48%
-2
2.64%
64%
Rank
21
16
3
18
7
10
12
9
13
1
2
15
11
14
6
8
21
4
17
5
19
20
3.51%
Page 24
Confidential
Households
Households
th Median
the
M di Market
M k t Average
A
Growth
Market
Oklahoma City, OK
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner,
Orleans Metairie Kenner, LA
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Richmond, VA
Salt Lake City, UT
Jacksonville,, FL
Rochester, NY
Tucson, AZ
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Fresno, CA
Average (1)
2010
Households
(000s)
418.6
383.0
374.3
343.5
340.5
335.9
318.3
314.4
307.2
306.8
301.2
299.2
297.7
295.9
295.3
276.3
262.3
262.0
250.7
217.9
163.6
303.2
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2015
Households
(000s)
417.0
418.4
370.5
348.4
355.7
342.5
335.5
352.8
308.8
351.5
312.8
316.0
317.8
316.2
285.5
278.4
259.6
281.4
248.4
233.3
160.3
314.9
Rank
21
2
1
3
7
4
8
9
5
14
6
13
12
10
11
15
17
18
16
19
20
21
Est. %
Growth
2010-2015
-0.38%
9.24%
-1.01%
1.43%
4.45%
1.94%
5.40%
12.20%
0.52%
14.58%
3.88%
5.59%
6.73%
6.86%
%
-3.31%
0.76%
-1.05%
7.43%
-0.92%
7.04%
-2.02%
Rank
21
16
3
18
13
10
12
9
2
15
1
11
8
7
6
21
14
19
4
17
5
20
3.77%
Page 25
Confidential
Income
 Richmond Income Indicators are Above Median Market Averages
Market
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Richmond, VA
Salt Lake City, UT
Rochester, NY
Fresno, CA
Jacksonville, FL
New Orleans
Orleans-Metairie-Kenner,
Metairie Kenner LA
Oklahoma City, OK
Tucson, AZ
Memphis,
p
TN-MS-AR
Average (1)
Average
Household Rank
Income
21
$79,092
1
$78,966
2
3
$74,177
$70,938
4
$70,827
5
$70,758
6
$70,457
7
$66,990
8
$66,598
9
$65,036
10
$64,513
11
$63,646
12
$62,934
13
$62 771
$62,771
14
$60,961
15
$59,280
16
$57,497
17
$55,963
18
$55,820
19
$55,188
20
$49,146
21
$64,369
Median
Household Rank
Income
21
$60,712
2
$60,787
1
3
$57,805
$55,211
4
$51,896
7
$53,093
5
$49,828
10
$50,784
8
$50,621
9
$52,492
6
$46,657
13
$47,844
12
$48,407
11
$44 848
$44,848
17
$46,291
14
$45,031
15
$44,947
16
$39,115
20
$42,686
18
$40,429
19
$36,013
21
$48,385
Rank
p
Per Capita
Income
21
$32,055
1
$31,381
2
3
$30,135
$24,797
15
$28,976
5
$28,035
6
$29,232
4
$26,917
7
$26,587
8
$24,941
13
$21,203
20
$25,910
9
$25,360
10
$24 984
$24,984
12
$24,800
14
$25,356
11
$23,802
17
$23,516
18
$23,844
16
$22,344
19
$19,358
21
$25,670
HHs w/ Income
Rank
$100,000+
$
,
(000s)
21
78.2
1
77.5
2
6
65.3
57.5
8
58.1
7
75.4
3
56.5
9
49.6
12
69.5
4
45.6
14
37.4
18
67.5
5
44.8
15
51 2
51.2
10
50.0
11
47.1
13
44.2
16
20.8
21
38.8
17
31.6
19
22.6
20
51.2
Page 26
Confidential
Age
Median Age are Comparable to
the Median Market Averages
Market
Fresno, CA
Salt Lake City, UT
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Okl h
Oklahoma
City,
Ci OK
Tucson, AZ
Jacksonville, FL
Richmond, VA
N h ill D id
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin,
M f
b
F kli TN
Rochester, NY
Buffalo Niagara Falls,
Buffalo-Niagara
Falls NY
Average (1)
Average
Age
31.2
32.5
33.7
34.4
34.5
34.6
35 1
35.1
35.2
35.5
35.8
36.6
37.0
37.1
37 1
37.1
37.9
38.3
38.5
38.8
39.2
39.5
39 7
39.7
36.3
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Median
Age
33.9
34.6
34.8
36.1
35.8
35.1
36 5
36.5
37.3
35.4
36.2
36.8
37.4
37.6
37 2
37.2
38.6
39.0
39.1
38.8
39.0
39.6
40 2
40.2
Rank
21
1
2
3
7
6
4
9
12
5
8
10
13
14
11
15
17
19
16
17
20
21
37.1
Page 27
Confidential
Unemployment
Market Average
Market
Salt Lake City,
City UT
Oklahoma City, OK
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Richmond VA
Richmond,
Rochester, NY
Tucson, AZ
L i ill /J ff
Louisville/Jefferson
County,
C
t KY-IN
KY IN
Jacksonville, FL
Fresno, CA
Indianapolis Carmel IN
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Average (1)
Unemployment
Rate
2 91%
2.91%
3.26%
3.82%
4.00%
4.00%
4.10%
4 13%
4.13%
4.16%
4.50%
4.56%
4.66%
4.67%
4 77%
4.77%
4.84%
4.85%
4.99%
5.10%
5.16%
5 62%
5.62%
5.78%
7.81%
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
4.68%
Page 28
Confidential
MEDIAN MARKET COMPARISON – DRIVE TIME
30 MINUTE DESIGNATION
Page 29
Confidential
Population
Population
p
Growth
Market
Salt Lake City, UT
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Oklahoma City, OK
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Richmond VA
Richmond,
Jacksonville, FL
Tucson, AZ
Fresno, CA
Rochester, NY
Average (1)
2010
Population
(000s)
1,514.3
1,442.1
1,404.8
1,403.0
1,362.4
1,357.7
1,323.6
1,233.3
1,179.7
1,067.0
1,063.5
1,036.2
1,030.6
1 010 1
1,010.1
976.7
960.5
918.5
917.5
836.3
811.0
705.6
1,127.2
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2015
Population
(000s)
1,523.0
1,435.5
1,575.8
1,470.1
1,529.3
1,358.8
1,431.1
1,400.8
1,187.6
1,146.8
1,116.3
1,065.1
1,046.3
1 054 5
1,054.5
1,043.8
931.4
994.9
965.7
906.7
805.8
711.0
1,182.3
Rank
21
3
5
1
4
2
8
6
7
9
10
11
12
14
13
15
18
16
17
19
20
21
Est. %
Growth
2010-2015
0.57%
-0.46%
12.18%
4.78%
12.25%
0.08%
8.12%
13.58%
0.67%
7.48%
4.96%
2.79%
1.52%
4 39%
4.39%
6.87%
-3.03%
8.32%
5.25%
8.42%
-0.65%
0.76%
Rank
21
17
19
3
11
2
18
6
1
16
7
10
13
14
12
8
21
5
9
4
20
15
4.72%
Page 30
Confidential
Households
Households
th Median
the
M di
M k t Average
Market
A
Growth
Market
Mil
k W k h W t Allis,
Alli WI
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Salt Lake City, UT
Oklahoma City, OK
Richmond VA
Richmond,
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Jacksonville, FL
Tucson, AZ
Rochester, NY
Fresno CA
Fresno,
Average (1)
2010
Households
(000s)
591.2
559.7
555.9
551.7
543 8
543.8
507.3
478.3
444.5
429.5
424.8
423.5
423.4
397 8
397.8
397.5
394.0
387.0
362.9
356.5
316.8
287.4
264 9
264.9
435.0
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2015
Households
(000s)
595.0
557.6
582.8
620.9
546 9
546.9
565.9
542.4
449.5
465.8
439.5
455.7
445.6
415 6
415.6
388.1
402.0
416.2
393.2
376.3
314.9
291.3
285 0
285.0
456.7
Rank
21
2
5
3
1
6
4
7
10
8
12
9
11
14
17
15
13
16
18
19
20
21
Est. %
Growth
2010-2015
0.64%
-0.38%
4.83%
12.54%
0 56%
0.56%
11.55%
13.42%
1.10%
8.44%
3.46%
7.59%
5.23%
4 46%
4.46%
-2.37%
2.02%
7.55%
8.37%
5.57%
-0.58%
1.35%
7 58%
7.58%
Rank
21
17
19
11
2
18
3
1
16
4
13
6
10
12
21
14
8
5
9
20
15
7
4.92%
Page 31
Confidential
Income
 Richmond Average Household, Median Household and Per Capita Income Indicators are Above
Median Market Averages
 Richmond Households with Income of $100,000+ is Comparable to the Median Market Average
Market
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Richmond, VA
Salt Lake City, UT
Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord,, NC-SC
Rochester, NY
Jacksonville FL
Jacksonville,
Fresno, CA
Oklahoma City, OK
Tucson, AZ
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Average (1)
Average
Household Rank
Income
21
$79,014
1
$78,751
2
3
$77,061
$76,780
4
$76,008
5
$75,503
,
6
$73,698
7
$72,300
8
$70,010
9
$69,325
10
$68,923
11
$68,626
12
$68,318
13
$67 979
$67,979
14
$64,677
15
$63,942
16
$63,465
17
$62,884
18
$61,614
19
$61,550
20
$61,020
21
$69,219
Median
Household Rank
Income
21
$61,467
1
$60,541
3
4
$59,962
$61,155
2
$58,396
5
$56,770
,
6
$54,821
9
$56,304
7
$53,541
10
$55,506
8
$48,720
14
$53,353
11
$52,563
12
$52 153
$52,153
13
$48,569
15
$46,826
17
$45,963
19
$47,693
16
$45,492
21
$45,906
20
$46,479
18
$52,611
Per Capita Rank
Income
21
$31,223
1
$30,799
2
3
$30,733
$25,104
17
$28,569
6
$29,854
,
4
$29,491
5
$28,402
7
$28,033
9
$26,692
14
$28,344
8
$27,217
11
$27,639
10
$27 154
$27,154
12
$26,760
13
$20,439
21
$24,912
18
$25,257
16
$24,593
19
$23,764
20
$25,540
15
$26,989
HHs w/ Income
$100 000+ Rank
$100,000+
(000s)
21
152.8
1
119.5
3
9
93.1
97.5
8
115.4
5
119.5
4
88.1
10
123.6
2
107.9
6
82.8
11
54.9
20
62.6
16
101.8
7
69 1
69.1
13
71.5
12
44.4
21
58.6
18
66.7
14
55.0
19
59.6
17
63.6
15
85.8
Page 32
Confidential
Age
Averages
Market
Fresno, CA
Salt Lake City, UT
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Oklahoma City, OK
p , TN-MS-AR
Memphis,
Tucson, AZ
Jacksonville, FL
Richmond, VA
Allis WI
Rochester, NY
Average (1)
Average
Age
31.0
31.2
33.2
34.6
34.8
35.3
35.4
35.9
35.9
36.7
37.0
37.1
37.1
37 7
37.7
38.1
38.5
38.5
38.6
38.9
38.9
40.0
36.4
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Median
Age
33.7
33.3
34.2
35.1
36.4
36.4
36.0
36.2
35.8
38.2
37.0
37.1
37.5
37 8
37.8
38.3
38.9
38.9
38.5
39.0
38.7
40.3
Rank
21
2
1
3
4
8
8
6
7
5
14
10
11
12
13
15
18
18
16
20
17
21
37.0
Page 33
Confidential
Unemployment
Market Average
Market
Salt Lake City, UT
Oklahoma City, OK
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Rochester, NY
Richmond, VA
Tucson, AZ
Jacksonville, FL
Fresno, CA
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Average (1)
Unemployment
Rate
2.76%
3.17%
3.59%
3.61%
3.75%
3.98%
4.02%
4.13%
4.15%
4.20%
4.23%
4.35%
4.42%
4.43%
4.51%
4.57%
4.75%
4.76%
4.84%
5.54%
6.12%
Rank
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
4.29%
(1) - Excludes Richmond,
Richmond VA.
VA
Page 34
Confidential
APPENDIX C
LARGE ARENA EVENTS
Page 35
Confidential
Appendix C – Large Arenas Events
Events with Attendance of Over 15,000
,
 Over the Last Twelve Months, Few Events Generated Attendance Over 15,000 at Large Arenas
Pollstar Reported Events Over 15,000 Attendance
50
100%
93%
45
87%
100%
100%
95%
92%
4
87%
91%
40
80%
3
35
30
60%
25
42
20
15
1
2
1
2
24
10
5
40%
36
13
13
14
Times Union Center
Qwest Center Omaha
Wells Fargo Arena
18
18
INTRUST Bank Arena
Verizon Arena
20%
0
0%
Events Below 15,000
,
Events 15,000 or More
,
BOK Center
Sprint Center
% of Events Below 15,000
,
Page 36
Confidential
Concerts with Attendance of Over 15,000
 Bon Jovi
 BOK Center, Sprint Center
 Paul McCartney
 BOK Center
C
 Miley Cyrus
 Sprint Center
 Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band
 Time Union Center
 Richmond Coliseum (2008/2005/2003)
 Elton John / Billy Joel
 Sprint Center
 Richmond Coliseum (2005/2002)
 George Strait / Reba / Lee Ann Womack
 BOK Center, Qwest Center Omaha, Sprint Center, Wells Fargo
Arena, Verizon Arena
 Richmond Coliseum (2008/2005)
 Phish
 Times Union Center
 (John Paul Jones Arena 2009)
 (Hampton Coliseum 2009/2004/2003)
 Nickelback
 Qwest Center Omaha
 (Hampton Coliseum 2010/2007/2006)
Out of 191 Concert Acts That
Played the 8 Evaluated Venues
Over the Past 12 Months*, Only
13 Generated Attendance of Over
15,000
* Represents Last 12 Months of Available Data
Page 37
Confidential
BOK Center
 Opened 2008
 CBSA Market
 Tulsa, OK
 Population 930,074
 Characteristics
 19,199 Seats
 38 Suites
 20 Loge Boxes
 680 Club Seats
 Tenants
 AFL
 CHL
BOK Center: August 2009 to July 2010
Event
Avg. Tickets Avg. Gross Avg. Ticket Price
Rascal Flatts
9,617
$638,967
$66
Justin Bieber
12,993
$584,810
$45
Jeff Dunham
7,189
$298,343
$41
Michael Buble
11,121
$837,642
$75
Ringling Bros.
4,371
$71,299
$16
Brooks & Dunn
13,007
$725,350
$56
"The Rowdy Frynds Tour"
6,369
$359,819
$56
Widespread Panic
3,172
$
$94,710
$
$30
Nickelback
14,804
$919,076
$62
"Rock and Worship" Roadshow
8,595
$85,950
$10
Bon Jovi
17,053
$1,276,475
$75
The Harlem Globetrotters
2,828
$63,352
$22
Tim McGraw
11 689
11,689
$678 309
$678,309
$58
"Sesame Street Live"
1,488
$25,592
$17
The Black Eyed Peas
13,310
$832,529
$63
Eric Clapton
13,354
$1,093,750
$82
"Winter Jam"
9,222
$89,322
$10
George Strait / Reba / Lee Ann Womack
18,098
$1,551,967
$86
4,200
$214,574
$51
Daughtry
5,267
$214,800
$41
Note: Reflects Pollstar reported events. May not include other concerts, family shows or sporting events.
Source: Pollstar.
Page 38
Confidential
BOK Center (Continued)
 Opened 2008
 CBSA Market
 Tulsa, OK
 Characteristics
 19,199 Seats
 38 Suites
 20 Loge Boxes
 680 Club Seats
 Tenants
 AFL
 CHL
BOK Center: August 2009 to July 2010
Event
Trans-Siberian Orchestra
10,716
$477,034
$45
KISS
10 604
10,604
$788 661
$788,661
$74
"Curious George"
853
$12,203
$14
"Winterfest"
2,654
$13,269
$5
Alan Jackson
5,884
$381,321
$65
"So You Think You Can Dance"
3,983
$209,983
$53
"Star Wars: In Concert"
5 672
5,672
$289 644
$289,644
$51
Miley Cyrus
13,151
$937,265
$71
Creed
5,475
$280,705
$51
Dave Matthews Band
13,018
$846,170
$65
Taylor Swift
12,772
$584,998
$46
"Rock 'N Rib Festival"
5 977
5,977
$17 930
$17,930
$3
Britney Spears
10,930
$794,596
$73
Def Leppard
12,837
$1,036,923
$81
Lil' Wayne
6,553
$300,605
$46
Paul McCartney
15,479
$2,648,659
$171
Keith Urban
12 902
12,902
$754 655
$754,655
$58
Journey
4,967
$319,686
$64
The Wiggles
1,771
$39,631
$22
S
Source:
P
Pollstar.
ll t
Page 39
Confidential
INTRUST Bank Arena
 Opened 2010
 CBSA Market
 Wichita, KS
 Characteristics
 15,500 Seats
 22 Suites
 40 Loge Boxes
 300 Club Seats
 Tenants
 CHL
INTRUST Bank Arena: January 2010 to August 2010
Event
Dave Matthews Band
9,340
$605,111
$65
Rascal Flatts
9,565
$461,852
$48
REO Speedwagon / Pat Benatar
3,276
$182,372
$56
Eagles
10,196
$1,123,010
$110
Michael Buble
7,688
$577,866
$75
Tim McGraw
10,438
$660,218
$63
B k & Dunn
Brooks
D
8 620
8,620
$545 204
$545,204
$63
Daughtry
4,276
$159,124
$37
2,688
$124,236
$46
Nickelback
11,421
$724,005
$63
Bill Gaither & Friends
3,720
$145,858
$39
"Walking
Walking With Dinosaurs
Dinosaurs"
1 911
1,911
$81 139
$81,139
$42
Taylor Swift
11,228
$610,801
$54
"Winter Jam"
8,324
$83,240
$10
Jeff Dunham
7,055
$306,892
$43
Bon Jovi
13,675
$1,064,673
$78
Elton John / Billy Joel
14,029
$1,706,428
$122
14,652
$1,259,197
$86
Brad Paisley
10,401
$531,387
$51
Source: Pollstar.
Page 40
Confidential
 Opened 2003
 CBSA Market
 Jacksonville, FL
 Population 1,372,183
 Characteristics
 16,000 Seats
 28 Suites
 1,116 Club Seats
 Tenants
 Jacksonville University
Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Arena: August 2009 to July 2010
Event
"Carnival of Madness" / Shinedown
4,858
$167,200
$34
Michael Buble
10,720
$822,993
$77
Brooks & Dunn
8,819
$515,136
$58
Jeff Dunham
6,297
$253,602
$40
Tim McGraw
10,171
$534,999
$53
5,884
$164,975
$28
Breaking Benjamin
6,735
$260,981
$39
Jimmy Buffet
12 506
12,506
$1 310 056
$1,310,056
$105
Tyler Perry's "Madea's Big Happy Family"
4,813
$281,370
$58
The Black Eyed Peas
11,590
$636,653
$55
John Mayer
9,968
$511,532
$51
Dane Cook
8,030
$425,000
$53
"Winter Jam"
9,654
$96,540
$10
The World Famous Lipizzaner Stallions
807
$20,025
$25
8,099
$312,420
$39
Casting Crowns
3,566
$90,673
$25
AC/DC
9,778
$792,307
$81
3,725
$206,830
$56
World Wrestling Entertainment
Entertainment"
7 591
7,591
$247 520
$247,520
$33
"World
Brad Paisley
9,983
$449,566
$45
Earth
2,098
$131,782
$63
Jamie Foxx
4,097
$232,974
$57
Kenny Chesney
12,243
$762,183
$62
Rascal Flatts
10,212
$596,312
$58
Source: Pollstar.
Page 41
Confidential
Qwest Center Omaha
 Opened 2003
 CBSA Market
 Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA
 Characteristics
 18,300 Seats
 32 Suites
Qwest Center Omaha: August 2009 to July 2010
Event
J i Bieber
Justin
Bi b
11 682
11,682
$524 563
$524,563
$45
Michael Buble
9,133
$731,474
$80
Nickelback
15,766
$885,125
$56
17,347
$1,500,319
$86
Cirque du Soleil - "Alegria"
1,421
$93,813
$66
6,007
$343,670
$57
Bon Jovi
14,980
$1,122,623
$75
John Mayer
7,819
$406,220
$52
The World Famous Lipizanner Stallions
2,336
$50,927
$22
Tim McGraw
13,923
$637,429
$46
4,027
$214,633
$53
Miley Cyrus
13,249
$928,176
$70
Demi Lovato
3,596
$127,468
$35
Green Day
8,708
$392,879
$45
Taylor Swift
13,892
$675,455
$49
Note: Reflects Pollstar reported events.
 Tenants
Source: Pollstar.
 Creighton University Basketball
 University of Nebraska at Omaha
Hockey
May not include other concerts, family shows or sporting events.
Page 42
Confidential
Sprint Center
 Opened 2007
 CBSA Market
 Kansas City, MO-KS
 Characteristics
 18,700 Seats
 72 Suites
 Tenants
 NA
Sprint Center: August 2009 to July 2010
Event
Justin Bieber
14,481
$607,701
$42
,
$669,030
,
$63
Tim McGraw
10,668
Michael Buble
12,905
$1,010,560
$78
Tool
12,490
$708,205
$57
Sugarland
9,269
$432,286
$47
Aventura
4,082
$262,240
$64
Brad Paisley
7,335
$344,015
$47
D ht
Daughtry
5 333
5,333
$199 984
$199,984
$37
James Taylor / Carloe King
13,825
$1,128,255
$82
Cirque du Soleil - "Alegria"
13,107
$855,442
$65
"Stars on Ice"
1,709
$87,986
$51
"The Rowdy Frynds Tour"
6,153
$323,396
$53
Pearl Jam
11,138
$723,922
$65
Nickelback
14,698
$832,630
$57
12,944
$797,418
$62
AC/DC
12,104
$994,664
$82
John Rich
2,499
$170,239
$68
18,045
$1,547,750
$86
Taylor Swift
13 781
13,781
$761 110
$761,110
$55
The Black Eyed Peas
13,354
$874,851
$66
John Mayer
8,842
$532,262
$60
"World Wrestling Entertainment"
11,728
$275,500
$23
Bon Jovi
15,972
$1,318,327
$83
Note: Reflects Pollstar reported
p
events. May
y not include other concerts,, family
y shows or sporting
p
g events.
Source: Pollstar.
Page 43
Confidential
Sprint Center (Continued)
 Opened 2007
 CBSA Market
 Kansas City, MO-KS
 Characteristics
 18,700 Seats
 72 Suites
 Tenants
 NA
Sprint Center: August 2009 to July 2010
Event
Eric Clapton
9,650
$773,365
$80
"Wi
"Winter
Jam"
J "
12 120
12,120
$117 396
$117,396
$10
17,682
$2,112,261
$119
Rascal Flatts
10,773
$676,955
$63
Casting Crowns
3,995
$104,280
$26
2,108
$30,675
$15
4,841
,
$126,871
,
$26
12,277
$567,703
$46
KISS
9,921
$553,569
$56
7,515
$405,845
$54
"Curious George"
1,368
$17,737
$13
5,176
$271,408
$52
Miley Cyrus
15 525
15,525
$1 111 178
$1,111,178
$72
Kings of Leon
10,303
$436,827
$42
Creed
6,638
$269,665
$41
Dave Matthews Band
11,238
$686,850
$61
Ringling Bros.
4,493
$94,436
$21
"American Idols Live"
8,310
$530,407
$64
"World Wrestling Entertainment"
7,692
$182,100
$24
Green Day
8,567
$360,031
$42
"Crue Fest" / Motley Crue
8,134
$493,801
$61
Keith Urban
14,094
$931,253
$66
The Wiggles
1,833
$49,506
$27
Source: Pollstar.
Page 44
Confidential
Times Union Center
 Opened 1990
 CBSA Market
 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY
 Characteristics
 17,500 Seats
 25 Suites
 0 Club Seats
 Tenants
 AHL
 Sienna College
Times Union Center: April 2009 to March 2010
Event
Daughtry
5,665
$218,488
$39
Carrie Underwood
8,316
$393,200
$47
13,874
$1,623,929
$117
Jeff Dunham
7,092
$308,502
$44
9,247
$438,708
$47
Phish
15,442
$740,976
$48
Metallica
14 012
14,012
$956 958
$956,958
$68
Keith Urban
10,704
$616,912
$58
"American Idols Live"
7,788
$489,821
$63
AC/DC
8,293
$733,006
$88
Green Day
7,965
$320,557
$40
"Walking With Dinosaurs"
3,883
$157,578
$41
"Yannni Voices: Live in Concert"
1,681
$87,615
$52
Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band
15,096
$1,377,450
$91
The Dead
12,858
$1,154,568
$90
Source: Pollstar.
Page 45
Confidential
Verizon Arena
 Opened 1999
 CBSA Market
 Little Rock-North
Little Rock-Conway, AR
 Population
P
l ti 687,976
687 976
 Characteristics
 18,000 Seats
 29 Suites
 0 Club Seats
 Tenants
 IFL
Verizon Arena: August 2009 to July 2010
Event
Justin Bieber
13 676
13,676
$614 854
$614,854
$45
Chris Tomlin / Toby Mac
4,395
$132,320
$30
Tim McGraw
10,032
$594,892
$59
"Winter Jam"
13,254
$132,540
$10
15,497
$1,324,706
$85
Breaking Benjamin
6,575
$248,206
$38
Martina McBride / Trace Adkins
4,871
$215,549
$44
Lil' Wayne
2,727
$191,735
$70
9,252
$269,634
$29
Daughtry
5,471
$215,772
$39
Casting Crowns
4,676
$132,259
$28
Zac Brown Band
4 245
4,245
$1 116 738
$1,116,738
$263
Dane Cook
3,747
$208,280
$56
KISS
10,166
$415,678
$41
Miley Cyrus
14,119
$969,281
$69
Maxwell
5,639
$294,646
$52
Robin Williams
3,980
$263,690
$66
Taylor Swift
13,978
$654,089
$47
Keith Urban
9,718
$556,759
$57
Source: Pollstar.
Page 46
Confidential
Wells Fargo Arena
 Opened 2005
 CBSA Market
 Des Moines, IA
 Characteristics
 16,980 Seats
 36 Suites
 20 Loge Boxes
 600 Club Seats
 Tenants
 NBDL
 AFL
Wells Fargo Arena: August 2009 to July 2010
Event
p
g
683
$42,875
$
,
$
$63
REO Speedwagon
Justin Bieber
14,717
$639,226
$43
1,124
$18,705
$17
Taylor Swift
13,264
$738,280
$56
Hillsong United
2,797
$66,320
$24
AC/DC
13,822
$1,229,551
$89
Elton John
14,250
$1,102,920
$77
16,543
$1,324,582
$80
The Black Eyed Peas
14,000
$804,128
$57
Tim McGraw
13,350
$574,419
$43
Brad Paisley
9,866
$559,552
$57
Trans Siberian Orchestra
Trans-Siberian
10 394
10,394
$425 670
$425,670
$41
Miley Cyrus
14,174
$1,005,453
$71
Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band
8,451
$678,928
$80
Britney Spears
11,815
$514,798
$44
Note: Reflects Pollstar reported
p
events. May
y not include other concerts,, family
y shows or sporting
p
g events.
Source: Pollstar.
Page 47
Confidential
APPENDIX D
NCAA/ACC TOURNAMENT SITES
Page 48
Confidential
NCAA Tournament Sites
 Arenas Under 15,000 Highlighted
2010 - NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Sites (1st and 2nd Rounds)
Maximum
Arena
City, State
Capacity
Bradley Center
Milwaukee, WI
20,000
Providence, RI
14,514
Ford Center
Oklahoma City, OK
20,817
HP Pavilion
San Jose, CA
20,000
HSBC Arena
Buffalo, NY
21,500
Jacksonville, FL
16,000
New Orleans Arena
New Orleans, LA
18,000
S k
Spokane
Veterans Memorial
i l Arena
A
S k
Spokane,
WA
A
12 638
12,638
Average
17,934
Maximum
Arena
City, State
Capacity
American Airlines Arena
Miami, FL
20,740
Greensboro Coliseum
Greensboro, NC
23,830
Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome
Minneapolis, MN
NA
R
Rose
Garden
G d A
Arena
P tl d OR
Portland,
20 000
20,000
Sprint Center
Kansas City, MO
18,700
Taco Bell Arena
Boise, ID
13,390
University of Dayton Arena
Dayton, OH
14,000
Wachovia Center
Philadelphia, PA
22,000
Average
18,951
Maximum
Arena
City State
City,
Capacity
Alltel Arena
North Little Rock, AR
19,000
BJCC Arena
Birmingham, AL
19,000
Honda Center
Anaheim, CA
19,400
Pepsi Center
Denver, CO
20,000
Qwest Center Omaha
Omaha, NE
18,300
RBC Center
Raleigh, NC
19,722
St. Pete Times Forum
Tampa, FL
21,500
Verizon Center
Washington D.C.
Washington,
DC
20 173
20,173
Average
19,637
Basketball
Capacity
19,000
23,330
NA
19 980
19,980
18,197
11,985
13,400
21,000
18,127
Luxury
Maximum
Suites Club Seats Arena
City, State
Capacity
60
500 ARCO Arena
Sacramento, CA
17,500
20
0 HSBC Arena
Buffalo, NY
21,500
36
2,620 Lawrence Joel Veterans Memorial Coliseum Winston-Salem, NC
15,300
65
3,300 Nationwide Arena
Columbus, OH
20,000
80
2,500 New Orleans Arena
New Orleans, LA
18,000
28
1,116 Rupp Arena
Lexington, KY
23,500
56
2,800 Spokane Veterans Memorial Arena
Spokane, WA
12,638
16
146 United
i d Center
C
Chi
Chicago,
IL
2 000
25,000
45
1,623 Average
19,180
Luxury
Maximum
Suites Club Seats Arena
City, State
Capacity
20
1,100 American Airlines Center
Dallas, TX
21,041
24
NA Cox Arena
San Diego, CA
13,000
NA
NA Greensboro Coliseum
Greensboro, NC
23,830
70
1 840 Jacksonville
1,840
J k
ill Veterans
V t
Memorial
M
i l Arena
A
J k
Jacksonville,
ill FL
16 000
16,000
72
1,500 Jon M. Huntsman Center
Salt Lake City, UT
15,500
0
0 Palace of Auburn Hills
Auburn Hills, MI
22,076
8
200 University of Dayton Arena
Dayton, OH
14,000
126
1,800 Wachovia Center
Philadelphia, PA
22,000
46
1,073 Average
18,431
Basketball
Capacity
18,000
17,000
18,200
19,099
17,560
19,722
20,500
20 173
20,173
18,782
Luxury
Suites Club Seats
29
0
0
0
83
1,176
95
1,850
32
1,100
66
2,000
82
3,840
108
2 280
2,280
62
1,531
Basketball
Capacity
18,600
13,106
17,908
17,723
19,500
14,091
17,500
12 0 8
12,058
16,311
Basketball
Capacity
17,000
19,500
15,000
19,000
17,500
23,200
12,058
21 800
21,800
18,132
Luxury
Suites Club Seats
30
412
80
2,500
18
0
52
1,450
56
2,800
0
0
16
146
1 8
178
3 000
3,000
54
1,289
Basketball
Capacity
20,000
12,414
23,330
14 091
14,091
15,123
22,076
13,400
21,000
17,679
Luxury
Suites Club Seats
142
1,988
0
0
24
NA
28
1 116
1,116
0
0
193
700
8
200
126
1,800
65
829
Page 49
Confidential
ACC Tournament Sites
 Recent Host Arenas have had an Average Basketball Capacity of Over 21,000
2006-2010 ACC Men's Basketball Tournament Sites
Year
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
Arena
Greensboro Coliseum
Georgia
g Dome
St. Pete Times Forum
Greensboro Coliseum
Average
City, State
Greensboro, NC
Atlanta,, GA
Charlotte, NC
Tampa, FL
Greensboro, NC
Maximum Basketball
Capacity Capacity
23,830
23,330
NA
NA
20,200
18,500
21,500
20,500
23,830
23,330
22,340
21,415
Luxury
Suites
24
NA
64
82
24
Club
Seats
NA
NA
2,300
3,840
NA
49
3,070
Page 50
Confidential
APPENDIX E
SITE ANALYSIS
Page 51
Confidential
ARENA PROGRAM
• Multi-Purpose Event Center
• 15,000+ Seats
• 20-30 Suites
• 500 Club Seats
• On-site/Adjacent Premium
customer parking spaces – 500
spaces.
SITE REQUIREMENTS
• Urban Sites
• Suburban Sites
Desirable: 6 acres
Minimum: 5.05 acres
Desirable: 65 acres
without public transit
• Site Configuration allows acceptable building
configuration and exterior spaces
• Ability to build or lease parking spaces for premium
customers adjacent to arena
• Proximityy to adequate
q
parking
p
g and transit within ½
mile
• Ability to accommodate service functions and
television truck parking
Page 52
Confidential
• Adequate site area and dimension
• Configuration
• Public perception
• Fan experience
• Visibility
• Safety and security
Economic Factors
• Property availability and relative costs
• Displacement and relocation
• Compensation
• Development Costs
• Leverage community assets
• Promote development and investment
• Potential positive impact on community
Transportation Factors
• Pedestrian circulation
• Vehicular access
• Public transportation
p
• Parking quantity
• Parking proximity
Timing Factors
• Acquisition timing
• Approvals
• Ownershipp issues
• Zoning
• Restrictions
• Utility infrastructure
• Environmental quality
Intangibles
• Public
bli Support
• Risk
Page 53
Confidential
 Site #1
 Site #2
 Site #3
The Diamond Site
 Site #4
ABC Site
 Site #5
City Stadium Site
 Site #6
 Site #7
Page 54
Confidential
Page 55
Confidential
Page 56
Confidential
Page 57
Confidential
Page 58
Confidential
Page 59
Confidential
Page 60
Confidential
Page 61
Confidential
Page 62
Confidential
Page 63
Confidential
Page 64
Confidential
Page 65
Confidential
Page 66
Confidential
Page 67
Confidential
Page 68
Confidential
Page 69
Confidential
Page 70
Confidential
Site Selection – Additional Screeningg
(Weighted Average)
Page 71
Confidential
(Not Weighted)
Adequate site area and dimension
Configuration
Public perception
Fan experience
Visibility
Safety
y and security
y
Subtotal
Transportation
Pedestrian circulation
Vehicular access
Public transportation
Parking quantity
Parking proximity
Subtotal
Utility infrastructure
Environmental quality
Subtotal
Economic factors
Property availability and relative costs
Displacement and relocation
Compensation
Development Costs
Leverage community assets
Promote development and investment
Potential positive impact on community
Subtotal
Ti i Factors
Timing
F t
Acquisition timing
Approvals
Ownership issues
Zoning
Restrictions
Subtotal
Intangibles
Public Support
Risk
Subtotal
TOTAL POINTS
Site 1
Coliseum
Site 2
City Lots
Site 3
Diamond Site
Site 4
ABC Site
4
4
4
4
4
4
24
2
1
4
4
4
4
19
4
3
3
2
2
2
16
4
3
3
2
3
2
17
3
1
4
2
2
12
4
2
4
2
2
14
2
4
4
4
4
18
2
4
4
3
4
17
4
3
7
4
4
8
4
1
5
4
3
7
2
1
4
1
3
3
4
18
3
3
4
2
4
4
4
24
4
4
2
4
2
1
4
21
3
3
2
3
2
2
4
19
1
3
4
4
4
16
3
4
2
4
3
16
4
3
3
4
4
18
2
3
2
3
3
13
3
1
4
81
4
2
6
87
3
3
6
84
3
3
6
79
Page 72
Confidential
APPENDIX F
ARENA DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDIES
Page 73
Confidential
Selected Case Studies
 The following analysis is intended to provide detail regarding arena development, sources/uses of
funds, and specific lease terms. The information is presented for illustrative purposes.
 The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. However,
in some instances it is difficult to obtain complete information, particularly as it relates to sources
and uses of funds. In addition, figures
g
change
g over time and are subject
j to interpretation.
p
 Most information has been gathered from the following sources: arenas; municipalities; franchises;
public records; industry publications; and, our internal database. Figures have not been audited or
further verified.
verified
 It is important to note that some of the projects may include sources and/or uses of funds that are not
specifically related to the arena project. Examples include: land acquisition; infrastructure; etc.
 Development costs have not been adjusted to current dollars.
Page 74
Confidential
Qwest Center ((Omaha,, Nebraska))
Q
The Qwest Center opened in 2003. The arena is part of a downtown redevelopment site which
includes a convention center, parking, and a Hilton Hotel. The Qwest Center includes over 1,100,000
squaree feet
squa
ee including
c ud g aan eexhibition
b o hall,
a , meeting
ee g space aandd thee aarena.
e a. Thee aarena
e a has
as a maximum
a
u
seating capacity of approximately 17,560. There are 32 luxury suites at the facility and approximately
1,200 club seats. The arena is home to the Creighton University men’s basketball team, the University
of Nebraska, Omaha men’s hockey team, family shows, concerts, and numerous other special events.
Qwest Center was funded in p
Q
part by
y pprivate donations ($
($75 million).
)
Arena:
Qwest Center
Construction Manager:
Kiewit Construction Company
Year Open/Renovated:
2003
Architect:
DLR Group
Arena Owner:
City of Omaha
Management:
Metropolitan Entertainment & Convention Authority
Total Cost:
See Sources/Uses Schedule
Concessionaire:
Levy Restaurants
Public Investment:
Total Seating Capacity:
17,560
Private Investment:
Luxury Suites:
32
Cost Overrun Responsibility:
To Be Confirmed
Club Seats:
1,200
New Construction/Renovation:
New Construction
Controlled Parking:
4,500
Sources: Qwest Center, City of Omaha and industry research.
Page 75
Confidential
Qwest Center (Omaha, Nebraska)
Qwest Center Sources and Uses of Funds - Gross
Sources of Funds
Convention Center/Arena Bonds
Par Amount of Convention Center/Arena Bonds
$198,000,000
,
,
Original Issue Discount
($1,823,201)
Original Issue Premium
$20,799,747
Various Purpose Bonds
Par Amount of Various Purpose Bonds
$21,000,000
$169,070
General Obligation Refunding Bonds
Par Amount of General Obligation Refunding Bonds $24,165,000
$710,573
Private Donations
Total Sources
Uses of Funds
Convention Center
Arena
Infrastructure
Various Purposes
Escrow Fund
Costs of Insurance, including Underwriters' Discount
Total Uses
R
Rounding
di
Total Uses - Adjusted
Source: Qwest Center Official Statement.
$216,976,546
$21,169,070
$24,875,573
$75,000,000
$338,021,189
$99,434,009
$108,188,989
$82,820,000
$21,001,474
$24,692,930
$1,883,360
$338,020,762
$427
$338,021,189
Page 76
Confidential
Qwest Center (Omaha, Nebraska)
Qwest Center Sources and Uses of Funds - Net
Sources of Funds
Bond Proceeds
Series A Bonds
Series B Bonds
Private Donations
Total Sources
$215,442,998
$139,097,846
$76,345,152
$
,
,
$75,000,000
$290,442,998
Uses of Funds
MECA
$207,622,998
Convention Center Costs
$99,434,009
Arena Costs
$108,188,989
City- Infrastructure Costs
$82,820,000
Total Uses
$290,442,998
Source: Qwest Center Official Statement.
Page 77
Confidential
Oklahoma Cityy Arena ((Oklahoma City,
y, OK))
The Oklahoma City Arena, previously known as the Ford Center, was part of the City’s Metropolitan
Area Projects (MAPS) program that was intended to contribute to the redevelopment and
revitalization of the downtown area of Oklahoma City.
City The arena was initially constructed without a
major league tenant, with the hope that the City would be able attract a major league tenant in the
future. The arena served as the temporary home of the NBA New Orleans Hornets following
Hurricane Katrina and now serves as the home of the NBA Oklahoma City Thunder (formerly Seattle
Sonics)
Sonics).
Arena:
Oklahoma City Arena
Contractor:
Flintco Construction Co.
2002/2009 Renovation
Architect:
Benham
Arena Owner:
City of Oklahoma City
Management:
SMG
Total Cost:
$87.7 Million
Concessionaire:
Savor
Public Investment:
20,817
Private Investment:
Luxury Suites:
36
City of Oklahoma City
Club Seats:
2,620
New Construction
Controlled Parking:
Not Available
Page 78
Confidential
y, OK))
 Metropolitan Area Projects (MAPS) Funded by Temporary 5-Year $0.01 Sales Tax Approved 1993
 Sales Tax Extended by Vote for Additional 6-Months
6 Months (Expired 1999) (Sales Tax Increase Recently
Extended for Additional Ford Center Improvements)
 Over $309 Million was Collected by Sales Tax ($54 Million Earned in Interest)
 Public Projects
 Oklahoma City Arena
 AT&T Bricktown Ballpark
 Bricktown Canal (Shops/Restaurants/Entertainment/Etc.)
 Cox Business Services Convention Center – Renovation
 Civic Center Music Hall
 Oklahoma City Fairgrounds
 Oklahoma River (Landscape/Trails/Recreational Facilities)
 Library & Learning Center
 Trolley System
$87.7 Million
$34.2 Million
$32.1 Million
$63.1 Million
$52.4 Million
$14 0 Million
$14.0
$51.8 Million
$21.5 Million
$5.3 Million
 Projects are Debt-Free
Page 79
Confidential
y, OK))
 2003 Study by Larkin Warner (Regents Professor Emeritus) at Oklahoma State University
 MAPS Served as Catalyst for Additional Downtown Development; Including
– Oklahoma Health Center
– Two Downtown Hotels
– Oklahoma City Museum of Art
– Oklahoma City National Memorial and Museum
– Office Buildings
– Upscale Residential Apartment Complex
– Bass Pro Shop
– Other
 MAPS and Additional Development Accounted for Approximately $943 Million in Central City
Development Projects
Page 80
Confidential
Sprint Center (Kansas City, Missouri)
The Sprint Center opened October 10, 2007. The first event, an Elton John concert, was held October 13,
2007. Total construction costs for the arena project was approximately $276.1 million. The arena has a
maximum seatingg capacity
p y of 19,246 ((center stage
g configuration).
g
) For basketball and hockeyy events, the
Sprint Center seats approximately 18,630 and 17,297, respectively. There are 72 luxury suites and 1,706 club
seats in the arena. The arena previously hosted the AFL Kansas City Brigade and is the home of the College
Basketball Experience. Since its opening, the Sprint Center has hosted various sporting events, concerts, and
family
y shows includingg the Bigg 12 Conference Men’s Basketball Tournament, Garth Brooks, and Hannah
Montana, among others.
Arena:
Sprint Center
Contractor:
Mortenson Construction
2007
Architect:
HOK Sport, Ellerbe Becket,
A
Arena
O
Owner:
Cit off Kansas
City
K
Cit (AEG)
City
Management Term:
35 Years
Management:
AEG
Total Cost:
See Sources/Uses of Funds
Concessionaire:
Levy Restaurants
Public Investment:
See Sources/Uses of Funds
19,246 (Center Stage)
P i t Investment:
Private
I
t
t
S Sources/Uses
See
S
/U off Funds
F d
L
Luxury
S it
Suites:
72
[Shared]
Club Seats:
1,706
New Construction
Controlled Parking:
64 (6,00 within 5-Minute Walk)
360 Architecture,
A hit t
R f l Architects
Rafael
A hit t
Page 81
Confidential
Sprint Center (Kansas City, Missouri)
Sources of Funds
City of Kansas City
Original Budget
Additional Investment
Anschutz Entertainment Group
Original Budget
Additional Investment
R di
Rounding
Sources of Funds - Total
Uses of Funds
Land Acquisition/Site Development
Sales and Marketing
Design and Professional Services
Legal and Governmental Services
Project Administration
Arena Construction
Systems and Equipment
Permits, Testing, Fees, and Special Assessments
Insurance and Transaction Costs
Contingency
i
Uses of Funds - Total
$222,900,000
$200,000,000
$22,900,000
$53,200,000
$50,000,000
$3,200,000
$40,103
$40
103
$276,140,103
$35,000,000
$35
000 000
$1,075,000
$13,085,557
$75,000
$4,190,061
$199,639,844
$10,149,220
$1,661,131
$475,980
$
$10,788,310
$276,140,103
Page 82
Confidential
Evansville Arena ((Evansville,, Indiana))
A new arena in Evansville, Indiana is currently under construction. The new state-of-the-art arena is
expected to host sporting events, concerts, exhibitions, and other events. The arena is expected to
have a capacity of 11,000
11 000 and include 21 luxury suites/club suites,
suites 92 loge seats,
seats and 516 club seats.
seats
Construction costs have been estimated at $127.5 million. Financing for the arena is expected to
primarily come from a food and beverage tax, riverboat (casino) revenue, and tax increment
financing.
Arena:
Evansville Arena
Contractor:
Hunt Construction
2011
Architect:
Populous
Arena Owner:
City of Evansville
Management:
To be Determined
Total Cost:
Concessionaire:
Not Available
Public Investment:
11,000
Private Investment:
Luxury Suites:
21
Public Sector
Club Seats:
516 (Plus 92 Loge Seats)
New Construction
Controlled Parking:
Not Available
Page 83
Confidential
Evansville Arena (Evansville, Indiana)
 Project Funding
 Evansville Arena is Expected to Cost Approximately $127.5 Million
 Evansville Redevelopment Authority to Issue Bonds and Act as Landlord
 Evansville Redevelopment Corporation will be Tenant
 Sources of Funding Include:
– Food and Beverage Tax
– Casino Aztar Riverboat
» Gaming Revenue
» Admissions Taxes
» Lease Payments
– The Downtown Development Area Tax Increment Financing District
Page 84
Confidential
Maverik Center ((West Valley
y City,
y, Utah))
The Maverik Center, built in 1997, has seating for approximately 10,400, with expansion up to 12,000, and includes
40 luxury suites, 1,750 club seats, and 3,000 parking stalls. Of the 40 luxury suites, 20 are located on the club
seat/luxury
y suite level with the other 20 on the concourse level. The design
g of the arena affords for the construction
of an additional 12 luxury suites and approximately 500 additional club seats. The arena hosts the ECHL hockey
Utah Grizzles, the Arena Football League Utah Blaze, concerts, and family shows, among others. The facility also
was the host venue for the Ice Hockey Championships at the 2002 Olympic Winter Games.
Arena:
Maverik Center
Contractor:
Turner Construction Company
1997
Architect:
HOK Sport+Venue+Event
Arena Owner:
West Valley City
Management:
WVE, Inc. (Utah Grizzlies Affiliate)
Total Cost:
Concessionaire:
Not Available
Public Investment:
10,400 (Expansion to 12,000)
Private Investment:
Luxury Suites:
40
Public Sector
Club Seats:
1,750
New Construction
Controlled Parking:
3,000
Sources: Municipal Building Authority of West Valley City, West Valley City, industry research, and internal database.
Page 85
Confidential
Maverik Center (West Valley City, Utah)
Sources of Funds
Series 1996A Bond Proceeds
Series 1996B Bond Proceeds
City Contributions
State Contributions
Special Improvement District Bond Proceeds
Redevelopment Agency Bond Proceeds
Projected Interest Earnings on Construction Fund
Total Sources of Funds
$33,689,734
$7,150,000
$7,500,000
$1,900,000
$1,500,000
$5,825,000
$642,650
$58 207 384
$58,207,384
Uses of Funds
Construction Contract Guaranteed Maximum Price
Development Testing
Site Work and Related Expenses
Road Improvements
Parking Lot
Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment
Land Acquisition
Debt Service Reserve Funds
Capitalized Interest (1)
Bond Insurance Premium
Issuance Costs (2)
Total Uses of Funds
$37,786,372
$2,522,468
$1,261,145
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$554,000
$4,259,316
$4,130,000
$
$2,794,256
$1,025,421
$874,405
$58,207,384
( ) Interest capitalized
(1)
p
through
g November 1,, 1997.
(2) Includes underwriters' discount, printing, mailing, and other miscellaneous costs and trustee,
financial advisor, legal, and rating agency fees for the Series 1996A and 1996B Bonds.
Sources: Municipal Building Authority of West Valley City and West Valley City.
Page 86
Confidential
Maverik Center (West Valley City, Utah)
 Repayment Sources
 Annual City Lease Payments
 Per-Ticket
Per Ticket Business License Fee ($1.00)
($1 00)
 Per-Vehicle Business License Fee ($1.00)
 Parking Revenues
 Revenues Generated by
y City’s
y Existingg Hotel Business Licensingg Gross Revenue Fee
 Private Donations
 Funds Received from the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee (SLOOC)
 Naming Rights Revenues (if any)
 Funds Contributed or Fees Waved by Salt Lake County or other Governmental Entities
 Funds Appropriated by the Utah State Legislature
 Any Fee, Tax, Charge, or Imposition Levied by the City on Tickets, Parking, Admission
too oor Use oof thee Arena
e a in Excess
cess oof Cu
Current
e C
Charges
a ges
 Funds Generated by the Sale of Redevelopment Agency Bonds (Applied toward Land
Acquisition Costs and Construction of Parking Facilities)
 Debt Service on Bond
 Net Proceeds
d from
f
the
h Naming
i Rights
i h
 $7,000,000 Payment from SLOOC
Page 87
Confidential
World Arena ((Colorado Springs,
p g , Colorado))
World Arena, located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, opened in 1998. The arena has a maximum
seating capacity of approximately 9,400. There are no luxury suites at the facility, but there are
approximately 298 club seats.
seats World Arena is home to the Colorado College men
men’ss hockey team,
team
family shows, concerts, and numerous other special events, among others. World Arena was partially
funded by the El Pomar Foundation.
Arena:
World Arena
Contractor:
CTL| Thompson
1998
Architect:
James W. Nakai & Associates PC
Arena Owner:
World Arena (Non-Profit)
Management:
World Arena (Non-Profit)
Total Cost:
Concessionaire:
Centerplate
Public Investment:
9,400
Private Investment:
Luxury Suites:
0
To Be Confirmed
Club Seats:
298
New Construction
Controlled Parking:
Not Available
Sources: El Pomar Foundation and World Arena.
Page 88
Confidential
World Arena (Colorado Springs, Colorado)
Sources of Funds
El Pomar Foundation
City of Colorado Springs
Local Businesses/Individuals
Land Donation
El Paso County
Other Foundations
Colorado College
The Gazette
Interest Earnings
Individual Donation (Largest)
School District “Loan”
Arbitrage
Sale of a Land Parcel Proceeds
Operations Reserve Transferred to Construction
 Project Funding
Uses of Funds
Ice Hall
Land
Site Preparation
Building
Offsite Improvements
Road
Drainage
Arena
Building
Site-Work
Land
Miscellaneous
Carry/Finance
Administrative
Start-Up
Total Uses of Funds
$31,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,500,000
$3,300,000
$3,000,000
$ ,
$1,500,000
,
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$750,000
$600,000
$450,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$57,200,000
$11,900,000
$1,100,000
$2,900,000
$200,000
$7,700,000
$4 500 000
$4,500,000
$3,500,000
$1,000,000
$38,700,000
$29,200,000
$1,700,000
$4,800,000
$3,000,000
$2,100,000
$
,
,
$1,200,000
$400,000
$500,000
$57,200,000
 Industrial Revenue Bonds were Issued as Construction Loan, but Repaid Through Funding
Sources Detailed Above
Page 89
Confidential
Bi-Lo
Bi
Lo Center (Greenville, South Carolina)
The Bi-Lo Center located in Greenville, South Carolina opened in 1998. The facility has a maximum seating capacity of
approximately 15,951, including 30 luxury suites, and 1,000 club seats. The Bi-Lo Center is home to the East Coast
Hockey League (ECHL) Greenville Road Warriors and other athletic events, concerts, and family shows, among others.
Th Bi-Lo
The
Bi L Center
C t project
j t was funded
f d d by
b a public/private
bli / i t partnership
t
hi agreement.
t The
Th facility
f ilit is
i included
i l d d as a case study
t d
because of its unique financing structure. Prior to the undertaking of the project, the City of Greenville (City) had been
debating the development of a new arena/public assembly facility for reportedly 25 years. The Greenville Memorial
Auditorium District (District) owned a site for a facility, owned and operated, at a loss, an existing, yet outdated venue,
and had accumulated over $1.0 million cash for a new building.
g The City
y and business community
y were both motivated
by downtown development objectives, and were strong supporters of the arena project. The County of Greenville
(County) was reportedly a reluctant partner.
Arena:
Bi-Lo Center
Contractor:
Flour Daniel, Inc
1998
Architect:
Odell Associates and AMI Architects
Arena Owner:
Grenville Memorial Auditorium District
Management:
Centerplate
Total Cost:
Concessionaire:
Centerplate
Public Investment:
15,951
Private Investment:
Luxury Suites:
30
To Be Confirmed
Club Seats:
1,000
New Construction
Controlled Parking:
Not Available
Sources: Industry research and internal database..
Page 90
Confidential
Bi-Lo
Bi
Lo Center (Greenville, South Carolina)
Sources of Funds
Series 1996A G.O. Bonds
Series 1996B Accommodation Fee Bonds
Series 1996C Taxable Project Revenue Bond
Series 1996B Subordinated Bond
Series 1996 Taxable Completion Bonds
District Cash
City Cash
State Cash
Accommodation Fee Collections
Vendor Contribution
Utility Cash
Investment Income
$12,000,000
$19,160,000
$19,390,000
$1,500,000
$2,300,000
$1,800,000
$650,000
$2 500 000
$2,500,000
$600,000
$1,600,000
$100,000
$2,260,000
$63,860,000
Uses of Funds
Project Funds (Construction)
Capitalized Interest (Series 1996C)
B d Insurance
Bond
I
(Series
(S i 1996B)
Costs of Issuance
Bond Underwriting
Upfront and Capitalized LOC Costs
$57,400,000
$2,750,000
$540 000
$540,000
$1,000,000
$760,000
$1,410,000
Total Uses of Funds
$63 860 000
$63,860,000
Page 91
Confidential
Bi-Lo
o Ce
Center
e (G
(Greenville,
ee v e, Sou
South C
Carolina)
o
)
 Project Funding
 Public Debt Secured byy Dedicated,, Unencumbered Property
p y Tax Revenues and a New
Accommodations Fee of 3.0% (2.3% Dedicated to Arena Debt Service and 0.7% Dedicated
to Convention Center)
 Taxable Bond Debt is Serviced by Arena Gross Revenue Pledge, Secured by Facility
Mortgage, Letter of Credit from Bank of America (Nations Bank), and Income (Not Debt)
Guarantee from Facility Manager and Concessionaire
 Miscellaneous
 Tax-Exempt Status of Bonds was Achieved by:
– Separating the Financing with Separate Structures (i.e., One an Asset Based and One a
Contract Purchase Transaction);
– Asset
A t Based
B d Structure
St t
was Supported
S
t d by
b Project
P j t Revenues,
R
S
Secured
d by
b a Leasehold
L
h ld
Mortgage and Letter of Credit, but was Taxable; and
– Purchase Contract Entered into by the City and County with the District, was Secured
by District Appropriations of Hotel Taxes and Bond Insurance, and was Tax-Exempt
(AAA Bonds)
Page 92
Confidential
Save Mart Center (Fresno, California)
The Save Mart Center (Center) is a multi-purpose event center located on the campus of California State
University, Fresno (Fresno State). The Center opened in 2003 and includes approximately 16,500 seats,
32 luxury
l
suites
it andd 2,000
2 000 club
l b seats.
t The
Th Center
C t hosts
h t Fresno
F
St t athletic
State
thl ti events,
t including
i l di Fresno
F
State men’s and women’s basketball, and serves the San Joaquin Valley region as a site for other athletic,
cultural, and entertainment events.
Arena:
Save Mart Center
Contractor:
Clark Construction Group, Inc
2003
Architect:
Sink Combs Dethlefs
Arena Owner:
California State University, Fresno
Management:
SMG
Total Cost:
Concessionaire:
Ovations
Public Investment:
16,500
Private Investment:
Luxury Suites:
32
To Be Confirmed
Club Seats:
2,000
New Construction
Controlled Parking:
Not Available
Sources: California State University, Fresno.
Page 93
Confidential
Sources of Funds
Senior Series 2002 Bonds
Senior Series 2002 Bonds Net Original Issue Discount
S b di
Subordinate
Series
S i 2002 Bonds
B d
Subordinate Series 2002 Bonds Original Issue Discount
Seat Licenses, Sponsorships and Naming Rights, and Private Fundraising – (1)
Interest Earnings
Accrued Interest
$69,475,000
($334,878)
$5 000 000
$5,000,000
($180,687)
$36,809,706
$2,075,345
$349,617
Uses of Funds
Construction Costs
Guaranteed Maximum Price
Architect Fees
Project Management
Owner Contingency
Owner Development Costs
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment
Miscellaneous
Capitalized Interest – (2)
Debt Service Reserve Accounts
Cost of Issuance – (3)
Total Uses of Funds
$113 194 103
$113,194,103
$95,612,000
$85,965,000
$2,240,000
$1 227 000
$1,227,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,180,000
$9,041,823
$6,616,867
$1,923,413
$113,194,103
(1) Projected revenues.
((2)) Includes capitalized
p
interest to Februaryy 15,, 2004 and accrued interest.
(3) Includes the underwriter’s discount, legal fees, and certain other fees, costs, and expenses
Sources: California State University, Fresno.
Page 94
Confidential
 Project Funding
 Event
E t Revenues
R
are Pledged
Pl d d to
t Secure
S
P
Payments
t off Bonds
B d
– Arena Income
– Ground Lease ($750,000 Annually)
– Bulldog Foundation MOU (Payment not to Exceed $1,375,000 Annually)
– Student Seating Purchase Agreement (Payment of $300,000 Annually for 2,000 Seats)
Page 95
Confidential
APPENDIX G
SPORTSQUEST DEVELOPMENT
Page 96
Confidential
Appendix G – SportsQuest Development
SportsQuest
p
Q
Overview
 SportsQuest Development Occurring in Stages (East and West Campus)
 $250 Million,
Million 250 Acre Mixed Use Sports Complex in Chesterfield County,
County VA
 Intersection of Route 288 and Powhite Parkway
 East Campus







17 Soccer Fields
18 Hole Disc Golf Course
5k Cross Country Running Trail
Festival Park – 8 Acres of Meeting and Event Facilities
2,500 Seat Outdoor Amphitheatre (18 Luxury Suites)
20 000 Sq.
20,000
S Ft.
Ft Food
F d Court
C t
Parking Lots
 9 of 17 Soccer Fields, Festival Park and Parking Lots Were Scheduled to Open Labor Day Weekend
2010
Page 97
Confidential
SportsQuest
p
Q
Overview ((Continued))
 West Campus










Velodrome
Aquatics Center
Fitness Center
Ice Rink
Championship Field & Track
Field House
Medical Building
Restaurant & Retail Space
Hotel
6,500 Seat Arena (Targeting ECHL Team)
 West
W t Campus
C
I t d d Open
Intended
O
i 2012
in
Page 98
Confidential
SportsQuest
p
Q
Overview ((Continued))
 Public Financing Overview (To Be Confirmed)
 $4
$4.33 Million Committed from County to Date
– 20 Year Lease of 9 Soccer Fields, a Gym and a Senior Center
» Gym and Senior Center to Open in 2013
 County and State Had Approved $30 Million of Federal Stimulus Bonds
– Bonds Were Originally Scheduled to Be Issued by October 2010
 Incremental Public Funding Based on Performance
– By 2013, Sports Quest Must Have 400 Employees and Have Invested More Than $100
Million into the Project
» If Milestones are Reached, the County Will Provide a Grant Equal to Five Consecutive
ea s oof Property
ope y aandd Sa
Sales
es Taxes
a es
Years
Page 99
Confidential
SportsQuest
p
Q
Overview – Site & Facilities
Page 100
Confidential
Page 101
Confidential
hands Ownership and
guaranteed.
d
Page 102

y - Weston Inc.

Transcription

Similar documents

Mansfield IT Company gets its name in lights

Host your next business meeting, special event, or fund raiser at the

grand rapids, mi • van andel arena • sunday, october 16, 2016 • 6:00

Here - Ultrazone

Due to recent lot configurations new HSBC Arena surface lot parking

Ice Vault Arena SkateFest 12-10-13

Lochan Ora Flyer 2013.indd

www.milfordhavenschool.co.uk

the newsletter here.

! Fair Play Casino Winterswijk