market feasibility study and financial analysis

Transcription

MARKET FEASIBILITY STUDY AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS REPORT
FOR THE
PROPOSED FIELDHOUSE AND INDOOR WATERPARK
SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF 24TH STREET AND KIESEL AVENUE
OGDEN, WEBER COUNTY, UTAH
Date of Report:
December 29, 2010
For
Mayor Matthew Godfrey
Ogden City Corporation
2549 Washington Boulevard
Ogden, Utah 84401
January 11, 2011
Ogden City Corporation
2549 Washington Boulevard
Ogden, Utah 84401
RE: Market Feasibility Study and Financial Analysis Report for Proposed
Fieldhouse and Indoor Waterpark, Ogden, Weber County, Utah
Dear Mayor:
In fulfillment of the agreement outlined in the letter of engagement, we have completed
our study of the market demand and financial feasibility analysis for the proposal to
develop a fieldhouse and indoor waterpark in Ogden, Weber County, Utah. The proposed
facility will be located in the southwest quadrant of 24th Street and Kiesel Avenue in
downtown Ogden. Based upon our analysis and the city plans, the proposed facility will
include: six indoor tennis courts, a 250-meter indoor velodrome track, Olympic size
swimming pool and a 60,000 square foot indoor waterpark. The infield of the velodrome
will be available for multiple uses including indoor soccer, indoor football, lacrosse, futsal
and gymnastics. The outer bank of the velodrome will offer a recreational walking,
running and jogging track that will also be used as seating area during events at the
velodrome.
The consultants have prepared more than 1,000 similar studies over the past 20 years
with various firms. The study is based upon market conditions observed as of the date of
our market inspection on November 29, 2010 and research conducted in November and
December, 2010.
Assumptions
The conclusions contained in this report are based upon a review of information provided
by you and on-site field work in the market area, which is described in the Scope of
Assignment section. As in all studies of this type, the conclusions reached do not take into
account or make provisions for the effect of any sharp rise or decline in local or general
economic conditions not presently foreseeable. The estimated results are based on
competent and efficient management of the proposed fieldhouse and indoor waterpark, as
well as an aggressive marketing program prior to and after the opening of the subject.
We assume the subject will hire appropriate management personnel to operate and
market the facility. We assume the proposed facility will open January 1, 2013. We do not
warrant that the estimates will be attained, but they have been conscientiously prepared
on the basis of information obtained and our experience in the waterpark and recreation
industry.
It is expressly understood that the scope of this study and the report thereon do not
include the possible impact of zoning regulations, licensing requirements, or other
restrictions concerning the project, except where such matters have been brought to our
attention and that are set forth in this report.
14805 Detroit Avenue, Suite 420 • Cleveland, OH 44107 • 216-228-7000 • Fax: 216-228-7320 • www.hladvisors.com
January 11, 2011
Page 2
This report and its contents are intended solely for the information of our client for
internal use relative to determining the feasibility of the project. The report should not be
relied upon for any other purpose. Otherwise, neither our report nor any of its contents
nor any reference to Hotel & Leisure Advisors, LLC (H&LA) may be included or quoted in
any document, offering circular, registration statement, prospectus, sales brochure, other
appraisal, or other agreement without our prior written approval. Such permission will
not be unreasonably withheld.
We are available to perform additional consulting services on this proposed property as
the scope of the development is finalized. In addition, we are available to perform an
economic impact study and self-contained full narrative appraisal report for the proposed
development upon your request. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to your
organization and look forward to working with you again.
Respectfully submitted,
Hotel & Leisure Advisors, LLC
David J. Sangree, MAI, ISHC
President
Nuresh Maredia
Associate
MARKET FEASIBILITY STUDY AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS REPORT
FOR THE
PROPOSED FIELDHOUSE AND INDOOR WATERPARK
SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF 24TH STREET AND KIESEL AVENUE
OGDEN, WEBER COUNTY, UTAH
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A.
INTRODUCTION
Scope of the Assignment ......................................................................... A-1
Executive Summary ................................................................................ A-2
Standard Conditions ............................................................................... A-12
Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions .............................. A-15
Competency of the Consultants ................................................................ A-15
B.
AREA ANALYSIS AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA
Area Review .......................................................................................... B-1
Neighborhood Analysis ............................................................................ B-19
City of Ogden Lodging Overview ............................................................... B-25
Site Description, Zoning and Real Estate Taxes .......................................... B-26
Description of Proposed Improvements ..................................................... B-26
Operation Model ..................................................................................... B-35
C.
MARKET ANALYSIS
National Waterparks Overview ................................................................. C-1
Analysis of Indoor Waterpark Resorts........................................................ C-8
National Sports Overview ........................................................................ C-17
National Swimming Overview ................................................................... C-20
National Tennis Overview ........................................................................ C-22
National Cycling Overview ....................................................................... C-26
National Soccer Overview ........................................................................ C-29
National Sports Participation .................................................................... C-31
Comparable Facilities Analysis .................................................................. C-32
Demand Interviews ................................................................................ C-40
D.
SUBJECT USAGE LEVELS
Projected Demand and Revenue Analysis................................................... D-1
E.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Introduction .......................................................................................... E-1
Income and Expense Analysis .................................................................. E-3
Prospective Financial Analysis in Inflated Dollars......................................... E-12
F.
CERTIFICATION ......................................................................................... F-1
ADDENDA
Qualifications ............................................................................ Addendum I
ERSI Demographic Report .......................................................... Addendum II
ERSI Sports and Leisure Report ................................................... Addendum III
Proposed Fieldhouse and Indoor Waterpark
Introduction
A-1
SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT
Hotel & Leisure Advisors, LLC has been retained by the Ogden City Corporation to
estimate the potential market feasibility of the development of a Fieldhouse and Indoor
Waterpark in Ogden, Weber County, Utah.
We made a number of independent investigations and analyses in performing this study.
We evaluated the subject site and its relationship to potential users as well as its
attributes relative to waterpark and other sporting facility comparables. We interviewed
representatives and researched information from the Convention and Visitors Bureau,
Chamber of Commerce, city officials, county officials and economic development officials
to collect information concerning the proposed site and region. We interviewed managers
or owners of existing and proposed comparable properties for each of the major
components of the proposed subject including indoor waterpark, velodrome, indoor
soccer, aquatic facilities and indoor tennis. We researched information concerning the
performance of each of the major components of the project from throughout the U.S.A.
and Canada. We interviewed representatives of area attractions to determine usage and
new supply additions. We have conducted demand interviews with various potential users
of the proposed facility.
In conducting our investigation and analysis, we relied on data retained in our office,
which is updated regularly for use in all assignments. Various agencies and databases,
including the Site to Do Business database, were contacted for demographic data, land
use policies and trends, growth estimates, and employment data.
Neighborhood data was supplemented by a physical inspection of the subject property
and the area. The subject property data considered in our analysis was provided by
representatives of Ogden City Corporation. In addition to the subject's specific
information, we have considered relevant market data in determining the projections
used in our cash flow analysis.
The financial analysis was based primarily upon the probable operating experience of the
property relative to gross operating revenues, typical expense levels, and resultant net
cash flow. Estimates of operating revenues were based upon market data relative to
industry standards and comparable properties in the subject area. Expense levels were
estimated based upon industry standards and operating histories of similar properties.
We have estimated the financial projections for the subject facility for the year beginning
January 1, 2013, for 11 years.
Introduction
A-2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The city of Ogden is considering the development of a fieldhouse and indoor waterpark.
The facility will offer a velodrome; indoor tennis courts; an indoor field for indoor soccer,
gymnastics, indoor football, lacrosse, and futsal; an Olympic-sized swimming pool and an
indoor waterpark. The indoor velodrome will be the second indoor velodrome facility in
the U.S. that will be able to host national and international events. The proposed indoor
waterpark is projected to be the largest indoor waterpark in the state of Utah. The
following table summarizes the planned attractions for the proposed subject development.
Propose d F ieldho use a nd Indoor W a terpark
L ist o f Pro posed & R ec om m ende d F ea tures
Indo or T ennis
S ize (S .F.)
40 ,000
# of Courts
6
The tenni s court area could also be used as an exhibit ion area for large trade shows and
events at the adjacent conference center
I ndoor Ve lodrom e
S ize (S .F.)
80 ,000
Track Length (m )
2 50
Type
Wood
In door Soccer, Indoor Football,
Lacrosse, G ym nastics & F utsal
Infield
Estim ated Infield S ize ( S.F .)
30 ,000
I ndoor Oly m pic- size d S w im m in g P o ol
S ize (S .F.)
20 ,000
Length (m )
50
Wid th (m )
25
# of Lanes
8-10
D iving Platform
Yes
Indoo r W a terpa rk
S ize of A quatic A rea (S .F .)
60 ,000
Tube, B ody & Raft S lides
Kiddie Pool
Treehouse S tructure
Lazy River
Water Coaster
Cabanas
B irthd ay Party Room s
O the r A re a s
Retail/Pro S hop (S .F.)
2,00 0
F ood and B everage/Con cessions (S .F .)
4,00 0
M en s and Wom en s Locker Room s and Changing A reas
S ource: Hotel & Leisure Advisors
Site Attributes
The subject site will be located on approximately 5 acres of land. The subject site is
located in the southwest quadrant of 24th Street and Kiesel Avenue. Based on our
discussion with the city officials, a portion of Grant Avenue will be closed between 24th
and 25th streets for the subject development. Most of the existing buildings between
Grant Avenue and Kiesel Avenue will be demolished. Furthermore, the city plans to
Introduction
A-3
connect the two adjacent hotels, the Hampton Inn and Suites and the Marriott Hotel to
the facility. The facility will also be connected to the adjacent Ecceles Conference Center
through the Berthana building via an overhead walkway.
The first floor of the facility will include the indoor velodrome, indoor waterpark and
swimming pool. The second level of the facility will include the tennis courts and an indoor
running and jogging track. The Marriott Hotel will have a direct connection to the subject
facility while the Hampton Inn will have a connection through the Berthana building. The
city is also planning to build a multistory parking structure to accommodate the additional
parking demand in the area.
Based on our discussions with the city and the architect Dan VanZeben, the facility could
cost between $30 million and $40 million including cost to acquire the land and build the
additional parking structure. The city plans to build the facility from funds from the RAMP
fund and by partnering with Weber State University, Weber County and Ogden School
District. In return for their assistance in building the facility, these public entities will be
allotted free time or discounted rates. Additional funding can also come from an increase
in occupancy taxes, grants and donations from public and private donors, and different
sponsorships including the facility naming rights. We recommend that the city seek
financial assistance from the hotels in downtown Ogden (especially the proposed
connected Marriott Hotel and Hampton Inn and Suites). We recommend the city seek
financial assistance from companies to provide sponsorship of the facility through naming
rights of the overall building or components of the structure. We have assumed no debt
service payments based on our discussions with the city officials.
Recommendations
The following are our recommendations for the subject facility.
•
We recommend that the entire facility be operated by one management company.
We project the management company will in turn hire a departmental head for
each of the major departments. This will allow for the facility to have one
management company to operate the property and produce daily, monthly and
annual financial statements. The management company will also be able to
creatively market the entire facility including selling combination tickets and
passes for the multiple sports and activities at the facility.
•
We recommend that the waterpark and the swimming pool be located adjacent to
each other. This will allow for people to move conveniently between the two
facilities. Furthermore, lifeguards could also be moved around based on demand
patterns. When there are no events in the pool, we recommend the bleachers be
collapsed to provide additional seating area for the combined waterpark and pool
area.
•
We recommend an outdoor deck area for sunbathing. We also recommend an
outdoor hot tub for adults.
•
We recommend that the facility be open 360 days a year. We project some days
may be slower and recommend reduced staffing on such days to lower costs. We
recommend the design professional consider lifeguards staffing when planning the
waterpark and pool area.
Introduction
A-4
•
We recommend directional and marketing signage along Interstate 15 for the
facility. We recommend that the indoor waterpark be promoted aggressively
throughout the region. We recommend various packages be offered with local
hotels.
•
We project that the velodrome will partner with local and state cycling associations
in marketing and operating the facility. The members of these associations will act
as ambassadors for the property and will help promote the property. Most
velodromes including the indoor velodrome in Carson, California actively look for
volunteers during special events.
•
We recommend that the tennis and velodrome department heads be former or
current professional athletes who will also serve as trainers and instructors at the
facility and get a portion of the instruction and lesson revenues. This will allow the
facility to offer smaller salaries, while the other portion of the salaries will be
compensated from their offering instructions and lessons. We also recommend
that tennis and velodrome instructors be on commission and not full-time
employees.
•
We recommend one central entrance for the entire facility. This will allow the
facility to lower overhead costs. This central area will sell tickets and passes and
also serve as the customer service area.
•
We recommend that the retail and pro shop be located near the main entrance as
well. By cross training employees, the facility can move people from one
department to the other during peak periods of the day.
•
We recommend temporary and permanent seating areas for the velodrome,
swimming pool and tennis to offer spectator seating during special events.
•
We recommend that the architects and land planners for the subject facility
prepare preliminary plans for an expansion of the waterpark area to allow for
proper land planning. Planning for an expansion area initially will allow for lower
costs when the expansion occurs.
Area Review
The subject site is located in Ogden, Weber County, Utah, and belongs to the OgdenClearfield, Utah MSA. The Ogden-Clearfield MSA sits directly north of the Salt Lake City
MSA, which consists of Salt Lake, Summit, and Tooele counties. With a current estimated
population of around 85,000 Ogden is the largest city in Weber County and it serves as
the county seat. The city lies within the larger population corridor called the Wasatch
Front, which is a 100-mile strip of land running north/south along the western slope of
the Wasatch Range.
As of 2010, the population of the Ogden-Clearfield MSA is estimated at around 556,000,
with roughly 234,000 in Weber County, and 85,000 in the city of Ogden. The neighboring
Salt Lake City MSA is currently home to more than 1.1 million residents. The combined
population of these two MSAs amounts to more than 60% of the total population in the
state of Utah. Over the past two decades, the area has seen significant population growth
at all geographic levels, and further growth is projected for the period of 2010 to 2015.
Introduction
A-5
Subject Usage and Revenue Projections
The following discussion summarizes our projections for each of the major components of
the development.
Aquatics
According to information from the Swimming World Magazine released in 2010, more
than 2,600,000 participate in the sport of swimming annually. The World Waterpark
Association has estimated approximately 81 million attendants at North American
waterparks during 2009. According to research performed by Hotel & Leisure Advisors,
more than 468 larger waterparks exist within the United States. There are numerous
additional smaller aquatic facilities, some of which claim to be waterparks, located
throughout the country. Indoor waterparks have become popular in recent years in areas
with colder weather, and typically have a lodging component among the amenities that
they offer. The growth of indoor waterparks is due to their popularity with children and
the desire of parents and grandparents to select lodging locations that will be fun for their
children. In addition, indoor waterpark resort properties are increasingly popular for short
weekends and two- or three-day getaways for families that may not have time for longer
vacations. The following table highlights our aquatics related revenues.
Introduction
A-6
Projected Attendance and Aquatics Related Revenue
Calendar Years
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Annual/Monthly Passes
Number of Season Pass holders
Projected revenue
Average price per pass
Total number of visitors
8,600
9,030
9,482
9,482
9,482
9,482
$834,200
$902,187
$975,716
$1,004,987
$1,035,137
$1,066,191
$97
$100
$103
$106
$109
$112
292,572
307,201
322,561
322,561
322,561
322,561
Local Day Visitors
Attendees
57,493
60,368
63,387
63,387
63,387
63,387
Waterpark admission average
$17.13
$17.64
$18.17
$18.71
$19.28
$19.85
$984,621
$1,064,867
$1,151,654
$1,186,204
$1,221,790
$1,258,444
Projected revenue
Overnight Leisure Visitors
Number of Waterpark Visitors
73,146
76,803
80,643
80,643
80,643
80,643
Average Admission Price
$20.00
$20.60
$21.22
$21.85
$22.51
$23.19
$1,462,920
$1,582,148
$1,711,093
$1,762,426
$1,815,299
$1,869,758
$8,500
$8,755
$9,018
$9,288
$9,567
$9,854
$225,000
$200,000
$231,750
$206,000
$238,703
$212,180
$245,864
$218,545
$253,239
$225,102
$260,837
$231,855
Subject property attendance
423,211
444,372
466,591
466,591
466,591
466,591
Subject property attendance (rounded)
423,000
444,000
467,000
467,000
467,000
467,000
$3,715,241
$3,995,708
$4,298,363
$4,427,314
$4,560,133
$4,696,937
$8.78
$8.99
$9.21
$9.49
$9.77
$10.07
5.3
5.6
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
69%
69%
69%
69%
69%
69%
Local Day Visitors
14%
14%
14%
14%
14%
14%
17%
17%
17%
17%
17%
17%
Projected revenue
Estimated Swim Team Related Revenues
Estimated Lessons & Rental Revenues
Estimated Lockers & Cabanas
Total
Total revenue
Overall Average Spending Per Person
Statistical information
Projected attendance per S.F
80,000
Demand segmentation:
Source: Hotel & Leisure Advisors
Introduction
A-7
Tennis
The Tennis Industry Association (TIA) and U.S. Tennis Association’s (USTA) annual survey
calculated that the number of total tennis players rose from 25.23 million in 2007 to
26.88 million in 2009, and frequent players rose from 5.2 million to 5.62 million. Overall
tennis participation in the U.S. increased 12% in 2009 to total 30.1 million players, the
largest amount the country has seen in 25 years. Nearly 60% of facilities felt that there
was an increase in the number of new players at their facility during the late season of
2009, which helped the total tennis participation increase to 12%. The following table
highlights our tennis related revenues.
Introduction
A-8
Tennis Revenue Projections
Total Available Tennis Hours (Annual)
Estimated Usage
Total Tennis Hours
Weber State University
Lessons and Instruction Classes
League Play
Open Play (Members)
Open Play (Non-Members)
Total
Hours
League Play
Open Play (Members)
Total
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
25,200
25,200
25,200
25,200
25,200
50%
52%
55%
55%
55%
12,600
13,104
13,860
13,860
13,860
Usage Breakdown
14.3%
14.3%
50.0%
50.0%
10.0%
10.0%
15.0%
15.0%
10.7%
10.7%
100.0%
100.0%
14.3%
50.0%
10.0%
15.0%
10.7%
100.0%
14.3%
50.0%
10.0%
15.0%
10.7%
100.0%
14.3%
50.0%
10.0%
15.0%
10.7%
100.0%
1,800
6,300
1,260
1,890
1,350
12,600
1,872
6,552
1,310
1,966
1,404
13,104
1,980
6,930
1,386
2,079
1,485
13,860
1,980
6,930
1,386
2,079
1,485
13,860
1,980
6,930
1,386
2,079
1,485
13,860
2.25
28,350
Revenues
2.25
29,484
2.25
31,185
2.25
31,185
2.25
31,185
200
$20
$48,000
250
$20.6
$61,800
250
$21.2
$63,654
250
$21.9
$65,564
250
$22.5
$67,531
$6,000
$6,180
$6,365
$6,556
$6,753
$157,500
$168,714
$183,801
$189,315
$194,994
$18,900
$20,246
$22,056
$22,718
$23,399
$9,450
$10,123
$11,028
$11,359
$11,700
$27,000
$28,922
$31,509
$32,454
$33,428
Non-Tennis Rental Revenues
$30,000
$30,900
$31,827
$32,782
$33,765
$297,000
$327,000
$350,000
$361,000
$372,000
Estimated Attendance
# of People per hour
Total Tennis Attendance
Tennis Membership Revenues
Est. # of Members
Monthly Membership Dues
Total Annual Membership Dues
Hourly Court Revenues
Lessons and Instruction Classes Revenues
League Play
Open Play (Members)
Total Tennis Revenues (rounded)
Velodrome
The popularity of competitive cycling has been growing significantly over the past decade.
USA Cycling, the official governing body for all U.S. competitive cycling disciplines,
experienced its seventh consecutive year of growth in 2009. While frequently referred to
as a single sport, cycling has several sub-disciplines, which include road cycling, cyclocross, mountain biking, track cycling, BMX, bike trials, and paracycling.
Introduction
A-9
The subject will offer the second indoor velodrome in the country that will be able to host
both national and international events. The following table highlights our projections for
the velodrome.
Estimated Velodrome Revenues
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Membership Revenues
Estimated Memberships Sold
Annual Membership Fee
Total Member Revenues
100
$450
$45,000
120
$464
$55,620
150
$477
$71,611
200
$492
$98,345
200
$506
$101,296
Lessons Revenues
Estimated Participants
Cost per participant
Total Lesson/Instruction Revenues
800
$100
$80,000
900
$103
$92,700
1,000
$106
$106,090
1,200
$109
$131,127
1,200
$113
$135,061
Daily Users
Average Daily User Fee
Total User Fees
1,500
$20.00
$30,000
1,700
$20.60
$35,020
1,800
$21.22
$38,192
1,800
$21.85
$39,338
1,800
$22.51
$40,518
Facility Rentals
# of Hours Reserved by Clubs & Associations
Rental Rate per Hour
Total Rental Revenues
468
$150
$70,200
600
$155
$92,700
750
$159
$119,351
750
$164
$122,932
750
$169
$126,620
$50,000
$275,000
$75,000
$351,000
$75,000
$410,000
$75,000
$467,000
$75,000
$478,000
Special Events & Equipment Rental
Total Revenues (rounded)
Infield usage
We project that the infield of the velodrome will be used for multiple sports and will be
rented on an hourly basis. The following table highlights our revenue projections for the
infield.
Infield Usage
Hours Available Daily
Summer
Winter
Estimated # of hours available annually
Daily
8
12
Annual (360 days)
1,440
2,160
3,600
Totals hours used
Less: Freetime allotment to WSU
Total paid hours
50%
1,800
75
1,725
Average Rental fee per hour
Total Revenues in First Year
$75
$135,000
Introduction
A-10
Financial Projections
For the purposes of this study we assume that the city will hire a private management
company to operate the entire facility. Our projections assume that the private operator
will be incentivized to maximize facility revenues and net income through its contract with
the City as owner of the facility. We assume that the private management company will
hire managers for each department. We assume that discounts will be offered to city and
county residents. In terms of expenses, private management of the facility will likely
reduce the costs associated with staffing, although it may not reduce overall the number
of staff.
The following table indicates our projections of financial performance for the proposed
subject facility for the first 11 years of the analysis.
Introduction
A-11
Proposed Fieldhouse and Indoor Waterpark, Prospective Financial Analysis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Year
Aquatics Attendance
2013
423,000
2014
444,000
2015
467,000
2016
467,000
2017
467,000
2018
467,000
2019
467,000
2020
467,000
2021
467,000
2022
467,000
2023
467,000
Total Attendees
Revenues:
Aquatics
Tennis
Velodrome
Multi-Use Infield
Food and Beverage
Retail/Pro Shop
Sponsorships and Other (net)
Total
423,000
444,000
467,000
467,000
467,000
467,000
467,000
467,000
467,000
467,000
467,000
$3,715,241
$297,000
$275,000
$135,000
$1,200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$6,172,241
$3,995,708
$327,000
$351,000
$139,000
$1,236,000
$258,000
$309,000
$6,615,708
$4,298,363
$350,000
$410,000
$143,000
$1,273,000
$266,000
$318,000
$7,058,363
$4,427,314
$361,000
$467,000
$147,000
$1,311,000
$274,000
$328,000
$7,315,314
$4,560,133
$372,000
$478,000
$151,000
$1,350,000
$282,000
$338,000
$7,531,133
$4,696,937
$383,000
$492,000
$156,000
$1,391,000
$290,000
$348,000
$7,756,937
$4,837,845
$394,000
$507,000
$161,000
$1,433,000
$299,000
$358,000
$7,989,845
$4,982,981
$406,000
$522,000
$166,000
$1,476,000
$308,000
$369,000
$8,229,981
$5,132,470
$418,000
$538,000
$171,000
$1,520,000
$317,000
$380,000
$8,476,470
$5,286,444
$431,000
$554,000
$176,000
$1,566,000
$327,000
$391,000
$8,731,444
$5,445,037
$444,000
$571,000
$181,000
$1,613,000
$337,000
$403,000
$8,994,037
$396,000
$112,500
$508,500
$408,000
$116,000
$524,000
$420,000
$120,000
$540,000
$433,000
$123,000
$556,000
$446,000
$127,000
$573,000
$459,000
$131,000
$590,000
$473,000
$135,000
$608,000
$487,000
$139,000
$626,000
$502,000
$143,000
$645,000
$517,000
$147,000
$664,000
$532,000
$152,000
$684,000
Total Departmental Profit
$5,663,741
$6,091,708
$6,518,363
$6,759,314
$6,958,133
$7,166,937
$7,381,845
$7,603,981
$7,831,470
$8,067,444
$8,310,037
Undistrib uted Expenses:
Labor
Administrative & General
Marketing
Management Fees
Operating Supplies
Repair & Maintenance
Utilities
Total
$2,376,000
$216,028
$462,918
$185,167
$350,000
$350,000
$1,200,000
$5,140,114
$2,447,000
$223,000
$477,000
$198,471
$361,000
$385,000
$1,320,000
$5,411,471
$2,520,000
$230,000
$491,000
$211,751
$372,000
$424,000
$1,452,000
$5,700,751
$2,596,000
$237,000
$506,000
$219,459
$383,000
$437,000
$1,496,000
$5,874,459
$2,674,000
$244,000
$521,000
$225,934
$394,000
$450,000
$1,541,000
$6,049,934
$2,754,000
$251,000
$537,000
$232,708
$406,000
$464,000
$1,587,000
$6,231,708
$2,837,000
$259,000
$553,000
$239,695
$418,000
$478,000
$1,635,000
$6,419,695
$2,922,000
$267,000
$570,000
$246,899
$431,000
$492,000
$1,684,000
$6,612,899
$3,010,000
$275,000
$587,000
$254,294
$444,000
$507,000
$1,735,000
$6,812,294
$3,100,000
$283,000
$605,000
$261,943
$457,000
$522,000
$1,787,000
$7,015,943
$3,193,000
$291,000
$623,000
$269,821
$471,000
$538,000
$1,841,000
$7,226,821
Income Before Fixed Charges
$523,627
$680,236
$817,612
$884,854
$908,199
$935,229
$962,150
$991,081
$1,019,176
$1,051,501
$1,083,216
Fixed Charges:
Real Estate & Property Taxes
Insurance
Total
$0
$200,000
$200,000
$0
$206,000
$206,000
$0
$212,000
$212,000
$0
$218,000
$218,000
$0
$225,000
$225,000
$0
$232,000
$232,000
$0
$239,000
$239,000
$0
$246,000
$246,000
$0
$253,000
$253,000
$0
$261,000
$261,000
$0
$269,000
$269,000
Income Before Reserve
$323,627
$474,236
$605,612
$666,854
$683,199
$703,229
$723,150
$745,081
$766,176
$790,501
$814,216
Reserve For Replacement
$246,890
$264,628
$282,335
$292,613
$301,245
$310,277
$319,594
$329,199
$339,059
$349,258
$359,761
$76,737
$209,608
$323,277
$374,242
$381,954
$392,952
$403,556
$415,882
$427,117
$441,243
$454,455
Cost Of Sales:
Food & Beverage
Retail
Total
Net Income
% Expenses of Revenue
Percentage NOI of Revenue
Inflation Multiple
Rate
98.8%
1.2%
96.8%
3.2%
95.4%
4.6%
94.9%
5.1%
94.9%
5.1%
94.9%
5.1%
94.9%
5.1%
94.9%
5.1%
95.0%
5.0%
94.9%
5.1%
94.9%
5.1%
1
1.03
103%
1.03
106%
1.03
109%
1.03
113%
1.03
116%
1.03
119%
1.03
123%
1.03
127%
1.03
130%
1.03
134%
Introduction
A-12
Conclusion
The development of the subject facility will generate considerable interest from both local
residents and tourists. We project that various programs and special events be in place to
take advantage of this interest. We recommend setting a pricing structure that provides
discounts to local residents and stakeholders but charges market rates to tourists and
visitors from outside Weber County. The longer-term sustainability of the subject facility
will revolve around the daily use and a range of programs and rates which meets the
various needs of the local and regional user base, in addition to the elite and high
performance athletes. Management of the facility will require partnerships with local,
state and national associations in all of the sports offered at the facility.
STANDARD CONDITIONS
The following Standard Conditions apply to real estate consulting engagements and
appraisals by Hotel & Leisure Advisors, LLC (H&LA). Extraordinary Assumptions are
added as required.
1.
The report is to be used in whole and not in part. The report, engagement letter
and these standard conditions constitute the entire understanding and agreement
between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any
and all prior or current agreements or understandings between the parties,
whether in writing or orally. The report and engagement letter may not be
amended except in writing signed by the parties hereto. These standard conditions
shall survive the completion of the assignment.
2.
Publication of the report or engagement letter without the prior written consent of
H&LA is prohibited unless otherwise stated in the letter of engagement. Neither
the report nor engagement letter may be used by any person other than the party
to whom they are addressed nor may they be used for purposes other than that
for which they were prepared. Neither the engagement letter, nor the report, nor
their contents, nor any reference to the appraisers or H&LA or any reference to the
Appraisal Institute, International Society of Hospitality Consultants, American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, or the American Institute of Architects,
(or the MAI, ISHC, CPA or AIA designations) may be included or quoted in any
offering circular or registration statement, prospectus, sales brochure, other
appraisal, loan, or other agreement or document without H&LA’s prior written
permission, in its sole discretion. Moreover, “H&LA” is a registered trademark of
Hotel & Leisure Advisors, LLC. The client agrees that in event of a breach of this
Section 2, in addition to any other rights and remedies of H&LA, and hereby
consents to injunctive relief.
3.
No responsibility is assumed for the legal description or any matters which are
legal in nature. Title to the property is assumed to be good and marketable and
the property is assumed to be free and clear of all liens unless otherwise stated.
No survey of the property was performed. Sketches, maps, photos, or other
graphic aids included in the reports are intended to assist the reader in ready
identification and visualization of the property and are not intended for technical
purposes.
4.
The information contained in the assignment is based upon data gathered from
sources the consultant or appraiser assumes to be reliable and accurate. Some of
Introduction
A-13
this information may have been provided by the owner of the property. Neither
the consultants nor H&LA shall be responsible for the accuracy or completeness of
such information including the correctness of public records or filings, estimates,
opinions, dimensions, sketches, exhibits, and other factual matters.
5.
The report may contain prospective financial information, estimates, or opinions
that represent the consultants’ or appraisers’ view of reasonable expectations at a
particular point in time. Such information, estimates, or opinions are not offered
as predictions or as assurances that a particular level of income or profit will be
achieved, that events will occur, or that a particular price will be offered or
accepted.
Actual results achieved during the period covered by H&LA’s
prospective financial analyses will vary from those described in the report, and the
variations may be material. The financial projections stated in the report and any
opinions of value are as of the date stated in the report. Changes since that date
in external and market factors or in the property itself can significantly affect
property value or performance.
6.
H&LA has not considered the presence of potentially hazardous materials and
contaminants such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, toxic waste,
PCBs, pesticides, mold, lead-based paints, or other materials. The appraisers and
consultants are not qualified to detect or report on hazardous material
contamination and H&LA urges the client to retain an expert in this field if desired.
7.
Unless noted, H&LA assumes there are no encroachments, zoning violations, or
building violations encumbering the subject property. It is assumed that the
property will not be operated in violation of any applicable government
regulations, zoning, codes, ordinances, or statutes. No responsibility is assumed
for architectural design and building codes. The analysis and concept drawings
included in the report are not intended for technical purposes.
8.
All mortgages, liens, encumbrances, leases, and servitudes have been disregarded
unless specified otherwise.
9.
Real estate consulting engagements and appraisal assignments are accepted with
the understanding that there is no obligation to furnish services after completion of
the original assignment. We are not required to give testimony or attendance in
court by reason of this analysis without previous arrangements, and the client will
be obligated to pay in advance for the standard per diem fees and travel costs.
10.
No significant change is assumed in the supply and demand patterns indicated in
the report. The appraisal or consulting engagement assumes market conditions as
observed as of the current date of the market research stated in the letter of
transmittal. These market conditions are believed to be correct; however, H&LA
or the consultants assume no liability should market conditions materially change
because of unusual or unforeseen circumstances.
11.
The quality of a lodging facility or other leisure property’s management has a
direct effect on the property’s economic viability. It should be specifically noted by
any prospective reader that the engagement assumes that the property will be
competently managed, leased, and maintained by financially sound owners over
the expected period of ownership. H&LA is not responsible for future marketing
Introduction
A-14
efforts and other management or ownership actions upon which actual results will
depend.
12.
The forecast of income and expenses are not predictions of the future. Rather,
they are the consultants’ best estimates of current market thinking on future
income and expenses. We do not warrant that the estimates will be obtained, but
that they have been prepared in a conscientious manner on the basis of
information obtained during the course of this study.
13.
The subject property is valued assuming all items of furniture, fixtures, equipment,
working capital, and inventory are in place.
Should items essential in the
operation of the hotel prove to be missing, we reserve the right to amend the
opinion of value expressed in an appraisal report.
14.
H&LA does not, as part of this consulting report or appraisal, perform an audit,
review, or examination (as defined by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants) of any of the historical or prospective financial information used and
therefore, does not express any opinion with regard to it.
15.
The consulting engagement or appraisal report has been prepared in accordance
with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the Code of
Ethics of the Appraisal Institute. No other code, ordinance, rule or regulation of
any kind or nature whatsoever shall apply.
16.
It is agreed that the maximum damages recoverable from H&LA or its affiliates or
their respective employees relative to this engagement shall be the amount of the
money actually collected by H&LA or its affiliates for work performed pursuant to
the engagement letter. The client acknowledges that H&LA cannot and does not
guarantee and makes no representations as to the success of the project. H&LA
shall not be liable for any incidental, breach of warranty, consequential or punitive
damages, expenses, costs or losses whatsoever directly or indirectly arising out of
the services performed hereunder (including negligence and/or gross negligence).
In addition, there is no accountability or liability to any third party.
17.
The client hereby releases and discharges H&LA, its directors, officers, and
employees, from and against any and all claims and demands of any nature or
kind whatsoever arising as a result of the design, development, operations, and
performance of the proposed or existing project. The client furthermore agrees to
indemnify, defend and hold harmless H&LA and its directors, officers and
employees, from any and all claims of any nature whatsoever, including attorney
fees, expenses and costs.
18.
The report does not address the project’s compliance with the federal statute
commonly known as the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as regulations and
accessibility guidelines promulgated thereunder.
19.
The provisions of the report, the engagement letter and these standard conditions
shall be severable, and if a court of competent jurisdiction holds any provisions of
the report, engagement letter and these standard conditions invalid, illegal or
unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless remain in full force and
effect as written.
Introduction
A-15
EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS AND HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS
It is assumed that qualified professional management with demonstrated expertise in
management of sporting facilities and indoor waterparks will operate the subject. It is
assumed that adequate funds will be available for upkeep and repair of the facility.
The location and amenities of the proposed fieldhouse and indoor waterpark, and the
details concerning its structure are still in the idea stage and the financial projections
shown later in this report may change depending upon the type and size of facility and
amenities utilized in the proposed project. As these plans are determined, they could
have a material impact on this study.
We assume that the one or both Ogden City high school pools will be closed and the
proposed subject swimming pool will be used for all school related aquatic programs and
activities. We assume that the schools will get two hours of free-time daily at the subject
facility. We assume that the schools will pay for the additional usage.
We assume that Weber State University will use the subject indoor tennis courts and
velodrome infield. Based on our discussions with the city we assume that the tennis
program will get two hours of free court time daily (between October and March) for
tennis and one and a half hours of free infield usage during football practice. We assume
that the university will pay for any additional usage.
We assume that adequate parking will be available in close proximity of the proposed
subject building. We assume that parking will be free for the users of the subject facility.
City officials have indicated that a new parking structure will be built in close proximity to
the subject facility that will also be used by the adjacent conference center.
We assume that the Marriott Hotel and the Hampton Inn and Suites will have interior
connections to the subject facility. This will allow guests at both hotels to walk indoors to
the waterpark and recreation center.
COMPETENCY OF THE CONSULTANTS
Hotel & Leisure Advisors, LLC is a national hospitality consulting firm specializing in
appraisals, feasibility studies, and impact analysis for hotels, outdoor and indoor
waterparks, resorts, golf courses, restaurants, conference and convention centers, and
other leisure and recreation facilities. We work exclusively in the recreation and
hospitality industry and concentrate our efforts on in-depth understanding of the trends
and factors related to this industry. Our participation in industry associations and trade
groups keeps us abreast of developments affecting our clients and gives us access to rich
sources of data. We follow news and transactions occurring in the hospitality industry on
a daily basis. The consultants of the firm have performed over 1,000 hotel and waterpark
studies since 1987 at various firms. Mr. David J. Sangree, MAI, CPA, ISHC has written
articles concerning waterpark resorts for Hotel/Motel Management, Lodging Hospitality,
World Waterpark Magazine, Midwest Real Estate News, Aquatics Magazine and Hotel
Online and is a national expert on these types of properties. He has appeared on Good
Morning America and CNBC concerning shows on resorts and waterparks. He has
inspected most of the open indoor waterpark resorts and many outdoor waterparks in the
United States and Canada. We maintain databases and files concerning various types of
hospitality and recreation properties. Therefore, we possess the knowledge and
Introduction
A-16
experience to conduct the inspection, analysis, and reasoning necessary to estimate the
feasibility of the subject.
Area Analysis and Descriptive Data
B-1
AREA REVIEW
The feasibility of the proposed project is influenced in a general manner by the economic,
political, physical and social characteristics of its surrounding area. The subject site is
located in Ogden, Weber County, Utah, and belongs to the Ogden-Clearfield, Utah MSA.
An MSA consists of at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more people plus adjacent
areas with a high degree of social and economic integration with the core. According to
the U.S. Census Bureau, the Ogden-Clearfield MSA consists of three Utah counties:
Davis, Morgan, and Weber. The Ogden-Clearfield MSA sits directly north of the Salt Lake
City MSA, which consists of Salt Lake, Summit, and Tooele Counties. Though Ogden is
not officially part of the Salt Lake City metro area, we have included demographics and
income figures on the Salt Lake City MSA in order to provide a fuller picture of the
market area.
With a current estimated population of around 85,000, Ogden is the largest city in Weber
County, and it serves as the county seat. The city lies within the larger population
corridor called the Wasatch Front, which is a 100-mile strip of land running north/south
along the western slope of the Wasatch Range. The majority of Utah’s residents live
within this corridor. Salt Lake City is the key city in this large region of the interior West
and serves as the industrial, financial, religious, and commercial center of Utah. Ogden is
located near the northern end of the Wasatch Front, approximately 30 miles north of
downtown Salt Lake City and 80 miles north of Provo.
According to The Appraisal of Real Estate, 13th Edition published by the Appraisal
Institute, market area analysis focuses on the four forces – social, economic,
governmental, and environmental – that influence value. Analysis of the four forces is
performed by investigating specific factors pertaining to each. With a hospitality
property, particular emphasis is placed on trends affecting visitors to the area.
Social Forces
In performing a market area analysis, it is necessary to identify relevant social
characteristics and influences. Relevant demographic characteristics include population,
household counts, income levels, employment categories, age levels, household size, and
employment status. The population, income, and employment figures presented in this
section were taken from the Site To Do Business (STDB) database and are based on
official Census findings and estimates and projections from the Environmental Systems
Research Institute (ESRI).
B-2
B-3
Population Trends: The following table presents population growth trends for Ogden,
Weber County, the Ogden-Clearfield MSA, the Salt Lake City MSA, and the state of Utah.
Population Growth Trends
Ogden, Utah
1990
2000
2010
2015
%Change
%Change
%Change
Census
Census
(Est.)
(Proj.)
1990-00
2000-10
2010-15
64,335
77,226
85,195
90,204
20.0%
10.3%
5.9%
Weber County
158,330
196,533
234,099
255,870
24.1%
19.1%
9.3%
Ogden-Clearfield MSA
351,799
442,656
555,595
617,809
25.8%
25.5%
11.2%
Salt Lake City MSA
768,075
968,858
1,153,603
1,258,207
26.1%
19.1%
9.1%
1,722,850
2,233,169
2,841,749
3,200,614
29.6%
27.3%
12.6%
Area
Ogden
Utah
Source: STDB
As of 2010, the population of the Ogden-Clearfield MSA is estimated at around 556,000,
with roughly 234,000 in Weber County, and 85,000 in the city of Ogden. The neighboring
Salt Lake City MSA is currently home to more than 1.1 million residents. The combined
population of these two MSAs amounts to more than 60% of the total population in the
state of Utah. Over the past two decades, the area has seen significant population growth
at all geographic levels, and further growth is projected for the period of 2010 to 2015.
Household Trends: Household consumption plays a critical role in the economic outlook
of a region. A household is broadly defined as one or more person(s) living in a housing
unit. Households consist of married couples, and male and female householders. The
following table presents household growth trends for Ogden, Weber County, the OgdenClearfield MSA, the Salt Lake City MSA, and Utah.
Household Growth Trends
Ogden, Utah
1990
2000
2010
2015
%Change
%Change
%Change
Census
Census
(Est.)
(Proj.)
1990-00
2000-10
2010-15
Ogden
24,325
27,384
30,219
32,088
12.6%
10.4%
6.2%
Weber County
53,253
65,698
78,820
86,258
23.4%
20.0%
9.4%
108,406
138,945
176,193
196,363
28.2%
26.8%
11.4%
Salt Lake City MSA
254,532
318,150
379,296
414,060
25.0%
19.2%
9.2%
Utah
537,273
701,281
891,250
1,003,042
30.5%
27.1%
12.5%
Area
Source: STDB
According to the 2010 estimates, the three-county Ogden-Clearfield MSA is currently
home to around 176,000 households, with approximately 79,000 in Weber County and
30,000 in the city of Ogden. The combined household count in the Ogden-Clearfield MSA
and the Salt Lake City MSA is estimated at over 555,000. Once again, the area has seen
steady and substantial growth since 1990, and household counts are expected to
continue rising into the foreseeable future.
B-4
The average household size in the subject area is significantly above the national
average. The next table shows a comparison of the current estimated average household
sizes in the city of Ogden, Weber County, the Ogden-Clearfield MSA, the Salt Lake City
MSA, the state of Utah, and the nation as a whole. It is important to note that these
figures represent household size among all households – not just family households –
and therefore include single householders.
Average Household Size
Ogden, Utah
Area
Average HH Size (Persons)
e
2010 Est.
5
Ogden
2.74
Weber County
2.93
3.12
Salt Lake City MSA
3.00
Utah
3.14
USA
2.59
Source: STDB
For 2010, the estimated average household size in the United States as a whole is 2.59
persons. The average household size in the Ogden-Clearfield MSA, the Salt Lake City
MSA, and the state of Utah is at or above 3.00 persons. While the average household
size in Ogden and Weber County is slightly below the state and MSA levels, it is still
above the national level.
Of the total households in Weber County, an estimated 73.3% are classified as family
households and the remaining 26.7% are non-family households according to the 2010
estimates. As a comparison, an estimated 67.0% of households in the United States as a
whole are family households. The Census Bureau defines a family household as one that
contains a householder plus one or more persons related to the householder by marriage,
birth, or adoption. Therefore, the “family household” designation includes married
couples with children in the home, married couples without children, married couples
whose children have grown up an moved away, single-parent households, adult siblings
living together, etc. As of the 2000 Census, the average family household size in Weber
County was 3.42 persons, compared to 3.14 persons in the United States as a whole.
The following chart shows the breakdown of households in Weber County by household
type based on 2010 estimates.
B-5
Percentage of Households by Type, 2010 Estimate
Source: U.S. Burea u of the Census, 2000 Census of Population and Housing. ESRI estimates for 2010.
As shown, a relatively high percentage of households in Weber County consist of married
couples with children in the home, while non-family households make up a lower
percentage.
Age Distribution: Within any given community, the age characteristics of the resident
population are an important aspect to consider when planning public recreation programs
and facilities. The next table presents the median age in Ogden, Weber County, the
Ogden-Clearfield MSA, the Salt Lake City MSA, the state of Utah, and the United States.
B-6
Median Age
Ogden, Utah
Median Age
e
2010 Est.
5
Area
Ogden
30.4
Weber County
31.5
30.0
Salt Lake City MSA
30.7
Utah
29.0
USA
37.0
Source: STDB
The current estimated median age in the state of Utah is 29.0 years, which is
significantly below the national median of 37.0. For 2010, the median age is estimated at
30.4 in Ogden, 31.5 in Weber County, and 30.0 in the Ogden-Clearfield MSA. For Weber
County, this means that half the population is younger than 31.5 years and half is older.
The following table presents a breakdown of the current estimated county population by
age group.
Current Estimated Population of
Weber County by Age Group
Age
Number
% of Total
0 - 19
77,498
33.1%
20 - 34
53,508
22.9%
35 - 49
44,389
19.0%
50 - 64
35,530
15.2%
65+
23,174
9.9%
Total County Population
(2010 Est.)
234,099
Source: STDB
As these figures indicate, almost one third of the population in Weber County is under the
age of 20. In the United States as a whole, the under-20 segment makes up 27.0% of
the total population.
More than half (56.0%) of Weber County’s population is under the age of 35, compared
to 47.2% in the U.S. as a whole. The chart on the following page shows the current
estimated percentage of population within specific age groups for Weber County as
compared to the United States as a whole.
B-7
Population by Age as a Percent of Total Population, 2010 Estimate
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census of Population and Housing. ESRI estimates for 2010.
As illustrated, Weber County has a high percentage of children when compared to the
United States as a whole and a relatively low percentage of older adults. Weber County
also has a significantly higher percentage of residents in the 25-34 age group. Overall,
these figures indicate a comparatively young population who could be interested in a
recreation center and indoor waterpark.
Higher Education: Institutions of higher learning are typically demand generators for
leisure facilities and they help to provide an area with a stable employment base. Ogden
is home to Weber State University (WSU), a comprehensive public institution offering
associate, bachelor's and master's degree programs, plus a wide range of career and
technical certification programs. The university has a typical enrollment of around 23,000
students, with the student body consisting mainly of undergraduate students. While WSU
does offer some on-campus housing, most of its students are commuters. The
university’s athletic programs compete in the NCAA Division 1 Big Sky Conference. WSU
also contributes significantly to the city’s cultural life with a number of art, music, and
film programs that are open to the public.
Beyond the local area, there are two major universities in Utah, both located along the
Wasatch Front: the University of Utah and Brigham Young University. The University of
Utah, with approximately 26,000 students, is located in downtown Salt Lake City and
B-8
holds the distinction of being the first public university west of the Mississippi. Brigham
Young University, a Mormon-supported institution with an enrollment of approximately
30,000 students, is Utah’s largest and best-known private institution of higher learning.
The campus of Brigham Young University is located in Provo, Utah.
Retail Centers: Research conducted by the Travel Industry Association of America
indicates that shopping continues to be the most common activity among U.S. adult
travelers, with an estimated 63% including shopping as an activity on a trip. While there
may be many types of retail stores in a given area, travelers are typically drawn to
traditional enclosed malls, outlet malls, downtown shopping districts, and outdoor
“lifestyle” centers.
Downtown Ogden, particularly the historic 25th Street area, offers an eclectic mix of
smaller specialty shops, antique stores, and art galleries. The nearest major retail center
is Newgate Mall, located at 36th Street and Wall Avenue in Ogden. This single-level
enclosed mall encompasses over 725,000 square feet of retail space with over 95 stores
including Dillard’s, Sears, Eddie Bauer, and American Eagle Outfitters. The mall also
offers a 14-screen movie theater. The adjacent Riverdale Road Corridor offers an
assortment of big box stores including Costco, Best Buy, Babies R Us, and Lowe’s.
Sports and Recreation Facilities: In any given area, the presence of recreational
facilities enhances the quality of life for residents and contributes the overall health and
well-being of the community. The following table lists major sports and recreation areas
in and around the city of Ogden.
Existing Sports & Recreation Areas
in Ogden, Utah
Name
Purpose
Location
Lorin Farr Swimming Pool, Skate Park & Park
Outdoor Recreation
1691 Gramercy Avenue
Salomon Center
Indoor Recreation
2261 Kiesel Avenue
Dee Events Center
Sports Arena
4400 Harrison Boulevard
Lindquist Field
Baseball field
2330 Lincoln Ave
Downhill Skiing
Skiing
Wasatch Mountains
Golf
Golf
Various locations
Ogden and the surrounding area offer a number of recreational activities for residents to
enjoy. There are 37 parks located within Ogden alone, and the city has been recognized
as a “Tree City USA” for 20 years running. The Lorin Farr Swimming Pool, Skate Park &
Park is located in downtown Ogden and offers an outdoor pool, large water slides, and a
12,800 square foot skate park. Marquart Park and Mount Ogden Park, located adjacent to
one another in downtown Ogden, offer walking trails, picnic areas, and playgrounds.
Ogden’s Municipal Gardens are located at 25th Street and Grant Avenue. The Salomon
Center, located on Kiesel Avenue two blocks north of the subject site, is a multifaceted
entertainment complex offering simulated indoor sky-diving, a 17-person climbing wall,
Gold’s Gym fitness center, bowling alley, arcade, miniature golf, billiards, and a FlowRider
B-9
indoor surfing system. The Salomon Center is part of a mixed-use lifestyle development
called The Junction, which also includes the Treehouse Children’s Museum, the Megaplex
13 movie theater, apartments, office space, restaurants, and retail stores. Other points
of interest around the city include the George S. Eccles Dinosaur Park and the Ogden
Nature Center. Ogden also allows easy access to nearby Wasatch Mountain ski areas
such as Snowbasin Resort, Powder Mountain, and Wolf Mountain.
Major Event Facilities: Large event facilities such as convention centers, exposition
centers, fairgrounds, theaters, stadiums, and arenas play a major role in the cultural and
recreational life of a city. The largest event facility in the area is the Golden Spike Event
Center, which hosts an array of festivals, sporting events, horse shows, and antique
shows each year, in addition to the Weber County Fair. Located at the north end of
Ogden, this multiuse facility spans over 150 acres and offers two exhibit halls, two indoor
arenas, seven soccer fields, two basketball courts, three volleyball courts, four softball
fields, a covered picnic pavilion, and an outdoor stadium. Ogden Eccles Conference
Center, located near the subject site, offers 50,000 square feet of flexible indoor event
space. On the WSU campus, Stewart Stadium seats 17,000 for football and track events,
and The Dee Events Center seats 12,000 for basketball games. Lindquist Field, located
just north of the subject site is the home field of the Ogden Raptors minor league
baseball team.
Driving Distance: The following table shows the approximate driving distance from the
subject site to selected destinations in and around the city of Ogden.
Driving Distance from Subject Site to
Selected Destinations
Miles
Lindquist Field
0.2
The Junction / Salomon Center
0.2
Ogden Intermodal Transit Center
0.4
Lorin Farr Outdoor Pool & Skate Park
1.6
Newgate Mall
2.0
3.3
Golden Spike Event Center
5.6
Downtown Salt Lake City
38.7
Source: Mapquest.com
Economic Forces
Economic considerations relate to the financial capacity of a market area’s occupants and
their ability to purchase goods and services. Among the economic factors that can be
considered in this type of analysis are median household income levels, per capita
income, income distribution for households, unemployment levels, and the amount and
type of economic development in a given area.
B-10
Income: Median income levels are an important indicator when considering the overall
economic health of a given area. The table below lists median household income
estimates for Ogden, Weber County, the Ogden-Clearfield MSA, the Salt Lake City MSA,
and Utah.
Median Household Income Estimates
Ogden, Utah
1990
2000
2010
2015
%Change
%Change
%Change
Area
Census
Census
(Est.)
(Proj.)
1990-00
2000-10
2010-15
Ogden
$23,594
$34,065
$44,829
$53,515
44.4%
31.6%
19.4%
Weber County
$30,125
$44,099
$57,280
$66,445
46.4%
29.9%
16.0%
$32,455
$49,040
$63,885
$73,574
51.1%
30.3%
15.2%
Salt Lake City MSA
$30,267
$48,716
$64,057
$74,695
61.0%
31.5%
16.6%
Utah
$29,470
$45,712
$59,738
$68,954
55.1%
30.7%
15.4%
Source: STDB
Income levels in Weber County and the Ogden-Clearfield MSA tend to be fairly in line
with those in the state of Utah as a whole, while income levels in the city of Ogden tend
to be somewhat lower. For 2010, the median household income is estimated at $63,885
in the Ogden-Clearfield MSA, $57,280 in the county, and $44,829 in the city, compared
to $59,738 at the state level. As an additional point of comparison, the median household
income for the United States as a whole is estimated at $54,442 for 2010. As indicated,
the area has seen healthy income growth at all geographic levels, and this is projected to
remain the case heading into the future.
Cost of Living: According to the Editor & Publisher Market Guide 2010, the OgdenClearfield MSA ranks 294th among the nation’s 361 metro areas in terms of cost of living,
with 1 being the least expensive and 361 being the most expensive. The Salt Lake City
MSA ranks 299th, meaning that it is slightly more expensive. The following table
compares the cost of living in the Ogden-Clearfield and Salt Lake City MSAs to that of
other major metro areas in the United States.
B-11
Cost of Living Comparison
MSA
Rank
Index Score
1
100.00
St. Louis MO-IL
201
25.32
Detroit-Warren-Livonia MI
218
23.17
Houston-Sugar Land-Bay Town TX
245
20.88
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta GA
246
20.86
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale AZ
269
18.68
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington TX
280
17.90
Brownsville-Harlingen TX
Riverdale-San Bernardino-Ontario CA
286
17.50
Ogden-Clearfield UT
294
17.01
16.56
Salt Lake City UT
299
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach FL
305
15.18
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington PA-NJ-DE-MD
309
14.30
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington MN-WI
317
13.05
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet IL-IN-WI
320
12.71
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-PA
341
6.56
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos CA
342
6.46
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue WA
343
6.44
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria DC-VA-MD-WV
344
6.39
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MA-NH
347
4.81
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana CA
351
4.24
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont CA
358
0.25
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk CT
361
0.10
Source: Editor & Publisher Market Guide 2010
Industries and Employment
Information on the size of a region’s labor force and the relative trends in employment
and unemployment are key local economic indicators.
Unemployment Rates: The widely cited unemployment rate provides a good measure
of the relative utilization of labor in a region. These measures are “residency-based,”
providing current information on the labor force status of the residents of a county or
region. The following table presents unemployment rates for Ogden, Weber County, the
Ogden-Clearfield MSA, the Salt Lake City MSA, and the state of Utah.
Historical Unemployment Rates
Area
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Ogden
6.4%
4.7%
4.6%
6.1%
10.4%
Weber County
4.6%
3.4%
3.3%
4.4%
7.6%
4.3%
3.1%
3.0%
3.9%
6.6%
Salt Lake City MSA
4.1%
3.0%
2.7%
3.6%
6.4%
Utah
4.1%
3.0%
2.8%
3.7%
6.6%
United States
5.1%
4.6%
4.6%
5.8%
9.3%
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
B-12
Like most parts of the country, the subject area has seen a marked rise in unemployment
over the past two years as a result of the current recession. However, as the preceding
table illustrates, unemployment rates in Utah are still well below the national level. In
2009, the most recent year for which full-year data was available, the annual
unemployment rate stood at 10.4% in Ogden, 7.6% in Weber County, 6.6% in the
Ogden-Clearfield MSA, 6.4% in the Salt Lake City MSA, and 6.6% in Utah, compared to
9.3% in the United States as a whole. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also tracks
unemployment on a monthly basis. Preliminary figures for September 2010 indicate an
unemployment rate of 11.0% in Ogden, 8.0% in Weber County, 7.0% in the OgdenClearfield MSA, 7.3% in the Salt Lake City MSA, and 7.1% in the state of Utah.
Employment by Industry: The distribution of employment helps determine the
economic character of an area. The chart below shows the three largest industrial sectors
in terms of the estimated number of persons employed in 2010 for Weber County,
Ogden-Clearfield MSA, the Salt Lake City MSA, and the state of Utah.
Largest Industrial Sectors, 2010
Ogden, Utah
Largest industrial sector
Geographic Area
2nd largest industrial sector
3rd largest industrial sector
Industry
Percentage of
persons
employed
Industry
Percentage of
persons
employed
Industry
Percentage of
persons
employed
Health Care/Social
Assistance
16.6%
Retail Trade
13.0%
Public Administration
9.1%
Weber County
Retail Trade
15.6%
Health Care/Social
Assistance
13.9%
Manufacturing
9.2%
Ogden-Clearfield
MSA
Retail Trade
17.6%
Health Care/Social
Assistance
10.8%
Manufacturing
10.5%
Salt Lake City
MSA
Retail Trade
13.5%
Health Care/Social
Assistance
10.7%
Manufacturing
8.8%
Utah
Retail Trade
14.8%
Health Care/Social
Assistance
10.7%
Manufacturing
9.3%
Ogden
Source: STDB
The leading sector in the city of Ogden is Health Care/Social Assistance which accounts
for an estimated 16.6% of the total employment in 2010, followed by Retail Trade and
Public Administration. The largest health care employer is McKay-Dee Hospital. Major
public sector employers include the Internal Revenue Service, the Weber County School
District, Ogden City School District, and various offices of the state, county, and local
government. In the manufacturing sector, major employers include Autoliv, Fresenius
USA, and Kimberly-Clark.
The next table shows trends in overall employment for Weber County, Ogden-Clearfield
MSA, the Salt Lake City MSA, and the state of Utah since 2000 based on current-year
estimates, plus projections of future employment change over the period of 2010 to
2015. These figures are based on the employment status of residents.
B-13
Overall Employment Growth, 2000-2010
2000
2010
2015
%Change
%Change
Census
(Est.)
(Proj.)
2000-10
2010-15
Ogden
34,280
36,792
38,402
7.3%
4.4%
Weber County
91,938
108,741
116,981
18.3%
7.6%
206,126
252,292
275,459
22.4%
9.2%
Salt Lake City MSA
479,758
579,255
620,722
20.7%
7.2%
1,044,362
1,298,912
1,432,060
24.4%
10.3%
Utah
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI forecasts
At all geographic levels, the subject area saw strong net gains in overall employment
from 2000 to 2010, which is generally a sign of economic vitality. As shown, Weber
County and the Ogden-Clearfield MSA saw a higher degree of employment growth than
the core city of Ogden. It is important to note that these figures represent employment
change over a relatively long period of time and therefore do not highlight any major job
losses which may have occurred over the past two or three years. At all geographic
levels, continued job growth is projected for the period of 2010 to 2015.
Major Employers: The overall character of an area is determined largely by the types
of business located within it, their economic strengths and their growth potential. The
largest employers in Weber County are listed in the following table.
B-14
Major Employers in Weber County, Utah
Firm/Organization
Description
# Employees
Department of Treasury-IRS
Federal Government
5,000-6,999
McKay-Dee Hospital Center
Hospital
3,000-3,999
Weber County School District
Public Education
3,000-3,999
Higher Education
2,000-2,999
Autoliv
Motor Vehicle Equip. Mfg.
1,000-1,999
Fresenius USA Manufacturing Inc
Medical Instrument Mfg.
1,000-1,999
Ogden City School District
Public Education
1,000-1,999
State of Utah
State Government
1,000-1,999
Wal-Mart
Discount Department Store
1,000-1,999
Weber County
Local Government
1,000-1,999
America First Credit Union
Credit Union
500-999
Associated Food Stores Inc
Grocery Wholesaler
500-999
Columbia Ogden Medical Center Inc
Hospital
500-999
Convergys
Telephone Call Center
500-999
Flying J Corporate Offices
Corporate Office
500-999
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide Inc
Diaper Mfg.
500-999
Marketstar Corporation
Marketing Consulting Services
500-999
Ogden City
Local Government
500-999
Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services
The next map illustrates the location of the subject site in relation to major employers in
the surrounding area.
B-15
B-16
Recent and Emerging Developments:
The following bullets describe recent
developments that are expected to have a significant impact on downtown Ogden and
the surrounding community.
•
A new $21 million IRS building is currently planned at the corner of Lincoln
Avenue and 23rd Street. The facility will be built and owned by the Boyer
Company, based in Salt Lake City. Construction is scheduled to be finished in
early 2012, at which time the company will lease the building to the IRS. Federal
officials have said that the new building will house about 750 employees, though
it is not certain how many of these will be newly created jobs and how many will
be transferred from other IRS facilities.
•
In November 2010, the Ogden City Council approved a development agreement to
allow the construction of a new $13 million Hilton Garden Inn Hotel at 2275
Washington Boulevard in downtown Ogden. Construction on the four-story, 120room hotel could begin as early as June 2011 and could be completed by October
2012. This project will also include a $3 million underground, city-owned public
parking garage.
•
In mid 2010, Quality Bicycle Products (QBP), a Minnesota-based bicycle
manufacturer, agreed to purchase eight acres from the City of Ogden to house an
85,000 square foot distribution facility. The building, located off of 12th Street
east of the Ogden Nature Center, will enable the company to fill orders to most of
the western U.S. in two days or less. QBP plans to hire 50 workers initially and
intends to double that number once the distribution center opens. The company
also plans eventually to bring some of its brand headquarters to Ogden.
•
In November 2010, Recreation Outlet – a store specializing in equipment and
apparel for camping and outdoor adventure sports – opened in 9,000 square feet
of newly renovated retail space at 2324 Washington Boulevard in downtown
Ogden. Ogden ROX, a similarly oriented store, will move into a 5,700 square foot
space at 2314 Washington Boulevard.
•
In March 2010, a new Otis Spunkmeyer customer service center opened at
Business Depot Ogden. The new call center, which employs 85 people, allowed the
company to consolidate previous operations in California, Ohio, and South
Carolina.
•
For the past several years, the Ogden Redevelopment Agency has been working
toward a plan called the Ogden River Project that would bring new commercial
and residential development near the bank of the Ogden River. The long-term
plan calls for the creation of 315,000 square feet of commercial space and 916
residential units that could house about 1,900 residents. The plan would focus on
60 city-owned acres located between the river and 20th Street from Washington
Avenue to Grant Avenue. As of our research date, no official timeline for this
project had been announced.
•
In 2010, the Ogden-Clearfield MSA was ranked number six on the Forbes.com list
of “America’s Best Places to Raise a Family.” The rankings were based on the
availability of quality education, cost of living, home ownership rates, crime rates,
and other factors.
B-17
Governmental Forces
Governmental considerations relate to the laws, regulations, and property taxes that
affect properties in the market area and the administration and enforcement of these
constraints such as zoning laws, building codes, and housing and sanitary codes. The
property tax burden associated with the benefits provided and the taxes charged for
similar benefits in other areas are considered. The enforcement of applicable codes,
regulations, and restrictions should be equitable and effective. Governmental
characteristics that should be considered in the analysis of a market area include
property tax burden relative to services provided, special assessments, zoning and
building codes, quality of public services, and environmental regulations. Some of these
factors are discussed in the zoning and real estate tax sections later in this report.
Environmental Forces
Environmental influences consist of any natural or man-made features that are contained
in or affect the market area and its location. These include a building’s type and size,
topographical features such as terrain and vegetation, changes in property use and land
use patterns, and the adequacy of public utilities.
Highway and Road Transportation: Highway accessibility is a primary consideration
in planning an area’s future growth and development. Weber County is served by two
interstate highways: north/south Interstate 15 and east/west Interstate 84. To the
south, Interstate 15 leads directly from Ogden into downtown Salt Lake City, then
onward to the cities of Orem and Provo. Interstate 84 passes through the southernmost
portion of Weber County, connecting with Interstate 15 about three miles south of
downtown Ogden.
Within the city of Ogden, the primary north/south roads are Washington Boulevard (US
Route 89), Wall Avenue (State Route 204), and Harrison Boulevard (State Route 203).
The city’s main east/west streets are all numbered, with 20th Street through 29th Street
representing the core of downtown. The subject site is located at 24th Street and Grant
Avenue, one block west of Washington Boulevard. The following table shows the annual
average daily traffic (AADT) on Washington Boulevard and 24th Street at the points
nearest to the proposed subject site.
Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume
Ogden, Utah
Washington Boulevard
24th Street
between 20th St & 24th
St
between 24th St & 30th
St
between Lincoln Ave &
Grant Ave
between Adams Ave &
Jefferson Ave
(North of Site)
(South of Site)
(West of Site)
(East of Site)
2009
31,120
26,990
15,555
11,270
2008
30,905
26,800
15,650
11,335
2007
32,125
27,860
16,455
11,920
2006
31,680
27,475
15,365
11,755
2005
31,210
27,070
14,715
11,260
Source: Utah Department of Transportation
B-18
Public Transportation: Bus service is provided by the Utah Transit Authority (UTA). The
UTA operates bus routes between Ogden and Salt Lake City as well as numerous routes
within Weber and Davis Counties. The closest major stations are located at the Ogden
Intermodal Transit Center, just two blocks east of the subject site, and at Weber State
University. Ogden residents can also take advantage of the FrontRunner commuter rail
service, which runs between Salt Lake City and Pleasant View, with a stop at the Ogden
Intermodal Transit Center.
Air Transportation: The nearest airport offering scheduled commercial passenger
service is Salt Lake City International, located seven miles west of downtown Salt Lake
City and approximately 30 miles south of Ogden. The airport is a hub of Delta Air Lines
and its commuter partner, SkyWest Airlines, and it is served by seven other major
airlines and their affiliates. According statistics maintained by the Federal Aviation
Administration, Salt Lake City International Airport was the 24th busiest airport in the
U.S. in 2009 based on total passenger volume served.
The following table presents historical passenger activity at Salt Lake City International
Airport.
Airport Activities
Salt Lake City International Airport
Year
Passenger Enplanements
%Change
2009
9,903,821
-0.9%
2008
9,993,198
-5.4%
2007
10,560,906
2.6%
2006
10,289,129
-3.0%
2005
10,601,918
—
Source: Federal Aviation Administration
Ogden-Hinckley Airport is a smaller facility located in southwest Ogden, west of
Interstate 15. This airport is used by private, charter, and commercial aircraft.
Climate: The climate of the Ogden area is generally mild in the summer and cold in the
winter. The average daily temperature in January is 28.1 degrees Fahrenheit and the
average daily temperature in July is 76.6 degrees Fahrenheit. The following table depicts
typical weather conditions for the area based on climate data collected over a 30-year
period.
B-19
Average Weather Conditions for Ogden, Utah (1971-2000)
Month
Low
Temperature
High
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Precipitation
January
(°F)
20.1
(°F)
36.1
(°F)
28.1
(inches)
2.3
February
March
April
23.8
31.2
38.2
42.6
52.2
60.8
33.2
41.7
49.5
2.1
2.4
2.5
May
June
July
47.2
55.8
63.1
70.5
81.5
90.0
58.9
68.7
76.6
2.9
1.5
0.9
August
September
October
61.5
52.1
40.7
88.4
77.8
64.7
75.0
65.0
52.7
1.0
1.8
2.3
November
December
29.9
21.7
48.4
37.8
39.2
29.8
2.0
2.0
ANNUAL
40.4
62.6
51.5
23.7
Source: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service
NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS
The neighborhood surrounding a recreational facility impacts its status, image, class,
style of operation, and sometimes its ability to attract and properly serve a particular
market segment.
Surroundings of Subject Site
The subject site is located in downtown Ogden. Land uses located around the subject
include low- to mid-rise office buildings and multifamily residential. Additionally, there
are several restaurants located near the subject site including along South Washington
Boulevard and 24th and 25th streets. The Salomon Center and The Junction are located
to the north of the subject site.
The 124-room Hampton Inn and Suites is located to the west of the subject site while the
292-room Marriott Hotel is located to the east of the subject site.
The neighborhood surrounding the subject site is primarily developed with offices,
municipal buildings, commercial, single family and multifamily residential housing. There
is very limited land for new development in the subject’s immediate neighborhood.
The following table lists the real estate parcels that potentially will be used for the
subject development as provided by the client. Any existing structures on the sites will be
demolished for the subject development.
B-20
Parcel Numbers
Owner
Parcel Number
Pingree Family Limited
01-020-0063
MA Ogden LLC
01-020-0008
MA Ogden LLC
01-020-0006
Ogden City Neighborhood Development Agency
01-020-0005
Ogden City Redevelopment Agency
01-021-0047
Ogden City Redevelopment Agency
01-021-0046
Berthana Building LLC
01-021-0082
Berthana Building LLC
01-021-0094
Lohmueller REH, LLC
01-021-0049
CSPE005 LLC
01-021-0088
Empire Investment Group LLC
01-021-0044
Empire Investment Group LLC
01-021-0093
H&P Investments
01-021-0043
Cutrubus, Phidia & Homer K Cutrubus
01-021-0038
Alvey Holding LLC
01-021-0037
Alvey Holding LLC
01-021-0019
Alvey Holding LLC
01-021-0036
H&P Investments
01-021-0039
Century Investments Partnership LLC
01-021-0041
Century Investments Partnership LLC
01-021-0040
Source: Ogden City
Aerial Photograph: The image below is an aerial photograph of the subject site.
B-21
The next map, generated by Google Earth, illustrates the location of the subject site in
relation to major roads and highways in the surrounding area.
B-22
B-23
Flood Zone Determinations: According to FEMA definitions, the term 100-year
floodplain indicates an area in which there is a 1% or greater annual probability of a flood
occurring; the term 500-year floodplain indicates an area with a 0.2% or greater annual
probability of flooding.
The most common flood zone definitions are as follows:
ZONE A
An area inundated by 100-year flooding
ZONE B
An area inundated by 500-year flooding; an area inundated by 100-year
flooding with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas
less than one square mile; or an area protected by levees from 100-year
flooding
ZONE C
An area that is determined to be outside the 100- and 500-year floodplains
ZONE D
An area of undetermined but possible flood hazards
ZONE X
An area within a 500-year floodplain; an area within the 100-year
floodplain with average depths of less than one foot or width drainage
areas less than one square mile and areas protected by levees from 100year flood
The map on the following page presents the FEMA flood zone determinations for the
subject site as of December 16, 2005. The map (Map Number 49057C0426E) indicates
that the subject site is in a Zone X area, meaning that it is within a lower-risk, 500-year
floodplain but outside of any higher-risk, 100-year floodplain.
B-24
B-25
Outlook
Our review of the above data indicates a positive outlook for the subject area. The
Ogden-Clearfield MSA is projected to experience continued growth in population, total
households, employment, and median household income in coming years, all of which
are signs of a healthy economy. The area offers a wider range of activities for both locals
and tourists. It also has a strong employment base. All of these factors point to sustained
growth within the region and should benefit the proposed facility by ensuring high levels
of demand heading into the future.
CITY OF OGDEN LODGING OVERVIEW
We have prepared an analysis of the hotels located in the city of Ogden as overnight
visitors to the proposed indoor waterpark and fieldhouse may stay at one of the hotels.
The following table lists all the hotels in the City of Ogden as obtained from Smith Travel
Research.
Hotels in Ogden City
Hotel Name
Budget Inn
Date Open
n/a
Number of Rooms
35
The Alaskan Inn
Jun 1995
23
Comfort Suites Ogden
Jul 1995
142
Hampton Inn Suites Ogden
Jan 2002
124
Holiday Inn Express & Suites Ogden
Jun 2000
75
Marriott Ogden
Jun 1982
292
Best Rest Inn Ogden
Jun 1979
91
Ogden Lodge
Jun 1947
78
Ogden River Inn
Jun 1950
92
Days Inn Ogden
Feb 1964
109
Super 8 Ogden
Oct 1984
58
Ben Lomond Historic Suites
Jan 1985
97
Best Western High Country Inn
Jun 1979
109
Millstream Motel
Jun 1939
48
n/a
25
Mount Lomond Motel
Jun 1960
26
Motel 6 Ogden
Jun 1978
70
Sleep Inn Ogden
Feb 1994
66
Motel 6 Ogden Riverdale
Jun 1984
110
19
1,670
Colonial Motel
Total
Source: Smith Travel Research
According to Smith Travel Research there are 1,670 hotel rooms in the City of Ogden.
The following table highlights occupancy and average daily rate for select hotels that are
highlighted in bold, as obtained from Smith Travel Research.
B-26
Hotel Performance Analysis
Year
Occupancy
ADR
RevPAR
2006
62.0%
$70.39
$43.64
2007
63.7%
$77.34
$49.27
2008
61.8%
$83.40
$51.54
2009
60.9%
$83.93
$51.11
Source: Smith Travel Research
The five select hotels total 792 rooms and represent the more expensive hotels in the
city. The hotels have been performing over 60% occupancy over the past four years. We
have also reviewed data from the Ogden/Weber Convention and Visitors Bureau.
According to the data obtained from the bureau, the overall occupancy of hotels in Weber
County was 60.9% in 2009 and is 64% year-to-date October 2010.
SITE DESCRIPTION, ZONING, & REAL ESTATE TAXES
Site Location: The subject site is located in the southwest quadrant of 24th Street and
Kiesel Avenue, Ogden, Weber County, Utah.
Size and Shape: The subject site will be located on approximately 5 acres of land. The
site is irregular in shape. The city of Ogden is in process of acquiring the various parcels
to encompass the proposed 5 acre site.
Access and Exposure: Access to the subject site will be obtained from 24th Street and
Kiesel Avenue. As part of the development, Grant Avenue will be closed between 24th
and 25th Street.
Site Conditions: We have not been provided with an engineering or environmental
study done for the subject site. H&LA has not performed an engineering study nor test
borings and makes no conclusion as to the condition of the foundation or the soil and
subsoil conditions. The subject site is currently developed with multiple buildings that will
be torn down as part of the development.
Utilities: All necessary utilities and services, including gas, electricity, telephone, water
and sanitary sewer are available to the subject property’s site.
Deed Restrictions/Easements: No easements were made known to the appraiser,
which would adversely affect utility or marketability of the site.
Property Taxes: As the proposed development will be owned by the city we assume
that the property will be exempt from property taxes.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
General: We have analyzed the proposed development and reviewed the preliminary
development plans for the proposed project. The preliminary designs and plans were
prepared by architect Dan VanZeben. The following describes the proposed development.
The client is planning development of a fieldhouse and an indoor waterpark in downtown
Ogden. The facility will offer an indoor velodrome; indoor tennis courts; infield for indoor
B-27
soccer, lacrosse, indoor football and gymnastics; Olympic-sized swimming pool and an
indoor waterpark.
The development of the subject will include the removal of existing structures on the site.
We project the proposed property will open by January 1, 2013. The following chart
indicates the major components planned for the proposed development.
List of Proposed & Recommended Features
Indoor Tennis
Size (S.F.)
40,000
# of Courts
6
The tennis court area could also be used as an exhibition area for large trade shows and
events at the adjacent conference center
Indoor Velodrome
Size (S.F.)
80,000
Track Length (m)
250
Type
Wood
Indoor Soccer, Indoor Football,
Lacrosse, Gymnastics & Futsal
30,000
Infield
Estimated Infield Size (S.F.)
Indoor Olympic-sized Swimming Pool
Size (S.F.)
20,000
Length (m)
50
Width (m)
25
# of Lanes
8-10
Diving Platform
Yes
Indoor Waterpark
Size of Aquatic Area (S.F.)
60,000
Tube, Body & Raft Slides
Kiddie Pool
Treehouse Structure
Lazy River
Water Coaster
Cabanas
Birthday Party Rooms
Other Areas
Retail/Pro Shop (S.F.)
2,000
Food and Beverage/Concessions (S.F.)
4,000
Mens and Womens Locker Rooms and Changing Areas
On the following page is the preliminary design for the proposed development. The
architect and the city are still refining the plans for the proposed development.
CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS
B-28
CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS (SECOND LEVEL)
B-29
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT
B-30
B-31
The proposed fieldhouse and indoor waterpark will include a wide range of sports
activities and waterpark recreation amenities. The following describes the major
components.
Tennis
The building will offer approximately 40,000 square feet of tennis area which will include
six indoor tennis courts located on the second level of the building. Based on our
conversations with the city, the indoor tennis courts will also be used as an exhibition
area for large events at the adjacent David Eccles Conference Center. The city is planning
to connect the two buildings via an overhead walkway through the Berthana building.
We recommend that monthly tennis memberships be offered that will allow members
discounted court reservation fee. The tennis membership should also allow members
some discounts for the other components for the facility. We recommend that the facility
offer a variety of programs such as lessons for adults and children, competitive tennis
leagues, and hourly court reservations. We recommend that the courts also be open to
the public, but non-members should pay a higher fee. We recommend that Weber County
residents get a discounted rate.
Velodrome
A velodrome is defined as an arena for track cycling. Velodromes feature steeply banked
oval tracks consisting of two 180-degree circular bends connected by two straight areas.
The track will be made of wood. Velodromes may be constructed as indoor or outdoor
facilities. The city is planning to build an indoor velodrome. We recommend the
velodrome include a 250 meter track. This size of track will allow the facility to host both
national and international competitions. An indoor velodrome in Ogden has the potential
to become the national home for cycling in U.S. As a national center with international
certification for international events, a velodrome can create a comparative advantage
for Ogden and will offer opportunities for long-run economic benefits. The only such other
indoor facility in the country is the Home Depot Center Velodrome in Carson, California.
The track is currently used by both U.S. and Canadian track cycling teams for training.
The infield of the velodrome can be used for various sports. We recommend the infield
include artificial turf which can be used for indoor soccer, futsal, football, lacrosse and
gymnastics. The infield of the Velodrome can also be used as an exhibition area for the
adjacent conference center. The infield will offer approximately 30,000 square feet of
usable area. We recommend temporary spectator seating using collapsible bleachers for
2,000 to 3,000 people around the outer ring of the velodrome. This area can also be
used for recreation walking, jogging and running. We do not project the running and
jogging area being used for competitive events. We recommend this running and jogging
track be free for all members and users.
We project that the velodrome will have a mix of users from high performance track
cycling specialists to recreational cyclists seeking cross-training opportunities, to
community-based learn to ride. It will also offer significant opportunities for high schools
and universities in the region.
We recommend that the velodrome offer memberships that will allow members to train
during select hours of the day. In addition, the track cycling clubs can also reserve the
B-32
facility in hourly slots which will allow club members usage of the facility. The track will
also be open for select hours of the day for non-members. Non-members are projected
to pay a daily fee for the usage of the facility. We recommend that bike storage lockers
be offered for members for a fee to keep their bikes year round. We recommend the infield of the velodrome be offered for hourly reservation for indoor soccer and other
sports.
Olympic-size Pool and Indoor Waterpark
Swimming is second behind exercise walking in popularity of sports and leisure activities
nationally, meaning that there is a significant market for aquatic activities. The placing of
traditional instructional/competitive pools, with shallow depth/interactive leisure pools
and therapy water, in the same facility has been well received in the market. This idea
has proven to be financially successful by centralizing pool operations for recreation
service providers and through increased generation of revenues from patrons willing to
pay for an aquatics experience that is new and exciting. The multifunction indoor aquatic
center concept of delivering aquatics services continues to grow in acceptance with the
idea of providing for a variety of aquatics activities and programs in an open design
setting that features a lot of natural light, interactive play features and access to an
outdoor sun deck.
Indoor aquatic centers have been instrumental in developing a true family appeal for
community-based facilities. The keys to success for this type of center revolve around
the concept of intergenerational use in a quality facility that has an exciting and vibrant
feel.
The family oriented indoor waterpark concept has also gained in popularity by providing
for a variety of interactive aquatics activities and programs in a park setting that features
a variety of rides, attractions and sitting areas. This idea has proven to be financially
successful with most indoor and outdoor waterpark being able to achieve positive net
operating income. This has occurred by increasing the generation of revenues from
patrons willing to pay for an aquatics experience that is new and exciting.
A new concept in aquatic centers is the spray ground, where a number of water spray
features are placed in a playground setting where there is no standing water but the
water is treated and re-circulated much like a pool. This provides a fun yet safe
environment where drowning is not a concern and lifeguards are not necessary.
However, spray pads are popular only with smaller children.
Considering trends for a municipal aquatic center and waterpark in mind, we recommend
the proposed development include a 60,000 square foot (of aquatic area) indoor
waterpark and an Olympic size pool. We recommend that both of these facilities be
connected because this will allow visitors to move through both the areas conveniently.
In addition, on peak days when there are many visitors in the waterpark we project that
some guests would prefer using the swimming pool. We recommend that the swimming
pool have a retractable seating spectator area, which will allow the swimming pool to
host larger competitions.
There are generally four aquatic user groups: lessons and fitness, aquatic therapy,
recreation swimmers and competitive swimmers. The descriptions make evident the very
B-33
different requirements for each of these aquatic user groups. The proposed pool and
waterpark will offer capabilities and amenities essential to accommodating needs of all
four groups. We recommend that the swimming pool have electronic timing systems and
touch pads which will allow the facility to host swim meets.
We recommend that the indoor waterpark have multiple cabanas for individual rentals or
birthday party rentals. We recommend the subject offer 1,000 to 1,500 square feet of
multiple birthday party rooms adjacent to the indoor waterpark for birthday parties or
other social events to assemble when they are not in the waterpark. This room can be
utilized as an overflow breakout room, or for waterpark snack bar seating when there are
no birthday parties. If crowd control becomes an issue on peak days, we recommend that
tickets be sold in blocks of four hours or in sessions such as morning, afternoon or
evening sessions.
Typically, the indoor waterpark utilizes approximately 35 to 40 square feet per person. At
60,000 square feet, this implies that the subject indoor waterpark will hold 1,500 to
1,714 people at one time. However, typical waterpark users use the waterpark for three
to four hours on an average; therefore the subject facility can have more people during
the entire day. Additionally the Olympic size pool can act as an overflow area.
We recommend the indoor waterpark have a theme that is popular with families. The
rides and attractions need to offer sufficient entertainment value. The rides should have
theming and a sense of adventure. We recommend the subject facility obtain at least one
ride or attraction which is unique to the facility that they can promote to the public. We
do not recommend a Flowrider be included as there is an existing one in the Salomon
Center unless it is to be moved to the proposed subject project.
The waterpark should have a separate locker room area with a minimum of 750 lockers
to accommodate visitors. Additional components for the waterpark area should include:
1. Various slides and tubes and other rides for both smaller and larger children
2. Three to five tall slides and rides targeting teenagers or older children
3. Treehouse water game structure with various interactive water components
4. Zero depth entry area for babies and toddlers with small slides and water
fountains
5. Whirlpools for adults and older children
6. Basketball and water polo areas
7. Lazy river
8. Family raft ride
9. Water Coaster
10. Birthday party rooms
B-34
We recommend that the subject offer membership passes for the indoor waterpark and
swimming. We recommend that passes be sold only to Weber County residents. We
recommend that non-residents pay a daily admission fee to get access to the indoor
waterpark. We recommend that the passes include access to both the indoor waterpark
and the swimming pool area. Furthermore, additional discounts should be offered to
members that want to participate in other activities at the facility.
Other Components
We recommend the building offer a 4,000 square foot food and beverage outlet offering
both seating areas and takeout options. We recommend that this outlet be located near
the indoor waterpark but offer a takeout window into the indoor waterpark. The food and
beverage outlet is projected to serve fast food items such as burgers, sandwiches, pizza
etc. To reduce overhead costs and maximize revenues, we recommend that the food and
beverage outlet be centrally located so that it is accessible from other parts of the
facility.
We recommend a 2,000 square feet retail store/pro shop be located between the
velodrome and indoor waterpark. In addition to sundry items, the retail store/pro shop is
projected to sell waterpark, cycling and tennis related apparel and equipment.
Recommendations
The following are our recommendations for the subject facility.
•
We recommend that the entire facility be operated by one management company.
We project the management company will in turn hire a departmental head for
each of the major departments. This will allow for the facility to have one
management company to operate the property and produce daily, monthly and
annual financial statements. The management company will also be able to
creatively market the entire facility including selling combination tickets and
passes for the multiple sports and activities at the facility.
•
We recommend that the waterpark and the swimming pool be located adjacent to
each other. This will allow for people to move conveniently between the two
facilities. Furthermore, lifeguards could also be moved around based on demand
patterns. When there are no events in the pool, we recommend the bleachers be
collapsed to provide additional seating area for the combined waterpark and pool
area.
•
We recommend an outdoor deck area for sunbathing. We also recommend an
outdoor hot tub for adults.
•
We recommend that the facility be open 360 days a year. We project some days
may be slower and recommend reduced staffing on such days to lower costs. We
recommend the design professional consider lifeguard staffing when planning the
waterpark and pool area.
•
We recommend directional and marketing signage along Interstate 15 for the
facility. We recommend that the indoor waterpark be promoted aggressively
B-35
throughout the region. We recommend various packages be offered with local
hotels.
•
We project that the velodrome will partner with local and state cycling associations
in marketing and operating the facility. The members of these associations will act
as ambassadors for the property and will help promote the property. Most
velodromes including the indoor velodrome in Carson, California actively look for
volunteers during special events.
•
We recommend that the tennis and velodrome department heads be former or
current professional athletes who will also serve as trainers and instructors at the
facility and get a portion of the instruction and lessons revenues. This will allow
the facility to offer smaller salaries, while the other portion of the salaries will be
compensated from their offering instructions and lessons. We also recommend
that tennis and velodrome instructors be on commission and not full-time
employees.
•
We recommend one central entrance for the entire facility. This will allow the
facility to lower overhead costs. This central area will sell tickets and passes and
also serve as the customer service area.
•
We recommend that the retail and pro shop be located near the main entrance as
well. By cross training employees, the facility can move people from one
department to the other during peak periods of the day.
•
We recommend temporary and permanent seating areas for the velodrome,
swimming pool and tennis to offer spectator seating during special events.
•
We recommend that the architects and land planners for the subject facility
prepare preliminary plans for an expansion of waterpark area to allow for proper
land planning. Planning for an expansion area initially will allow for lower costs
when the expansion occurs.
OPERATION MODEL
Most of the municipally owned recreation centers and aquatic centers are operated by
cities and they are typically subsidized by tax revenues. In contrast some of the larger
sporting venues and indoor waterparks are operated by private management companies.
In some instances sporting venues are supported by grants from non-profit agencies,
which enables break-even to be achieved. We have analyzed two models of operation for
the proposed center.
•
•
Ownership and Operation by the City of Ogden
City Ownership and Private Sector Management
In the first model, the recreation department of the city of Ogden will run the day to day
operations of the facility. In the second model, the city will hire a private management
company to run the facility. The private management company will be paid a base
management fee of 2% to 3% of total facility revenues and an additional incentive fee if
the facility meets certain performance benchmarks. This base plus incentive fee system
B-36
will encourage the management company to increase revenues at the facility and operate
it efficiently.
Based on our findings, we recommend that the facility be operated by a competent
private management company. There is a greater likelihood that the facility will operate
at a break-even or surplus position after the initial period of operations under this
scenario.
There is a possibility that the facility could operate at a deficit depending on how the
facility addresses the pricing of the programs available at the facility. In our view, the
demand profile for this facility would suggest that a pricing program can be introduced
that reflect the significant facilities and services being provided and charge market rates.
We recommend the subject avoid aggressive discounting for county residents which may
result in the facility operating at a loss.
For the purposes of this study, we assume that the city will hire a private management
company to operate the entire facility. This scenario assumes that the private operator
will be incentivized to maximize facility revenues and net operating income through its
contract with the city as owner of the facility. We assume that discounts will be offered to
county residents. In terms of expenses, private management of the facility will likely
reduce the costs associated with staffing and utilize a greater number of part-time staff
than if the facility is being operated by the city.
The velodrome, at its core, is a specialist facility and requires management that reflects
this. Most of the velodromes around the country are operated by local state cycling
associations or other non-profit entities and volunteers. For the purposes of our report,
we assume that the management company will hire a manager who will work with
various non-profit cycling associations. By having volunteers and non-profit cycling
associations assisting with special events, it will help reduce the operating costs of the
velodrome and increase promoting the facility.
The development of the subject facility will generate considerable interest from both local
residents and tourists. We project that various programs and special events are in place
to take advantage of this interest. We recommend setting a pricing structure that
provides discounts to local residents and stakeholders but charges market rates to
tourists and visitors from outside Weber County. The longer-term sustainability of the
subject facility will revolve around the daily use and a range of programs and rates that
meets the various needs of the local and regional user base, in addition to the elite and
high performance athletes. Management of the facility will require partnerships with local,
state and national associations in all of the sports offered at the facility.
We project that the neighboring hotels will promote the indoor waterpark and sell hotel
packages that will include access to the indoor waterpark. We project that the area hotels
will buy tickets in bulk from the facility at a discounted rate and package them with their
room rates. The selling of these packages will also improve leisure demand at the area
hotels and attract more visitors to the area.
We project that the facility will pay the private management company a base fee of 2%
to 3% and an additional incentive if it meets certain benchmarks. We recommend that
the city should advertise both locally and nationally via an RFP to identify a management
B-37
company. We are available to perform a management company analysis, issue RFPs and
evaluate potential respondents as an additional phase of our consulting contract.
↑ View of the Existing Buildings at the Subject Site ↓
Market Analysis
C-1
NATIONAL WATERPARKS OVERVIEW
A waterpark is a type of amusement park that features water play areas such as water slides,
splash pads, wave pools, lazy rivers, and swimming pools. Outdoor waterparks are generally
seasonal and are highly dependent on the weather. Outdoor waterparks, which evolved in
the late 1970s, have become popular over the years. Although Point Mallard Park in Decatur,
Alabama, had the first U.S. wave pool in 1970, the first official waterpark, Wet ‘n Wild in
Orlando, was created in 1977 by George Millay (creator and founder of Sea World), according
to the World Waterpark Association.
The United States has the largest and most concentrated waterpark market in the world.
According to research performed by Hotel & Leisure Advisors, more than 468 larger
waterparks exist within the United States. Hotel & Leisure Advisors defines an outdoor
waterpark as those facilities offering three or more larger water slides. Hotel & Leisure
Advisors defines an indoor waterpark as a facility offering an aquatic area of 10,000 or more
square feet. The following chart identifies, by region, the 2010 supply of waterparks as
defined above.
2010 Open Waterpark Supply By Region
Outdoor Waterparks
Municipal
Private
Total
South
Region
18
55
73
West
16
74
90
Midwest
66
50
116
6
56
62
106
235
341
Northeast
Total
Indoor Waterparks Resorts
Franchise
Independent
South
0
9
9
West
6
3
9
39
59
98
6
5
11
51
76
127
Midwest
Northeast
Total
Combined Total Number of Waterparks
Total
468
Note: Outdoor waterparks defined as having three or more slides
Note: Indoor waterparks contain a minimum of 10,000 square feet and attached hotel
Source: Hotel & Leisure Advisors, LLC, December 2010
There are numerous additional smaller aquatic facilities, some of which claim to be
waterparks, located throughout the country. Resort hotels have been adding outdoor
waterparks to their properties in recent years, which are excluded in the outdoor waterparks
figures shown above. We define a resort hotel with an outdoor waterpark as a hotel with
three or more water play features, such as slides, lazy rivers, or wave pools that require
lifeguards.
Market Analysis
C-2
As described above, outdoor waterparks can either be a municipally owned or privately
owned facility. Indoor waterparks have become popular in recent years in areas with colder
weather, and typically have a lodging component among the amenities that they offer. Resort
destination indoor and outdoor waterpark facilities are typically independent, while some of
the other facilities have affiliated with franchised lodging companies to increase awareness
and leverage a hotel’s brand identity.
The World Waterpark Association has estimated approximately 81 million attendants at North
American waterparks during 2009. Approximately the same number attended in 2008,
compared to 77 million to 79 million in 2007, which is significantly higher when compared to
41 million in 1991. A WWA representative said the number remained the same in 2008 and
2009 “due to the difficult weather conditions in 2009 in many regions throughout North
America, as well as the Swine Flu, and the economic turndown.” The attendance levels in
2006 were between 3% and 5% higher than the figures for 2005, according to the World
Waterpark Association. Most of the attendance is from freestanding waterparks; however,
indoor waterpark resorts are also included in the figure. Existing waterparks are adding
surprising touches, from multimillion dollar rides to private cabanas. Water coasters, bowl
rides, and body board/surfing attractions are big draws for the waterpark industry. According
to the 2009 Travel and Leisure Market Research Handbook, the economic downturn has been
a boost to waterpark hotels because many families are cutting back on travel with a drive to
a nearby hotel waterpark complex instead of a traditional vacation.
We have analyzed the regional locations of the waterparks and compared that to the
population by region. As shown, the western region, where the subject is located, has the
least number of waterparks by region and almost twice the number of people per waterpark
compared to the southern region. This implies a greater opportunity for new waterpark
development.
Waterpark and Population Comparison
Number of Waterparks
Population
Number of Persons per waterpark
Northeast
Region
82
55,785,179
680,307
Midwest
99
67,391,433
680,722
214
113,583,614
530,765
South
West
73
76,790,301
1,051,922
Total
468
313,550,527
669,980
Source: Hotel & Leisure Advisors and US Census (2010 Projections)
The chart indicates that the western region has 1,051,922 people per waterpark based upon
our count of outdoor and indoor waterparks and the 2010 Census projection. After the tragic
events of September 11, 2001, more people started traveling closer to home and taking
more weekend trips, which boosted attendance at local and regional waterparks. The
development of new waterparks by resorts, campgrounds, and municipalities has also added
to the national waterpark attendance figures.
We have analyzed statistics concerning attendance at the top 20 United States outdoor
waterparks as taken from Themed Entertainment Association and AECOM 2009 Theme Index,
The Global Attractions Attendance Report.
Market Analysis
C-3
Top 20 U.S. Outdoor Waterparks
by Annual Attendance
20 09
% Chan ge
Attendance
over 2008
Park
Location
1
Typhoon Lagoon at Walt Disney World
Orlando, FL
2,059,000
0.0%
2
Blizzard Beach at Walt Disney World
Orlando, FL
1,891,000
0.0%
3
Aquatica
Orlando, FL
1,600,000
-6.8%
4
Wet 'n Wild
Orlando, FL
1,235,000
-5.0%
5
Schlitterbahn
New Braunfels, TX
900,000
2.0%
6
Water Country USA
Williamsburg, VA
700,000
-2.2%
7
Adventure Island
Tampa, FL
600,000
9.3%
8
Schlitterbahn
Galveston, TX
530,000
-5.0%
9
Rank
Hyland Hills Water World
Denver, CO
515,000
-8.4%
10
Splish-Splash
Riverhead, NY
495,000
-1.0%
11
Noah's Ark
Wisconsin Dells, W I
490,000
-8.1%
12
Raging Waters
San Dimas, CA
466,000
-8.1%
Six Flags White Water
Marietta, GA
450,000
-8.2%
13 =
13 =
Six Flags Hurricane Harbor
Arling ton, TX
450,000
-1.1%
15
Dollywood's Splash Country
Pigeon Forge, TN
446,000
-2.0%
16
Wet 'n Wild Emerald Point
Greensboro, NC
390,000
n/a
17
Soak City at Ced ar Point
Sandusky, OH
375,000
n/a
18
Jackson, NJ
360,000
n/a
19
Camelb each
Tannersville, PA
350,000
n/a
20
Zoombezi Bay
Powell, OH
325,000
n/a
Note: "=" indicates a tie
Source: TEA 2009 Theme Ind ex, The Global Attractions Attendance Report
We have also profiled the admission rates and days open for each of these 20 facilities. This
is presented in the following table.
U.S. Outdoor Waterparks with Highest Attendance-Admission Rates - 2010
#
Name
1
Typhoon Lagoon
2
Blizzard Beach
Location
Walt Disney World, Lake Buena
Vista, FL
Walt Disney World, Lake Buena
Vista, FL
Adult
Admission
$46.00
$46.00
3
Aquatica
Orlando, FL
$47.95
4
Wet 'n Wild
Orlando, FL
$47.95
5
Schlitterbahn
New Braunfels, TX
$41.99
6
Water Country USA
Williamsburg, VA
$42.95
7
Adventure Island
Tampa, FL
$41.95
8
Schlitterbahn
Galveston, TX
$27.99
9
Hyland Hills Water World
Federal Heights, CO
$34.99
10
11
12
13
13
Splish Splash
Noah's Ark
Raging Waters
Six Flags White Water
Riverhead, NY
Wisconsin Dells, WI
San Dimas, CA
Marietta, GA
Arlington, TX
$36.99
$32.99
$36.99
$36.99
$25.99
15
Dollywood Splash Country
Pigeon Forge, TN
$55.90
16
Wet 'n Wild Emerald Point
Greensboro, NC
$32.99
Sandusky, OH
$29.99
17
Soak City at Cedar Point
18
Jackson, NJ
$36.99
19
Camelbeach
Tannersville, PA
$34.99
20
Zoombezi Bay
Powell, OH
$29.99
Source: Hotel & Leisure Advisors research of various websites (2010) and TEA 2009 Theme
Child
Admission
Season Pass
Cost
Length of
Season
(Number of
Days Open)
$99.95 Adult
$80.50 Child
$99.95 Adult
$40.00
$80.50 Child
$99.95 Adult
$41.95
$89.95 Child
$41.95
$89.95
$139.99 Adult
$33.99
$89.99 Child
$35.95
$99.95
$99.95 Adult
$37.95
$89.95 Child
$129.99 Adult
$22.99
$87.99 Child
79.99 Adult
$29.99
$74.99 Child
$27.99
$69.99
$28.79
$89.99
$22.99
$64.99
$26.99
$49.99
$19.99
$59.99
$79 Adult
$66
$44.70
Child
$21.99
$64.99
$16.99
$160 (both parks)
$24.99
$79.99
$23.99
$99.00
$24.99
$79.99
Index The Global Attractions Attendance Report
$40.00
2009
Attendance
per Day
335
6,146
335
5,645
365
4,384
365
3,384
112
8,036
108
6,481
184
3,261
112
4,732
96
5,365
92
101
100
92
92
5,380
4,851
4,660
4,891
4,891
101
4,416
85
101
99
88
97
4,588
3,713
3,636
3,977
3,351
Market Analysis
C-4
The table indicates the range of admission rates, season passes, days open, and attendance
per open day for each of the facilities. As shown, the adult admission prices range from $26 $56, with children’s admission prices being somewhat less. All properties offer season passes,
which correlate to between two and four visits for the potential customer. We have further
presented market analysis of waterparks based on year 2009 data, as researched and
surveyed by the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions (IAAPA) in
their publication Managing Attractions for More Profit 2009 Edition.
Outdoor waterparks are affected negatively by inclement weather. Wet users must be
comfortable if they are to enjoy their experience. Consequently, the length of the annual
operating season for an outdoor waterpark is directly proportional to the extent to which
good weather prevails. The following table shows the mean of waterparks’ full days open and
the mean of their attendance, along with the maximum and minimum total attendance for
U.S. and Canadian waterparks. These parks were all open 200 days or fewer per year.
According to IAAPA, U.S. and Canadian waterparks were open an average of 97 full days in
2008. While attendance varied from 65,000 to 1,464,000, the mean total attendance of
these parks was 419,145. Attendance during the busiest days in 2008 ranged from 1,500 to
30,000, with a mean of 8,747. (The IAAPA publication did not provide figures for any North
American parks open more than 200 days per year.)
Days Open and Annual Attendance
U.S . and
Canadian
Waterparks
Full Days
Open
(Mean)
Mean Total
Annual
Attendance
Maximum
Total Ann ual
Attendance
Minimum
Total Annual
Attendance
97
419,145
1,464,000
65,000
Source: IAAPA Managing Attractions for More Profit 2009 Edition
The average time spent at these parks was 5.4 hours in 2008, with guests spending between
four and eight hours there daily, as shown in the following table. Guests stayed longer at
waterparks than amusement parks, family entertainment centers, and other attractions,
according to IAAPA.
Average Time Spent at Attraction
U.S. and
Can adian
Waterparks
Mean (in
hours)
Maximum
(in hours)
Minimum
(in h ours)
5.4
8
4
Source: IAAPA Managing Attractions for More Profit 2009
Edition
The above chart shows the average time spent at U.S. and Canadian waterparks. It shows
that people typically spend more than five hours at the parks they attend. The length of time
visitors stay at waterparks is highly correlated with the number of attractions and facilities
available at these waterparks. Larger waterparks with many facilities, such as numerous
water rides, a wave pool, spas, food and beverage facilities, gift shops, or arcades, retain
visitors for longer periods than do the smaller waterparks with fewer amenities.
Market Analysis
C-5
Season passes allow holders to enter parks as often as they like during an allotted period of
time. Sometimes they also include parking and discounts unavailable to other visitors.
Season passes ensure repeat visitors to the park, who then spend additional money on
snacks, beverages, and rentals. IAAPA tracked the number of season passes sold in 2008.
Season Passes Sold in 2008
U.S. and
Canadian
Waterparks
Mean
Maximum
Minimum
14,295
65,000
1,165
Edition
The preceding chart shows that U.S. and Canadian waterparks averaged 14,295 season
passes sold in 2008. The maximum season passes sold at these parks was 65,000, while the
minimum was 1,165.
Admission costs can vary at waterparks due to specials for group sales, as well as
complimentary tickets, etc. Complimentary admission is at no out-of-pocket cost to the
guest, or with no direct revenue to the attraction from guest admissions. Waterparks had a
lower rate of complimentary admissions than amusement parks, family entertainment
centers, and other attractions. Approximately 80% of them offered a pay-one-price or
unlimited wristband ticket.
Admissions Sales
U.S. and
Canadian
Waterparks
Paid
Complimentary
94.9%
5.1%
Source: IAAPA Managing Attractions for More Profit
2009 Ed ition
The above chart shows that almost 95% of admissions to U.S. and Canadian waterparks
were paid, while just more than 5% were complimentary. Group sales ranged from 8% to
30%, with a mean of just less than 20% as shown in the following table. Nearly one in every
five sales was a group purchase.
Group Admissions Sales
Maximum
Mean
Group
Grou p
Sales
Sales
U .S. and Canadian
Waterparks
19.9%
30.0%
Minimum
Group
Sales
8.0%
Edition
Demographics
Age is an important factor in waterpark attendance. Attending waterparks is often considered
a family activity, as the attendance demographics indicate.
Market Analysis
C-6
Age Demographics
U.S. &
Canada
Mean
0-2 Years
3-11 Years
12-17
Years
18-24
Years
25-49
Years
50 -59
Years
60+ Years
3.9%
22.4%
21.9%
15.7%
22.6%
10.1%
3.4%
The previous chart shows that the percentage of 3-11, 12-17, and 25-49 year olds visiting
waterparks are relatively even between 21.9% and 22.6%. This indicates families visit the
parks together. The percentage is lower in the 18-24 year old range, when young adults are
typically leaving their parent’s homes, yet have not begun their own families. The older
population also shows a lower percentage of waterpark visitors at just more than 10% for the
50-59 crowd and 3.4% for the over 60 demographic. The majority of waterparks attract local
residents as confirmed by the table below.
Distance of Guests From Attractions
0-5 Miles
U.S. &
Canada
Mean
13.60%
6-10 Miles 11-25 Miles 26- 50 Miles
19.80%
20.80%
17.80%
51-100
Miles
101- 150
Miles
151-200
Miles
200+ Miles
12.30%
8.90%
3.40%
3.50%
The table shows that more than half of guests travel 25 miles or less to waterparks.
Approximately 72% fall into a radius of 50 miles or less, while 84.3% travel 100 miles or less
to attend waterparks. The chart indicates that almost 16% of people traveled more than 100
miles to attend waterparks, which are more than likely national waterpark destinations.
Per capita revenue defines the total revenue less discounts, divided by the total attendance,
including complimentary admissions. The chart below shows the per capita revenue for
various categories, including admissions, food and beverage, merchandise, games, parking,
tenants and concessionaries, sponsorships, and pay-per-experience attractions.
Market Analysis
C-7
Per Capita Revenue
U.S. & Canada
Mean
Admissions
$13.18
Food & Beverage
$5.75
Merchandise
$1.10
Games
Parking
Rentals
Tenants/ Concessionairies
$0.56
$0.51
$0.53
$0.16
Sponsorship
$0.22
Pay-per-Experience
Attractions
$0.18
Total
$22.19
Source: IAAPA Managing Attractions for More Profit
2009 Edition
The table above shows that admissions account for the largest per capita revenue at $13.18.
Food and beverage is the next most significant contributor to per capita revenue at $5.75.
While merchandise brings in an average of $1.10 in per capita revenue, the other categories
do not even break the dollar mark (with the exception of other at $1.70).
We have also analyzed per capita spending reported by the two largest regional amusement
and waterpark companies. Cedar Fair is the seventh largest amusement park operator in the
world by attendance. It operates Cedar Point, California's Great America, Canada's
Wonderland, Carowinds, Dorney Park & Wildwater Kingdom, Kings Dominion, Kings Island,
Knott's Berry Farm, Michigan's Adventure, Valleyfair, and Worlds of Fun. Some of these parks
also include waterparks as part of the admission price, or as standalone features with
separate admission. Cedar Fair also operates the following waterparks: Knott's Soak City
(Buena Park, Palm Springs, and San Diego, California); Soak City (Sandusky, Ohio); Oceans
of Fun (Kansas City, Missouri); and Geauga Lake's Wildwater Kingdom (Aurora, Ohio).
Six Flags Entertainment Corp. is the world's largest amusement park corporation based on
quantity of properties and the fourth most popular in terms of attendance. The company
maintains 21 properties located throughout North America, including theme parks, thrill
parks, waterparks, and family entertainment centers.
Market Analysis
C-8
Historical Attendance and Per Capita Spending
Six Flags and Cedar Fair Entertainment Co.
Six Flags
2009
2008
200 7
Attendan ce
23,800,000
25,300,000
24,902,000
Per Capita
Spending
$36.58
$37.97
$39.06
Cedar Fair Entertainment Co.
2009
2008
200 7
Attendan ce
21,136,000
22,720,000
22,113,000
Per Capita
Spending
$39.56
$40.13
$40.60
Source: Six Flags and Cedar Fair Annual Reports and Themed Entertainment Association
Theme Index
The above chart indicates that both attendance and per capita spending fell in 2009 from
2008. Six Flags saw attendance fall 1.5 million, while Cedar Fair saw it decrease almost 1.6
million. Both companies showed per capita spending decline over the past three years,
although attendance rose slightly in 2008 from 2007.
ANALYSIS OF INDOOR WATERPARK RESORTS
The indoor waterpark resort and the addition of indoor waterparks to existing hotels have
become more widespread phenomena since 2000 in North America. The growth of indoor
waterparks is due to their popularity with children and the desire of parents and
grandparents to select lodging locations that will be fun for their children. In addition, indoor
waterpark resort properties are increasingly popular for short weekends and two- or threeday getaways for families that may not have time for longer vacations. Across the United
States and Canada, new indoor waterparks are being added to existing hotels and new indoor
waterpark destination resorts are being constructed. The primary growth of indoor
waterparks in hotels and resorts is in historically summer resort locations, although they are
increasingly being developed in suburban and urban locations.
Although the subject will be a standalone indoor waterpark, we project it to work
cooperatively with the adjacent Marriott Hotel and Hampton Inn and Suites and other hotels
in the city of Ogden and promote itself as an indoor waterpark resort to potential visitors to
the area.
Hotel & Leisure Advisors (H&LA) defines an indoor waterpark resort as a lodging
establishment containing an aquatic facility with a minimum of 10,000 square feet of indoor
waterpark space and inclusive of amenities such as slides, tubes, and a variety of indoor
water play features. Although numerous hotels bill their indoor pools as waterparks, those
with less than 10,000 square feet of aquatic area should be categorized as hotels with water
features rather than as waterparks. H&LA divides indoor waterpark resorts into two
categories:
•
Indoor waterpark destination resort
•
Hotel with indoor waterpark
Market Analysis
C-9
A hotel with indoor waterpark is a hotel with an attached indoor waterpark with 10,000 to
30,000 square feet of indoor waterpark space where the indoor waterpark serves as an
amenity to the hotel versus a true destination. An indoor waterpark destination resort is a
resort with 30,000 square feet or more of indoor waterpark space and is considered a true
destination resort that families visit on a year round basis primarily to visit the waterpark and
secondarily because of other attractions or events in the area. The following table indicates
the three types of indoor waterparks and hotels with water features, which currently exist
and are being developed in the United States and Canada.
Types of Indoor Waterparks in Lodging Establishments
Hotel with Water
Features
Hotel with Indoor
Waterpark
Indoor Waterpark
Destination Resort
1,000 to less than
10,000 square feet
10,000 to 30,000
square feet
30,000+ square feet
Possible Amenities
swimming pool, slide,
toddler area with
mushroom, spray gun
multiple slides, tree
house with slides,
spray guns, tipping
buckets, Jacuzzi,
various pools, lazy
river
multiple slides, tree
house with slides, spray
guns, tipping buckets,
Jacuzzi, various pools,
lazy river, wave pool,
water coaster, surfing,
outdoor waterpark
features
Capacity
up to 250 people
250 to 750 people
750 to 5,000 people
Minimum Number of
Lifeguards
1
3
10
Arcade Size
0 to 1,000 square feet
1,000 to 3,000 square
feet
3,000 to 10,000 square
feet
Size of aquatic area
An indoor waterpark destination resort differs from a typical hotel in that it offers resort and
leisure amenities not found in typical hotel properties. The destination resorts attract
families on a year-round basis who are interested in the many activities of the waterpark as
well as other activities of the resort which may include a large arcade, retail shops, kids club,
spa, fitness facilities, indoor play land, supervised play activities, story time areas, and
multiple food and beverage outlets. They include a variety of room types including themed
rooms, kids’ cabins and suites. The indoor waterpark destination resorts attract travelers
because of the amenities of the resort in addition to the amenities of the area. In contrast, a
typical hotel attracts travelers primarily because of the amenities of the area.
The growth in indoor waterparks is occurring both as an amenity in an existing hotel
(typically franchised) as well as an integral part of a destination resort (typically
independent). Two distinct trends are appearing. The additions to existing hotels, or
development of franchised properties with indoor waterparks, are occurring with smaller
indoor waterparks being attached to generally smaller hotel projects. These indoor
waterparks are an amenity for guests but not the entire focus of a hotel. Larger destination
resorts, which consist of larger themed properties with additional amenities and larger
waterpark areas, are also under development and opening nationwide. These resorts focus
on leisure travelers interested in the waterpark.
Market Analysis
C-10
National Indoor Waterpark Resort Supply
Currently, 16 hotels located in Wisconsin Dells have indoor waterparks with a total of 4,730
rooms and 748,500 square feet of indoor waterpark space. The Wisconsin Dells has the
greatest concentration of hotels with indoor waterparks in North America. There are
additional waterpark properties located in other destinations across the Midwest, Northeast,
Southern, Western U.S. and Canada. The following table profiles these properties.
Indoor Waterpark Resort Supply Analysis
Number of
Resorts
Average
Room Count
Colorado
Connecticut
1
1
125
279
10,000
10,000
10,000
0%
26,000
26,000
26,000
100%
Florida
1
392
54,000
54,000
54,000
0%
Idaho
2
183
31,000
42,000
20,000
50%
Illinois
4
282
33,550
60,200
24,000
50%
Indiana
4
184
26,750
40,000
12,000
25%
Iowa
7
137
16,143
25,000
10,000
43%
Kansas
2
250
33,000
38,000
28,000
0%
Massachusetts
3
291
24,333
37,000
10,000
67%
Michigan
12
222
25,417
58,000
10,000
42%
Minnesota
15
177
25,000
75,000
10,000
80%
Missouri
5
394
21,600
32,000
11,000
40%
Montana
1
109
25,000
25,000
25,000
0%
Neb raska
1
383
32,000
32,000
32,000
100%
New Hampshire
1
163
35,000
35,000
35,000
100%
New Jersey
1
283
30,000
30,000
30,000
100%
New Mexico
1
280
28,000
28,000
28,000
100%
New York
175
31,750
38,500
25,000
0%
North Carolina
2
1
402
81,000
81,000
81,000
0%
North Dakota
4
159
17,000
25,000
10,000
75%
Ohio
8
337
55,750
173,000
15,000
25%
Pennsylvania
4
358
51,500
78,000
10,000
50%
South Carolina
1
495
15,000
15,000
15,000
0%
South Dakota
3
182
24,333
30,000
13,000
67%
Tennessee
2
661
44,750
52,000
37,500
0%
Texas
3
397
54,667
75,000
19,000
0%
Utah
1
191
10,000
10,000
10,000
100%
Virginia
2
901
61,625
67,000
56,250
0%
Washington
3
206
24,333
53,000
10,000
67%
31
237
34,326
225,000
10,000
127
294
32,761
State/Province
Wisconsin
Total USA/Average
Indoor Waterpark Size (SF)
Average
High
Low
Percent
Franchised
16%
39%
Alberta
3
260
80,600
217,800
12,000
67%
Man itoba
2
148
10,000
10,000
10,000
100%
Ontario
6
374
40,833
90,000
15,000
67%
Quebec
1
222
10,000
10,000
10,000
100%
10,000
10,000
100%
Saskatchewan
Total Canada/Average
1
157
10,000
13
232
30,287
77%
Note: Resorts have a minimum of 10,000 square feet of indoor waterpark sp ace
The following chart indicates indoor waterpark resort properties located in the states
surrounding the subject.
Market Analysis
C-11
Market Analysis
C-12
Hotels & Resorts w ith Indoor Waterparks-Western Region
Number of Rooms
Name
State /
Province
Location
Inn of the Rio Grande With Indoor Waterpark
Alamosa
CO
Holiday Inn Express and Raptor Reef
Hayden
ID
Silver Mountain Resort
Kellogg
Franchise
Waterpark (Net SF)
In dependent
Franchise
125
10,000
98
20,000
ID
268
42,000
Win gate Inn with Big Horn Indoor Waterpark
Billings
MT
109
Radisson with Indoor Waterpark
Alb uquerque
NM
280
Staybridge Suites & HI Express & Indoor Waterpark
West Valley City
Grand Mound
UT
WA
191
Great Wolf Lodg e
Ramada Inn and Big Splash Indoor Waterpark
Ocean Shores
WA
54
10,000
Ramada Inn Airport
Spokane
WA
167
10,000
Total
25,000
28,000
10,000
398
9
Average
Total / Average for C ombined Franchise & Independen t
Independent
53,000
899
7 91
78,00 0
150
2 64
15,60 0
130,000
32,500
1,690
1 88
208,00 0
23,111
The previous table and map indicates existing hotels and resorts with indoor waterparks in
western United States. As shown, there are relatively few indoor waterpark projects within
the immediate region.
The following charts indicate the growth in indoor waterpark resort supply in the United
States and Canada.
Indoor Waterpark Resort Growth in Square Feet and Rooms
1999 - 2009 ~ U.S. & Canada
40,000
35,915
33,440
4,000,000
35,000
29,233
3,500,000
30,000
24,634
25,000
3,000,000
19,053
2,500,000
20,000
14,794
2,000,000
15,000
11,692
1,500,000
9,118
10,000
7,296
1,783,400
2,369,150
3,260,650
3,748,150
4,269,350
4,504,350
671,300
1,450,400
500,000
5,717
1,089,900
5,132
952,900
1,000,000
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
5,000
-
1999
SF Indoor Waterpark
Note: Resorts have a minimum of 10,000 square feet of indoor waterpark space
# of Hotel Rooms
Total Number of Hotel Rooms
4,500,000
738,900
Total Square Feet of Indoor Waterparks
5,000,000
Market Analysis
C-13
Indoor Waterpark Resort Growth in Square Feet and Properties
1999 - 2009 ~ U.S. & Canada
160
138
130
4,000,000
140
120
112
3,500,000
97
100
1999
2000
2002
1,783,400
2001
1,450,400
1,089,900
0
24
738,900
500,000
21
952,900
32
1,000,000
2,369,150
49
41
1,500,000
3,260,650
62
2,000,000
3,748,150
2,500,000
4,269,350
79
4,504,350
3,000,000
80
60
40
20
0
2003
2004
SF Indoor Waterpark
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
# of Waterparks
Stand-Alone Indoor Waterparks
Stand-alone privately owned and operated indoor waterpark developments within the United
States are in its infancy. There are only three of these types of facilities currently in
existence.
•
Sahara Sam’s Oasis Indoor Waterpark is located in West Berlin, New Jersey. The park
offers 45,000 square feet of indoor aquatic area. It opened in March 2009.
•
H2Oasis Indoor Waterpark is located in Anchorage, Alaska. The park offers 30,000
square feet of indoor aquatic area. It opened in 2003.
•
Pirates Island Aquatic Park is located in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The park offers 12,000
square feet of aquatic area.
There are many other standalone indoor waterpark facilities; however, these are municipally
owned and are subsidized by their local governments. These facilities generally include one or
two small to large slides and are typically not considered a waterpark. Many of the municipal
facilities also include a small lazy river. However, these municipal facilities are not
comparable with many of the larger indoor waterparks due to the limited number of slides
and amenities offered.
Recent Openings of Indoor Waterpark Resorts
The following table indicates properties that opened in 2007 in the United States and Canada.
Total Number of Waterparks
4,500,000
671,300
Total Square Feet of Indoor Waterparks
5,000,000
Market Analysis
C-14
Indoor Waterpark Additions & Indoor Waterpark Resorts Opened in 2007
Indoor Waterparks
and Resorts
Region
City
State /
Prov
New Rooms
10,000
Inn of the Rio Grande Waterpark Addition
Alamosa
CO
125
Lod ge at Storm Lake & Kings Pointe Waterpark
Storm Lake
IA
100
17,000
Bridges Bay Indoor Waterpark Resort
Arn olds Park
IA
100
25,000
Best Western Clock Tower CoCo Key Waterpark Ad dition
Rockford
IL
0
26,000
Splash Universe Wana W aves Indoor Waterpark Resort
Shipshewana
IN
154
25,000
Sheraton Ferncroft Resort with CoCo Key Waterpark
Danvers
MA
0
37,000
Grand Traverse Resort and Spa Ind oor W aterpark Addition
Acme
MI
0
15,000
Holiday Inn Exp ress Splash Universe Resort
Dundee
MI
87
23,000
Holiday Inn Maple Grove with Indoor Waterpark
Maple Grove
MN
136
25,000
Canad Inn with Splasher of the South Seas
Grand Forks
ND
201
35,000
Holiday Inn with CoCo Key Indoor Waterpark Addition
Omah a
NE
0
32,000
Holiday Inn with Ind oor Waterp ark
Maumee
OH
106
15,000
Kalahari Ind oor W aterp ark Resort Expansion
Crowne Plaza Hotel Cincinn ati North (former Sheraton) CoCo Key Ind oor
Waterpark Addition
Sandu sky
OH
288
93,000
Sharonville
OH
0
37,000
Splash Lagoon Holiday Inn Exp ress Expansion
Erie
PA
27
0
Westg ate Smoky Mountain Resort Timesh are WP Addition
Gatlinburg
TN
0
37,500
Great Wolf Lodg e
Grapevine
TX
402
75,000
Great Wolf Lodg e E xpansion
Williamsburg
VA
104
0
Three Bears Lodge/Jellystone Park Expansion
Warrens
WI
72
0
Mt. Olympus Pleasant View Motel Addition
Wisconsin Dells
WI
48
0
Chula Vista Expansion
Wisconsin Dells
Total
WI
183
0
21
2,133
527,500
142
32,9 69
Average
The following table indicates the properties that opened in 2008.
Region
Indoor Waterparks
and Resorts
City
State /
Prov
New Rooms
26,000
Holiday Inn/former CT Grand Hotel CoCo Key IWP Ad dition
Waterbury
CT
0
Honey Creek Resort with Indoor Waterpark
Rathbun Lake
IA
105
10,000
Silver Mountain Resort' s Silver Rapids
Kellogg
ID
268
42,000
KeyLime Cove Indoor Waterpark Resort
Gurnee
IL
414
64,500
Abe Mountain Lodge Indoor Waterpark Ad dition
Nashville
IN
0
12,000
Courtyard (former BW) with CoCo Key IWP Addition
Fitchburg
MA
0
26,000
Northpointe Inn with In door Waterp ark Addition
Mackinaw City
MI
0
23,000
Ramada Inn with Surfari Joe's Indoor Waterpark
Watervliet
MI
95
15,000
Timberlake Lodge with Grand Splash Waterpark
Grand Rapids
MN
84
10,000
Sheraton (former Clarion) with CoCo Key IWP Ad dition
Kansas City
MO
0
32,000
Ramada Inn with Indoor Waterpark Addition
St. Joseph
MO
0
11,000
Wingate Inn with Big Horn Indoor Waterpark
Billings
MT
109
20,000
Best Western Red Jacket Inn Waterpark Ad dition
North Conway
NH
0
35,000
Marriott with CoCo Key Indoor Waterpark Addition
Mount Laurel
NJ
0
30,000
Maui Sands IWP and Rooms Addition (opened and closed)
Sandu sky
OH
95
55,000
Split Rock Resort with H20ooohh!
Wild erness at the Smokies Events Ctr. Hotel with OWP and IWP (across
street)
Lake Harmony
PA
0
53,000
Sevierville
TN
234
52,000
Villages Resort Indoor Waterpark Addition
Flint
TX
0
19,000
Great Wolf Lodg e
Grand Mound
WA
398
60,000
Kalahari Resort 110,0 00 SF FEC and 5BR cottage expansion
Wisconsin Dells
Total
Average
WI
12
0
20
1,814
595,500
181
31,3 42
Note: Resorts have a minimum of 10,00 0 square feet of indoor waterpark sp ace
The following table indicates properties that opened in 2009 in the United States and Canada.
Market Analysis
C-15
Indoor Waterparks and Resorts
City
State / Prov
New
Rooms
Waterpark SF
Ramada Inn with Buccaneer Bay Waterpark
Des Moines
IA
0
10,000
Valley of the Springs Resort
French Lick
IN
156
40,000
Pirates Island Aquatic Park at SWAT Fitness Center (hotel later)
Kalamazoo
MI
0
14,000
Castle Rock Indoor Waterpark Resort Addition
Branson
MO
100
25,000
Great Wolf Lodg e - Ch arlotte
Concord
NC
402
81,000
Sahara Sam's Indoor Waterpark (no hotel)
Berlin
NJ
0
45,000
Hope Lake Indoor Waterpark Resort at Greek Peak
Cortland
NY
150
41,000
The Lodge at Deadwood
Deadwood
SD
140
13,000
Wild erness at the Smokies Resort (rooms portion)
Sevierville
TN
470
0
Westg ate Smoky Mountain Resort Additional Units
Gatlinburg
TN
100
0
Great Wolf Lodg e Expansion
Grapevine
TX
203
0
Staybridge Suites & HI Express & Indoor Waterpark
West Valley City
UT
191
10,000
Rome, a Mount Olympus Resort Timesh are Expansion
Wisconsin Dells
WI
63
0
Metropolis Hotel Ind oor W aterp ark (hotel opened 2008)
Eau Claire
WI
107
16,000
Fairfield Inn, Country Inn, and Indoor Waterpark
Gillette
Mission Recreation Park Indoor Waterpark (no hotel)
Kelowna
Total
Average
WY
160
10,000
British Columbia
0
96,000
16
2,242
401, 000
187
33,4 17
The development of the indoor waterpark resorts in the Midwest and Northeast increased the
overall number of overnight visitors particularly during the non-summer months. The primary
growth has occurred during long weekends and school breaks. The addition of the waterpark
to resorts and hotels has added entertainment value for the guest by bringing the outdoor
waterpark indoors. Bringing the waterpark indoors eliminates weather as a variable and
extends a short peak season to year round. The resorts are very popular with families with
children ages 14 and under.
Sizing of Waterparks: Our analysis indicates that the typical indoor waterpark resort
property has approximately 150 square feet of net indoor waterpark space (waterpark area
and play area but excluding arcade, gift shop, offices) per guest room. This correlates with
research that indicates an indoor waterpark should have approximately 35 to 40 square feet
of space per person. Because a typical hotel room will house between three and four people,
this calls for between 105 and 160 square feet of indoor waterpark space per guest room.
Some larger properties have up to 200 square feet of indoor waterpark guest room.
Usage of Indoor Waterpark: We have analyzed the usage of the indoor waterparks within
the resorts. The following table indicates our estimates of annual usage of the indoor
waterparks and a usage per square foot figure for each waterpark. The names of each
facility are kept confidential.
Market Analysis
C-16
Ann ual Attendance at Indoor Waterpark Resorts
Resort
Estimated Annual Attend ance
Attendance/SF
A
1,000,000
5.8
B
700,000
5.6
5.4
C
296,000
D
414,000
5.3
E
280,000
4.3
F
67,000
6.7
G
196,000
4.4
H
125,000
Average
5.5
5.4
The table indicates that among the eight existing private indoor waterpark resorts, there is a
range of attendance per square foot of 4.3 to 6.7 people. The overall average is 5.4 people
per square foot. The attendance figures range from below 100,000 to approximately
1,000,000 visitors per year.
Reasons for Strong Indoor Waterpark Resort Performance
We have analyzed the reasons for the increase in the number of indoor waterparks and the
strong performance of many of the indoor waterpark resorts, which have opened. We have
reviewed data from the 2009 Leisure Market Research Handbook published by Richard K.
Miller and Associates. The following bullets are highlights from the book, which provides data
concerning travel.
•
According to the Travel Industry Association of America (TIA), travel volume in the
United States equaled 2.01 billion person trips in 2007, which is an increase from
2.00 billion person trips in 2006 and 1.99 billion person trips in 2005. The
preliminary 2008 numbers and the forecasted 2009 numbers indicate a slight decline
in the number of person trips due to the economic downturn; however, the number of
person trips is expected to rebound in 2010 and 2011 to levels above those achieved
historically.
•
According to the 2008 National Leisure Travel Monitor, by Ypartnership, the
percentage of adults taking at least one leisure trip at least 75 miles from home
requiring overnight accommodations declined from 63% in 2007 to 57% in 2008. The
decline was attributed primarily to the economic downturn and high fuel prices.
•
According to Ypartnership, 38% of adults traveled at least once with children in 2007,
compared with 26% in 2000. In a related report - the TIA Domestic Travel Report 24% percent of household trips in the United States include children under 18 or
134.9 million trips in total. Eighty-seven percent of trips with children are for leisure
reasons.
•
Twenty-two percent of parents who took a trip in the past year took their children out
of school to be part of their travel experience. This represents nearly 16 million adults
who took their child or children out of school to take a trip in the past year.
•
Forty-three percent of overnight trips with children include a hotel stay.
Market Analysis
•
C-17
According to the 2008 National Travel Monitor by Ypartnership, weekend travel is
more popular than ever. Fifty-three percent of all domestic trips in 2008 were
weekend trips compared to 46% in 2000.
Projected Development of Indoor Waterpark Resorts
Our research indicates that eight expansions occurred to existing hotels in 2010 of either a
new waterpark component, an expansion of a water slide, or a major expansion of a theme
park component in the United States and Canada. The following table lists these properties.
Indoor Waterpark Additions & Indoor Waterpark Resorts Opened or Projected to Open in 2010
Indoor Waterparks and Resorts
City
State / Prov
New
Rooms
Waterpark SF
54,000
Coco Key Water Resort (former Orlando Grand) IWP/OWP addition
Orlando
FL
0
Great Wolf Lodge Waterslide Addition
Kansas City
KS
0
1,000
Radisson Indoor Waterpark Addition
Albuquerque
NM
0
28,000
Mason
OH
0
1,000
Kalahari Sandusky Outdoor Adventure Park Addition
Sandusky
OH
0
0
Poconos
PA
0
1,000
Kalahari Resort 5BR Cottage Expansion
Wisconsin Dells
WI
4
0
Wilderness Resort Zip Line, Miniature Golf Addition
Wisconsin Dells
WI
0
0
8
4
85,000
Total
The closest new indoor waterpark resorts proposed near the subject include the following
proposals for indoor waterparks
•
Two hotels totaling 300 rooms along with a 40,000 square feet indoor waterpark are
proposed in Sandy, Utah, near the Rio Tento Stadium. Sandy City Council approved
$15 million in tax incentives for building the project. No construction plans have been
announced.
There are a few other proposals for indoor waterpark properties within Utah and the
surrounding states. However, these projects are still preliminary and may not occur.
Furthermore, all of the developments are private for-profit developments while the subject
will be a municipally owned project.
NATIONAL SPORTS OVERVIEW
The vast majority of Americans participate in some fitness or recreational physical activity.
The Physical Activity Council (PAC) released the 2010 Sports, Fitness and Recreation
Participation Overview Report (for calendar year 2009) based on a survey that measures
participation in 117 sports, fitness, and recreation activities. It stated that 77% of Americans
age six and over (217 million people) took part in at least one activity, and that 27.9% of
Americans age six and over (78,642,000 people) were frequent participants in an intensive
activity.
The council found that many consumers in 2009 engaged in socially based exercise activities
at their health clubs. Traditional team sports showed declines in 2009, highlighting the lack
of opportunity and resources in a tough economy as well as cutbacks in some schools.
Market Analysis
C-18
The following chart shows the most popular sporting activities in 2009 and the percentage
change in popularity since 2008. Only seven team sports made it into the top 45, with the
most popular being basketball (14th on the overall list), followed by soccer (20th on the list).
Market Analysis
C-19
2009 Total Sport Participation (in millions)
Exercise Walking
2009 Total
Percent
Change from
2008
93.4
-3.4%
Exercising with Equipment
57.2
4.0%
Camping
50.9
3.0%
-6.1%
Swimming
50.2
Bowling
45.0
0.6%
Workout at Club
38.3
-2.6%
Bicycle Riding
38.1
-1.5%
Weight Lifting
34.5
1.8%
Hiking
34.0
2.8%
Aerobic Exercising
33.1
3.0%
Fishing
32.9
-22.0%
Running/ Jogging
32.2
1.0%
Billiards/ Pool
28.2
-11.1%
Basketball
24.4
-5.0%
Motor/ Power Boating
24.0
-13.9%
Golf
22.3
-3.9%
Target Shooting (net)
19.8
-2.4%
Hunting with Firearms
18.8
0.3%
Yoga
15.7
20.9%
0.6%
Soccer
13.6
Table Tennis
13.3
na
Backpack/ Wilderness Camp
12.3
-5.3%
Dart Throwing
12.2
na
Softball
11.8
-7.9%
Baseball
11.5
-13.5%
Tennis
10.8
-14.5%
Volleyball
10.7
-11.7%
Football (tackle)
8.9
-6.2%
Skateboarding
8.4
-13.8%
Mountain Biking (off road)
8.4
-17.8%
Scooter Riding
8.1
-19.9%
In-Line Roller Skating
7.9
-15.4%
Archery (target)
7.1
na
Skiing (alpine)
7.0
7.3%
Paintball Games
6.3
-6.5%
Snowboarding
6.2
5.7%
Hunting with Bow and Arrow
6.2
0.2%
Water Skiing
5.2
-7.2%
Target Shooting (airgun)
5.2
4.3%
Kayaking
4.9
na
Gymnastics
3.9
na
Muzzleloading
3.8
11.6%
Hockey (ice)
3.1
60.0%
Wrestling
3.0
na
Skiing (cross country)
1.7
7.4%
Note: Sports and activities to be offered at the subject are
highlighted
Source: National Sporting Goods Association Sports Participation in
2009
Market Analysis
C-20
The above chart indicates that ice hockey showed the greatest participation increase with a
staggering 60%. Fishing showed the greatest decrease, down 22% from 2008. Yoga jumped
20.9%, while scooter riding and off road mountain biking fell 19.9% and 17.85%
respectively.
NATIONAL SWIMMING OVERVIEW
Swimming is a popular sport, as well as a recreational activity for all ages. People cite fun,
exercise, and competition as reasons for participating. Public pools attract people for all of
these reasons. As an exercise, it is safe and low impact, being easy on bones and joints.
Recreational swimming has seen a slight decrease recently, as shown in the chart below.
Swimming Participation (Age 7+; In
Thousands)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Total
54,788
54,657
47,027
53,449
57,972
56,463
52,346
53,507
50,226
% Male
46.0
46.6
46.8
46.4
49.3
44.9
45.8
47.5
47.4
%Female
54.0
53.4
53.2
53.6
50.7
55.1
54.2
52.5
52.6
Source: National Sporting Goods Association Sports
Participation in 2009
Although the chart above shows that more females swim than males, the numbers are close
to even. The largest group of swimmers consists of people in their 30s, as shown in the
following table.
Swimming Participation Mean
Age
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Male
33.3
29.9
30.1
30.1
27.8
31.8
31.6
31.3
31.4
Female
35.2
31.8
31.1
31.6
29.9
32.1
32.4
32.4
32.7
Source: National Sporting Goods
Association Sports Participation in
2009
The chart above shows that the mean age of male and female swimmers has been
consistently close over the last decade. Competitive swimming recently experienced a
resurgence of popularity with the unprecedented Olympic successes of Michael Phelps.
Market Analysis
C-21
According to information from the Swimming World Magazine released in 2010, more than
2,600,000 participate in the sport of swimming annually. The majority of these swimmers are
under the age of 18, as depicted in the following chart.
Swimming Demographics
Summer Leagues
USA Swimming
High School
USMS
YMCA
NCAA
# of Athletes (est.)
2,000,000
290,000
217,000
42,000
39,000
15,000
Age
6-17
7-28
14-18
18+
6-17
18-24
Season
May-Aug.
Year Round
Varies
Year Round
Oct.- April
Oct.- March
Source: Swimming World Magazine 2010
The above chart shows that summer league swimmers number more than three times all
other categories combined. USA Swimming is the national governing body for the sport of
swimming. All year round athletes join USA Swimming through their Local Swimming
Committees (LSC), 59 local organizations responsible for administering USA Swimming
activities in a defined geographical area.
The graph below indicates the number of members the organization has seen over the last
decade. The organization states that year round athletic memberships has always increased
following an Olympic year. It increased 11.3% in 2009 following the 2008 Olympic Summer
Games.
USA Swimming Athlete Membership History
Year Round
Seasonal
2009
286,147
34,866
2008
257,180
33,672
2007
251,547
35,388
2006
249,326
35,253
2005
249,182
36,249
2004
232,361
36,249
2003
235,013
37,176
2002
228,216
37,176
2001
232,253
37,715
2000
221,352
39,223
Source: USA Swimming 2009 Membership Demographics
The chart shows that the year-round membership number has greatly increased since 2000
(by almost 65,000 members). Seasonal members reached a 10-year low in 2008, and
recovered only slightly in 2009. The chart below shows that the majority of the organization’s
Market Analysis
C-22
year-round athletes are female, slightly more than 57%. This gender statistic is indicative of
their other categories of membership as well.
Masters Swimming: Masters Swimming is an organized program of swimming for adults
through which members participate in a variety of ways, ranging from lap swimming to
international competition. It boasts more than 50,000 members at more than 450 local clubs
from age 18 to over 100.
United States Masters Swimming, Inc. provides the administrative structure for Masters
Swimming. The country is divided into Local Masters Swimming Committees (LMSC). These
are composed of smaller groups (clubs or teams and unaffiliated swimmers).
Members have access to coached workouts and fitness as well as competitive programs.
Approximately 30% of members compete in swimming meets on a regular basis, including
short course and long course pool meets, lake and ocean open-water swims, postal meets,
special events, and international championships. Other members are simply interested in the
regular routine of working out with friends.
In 2006, a Masters World Championship meet at Stanford drew more than 7,000
participants. It was the largest swimming meet ever held in North America.
Competitive Swimming: The goal of competitive swimming is usually to complete a given
distance in the fastest time. Governed by the Fédération Internationale de Natation Amateur
(FINA), competitive swimming consists of four strokes: butterfly, breaststroke, freestyle (or
front crawl), and backstroke.
Swimming is an event at the Summer Olympic Games, where male and female athletes
compete in 32 recognized events in a 50 meter pool (long course). Short-course pools are 25
meters, and are used in the FINA World Swimming Championships. Competition pools have
starting blocks from which the competitor can dive in, and possibly also touch-sensitive pads
to electronically record the swimming time of each competitor.
Community Aquatic Centers: Today’s aquatic centers incorporate recreation swimming
and wellness pools to augment revenue of competitive swimming, thereby creating multigenerational facilities through shared expenses. As more athletes cross train with water
fitness components and more doctors recommend water rehabilitation for injured, obese,
diabetic, and aging patients, multi-generational aquatic centers provide activities for the
entire community. Trends evolve in the aquatic industry as swimming expectations evolve.
Free-form leisure pools invite recreation with wide, irregularly shaped expanses of water with
ample amenities for participation. Multi-generational facilities provide bodies of water for
lessons and fitness, wellness needs, competitive needs, and family leisure needs with
separate spaces for different age groups. The old theory of building a rectangular pool and
expecting everyone to use the same pool is unrealistic for tiny tots, families, the ADA
population, and seniors. Often, multiple bodies of water are necessary to accommodate
greater representation from the community.
NATIONAL TENNIS OVERVIEW
In recent years, the sport of tennis has become more popular than ever. Not only are the
numbers of participants growing, but the industry is at the forefront of engaging and
retaining players with new innovative programs that have introduced the sport to young
athletes and made it more accessible to all players.
Market Analysis
C-23
In 2008, the Tennis Industry Association Executive Director Jolyn de Boer said, “We’ve
clearly seen that tennis has experienced a level of growth unmatched among other major
sports, and participation doesn’t seem as impacted by a down economy.”
The Tennis Industry Association (TIA) and U.S. Tennis Association’s (USTA) annual survey
calculated that the number of total tennis players rose from 25.23 million in 2007 to 26.88
million in 2009, and frequent players rose from 5.2 million to 5.62 million. Overall tennis
participation in the U.S. increased 12% in 2009 to total 30.1 million players, the largest
amount the country has seen in 25 years. Nearly 60% of facilities felt that there was an
increase in the number of new players at their facility during the late season of 2009, which
helped the total tennis participation increase to 12%.
Tennis Participation by Play Frequency
(Millions Age 6+)
Frequent
Players
(21+ times)
Regular
Players
(4-20 times)
Tennis Players
(1-3 times)
Total Players
(1+ times)
2000
5.9
11.4
6.3
23.7
2001
5.7
11.4
5.5
22.8
2002
4.9
10.8
8.3
24.0
2003
4.6
10.8
8.6
24.0
2004
4.8
10.6
8.3
23.6
2005
5.2
11.2
8.3
24.7
2006
5.2
10.8
8.2
24.2
2007
5.3
11.0
8.9
25.1
2008
5.6
11.7
9.5
26.9
2009
5.4
14.8
9.9
30.1
Source: TIA/ USTA Tennis Participation Study
The preceding chart shows that although the number of frequent players has slightly
decreased over the last decade, the number of regular players and the total number of tennis
players have seen significant growth over that time period. The following chart shows the
frequency of tennis participation among different levels of players annually from 2003
through 2009.
Market Analysis
C-24
Tennis Play Occasions (Age 6+ Two- Year Non-rolling Average in Millions)
Tennis Players
(1-3 times)
Regular Players
(4-20 times)
Frequent Players
(21+ times)
Total Players
(1+ times)
2003
17
96
341
454
2004
17
94
380
491
2005
16
98
444
558
2006
16
96
405
517
2007
17
99
417
533
2008
20
108
475
603
2009
20
136
407
563
Source: TIA/ USTA Tennis Participation Study
The frequency of tennis play increased in every group over the past six years for a total
increase of 109 million play occasions. Play occasions increased by 40 million for regular
players and by 66 million for frequent players. The Physical Activity Council’s (PAC) 2010
Sports, Fitness and Recreation Participation Overview Report (for calendar year 2009),
showed that tennis participation grew by 43% from 2000 through 2009, making it one of the
fastest growing traditional sports in the United states for the past decade. The Sporting
Goods Manufacturers Association reported similar findings.
The following chart shows that tennis participation is growing significantly among 7 to 11
year olds.
Tennis Youth Participation (In
Thousands)
Age 7-11
Age 12-17
2000
848
1,620
2009
1,443
1,535
70.2
-5.2
% Change
Source: National Sporting Goods Association
Sports Participation in 2009
The chart above shows a 70.2% increase in participation among younger children, ages 7
through 11. Participation among adults ages 45 through 54 has also increased significantly
recently, as shown below.
Tennis Participation by 45-54 Yr Olds (In
Thousands)
1998
943
2007
1,536
% Change
62.9
Market Analysis
C-25
According to the preceding chart, tennis courts saw 62.9% more middle-aged adults in 2007
than 1998. The Court Activity Monitor showed that more than 152 million court hours were
booked or used in 2008 versus 137 million in 2007. The average age of tennis players has
remained in the late-20s to mid-30s, as depicted in the following graph.
Tennis Participation Mean Age
Male
Female
2001
35.8
35.4
2002
31.9
30.8
2003
28.2
30.2
2004
33.0
28.0
2005
27.3
28.0
2006
33.7
32.1
2007
30.5
30.6
2008
31.8
30.3
2009
31.8
31.2
The table above shows that the mean age for both male and female tennis players in 2009
was between 31 and 32 years old.
Programs: The TIA joined with USTA several years ago in an initiative to establish more
than 2,600 Tennis Welcome Centers across the country. These are public and private tennis
facilities that welcome new players into the game through instruction. They provide wellrounded programs to new and current players of all ages and abilities. On average, each
Tennis Welcome Center reports 39 new players and retains 34 players.
TIA/ USTA also provide an online Growing Tennis system that allows consumers to find places
to play, partners with comparable skills, and other programs that serve to enhance their
overall tennis experience. Every month more than 2.4 million consumer queries are made
through the system.
USTA began No-Cut Tennis in high schools, preventing coaches from cutting any student who
tries out for a team, and Tennis on Campus in colleges, allowing teams to compete
interscholastically through intramural tournaments and leagues or in a more structured sport
club environment. It is currently run on more than 500 campuses across the country,
providing organized play for 30,000 participants. Focusing on younger participants,
QuickStart Tennis is used in more than 1,000 locations. It integrates children 10 years and
younger into the sport by using a progressive format to teach basic skills on shorter courts
using smaller racquets, low-pressure balls, and modified scoring.
For those seeking a more intense workout, Cardio Tennis provides a high energy way to burn
calories. Taught by tennis professionals, the group activity features a warm-up, cardio drills,
and a cool down phase. There are programs for beginners as well as existing players who are
seeking a cardio workout while improving skill. Launched in 2005, there were 1,700 facilities
nationwide by 2009.
Market Analysis
C-26
NATIONAL CYCLING OVERVIEW
The popularity of competitive cycling has been growing significantly over the past decade.
USA Cycling, the official governing body for all U.S. competitive cycling disciplines,
experienced its seventh consecutive year of growth in 2009. Cycling is an officially
sanctioned Olympic sport.
While frequently referred to as a single sport, cycling has several sub-disciplines, which
include road cycling, cyclo-cross, mountain biking, track or velodrome cycling, BMX, bike
trials, and paracycling.
The number of licensees, event sanctions, and cycling clubs has grown steadily throughout
the country over the past eight years, as shown below.
U.S. Competitive Cycling Growth
Licensees
Event
Sanctions
Clubs
2002
42,724
1,969
n/a
2003
44,325
1,933
n/a
2004
48,990
2,132
1,438
2005
54,281
2,204
1,575
2006
59,537
2,280
1,970
2007
61,594
2,473
2,050
2008
62,323
2,535
2,120
2009
65,845
2,638
2,219
Source: USA Cycling and the USA Cycling Development
Foundation 2009 Annual Report
The above chart shows that USA Cycling sold 65,845 licenses in 2009, a 5.6% increase over
2008 and 23,121 more than just seven years earlier. It also sanctioned more than 2,600
events last year, 4% more than in the previous year.
The organization’s members are primarily males (87%), although female participation is on
the rise, up 2% from 2006. Members are mostly between the ages of 25 and 54 (77%), with
the largest segment of that (33%) between the ages of 35 and 44.
The National Sporting Goods Association listed the mean cycling age as between 31 and 32
for both males and females in 2009, as shown below.
Market Analysis
C-27
Cycling Participation Mean
Age
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Male
30.5
28.9
28.7
29.5
26.9
31.1
31.0
30.0
31.7
Female
30.7
29.6
28.6
28.1
27.2
29.4
29.4
29.0
31.2
2009
The chart above shows that the mean age of cyclists has remained in late-20s / early-30s for
the past decade. The tables below show that although cycling participation has grown in the
middle-age community, it has decreased among children.
Cycling Participation by 45-54 Yr Olds
(In Thousands)
1998
2007
3,893
4,639
% Change
19.2
Cycling Youth Participation
(In Thousands)
2000
2009
% Change
Age 7-11
10,029
6,801
-32.2
Age 12-17
7,583
6,395
-15.7
The tables above show that while the percentage of 45 to 54 year olds cycling increased by
19.2% from 1998 to 2007, the number of 7 to 11 year old cyclists decreased by 32.2% from
2000 to 2009.
According to the National Association of Sporting Goods Retailers, there are approximately
72,000 licensed cycle racers. Their median age was 34 and median annual household income
was more than $75,000, with 57% in professional or managerial positions. A significant 81%
were college graduates, with 27% having post graduate educations. They stated that there
were a total of 64.3 million recreational bicyclists in the U.S., 48 million of who are over the
Market Analysis
C-28
age of 16. Avid cyclists numbered 31 million, with slightly more than half (55%) being
female. The median age was 32, with a median annual household income of more than
$60,000. Seventy percent were college graduates.
Track or Velodrome Cycling: Track Cycling has been around since the 1800s, and was an
event in the inaugural modern Olympic Games of 1896. It currently offers more events at the
Olympics and cycling world championships than all other disciplines combined. Madison
Square Garden was originally built as a track racing venue. Although sizes of velodromes
differ, they are all steeply banked ovals with two 180 degree circular bends connected by two
straights.
Different from road cycling, track cyclists use lightweight, fixed-gear bicycles on banked
tracks. The emphasis is on power and speed rather than endurance, with cyclists often
exceeding 52 mph. Track cycling is relevant to all cyclists as a form of cross-training
(similarly, track athletes cross-train via road cycling and participation in other cycling
disciplines) and particularly because of the opportunity it provides for all-season conditioning
(assuming use of an indoor facility).
According to USA Cycling, speed and excitement of riding in close quarters on a banked track
are what draw people to track cycling. There is also great camaraderie among track cyclists
since they spend a lot of time together racing and training at the velodrome. The sport is
very popular in other countries, and is making its comeback in the U.S.
A very large proportion of cycling is completely unstructured and individual in nature. Local
cycling clubs represent the first level of organization for the sport. These clubs are non-profit
and largely volunteer-run entities that provide programming of all kinds for youth, adults and
seniors. Each club has a particular geographic focus and may focus on one or more cycling
disciplines. These local clubs offer programming in recreational cycling as well as venturing
into the competitive realm locally. National and international organizations are involved in
structuring the high performance spectrum of cycling training and competition. The Union
Cycliste Internationale (UCI) is the international governing body for cycling while USA Cycling
is the national body. These bodies are responsible for setting standards for competitions and
the facilities in which sanctioned competitions are held.
According to the American Track Racing Association (ATRA) there have been a myriad of
track racing and small independent regional series in the U.S. recently. The organization has
proposed a new initiative to bring together the best track races in the U.S. for the country’s
best racers to compete head to head in a national championship. ATRA's mission is to
advance the sport of track cycling, capital improvements of facilities, and the promotion of
track riding and racing.
Major competitive events: There are currently 10 cycling events in the Summer Olympic
Games. In 2008, seven of these events were for men, while three were for women. In
2012, there will be five events for both men and women.
The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) Track Cycling World Championships are held annually
at the end of the winter track season. There are currently 19 events in the World
Championships, 10 for men and nine for women. Qualification places are determined by
different countries’ performances during the World Cup Classic series held throughout the
season.
Market Analysis
C-29
The UCI Track Cycling World Cup Classics series consists of four or five meetings, held in
different countries. The events attract a top field of riders. However, it is common for top
riders not to compete at all the events of the series, with teams often using the events to
field younger riders or attempt different line-ups at some events. Top riders can still win the
series, or obtain a good placing for qualification points for their country, without competing at
every event.
NATIONAL SOCCER OVERVIEW
The popularity of soccer has been growing throughout the United States over the past
decades. The sport gained significant national attention when the U.S. hosted the World Cup
in 1994. The USA was one of 13 nations to compete in the first FIFA World Cup competition
in Montevideo, Uruguay, in 1930. The nation also hosts the annual U.S. Open Cup, a singleelimination tournament open to all affiliated amateur and professional teams in the United
States.
In 1996, a new outdoor league, Major League Soccer (MLS), debuted with professional teams
in 10 U.S. cities. Five years later, in 2001, a U.S. women's professional league, the Women's
United Soccer Association (WUSA), began its first season with eight teams. It was suspended
after three seasons. Women’s Professional Soccer (WPS), formed in 2007; the first season
began in April 2009.
According to research by the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, soccer was one of
only four traditional sports to show an increase in participation from 2000 through 2008,
rising 4.6%. It increased even more in 2009, as the chart below shows.
Soccer Participation
(Age 7+; In Thousands)
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Total
12,899
13,886
14,543
11,085
13,287
14,142
14,024
13,770
13,492
13,578
% Male
%Female
57.9
62.2
62.6
58.3
59.3
55.1
61.3
58.2
56.9
42.1
37.8
37.4
41.7
40.7
44.9
38.7
41.8
43.1
The graph above shows that more males than females participate in soccer, although not
overwhelmingly. The number of females playing soccer has grown steadily over the couple of
years from 38.7% of total players in 2007 to 43.1% of total players in 2009.
The number of adults ages 45-54 who play soccer has decreased significantly over the past
decade, though, as depicted below.
Market Analysis
C-30
Soccer Participation by 45-54 Yr Olds (In
Thousands)
1998
2007
% Change
228
127
-44.3
The above chart shows that the middle-age adult soccer demographic has declined more than
44% since 1998. Of the 13.5 million Americans who play soccer, 78% are under the age of
eighteen. In the 1990s, soccer was recognized as the fastest-growing college and high school
sport in the United States. The following chart indicates the mean age of soccer players.
Soccer Participation
Mean Age
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Male
20.8
19.9
16.9
20.1
18.2
20.3
20.0
21.2
Female
19.0
17.1
17.1
16.6
16.2
18.6
19.3
18.9
2009
20.9
18.5
2009
The preceding table shows that although the mean age fluctuated slightly over the last 10
years, it remained within the typical high school and college age levels.
Women in Soccer: More than 40% of soccer players in the U.S. are women. Soccer is the
most popular women's sport in college. An estimated 18,000 women play soccer in the three
college divisions. The women's national team has been successful as an international team,
winning the first ever Women's World Cup in 1991. Women's soccer became an Olympic
sport at the 1996 Atlanta games, and the Americans won the first Olympic gold medal. The
United States hosted the Women's World Cup in 1999, and the championship performance of
the national women's team was enthusiastically followed in the United States.
Youth Soccer: The majority of soccer players in the U.S. are youths. According to a 2009
survey taken by the National Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, 14.2 million children
ages 6 and older play outdoor soccer. This ranks the sport third after basketball and
baseball. However, Fred Engh, founder of the National Alliance for Youth Sports, predicts
outdoor soccer to overtake baseball as the second most popular sport among kids. Jeff
Hennion, chief marketing officer at Dick’s Sporting Goods, expects soccer and lacrosse
equipment to lead sales of youth team sports equipment.
Although growing in popularity when compared with other sports, soccer participation has
declined in the last decade overall, as shown below.
Market Analysis
C-31
Soccer Youth Participation
(In Thousands)
2000
2009
% Change
Age 7-11
5,666
5,129
-9.5
Age 12-17
3,584
3,228
-9.9
The preceding chart shows that youth soccer participation has declined between 2000 and
2009. Indoor soccer has only been tracked recently, but its play among children surveyed
has already increased 12% from 2007.
U.S. Youth Soccer is the largest member of the United States Soccer Federation, the
governing body for soccer in the United States. U.S. Youth Soccer boasts more than three
million registered players (up from 100,000 when it was first organized in 1974). Its
members are between the ages of 5 and 19. It also hosts more than 600,000 volunteers and
administrators, and over 300,000 coaches (most of whom are also volunteers). Comprised of
more than 6,000 clubs / leagues in 55 member State Associations (one in each state and two
in California, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas), the organization facilitates intrastate, inter-state, and international play.
Arena Soccer: Indoor soccer has become popular in the U.S. and Canada, with both
amateur and professional leagues dedicated to it. The Major Indoor Soccer League, formerly
known as National Indoor Soccer League, was formed in 2009 from second MISL and AISL
teams. It is a professional league consisting of six U.S. teams. The Professional Arena
Soccer League hosts players from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Premier Arena Soccer
League is the United States’ semi-pro league. The American Indoor Soccer League has five
teams in the central and northeastern United States. Two new U.S. arena leagues are
proposed to begin in 2011, Arena Soccer Association and I-League. Canada also hosts the
Canadian Major Indoor Soccer League. The National Indoor Championship (youth and adult)
continues to be held in the United States with more than 1,200 teams.
SPORTS PARTICIPATION
In making our facility usage projections we have also analyzed participation rates in each
sport. This information provides the data necessary to overlay rates of participation onto the
regional area. The following table highlights participation in selected sports in the state of
Utah.
Market Analysis
C-32
Utah Selected Sports Participation
Percent
MPI
Bicycling (road)
10.1%
111
Jogging/Running
10.8%
116
Soccer
4.2%
106
20.2%
113
Tennis
4.5%
109
Volleyball
3.5%
107
Swimming
Note: MPI represents market potential index
Source: ESRI: Sports and Leisure Market Potential Report
The table above also indicates the market potential index (MPI), which compares
participation rates with national numbers through the index ratings. The participation rates
for the state of Utah in the above selected sports and activities are higher than the national
average indicating a population active in sporting activities. A copy of this report is located in
the addenda.
The top most participated activity in Utah among the above list is swimming. Furthermore,
the idea of incorporating slides, lazy rivers, fountains, zero depth entry and other water
features into a pool’s design has proved to be extremely popular for the recreational user.
The development of the traditional pool in most recreational settings has become less
common because people want multiple options. Leisure pools appeal to the younger kids
(who are the largest segment of the population that swims) and to families. These types of
facilities are able to attract and draw larger crowds and people tend to come from a further
distance and stay longer to utilize such pools. This all translates into the potential to sell
more admissions and increased revenues.
Despite the recent emphasis on recreational swimming the more traditional aspects of
aquatics including competitive swimming, water polo, synchronized swimming, diving,
lessons, instruction, and aqua fitness remain as part of most aquatic centers. The life safety
issues associated with teaching children how to swim is a critical concern in most
communities and competitive aquatic programs continue to be important.
COMPARABLE FACILITIES ANALYSIS
Currently, there are no facilities in the U.S. that offer a velodrome, indoor tennis, and an
indoor waterpark under one roof. The following discussion highlights the various comparable
options for each individual component that are available in the area. Please note that there
are no local comparables for the velodrome.
Waterpark
In analyzing the competitive market for the proposed waterpark, we have selected a
competitive set based on their proximate location, similar amenities, and shared target
markets. There are no existing standalone indoor waterparks in Utah, so we have analyzed
pricing at comparable outdoor waterparks.
Large self-contained outdoor waterparks are typically destination waterparks, and therefore
draw from a larger geographic base. As the waterpark industry grows, and attendance
Market Analysis
C-33
increases, consumers have become more sophisticated and are being offered greater choices
of how to spend their entertainment dollar. This is a trend affecting, and affected by, both
indoor and outdoor waterparks. Waterpark growth is mirroring that of amusement parks in
their need to feature both unique and state-of-the-art rides and attractions. Lazy rivers and
wave pools are becoming staid in a time when consumers are seeking out thrill rides such as
ProSlide Tornado and bowl rides.
The proposed indoor waterpark has the objective of being a leader among its competitors;
therefore, it should be competitive in terms of number and type of thrill rides and other
waterpark features. It should also be competitive in terms of pricing of individual tickets,
season passes, and group rates. The following table highlights other outdoor waterparks in
the region. The facilities are all open between Memorial Day and Labor Day.
Comparable Waterparks
The Lagoon-a-Beach
Outdoor Waterpark
Farmington, UT
Cowabunga Bay
Draper, UT
Raging Waters
Salt Lake City, UT
Seven Peaks
Waterpark Provo,
UT
10
9
11
16
$37.95
$21.99
$20.95
$21.95
$27.95
$15.99
$16.95
$16.95
$84.95
$69.99
$69.95
$109.95
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Amusement Park
(roller coasters, rides
and attractions)
Cabanas
None
Cabanas
Wave Pool
No
No
Yes
Yes
Gift Shop
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
F&B Outlet
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Parking Fees
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Water Slides
Adult Fees
Child Fees
Annual Pass
Lazy River
Other Attractions
Source: Individual web sites and Hotel & Leisure Advisors
The Lagoon-A-Beach is an outdoor waterpark that is located inside the Lagoon Amusement
Park in Farmington, Utah. The admission price to the amusement park includes access to the
outdoor waterpark. The park does not offer a separate outdoor waterpark ticket. The
waterpark offers 10 water slides, including tube slides, body slides and drop slides, a lazy
river and pools. The amusement park offers eight roller coasters and several carnival games,
arcade games, food and beverage outlets and rides.
The Cowabunga Bay is an outdoor waterpark located in Draper, Utah. The facility offers nine
slides, all part of the “world largest water play structure.” In addition to the slides the water
play structure offers two tipping buckets, and 300 interactive water features. The waterpark
also offers a lazy river, a food and beverage outlet and cabana rentals.
Market Analysis
C-34
The Raging Waters is an outdoor waterpark located in Salt Lake City, Utah. The facility offers
12 water slides including tube slides, body slides and raft rides. The waterpark also offers a
large wave pool, lazy river and food and beverage outlets.
The Seven Peaks is an outdoor waterpark located in Provo, Utah. The waterpark is the largest
waterpark in the state. The facility offers 16 water slides including tube slides, body slides,
bowl rides and raft rides. The waterpark also offers a large wave pool, kiddie pool, lazy river,
cabana rentals, swimming lessons and food and beverage outlets.
Municipal Aquatic Centers/Swimming Pool
We have also analyzed comparable municipal recreation centers that have a swimming pool.
All of the facilities are open year round except the Roy Aquatic Center, which is only open in
the summer months. The following table highlights these facilities.
Local Municipal Recreational Facilities
Location
Adult Membership Fee
Children Membership Fee
Family Membership Fee
Daily Admission (Adult)
Daily Admission (Children)
Indoor Pool
Waterslides
Outdoor Pool
Marshall White
Community Center
Clearfield Aquatic
Center
Roy Aquatic
Center
Layton Surf n
Swim
South Davis
Recreation Center
Ben Lomond and Ogden
High School Swimming
Pools
Ogden
Clearfield
Roy
Layton
Bountiful
Ogden
none
$260
none
$200
$300
$100
none
$170
none
$200
$175
$100
none
$440
none
$350
$450
$210
$2.00
$5.50
$5.00
$3.00 - $4.50
$5.00
$3.00
$1.00
$3.00
$4.00
$3.00 - $4.50
$3.00
$3.00
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Wave Pool,
Racquetball and
Walleyball
Racquetball, Ice
Rink and Day Care
No
Fitness Center
Basketball/Volleyball Gym
Other Sports/Facilties
Boxing Ring, Game
Room for kids and
billiards room
Day care and indoor
track
Source: Individual web sites and Hotel & Leisure Advisors
The Marshall White Community Center is the nearest facility to the subject and is owned by
the city of Ogden. The city hired a community action group to operate the facility beginning
in 2009. The facility director indicated that approximately 500 to 600 people use the pool on
a monthly basis. The facility offers swim lessons, water aerobics, open swim time, small
weight room, karate, tai-chi, yoga, boxing, basketball clinics, outdoor tennis courts, volleyball
and youth game room. The facility is being subsidized by the city of Ogden. The facility does
not offer any memberships but charges a fee based on the type of activity.
Market Analysis
C-35
The Clearfield Aquatic Center is located in Clearfield adjacent to the North Davis Junior High
School. The facility is open to non-residents and offers passes and daily admission tickets to
both local residents and non-residents. The facility opened in June 2005. The facility had
revenues of $1,302,897 in 2009 and expenses of $1,338,215. According to the facility
director the facility has 2,400 memberships totaling approximately 8,400 members.
Approximately 82,000 people pay a daily admission fee to use the facility. The annual report
indicated approximately 41,000 swimming instruction class visits and 18,000 water fitness
class visits in the recent fiscal year. The facility is being operated by the city and is being
subsidized by the city. The facility offers a six-lane lap pool with a one-meter diving board, a
recreation pool with a lazy river, water slide, and Jacuzzi. Additional amenities include fitness
room, weight room, multi-purpose gymnasium with indoor running track, day care, outdoor
pool with splash pad and birthday party room.
The Roy Aquatic Center is located in Roy and is an outdoor recreation pool. The pool is open
during the summer months. The facility director indicated that facility gets approximately
100,000 to 120,000 people during the season. The facility does not offer any season passes.
The facility is owned and operated by the city.
The Layton Surf n Swim is located in Layton and is an indoor and outdoor facility. The facility
offers a large wave pool with the deeper end of the wave pool used for lap swim. The pool
offers eight lanes. The facility also offers racquetball and an additional five lane outdoor pool
and diving board. The wave pool area is bubbled during the winter months hence the facility
is open year round. The facility offers open swim, lap swim, water aerobics, water fitness
programs, youth swim team and swimming lessons.
The South Davis Recreation Center is located in Bountiful adjacent to Bountiful Junior High
School. The $20 million facility serves the residents of Bountiful, Centerville, North Salt Lake,
West Bountiful and Woods Cross and was built in conjunction with the Davis School
District. The facility has 6,600 memberships with approximately 19,600 members. The facility
is subsidized by the various cities. The facility had operating revenues of $3,041,666 in 2009.
The facility gets an additional $2,668,376 in funding from the municipalities via property
taxes. The facility offers an eight-lane lap indoor pool and a recreational pool including a
waterslide, fitness area, multi-purpose gymnasium, day care, birthday party rooms,
conference room and an ice rink. The facility also offers an outdoor recreation splash pad and
pool. The facility also has a swim team. The facility offers the second largest Junior Jazz
basketball program (Official Youth Sports Program of the NBA Utah Jazz) in the state.
The two local high schools, Ben Lomond High School and Ogden High School also offer indoor
pools. The pools are primarily used by the high school swim teams but are also open to the
public during specific hours. According to our discussion with the school districts athletic
director, the Ben Lomond High School pool had an annual attendance of 34,663 and the
Ogden High School pool had an annual attendance of 28,639 in the most recent fiscal year.
The attendance numbers also includes the swim teams attendance. There is also a water polo
club that uses the swimming pool.
Tennis
There are many outdoor tennis courts located throughout the Ogden area and region. The
following table highlights both indoor and outdoor tennis courts in the state of Utah.
Market Analysis
City
C-36
Tennis Courts in Utah
Court Locations Total Courts
American Fork
1
Bountiful
6
2
Brigham City
3
Cedar City
Centerville
2
Clearfield
1
4
Cottonwood Heights
1
Draper
3
Farmington
Grantsville
1
Heber
1
Herriman
1
1
Highland
3
Holladay
2
Kaysville
Kearns
2
7
Layton
Lehi
1
Lindon
1
2
Logan
1
Magna
Midvale
1
2
Midway
4
Murray
North Salt Lake
2
9
Ogden
Orem
3
1
Park City
Provo
2
Riverton
1
21
Salt Lake City
6
Sandy
South Jordan
5
10
St. George
3
Taylorsville
Tooele
2
West Jordan
7
4
West Valley City
Woods Cross
1
Total
130
Source: Global Tennis Network
4
17
8
14
4
1
10
5
10
6
5
8
8
24
6
13
13
6
3
19
4
6
4
30
10
38
13
16
12
8
111
20
18
42
13
12
23
21
4
589
The following table highlights the comparable indoor tennis courts in Weber County and
surrounding region.
Market Analysis
C-37
Comparable Indoor Tennis Facilities
Facility
Location
Ogden Athletic Club
Eagle Ridge Tennis & Swim
Club
Liberty Park Tennis
Center
Coach Mike's Tennis
Academy
South Ogden
North Salt Lake
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Facility Type
Private (Members only)
Private (Members only)
Public
Private (Open to Public)
# of Courts
6
6
16
10
# of Indoor Courts
6
6
4
4
Bubble (Seasonal)
Bubble (Seasonal)
Bubble (Seasonal)
Bubble (Seasonal)
none
none
$12 - $20
$18 - $20
Court Type
Membership Rates (monthly)
$35 to $80 for general
facility membership and an $29 to $89 and an initiation
fee
additional $25 for a tennis
pass
$6
Court Rental Rates (per hour)
Source: Individual Facilities and Multiple Websites
$12 (during winter months)
The nearest indoor tennis options for Weber County residents is the facility at the Ogden
Athletic Club. The club is a members only club with monthly membership dues ranging from
$35 - $80 per month. The club offers six tennis courts that are bubbled during the winter
season. Club members pay an additional $25 per month for a tennis pass to get access to the
tennis courts. In addition to the monthly tennis pass fee, members have to pay $6 per hour
per court to play tennis.
The nearest municipally owned indoor tennis facility is the Liberty Park Tennis Center located
in Salt Lake City. The facility offers 16 outdoor courts, four of which are bubbled during the
winter months. The city has hired a private management company to operate the facility.
Court rental rates range from $12 to $20 per court per hour. The private company paid a
fixed annual rent of $7,231 in 2009.
The Eagle Ridge Tennis & Swim Club is an equity club and is limited to only 350 members.
Members pay an initiation fee to join the club and pay an additional monthly fee to get access
to the facility. The club offers six courts, all of which are bubbled during the winter months.
Members have to pay an additional $12 per hour per court to the facility during winter
months. The additional fee during winter is primarily to cover heating costs.
Coach Mike’s Tennis Academy is open to the public. The facility offers lessons and
instructions for children and adults. In addition, tennis courts can be reserved in advance for
play during specific hours. The facility charges $18 to $20 per court per hour. The facility
offers 10 courts, four of which are bubbled from November to May.
Our discussions with the various indoor tennis facility operators indicated that there is a
shortage of indoor tennis courts in the region. Usage of indoor tennis courts rises
dramatically during winter months due to the lack of supply. There are no permanent indoor
tennis facilities in the area surrounding Weber County. All of the indoor tennis facilities are
bubbled during the winter months. The facility operators indicated that attendance is
generally lower during late spring, summer and early fall due to the outdoor courts being
open. Furthermore Weber State University does not have any indoor tennis facilities. Both
the men and women tennis teams use the Ogden Athletic Club for all training and
competition related activities. They use the indoor facilities from November until April.
There are several outdoor tennis courts in the Ogden. The following facilities have outdoor
tennis courts: Marshall White Community Center, Ben Lomond High School, Ogden High
School, Mt. Ogden Park, Weber State University, Mt. Eyrie Park and Monroe Park.
Market Analysis
C-38
Velodrome
Indoor tracks enable year-round cycling and provide a consistent, controlled environment.
Although there are more than 20 velodromes throughout 17 states in the U.S., only two are
indoor. Most of the outdoor velodromes are municipally owned and operated. In some cases,
the city has given the management of the facility to a non-profit cycling association. The
most comparable indoor velodrome facility to the subject is the Home Depot Center
Velodrome in Carson, California. The following table highlights comparables velodromes.
Comparable Velodrome Centers
Home Depot Center Velodrome
Boulder Indoor Cycling
7-Eleven Velodrome Olympic
Training Center
Burnaby Velodrome
Carson, CA
Boulder, CO
Colorado Springs, CO
Burnaby, British Columbia
Private (Indoor)
Private (Indoor)
Private (Outdoor)
Public
2005
2008
1982
1997
250
142
333
200
100,000
115,000
Outdoor
Indoor
Anschutz Entertainment Center
Boulder Indoor Cycling
Colorado Velodrome Association
Burnaby Velodrome Club
Multi-Sports
Mountain Biking
None
Volleyball (4 courts)
$20
$19 - $24
$5- $10
$10 - $20
$320 - $480 (unlimited use)
$549
$100 - 200 (Unlimited Use)
$175 - $448
$5 - $15
Free for Members (limited)
$5
$10
$65 - $225
$109 - $199
n/a
$25 - $35 (per session)
Facility
Location
Type
Year Open
Track Length (m)
Building Size (S.F.)
Facility Operator
Infield Use
Open Riding Fees
Membership Fee (Annual)
Equipment Rental
Lessons/Classes
The 250-meter indoor Home Depot Center Velodrome in Carson, California was constructed
in 2004 for $15 million. The entire funding was from a private source (no governmental or
organizational grants or fundraising initiatives.) The facility is part of the Home Depot Center
located adjacent to California State University. The $150 million Home Depot Center complex
was developed and is operated by the Anschutz Entertainment Group. In addition to the
velodrome, the facility includes a 27,000 seat soccer stadium, which is home to both the Los
Angeles Galaxy and Chivas USA of Major League Soccer. The center is also home to a tennis
stadium and a track and field facility.
This velodrome facility is currently the only international standard indoor track in North
America. The velodrome was designed and built with a tight budget and does not include
showers or changing rooms and lockers. The infield of the velodrome is surrounded by
netting for simultaneous uses by basketball, volleyball or wrestling groups. The facility offers
permanent seating for 2,450 spectators.
The facility is a national and international facility offering beginner through elite training. The
facility offers youth cycling, private and group training sessions, and races. The track serves
as the national training center for the USA Cycling Team and Team Canada. The velodrome
facility is also a part of the United States Olympic training centers. Elite athlete development
represents approximately 10% of total facility usage.
It hosts training and competitions under the guidance of USA Cycling, including the 2004 USA
Junior Track National Championships, 2004 World Junior Track Cycling Championships, 2005
World Track Cycling Championships, and the UCI Track Cycling World Cup Classics. It also
hosts other competitions, events, and cycling clinics for people at all skill levels and ages.
The velodrome is open to the public during specified hours. The facility offers training and
competitions under the guidance of USA Cycling, including state, national, world cup, and
world championship events. Based on our conversation with USA Cycling, the facility does not
Market Analysis
C-39
get any money for hosting the U.S. track racing team. The facility offers an annual unlimited
use training card for $480. The facility also offers a day pass and charges $20 per session.
Class fees range from $65 to $225 depending on the number and type of sessions. The
facility also offers bike rentals for $15 per session.
Based on discussion with industry representatives, the facility did not break even for the first
four years of operation. The facility made a profit in Year 5 (2009) of its operation. The Home
Depot Center complex has several departments responsible for event management, guest
services, security etc. These staff members are assigned as needed to each venue within the
complex, hence there are some shared expenses.
The 142-meter Boulder Indoor Cycling is located in Boulder, Colorado. The facility opened in
December 2008 and is the most newest indoor velodrome in the country. The facility is
located in an industrial area and was a warehouse that was converted to a velodrome. By
locating the facility in an existing warehouse, the ownership group was able to proceed
without seeking public funding. The cost for track construction was approximately $400,000.
The facility is operated by Boulder Indoor Cycling.
The facility is designed with recreational riders in mind rather than elite cyclists. The facility
cannot host any major competitions due to the smaller size of the track. The infield of the
velodrome is used for mountain biking courses. The facility offers track cycling lessons,
mountain biking courses, youth programs and race leagues. Summer camps and a Cycle
Tykes program are offered for children aged 2 – 10. Private lessons, group classes and
birthday parties can also be held at the facility.
Open riding fees at the facility range from $19 to $24. The facility offers an annual pass for
$549. Lessons and classes range from $109 to $199 depending on type of classes. Bike
rentals are also offered for members. However, the representative at the facility indicated
that due to the small size of the facility it does not offer a large collection of bike rentals. Our
discussion with the facility representative indicated that the facility is profitable operationally
and breaks even after debt service.
The 333-meter 7-Eleven United States Olympic Training Center Velodrome is located in
Colorado Springs, Colorado and was built in 1982 in preparation for the 1984 Olympics in Los
Angeles, California. The facility is an outdoor velodrome. The track is operated by Colorado
Velodrome Association and is owned by the U.S. Olympic committee. The velodrome facility
is also a part of the United States Olympic training centers. The track is generally open from
April through October depending on weather conditions. In addition, the U.S. national cycling
team has precedence and can ride the track whenever they need. If the national team is
training, the velodrome cannot be used by any member. The facility also offers annual
memberships for $200. The facility offers open riding for $5 - $10 but riders need to have a
USA cycling license.
The 200-meter Burnaby Velodrome is located in Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. The
facility is one of the two indoor velodromes in Canada; however, it is bubbled. The facility
was built in 1997 and offers seating for 150 people on bleachers. The infield of the track
offers four volleyball courts. The facility also offers a multi-purpose gymnasium, a meeting
room, office space and equipment storage. Because the facility only offers a 200 meter track
it does not host international events. However, it has hosted the Canadian National Track
Championships. The facility hosts approximately 20 races each year.
Market Analysis
C-40
The facility is also a primary location for many volleyball and other sporting events, and has
hosted the 2005 Senior and Masters National Volleyball Championship. Volleyball British
Columbia has its headquarters at the facility and also runs a small pro shop out of the facility.
The track was built by Burnaby Velodrome Club, Cycling British Columbia members and
volunteers. The facility is owned by the city of Burnaby and operated by Burnaby Velodrome
Club. The facility recently spent $1,000,000 on renovations which included a new insulated
roof, new furnace, new hanging lights and an enclosed meeting room overlooking the track
and the courts.
The facility offers youth programs, training and racing. Open riding fees at the facility range
from $10-$20 while annual membership fees range from $175 to $448. Classes and lessons
range from $25 - $35 per session. The facility also offers bike rentals for $5 for members and
$10 for non-members.
Indoor Soccer
The infield of the velodrome can be used for indoor soccer, football, gymnastics, futsal and
lacrosse. Our discussions with Weber State University revealed that the university is
interested in using the infield for football practices. We project that most of the time the
facility will be used as an indoor soccer facility. The following table highlights indoor soccer
facilities in the area.
Comparable Indoor Tennis Facilities
Facility
Location
Facility Type
Ogden Indoor Soccer
Ultimate Indoor Soccer
Ultimate Indoor Soccer
Ogden
West Haven
Woods Cross
Kaysville
Sportsplex Fieldhouse
# of Fields
2
2
2
2
Field Type
Artificial Turf
Artificial Turf
Artificial Turf
Artificial Turf
$60 - $80
$60 - $80
$50 - $100
Rental Rates (per hour)
$75
All of the soccer facilities above run leagues and competitions. Representatives at various
facilities also indicated that several clubs also rent the facilities. Our discussions with the
facility representatives indicated that facility usage is very high during winter months.
Summertime usage of the facility drops dramatically as many outdoor options open up. Most
of the facilities open in the afternoon during weekdays due to low demand. League fees for
teams range from $300 to $500. In addition, many facilities charge an extra $10 per team
per game as referee fees.
The fields can also be reserved by clubs and groups for play. Rental rates for indoor soccer
facilities in the subject area range from $50 to $100 per hour. Higher rental rates are
generally charged during the winter months.
In addition to indoor soccer the fields can also be used for other purposes. The Sportsplex
Fieldhouse facility in Kaysville offers baseball practice including cage rentals. The two
Ultimate Indoor Soccer facilities offer dodgeball.
DEMAND INTERVIEWS
We have interviewed many people and organizations that have shown interest in the facility.
The following paragraphs summarize their responses and comments. According to those
interviewed, the subject facility will offer some unique attractions. Some of those interviewed
felt that the city should not add a fitness center to avoid competition with other existing
Market Analysis
C-41
facilities while others felt that there should be some form of a fitness/weight room for
athletes training at the velodrome and other components.
One resident said his main concern with the proposed fieldhouse is finding the funding and
who is responsible for the operating costs. The waterpark may draw some revenue to help
pay for the rest of the structure, but locals could not afford to pay that much for entrance. He
said there are many large families in the area, and they would not be willing to pay much
more than $10 for a one time visit to any feature of the fieldhouse.
Other locals felt strongly that the fieldhouse would be a great asset to the community, and is
necessary in Ogden’s future plans of becoming a recreation and fitness center, but the city
needs to consider the local demographics, and provide space for adult sports and
programming. Supporters said the fieldhouse would bring the city revenue, especially though
tournaments for junior high and high schools, but they also need to include senior amenities.
One resident discussed strong potential for monthly triathlons utilizing the pool, running track
and cycling track. The triathlon competitions could be open to both county and non county
residents. By hosting regional competitions, it could also give a boost to the local hotel
occupancy as well as increase revenues at other downtown businesses.
Velodrome
The local cycling community is very excited about the prospect of a local velodrome.
Currently, the closest such facility is in Carson, California. A group of ambitious locals have
even formed the Salt Lake Velodrome Association to help facilitate its building. Their
Facebook support group, People in Support of a Velodrome in SLC, has more than 480
members. Their petition has more than 740 signatures.
Supporters say the velodrome would bring with it a lot of different opportunities for revenue.
Daily training sessions could bring in 20 to 50 people with different clinics and open times for
certified riders adding to that number. The track could choose to host nights for woman
cyclists specifically or evening events for people to participate in after work throughout the
season. Demand should dictate the hours it is open, but it should be open daily (although
sometimes just evenings would suffice). Supporters say the facility would attract a
combination of local and traveling cyclists. It is foreseeable that they could host a weekly
racing series, larger local races monthly or quarterly, and two national events annually.
One supporter said that the velodrome project has been misunderstood. “This type of facility
is not usually a cash cow, and needs to be developed with some kind of endowment or strong
community support. The possible track in Utah should be a world class race track. US
Cycling has promised that they would hold the national races here if the track is built.
Having a national championship race would be a stepping stone to a World Cup or World
Championship event.”
Major national level meets would bring in 200 to 300 people minimum to each event. Junior
events would attract more because the participants usually bring their entire families.
Masters events are three to five day events that would bring 400 to 500 people. World Cup
events are approximately four days. People traveling for these events would utilize local
hotels, restaurants, and family activity facilities.
Market Analysis
C-42
One supporter said that a world-class velodrome would encourage a significant number of
national and international level cyclists to move to Ogden, while many others would travel
there. Currently the only other indoor world-class track in the country is located just outside
of Los Angles, where she said a significant number of people travel to race. “Wherever there
is a track, people are racing,” she added. She said that one-third to half of the racers in LA
moved there because of the velodrome, and she believes the same would occur in Ogden.
Supporters say that Ogden has a special advantage in that it is at a higher altitude, so
although world records can still be set there, many people believe that training at such an
altitude gives them an advantage at sea-level events. Supporters said they would pay $5 to
$10 per day; $20 per month; or $100 per year or more. They said they would use the
facility several times a week.
Many supporters cited Ogden’s desire to become the sports and recreation center of the
west, and said this would help the community to achieve that goal. With the fieldhouse, it
would also attract more of the active population to live in the community.
There is currently a large cycling community in Ogden, and it is growing. Interviewees
commented that people are spending a significant amount of money on very nice bicycles.
The dynamics of Ogden have changed dramatically. People are moving here from out of
state because of the outdoor lifestyle the city promotes.
Ogden also boasts a large number of people from the winter Olympic community, and skaters
are a similar community to cyclists, with many athletes practicing both. The Olympic size
pool paired with the velodrome will attract many tri-athletes. It will draw more people to
Ogden, and will also draw from surrounding communities.
Supporters suggested including enough room for spectators in the velodrome, which would
attract more community members to be a part of the facility and give them a taste for
cycling. There is very little cost to maintain the facility, and a walking track around it would
benefit local seniors. If the facility offered a big rental bicycle fleet, people would be more
encouraged to try it out (track bicycles are unique and different from other bikes).
There would be quite a bit of interest in the velodrome once it was finished. There is a great
local cycling community, and it would get quite a bit of use in the winter months by all local
cyclists. Track racing is a unique niche, and those devoted to it would use the structure
year-round.
One resident said that the proposed infield should offer soccer and projected it to be very
heavily used for soccer and box lacrosse, especially if well-lit.
Tennis Courts
A representative at the Utah Tennis (USTA) said her organization has very high interest in
the proposed facility. She said that it is very exciting to add tennis courts to the area,
especially indoor courts. The only indoor courts currently in the community are at the private
Ogden Athletic Club. USTA works with the Ogden Athletic Club and partners with all local
facilities. It has 5,800 dues paying members in Utah. She said her organization would be
happy to sanction tournaments and league play at the proposed facility. It would also help to
organize adult programming if the city so desired. “It’s an opportunity for residents to access
a public facility for casual play and structured programming,” she said. She added that those
traveling to the area will also make use of the courts. “They may come to town to ski, but
Market Analysis
C-43
they’ll play tennis while they’re there.
Mostly it is an opportunity for the local tennis
community to utilize. Currently, local schools have no access to indoor courts.”
She suggested that Weber State University could play there. “They travel so much now, and
hold their matches in the afternoon when no one can watch,” she said. “This would bring
exposure to collegiate tennis to the community.” She said the more courts, the better. Six
courts are good for league matches because they use three to five, and it leaves one open for
community play or lessons.
She said that areas and access are important when building tennis courts. She said the
problem with most courts is that are in a row with nowhere for spectators to watch matches.
She suggested making one of the proposed courts a stadium court to open up the possibility
for exhibitions, special events, and feature matches with more spectators. She said that
other indoor courts charge $12 to $18 per hour, and that her organization would have no
interest in the waterpark.
One local supporter said that the Ogden area has been in need of indoor pay per use tennis
courts for several decades. The proposed courts would be used well, especially if the right
people were hired to run and promote the facility. One supporter currently pays $24 for 1 1/2
hours of court time each week at the Lagoon Tennis Center.
Supporters stated that Weber State University needs a decent indoor tennis facility for
practice and tournaments, and Ogden is in drastic need of area youth programs. Although
participation may drop off in the summer months, air conditioning in the indoor courts may
prevent that from happening. One resident, who admittedly did not have insight into the local
desire for tennis courts, asked if something that generates more money would not be a
better use for such a large space.
Olympic Size Pool
Ogden has a large, passionate swimming community. The local high schools have won
several state championships and titles. There is also a large Masters Swimming community,
some of whom drive as far as an hour to swim in an Olympic size pool. Local pools are only
25 meters long, and supporters of the proposed Olympic size pool support it because of its
official size. To maintain their support, the pool must measure 50 meters long by 25 meters
wide.
The pool would see a great deal of use because there is a great local need for it. Local pools
are much smaller and quite old. There is significant interest in the area as more students
tried out for the swim team than football last year. However, it is very expensive to operate
and maintain an indoor swimming pool.
One supporter suggested the pool have access to the outside during the warmer months (via
a retractable wall), as well as movable bulkheads to allow for simultaneous use by multiple
teams. To draw revenue to pay for the pool, the city must install enough seating to allow for
tournaments (several hundred seats). The pool should not only have a set up for lab
swimming and swim teams, but there should be enough shallow area to handle all levels of
ability, swimming lessons, and water aerobics.
Currently, Weber High School’s swim team uses the Ben Lomond High School pool. Their
swim season is five and a half months long. The Weber School District swim teams total of
approximately 100 swimmers.
Market Analysis
C-44
There is also limited pool time and space for local youth summer swim teams, which are
growing rapidly (currently, about 90 swimmers). A local club water polo team of 35 players
currently uses the Ben Lomond High swimming pool for $25 per practice (1.5 hours, three
days per week). The season is about three months long.
If the pool had an electronic timing system, one official said he would host three to six swim
meets (with two to three teams) plus one large tournament with six or more teams per
season, and three to five games plus one larger tournament during the water polo season.
“The size of swim meets and water tournaments would depend upon the amount of deck
space for competitors and bleacher seats available for spectators,” he added. “Also,
depending on the configuration and depth of the pool, it could be used to host the state
water polo tournament in May.” The pool should have eight swimming lanes. An Olympic
sized pool could be used during the summer months for competitive swim meets.
One supporter, who swims three times per week said she pays $5 per day to swim,
suggested the proposed pool offer a county price and a non-resident price. Another
supporter suggested a variety of community prices. There are areas of low and medium
income in the community, and these members must not be priced out of the facility or they
will become its largest opponents. The city needs to implement separate community fees
considering these lower income levels.
There is a large local senior population and many baby boomers. One resident indicated that
the city should include a therapeutic pool at the fieldhouse. There should be pool time set
aside for only seniors, and there should be a separate senior rate, taking into consideration
that they are on fixed incomes and there has not been a raise in Social Security for years.
Waterpark
The proposed waterpark received mixed reviews. One resident thinks it would only draw
children from ages 4 through 12, and only in the winter months (October through April). He
believes people want to be outside in warmer months, and there are other local outdoor
waterparks with which to compete.
The proposed waterpark would be of interest for locals if the set up is done properly. There
should be a separate pool with play area for younger children containing slides, lazy rivers,
and fountain type devices. Another supporter suggested using retractable walls to allow easy
outdoor access in the warmer months.
Some of those interested in other features of the fieldhouse said the waterpark would provide
no additional draw for them, while others said it would because they have children.
Families we have interviewed indicated a strong interest in the waterpark. They requested
separate pricing for Weber County residents versus non-residents and tourists.
Our interviews with area hotels indicated a strong interest in offering packages with the
indoor waterpark facility for families visiting the area. They were excited about a major new
demand generator to be located in downtown Ogden.
Subject Usage Levels
D-1
PROJECTED DEMAND AND REVENUE ANALYSIS
Based on interviews with representatives of the city of Ogden, comparable sport facilities,
knowledge of the market area, and consideration of factors such as competent and efficient
management, a well-defined marketing program, the location of the subject property, and
the quality of its facility, we have estimated future demand for the proposed subject facility.
Previously, we presented information about other comparable facilities for the major
components of the development. In this section, we have made estimates as to the usage
and admission revenue for the subject.
Market Area: Primary and secondary market areas have been defined for the proposed
subject facility. For the purposes of our study we assume the primary market is Weber
County. The secondary market is non-Weber county. In estimating non-Weber County
residents, we have included the following counties: Davis County and Morgan County (Ogden
MSA), Salt Lake County, Summit County and Tooele County (Salt Lake City MSA) and Juab
County and Utah County (Provo MSA). The following map highlights the three MSAs.
Days Open: The subject waterpark is projected to be open year round (360 days) and closed
on major national holidays like Christmas or for scheduled cleaning. The facility will focus
upon a variety of potential users including local residents, school and church groups, other
groups, families visiting the area and staying overnight at nearby hotels, and other visitors.
We project the facility to be busiest on weekends and during school vacations.
Aquatics
The subject aquatics area will include the proposed 60,000 square foot indoor waterpark and
the Olympic size pool. The subject indoor waterpark will focus upon both Weber County
D-2
residents and non-residents as visitors to the waterpark. We project that it will partner with
local hotels to sell packages to use the indoor waterpark.
Projected Subject Aquatics Performance: Based on interviews with comparable
waterparks, local recreation centers, our general knowledge of the market area, and
consideration of factors such as competent and efficient management, a well-defined
marketing program, the location of the subject property, and the quality of its facility, we
have estimated future demand of the subject indoor waterpark and pool.
Our research indicates that children from one to 13 years of age along with their parents are
the main demand generators for the subject waterpark. In addition, the subject will attract
teenagers and young adults aged 14 through 24 who will enjoy the many rides and
attractions at the subject destination waterpark. We project stronger demand on weekends
and during school vacations.
Based on our discussion with the city officials, we assume and project that the existing
swimming pools at the two local high schools will be closed. We project that both high
schools swim teams will use the subject facility. We project that the facility will also offer
aquatics programing which will include competitive swimming and diving, senior water
walking, aerobics and classes, instruction and learn to swim programs for children, fitness lap
swimming, aquatic aerobics and wellness and therapy programs.
Combining competitive and leisure components into one facility creates a partnership that
includes a full spectrum of activities that complement each other well. A community aquatic
facility is an amenity that helps to weave the threads of a community and enhance the
quality of life, family, togetherness, and wellness of its residents. It serves a multigenerational public, including seniors, parents, teenagers, young children, toddlers, and
infants. There is recreational value that meets the needs of each demographic in a
community.
In analyzing the attendance for the proposed aquatics facility, we have projected the
percentage of children between ages of one and 18 and adults 18 and over from both Weber
County and Non-Weber County.
Additionally we have projected the number of annual passes that may be sold. We have also
projected the number of overnight tourists visiting the region who will utilize the park.
Local Resident Day Passes: We project that the subject will attract a large number of local
residents to the waterpark. We project that most of the local residents will buy annual and
monthly passes. However, we project that some of the county residents will buy daily
admission tickets instead of the annual pass. We project stronger local resident demand
during the winter months, on weekends, and during school breaks when local residents have
more free time. The following table indicates our estimates. The base population figures
represent the 2010 population estimates.
D-3
Projected Demand in Year 2013
Swimming Pool and Indoor Waterpark
Age 0 - 18
Weber Cou nty Population
Projected Usag e
a.
Numb er of Visitors
Projected Adult Chaperones Per Youth
b.
Projected Adult Chaperones
Waterpark visits (a+b)
c.
Visits per year
Waterpark visits (a+b)*c
70,522
15.0%
10,578
Age 18 +
Total
163,577
8.0%
13,086
0.5
5,289
0
-
234,099
10.1%
23,664
0.22
5,289
15,867
13,086
12
5
9
19 0,409
65,431
255,8 40
% of Total
28,954
73.1 %
Non-Weber Cou nty Population
717,140
1,549,936
2,267,076
Non-Weber Cou nty Population
646,618
1,386,359
2,032,977
Projected Usag e
a.
Numb er of Visitors
Projected Adult Chaperones Per Youth
b.
Projected Adult Chaperones
Waterpark visits (a+b)
c.
Visits per year
Waterpark visits (a+b)*c
3.0%
19,399
0.50%
6,932
0.5
9,699
0
-
Number of Day Pass Visitors
Number of Pass Visitors
0.37
9,699
29,098
6,932
3.0
1.0
2.6
8 7,293
6,932
94,2 25
% of Total
Total Local Visitors
1.3%
26,330
36,030
26.9 %
27 7,703
16%
84%
72,363
16%
84%
350,0 65
57,4 93
292,5 72
% Children
53%
% Adu lts
47%
We project that approximately 350,065 visitors from both Weber County and outside of
Weber County will utilize the subject property including day pass admission and
annual/season pass holders. The pass holders are further described in the following
paragraphs.
Season Pass Holders: The subject is projected to offer a variety of passes to local residents to
utilize the park unlimited times. We assume parking will be complimentary for all visitors. We
project the subject to offer three primary types of passes: monthly, quarterly and annual
passes. We project the quarterly passes to be more popular during the summer and winter
months. The following table highlights the projected demand for annual passes.
D-4
Pass Holders Analysis
Projected Demand
First Year
Month ly Passes Sold
Average p rice per pass per month
Total Revenues (annual)
Projected Number of People per Pass
Projected Visits Per Month
Total # of Person Visits per Year
Quarterly (3 month ) Passes Sold
Average p rice per pass
Total Revenues (annual)
Projected Number of People per pass
Projected Visits Per Month
Total # of person visits per year
An nual Passes Sold
Average p rice per pass per year
Total Revenues
5,160
$40
$206,400
3.2
6
97,524
2,580
$110
$283,800
3.2
4
97,524
860
$400
$344,000
Projected Number of People per pass
3.2
Projected Visits Per Year (annualized)
36
Total # of person visits per year
97,524
Pass Totals
Total Annualized Passholders
Average p rice per pass
8,600
$97
Total Revenues
$834,200
Total Visitations
292,572
Revenue Per Visit
$2.85
We project the subject will sell annual passes that will permit pass holders unlimited access
to the indoor waterpark and swimming pool. Although some buyers will make good use of
these passes, others may utilize them relatively infrequently. We project that pass holders
will utilize the park between three and six times per month. We project the passes to be
popular among families and swimmers.
Overnight Leisure Visitors: We have projected demand from leisure visitors who visit the area
and stay at the local lodging facilities. We project that some overnight family leisure visitors
to the area will utilize the subject indoor waterpark. There are approximately 1,670 hotel
guest rooms within the city of Ogden. We project that the two adjacent hotels Hampton Inn
and the Marriott Hotel will benefit the most compared to other area hotels. We recommend
the subject partner with the Ogden hotels to promote the facility. The following table
presents our projections for the number of visitors who will utilize the indoor waterpark.
D-5
Projected Demand
2013
Total Number of Overnight Rooms Available (City of Ogden)
Estimated Occupancy
Number of Occupied Overnight Rooms
% of Leisure Visitors
Total Occupied Overnight Leisure Rooms
1,670
60%
365,730
20%
73,146
% of Waterpark Packages Sold
25.0%
Total Waterpark Occupied Rooms
18,287
Number of Guests per room
# of Overnight Waterpark Visitors
Projected Admission Revenues
4
73,146
$20.00
$1,462,920
We project the subject will sell packages to 25.0% of the total leisure overnight visitors to
the area. We project there will be less discounting provided to overnight leisure visitors than
to local residents. We project that the local hotels will buy the indoor waterpark passes in
bulk and then market the passes as a package to overnight visitors which will include
overnight stay at the hotel and access to the waterpark. We project a bulk rate of $20.00 for
the local hotels. We feel the potential could be higher for this depending upon how the local
hotels market the packages.
Estimated Average Ticket Price: To estimate the average ticket price for the subject
property, we analyzed historical ticket prices achieved at other indoor waterpark facilities. We
also analyzed pricing at local comparable outdoor waterparks shown earlier in this study. We
have taken into account the average rates achieved by the comparables, projected
discounting practices of the subject, and the appropriate rate positioning for the subject. The
following indicates our projected overall average ticket prices for the subject.
D-6
Projected Average Ticket Price Analysis
National Indoor Waterpark Comparables
Rack Rates
Discounted Rates
Annual Pass
Sahara Sams Indoor Waterpark, West Berlin, NJ
$29.95
$22.95
Kalahari Resort, Wisconsin Dells, WI
$34.00
$25.00
$300.00
n/a
Splash Lagoon Indoor Waterpark, Erie, PA
$34.95
$19.95
n/a
H2OOOOhh! at Split Rock Resort, Lake Harmony, PA
$39.95
$17.95
n/a
Outdoor Waterpark comparables:
Adults
Children
Season Pass
The Lagoon Outdoor Waterpark
$37.95
$27.95
$84.95
Cherry Hill Waterpark
$18.00
$7.00
$84.95
Cowabunga Bay
$21.99
$15.99
$69.99
Raging Waters
$20.95
$16.95
$69.95
Seven Peaks Waterpark
$21.95
$16.95
$109.95
Municipal Aquatic Centers
Annual Pass
Adults
Children
Marshall White Community Center
$3.00
$2.00
n/a
Clearfield Aquatic Center
$5.50
$3.00
$170 - $440
Roy Aquatic Center
$5.00
$4.00
$100 - $240
Layton Surf n Swim
$3.00
$3.00
$200 - $350
South Davis Recreation Center
$5.00
$3.50
$175 - $450
Projected overall average ticket price (2013 dollars):
Proposed Weber County Residents Waterpark Ticket
$15.00
Proposed Non-Weber County Residents Waterpark Ticket
$25.00
Proposed Residents Swim-only Price
$8.00
% Weber County Residents Waterpark Ticket Sold
65.0%
% Non-Weber County Residents Waterpark Ticket Sold
26.9%
% Weber County Residents Swim-only Ticket Sold
Projected overall average ticket price
8.1%
$17.13
In our opinion, the subject should offer discounted rates to Weber County residents and
charge higher rates to non-Weber County residents as we project Weber County taxpayers to
help fund the development costs for the subject. We recommend that the subject also offer a
swim-only price for those residents who are at the facility just for swimming. We recommend
higher rates during the weekends when there is much stronger interest because on weekends
there will be more potential users. We recommend the use of discounts and special offers
during slower time periods. These could include evening-only or multi-day passes. We project
the subject will have a range of ticket prices depending on the day of week and season. Thus,
after considering applicable discounting as well as other promotional rates, the above
structure should enable the subject to achieve an estimated average ticket price of $17.13.
The following table highlights recommended rack rates for the waterpark. We project the
subject will offer various coupons and discounts off the rack rates in marketing the property.
D-7
PROJECTED TICKET PRICES
PROPOSED INDOOR WATERPARK
Weber County
Non-Residents
Residents
Ticket Prices during
$10 - $15
$20 - $30
Off Peak Periods
Ticket Prices during
$15 - $20
$30 - $40
Peak Periods
Family Ticket Prices
$40 - $60
$75 - $100
The following table projects the attendance, average ticket price per waterpark visitor, and
revenue from the waterpark tickets sold for the subject waterpark. We project attendance
growth rates of 5% in the second and third year of the analysis, which is considered the
stabilized year.
D-8
Projected Attendance and Aquatics Related Revenue
Calendar Years
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Number of Season Pass holders
Projected revenue
Average price per pass
Total number of visitors
8,600
9,030
9,482
9,482
9,482
9,482
$834,200
$902,187
$975,716
$1,004,987
$1,035,137
$1,066,191
$97
$100
$103
$106
$109
$112
292,572
307,201
322,561
322,561
322,561
322,561
Local Day Visitors
Attendees
57,493
60,368
63,387
63,387
63,387
63,387
Waterpark admission average
$17.13
$17.64
$18.17
$18.71
$19.28
$19.85
$984,621
$1,064,867
$1,151,654
$1,186,204
$1,221,790
$1,258,444
Projected revenue
Number of Waterpark Visitors
73,146
76,803
80,643
80,643
80,643
80,643
$20.00
$20.60
$21.22
$21.85
$22.51
$23.19
$1,462,920
$1,582,148
$1,711,093
$1,762,426
$1,815,299
$1,869,758
Projected revenue
$8,500
$8,755
$9,018
$9,288
$9,567
$9,854
$225,000
$200,000
$231,750
$206,000
$238,703
$212,180
$245,864
$218,545
$253,239
$225,102
$260,837
$231,855
Subject property attendance
423,211
444,372
466,591
466,591
466,591
466,591
Subject property attendance (rounded)
423,000
444,000
467,000
467,000
467,000
467,000
$3,715,241
$3,995,708
$4,298,363
$4,427,314
$4,560,133
$4,696,937
$8.78
$8.99
$9.21
$9.49
$9.77
$10.07
5.3
5.6
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
69%
69%
69%
69%
69%
69%
Local Day Visitors
14%
14%
14%
14%
14%
14%
17%
17%
17%
17%
17%
17%
Estimated Swim Team Related Revenues
Estimated Lessons & Rental Revenues
Estimated Lockers & Cabanas
Total
Total revenue
Overall Average Spending Per Person
Statistical information
Projected attendance per S.F
80,000
Demand segmentation:
D-9
The table above includes usage from the two local high school swim teams. We assume that
the teams will get two hours of free time usage of the swimming daily while the school is in
session as we assume the school district will also contribute towards the development of the
subject facility. The school district will pay an additional fee for any usage above the allotted
free time which we have estimated as $8,500 in the first year of our analysis.
We project the facility will offer swimming lessons and instructions and classes for children,
adults and seniors. Furthermore, some clubs and swim teams may also rent the pool area by
reserving a certain hour of the day for their members. We project lessons and rental
revenues of $225,000 in the first year of operations.
We recommend that the facility offer 750 lockers. Furthermore, we recommend that the
indoor waterpark area offer multiple cabanas for rental. These cabanas can also be used for
birthday parties. We project locker and cabana rental revenues of $200,000 in the first year
of operation.
The stabilized usage level is intended to reflect the anticipated results of the property over its
remaining economic life, given all changes in the life cycle of the waterpark, assuming
continual reinvestment in the aquatics area. Thus, the stabilized usage level excludes from
consideration any abnormal relationship between supply and demand, as well as any
nonrecurring conditions that may result in unusually high or low usage levels. Although the
subject property may operate at usage levels above this stabilized level, we believe it equally
possible for shifts in the local economy and changes in the market's demand patterns to force
the usage level below this selected point of stability.
The following table indicates our estimates of annual usage of comparable indoor waterparks
located around the U.S. and usage per square foot figure for each waterpark. The names of
each facility are kept confidential.
Ann ual Attendance at Indoor Waterpark Resorts
Resort
Estimated Annual Attend ance
Attendance/SF
A
1,000,000
5.8
B
700,000
5.6
5.4
C
296,000
D
414,000
5.3
E
280,000
4.3
F
67,000
6.7
G
196,000
4.4
H
125,000
Average
5.5
5.4
The subject indoor waterpark is projected to have attendance per square feet of 5.8 in the
stabilized year (based upon the combined indoor waterpark and swimming pool area of
80,000 square feet) which is above most of the comparables presented in the table above.
The comparables above represent private facilities that charge a higher rate for admission.
Furthermore, none of the facilities above offer monthly or annual passes. The subject facility
is projected to have higher attendance as it will offer monthly and annual admission and will
be priced lower for residents. We project higher usage on weekends than weekdays.
D-10
Tennis
Unlike the indoor waterpark, the draw for tennis will be much more localized. In the earlier
section we presented indoor tennis comparables. There are no permanent indoor tennis
facilities in the subject immediate area. The nearest indoor tennis courts are at the Ogden
Athletic Club. The following table highlights the project tennis usage and revenues.
Tennis Usage Analysis
First Year
Number of Courts
Hours Available (per court)
Summer
Winter
Total Court Time Available
6
Hours Per
Court
Hours Available
Annually
Days Open
12
16
10,800
14,400
25,200
150
150
300
Non-Tennis Court Rental Days (Exhibitions & Events)
Total Days Open
Total Estimated Tennis Usage
Total Hours Courts Used for Tennis
60
360
50%
12,600
D-11
Tennis Revenue Projections
Total Available Tennis Hours (Annual)
Estimated Usage
Total Tennis Hours
League Play
Open Play (Members)
Total
Hours
League Play
Open Play (Members)
Total
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
25,200
25,200
25,200
25,200
25,200
50%
52%
55%
55%
55%
12,600
13,104
13,860
13,860
13,860
Usage Breakdown
14.3%
14.3%
50.0%
50.0%
10.0%
10.0%
15.0%
15.0%
10.7%
10.7%
100.0%
100.0%
14.3%
50.0%
10.0%
15.0%
10.7%
100.0%
14.3%
50.0%
10.0%
15.0%
10.7%
100.0%
14.3%
50.0%
10.0%
15.0%
10.7%
100.0%
1,800
6,300
1,260
1,890
1,350
12,600
1,872
6,552
1,310
1,966
1,404
13,104
1,980
6,930
1,386
2,079
1,485
13,860
1,980
6,930
1,386
2,079
1,485
13,860
1,980
6,930
1,386
2,079
1,485
13,860
2.25
28,350
Revenues
2.25
29,484
2.25
31,185
2.25
31,185
2.25
31,185
200
$20
$48,000
250
$20.6
$61,800
250
$21.2
$63,654
250
$21.9
$65,564
250
$22.5
$67,531
$6,000
$6,180
$6,365
$6,556
$6,753
$157,500
$168,714
$183,801
$189,315
$194,994
$18,900
$20,246
$22,056
$22,718
$23,399
$9,450
$10,123
$11,028
$11,359
$11,700
$27,000
$28,922
$31,509
$32,454
$33,428
Non-Tennis Rental Revenues
$30,000
$30,900
$31,827
$32,782
$33,765
$297,000
$327,000
$350,000
$361,000
$372,000
Estimated Attendance
# of People per hour
Total Tennis Attendance
Tennis Membership Revenues
Est. # of Members
Monthly Membership Dues
Total Annual Membership Dues
Hourly Court Revenues
Lessons and Instruction Classes Revenues
League Play
Open Play (Members)
Total Tennis Revenues (rounded)
D-12
We project that the tennis courts will be open 360 days a year of which 300 days will be used
for tennis play. We project that the tennis area can be used as an exhibition area for events
at the conference center. We estimate that the courts will be used 60 days for such events.
We project that the courts will be rented at a daily rate of $500 for such events which will
primarily benefit the adjacent David Eccles Conference Center.
Based on our discussion with other existing indoor tennis facilities, we estimate that the
indoor courts will be used 50% of the time for tennis. We estimate 12,600 hours of court
time usage. We project that the tennis courts will be used more often during the winter
months. During summer months, we project that people would prefer playing outdoors.
We project that most of the court time will be used to offer tennis instructions and classes to
children and adults. We recommend the facility offer more classes and instructions during the
summer months and on weekends when the schools are not in session. We project the facility
will also offer tennis only monthly passes for the more avid tennis players. The monthly
tennis pass will allow members a discounted rate to book courts.
Additional usage for the tennis courts will come from Weber State University. The university
has both a mens and womens tennis teams. The university does not have any indoor facility
on campus to practice and uses the Ogden Athletic Club for practice and competitions. The
university pays approximately $7,400 to Ogden Athletic Club for court usage. The club offers
the courts at a discounted price because the university uses them during non-peak hours.
Based on our discussion with the city officials, we assume that the university will get
approximately 1,200 hours of free court time usage because we assume that the university
will contribute towards the development of the subject facility. It will pay for any additional
usage.
We project that 50.0% of the court time will be used to offer instruction and lessons. We
project this to be more popular with children. We estimate an average rate of $25 per hour
for tennis instructions and classes with additional fees being paid to the tennis pro offering
the classes. Most of the childrens beginner classes will be offered in groups while the others
may prefer private classes.
We project that the facility will run leagues. We estimate the various leagues to use 10.0% of
the court time. We project an average rate of $15 per hour for league play.
The courts will also be available to the general public, which will reserve the courts in
advance. We estimate tennis members will get a discounted rate to reserve courts while nonmembers will pay $20 per hour per court.
Velodrome
The subject indoor velodrome is projected to be the second competition-sized indoor
velodrome in the U.S. We project a much wider draw for the subject velodrome. The subject
velodrome will attract both national and international elite athletes for training as well as
local track cycling athletes. We recommend that the subject facility offers learn-to-ride and
track cycling introductory classes which will raise awareness for the sports and the facility.
We recommend that the subject facility partner with local schools and universities and start
track cycling programs which will increase usage of the facility. We recommend weekly and
bi-weekly racing series where prizes will also be handed out.
D-13
Velodromes are generally funded through revenue streams including: membership fees,
sponsorships, grants, concessions and in-kind contributions from local municipalities and local
cycling related companies. The following table highlights our projections for the indoor
velodrome usage.
Estimated Velodrome Usage
Hours Open
Daily
Annual
Summer
12
2,160
Winter
14
2,520
Total Time Open
4,680
Open Hours
50%
2,340
Lessons/Instruction Classes
35%
1,638
Rentals & Reservations
10%
468
5%
234
Special Events/Competitions
We estimate that the subject velodrome will be open 360 days a year. We recommend that
the facility have extended hours during the winter months. We estimate that the facility will
have 50% of the time for open riding which will allow the general public and members usage
of the facility. We project there will be some open hours reserved for elite athletes and
members. We estimate that 35% of the time the facility will be used for lessons and
instructions. Additionally, cycling clubs can also book the facility for specific hours for usage
by club members. We also project usage from special events and competitions. The open
hour sessions will be reduced if the facility is designated as the official Olympic training
center and hosts the national team. The following table highlights velodrome related
revenues.
D-14
Estimated Velodrome Revenues
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Membership Revenues
Estimated Memberships Sold
Annual Membership Fee
Total Member Revenues
100
$450
$45,000
120
$464
$55,620
150
$477
$71,611
200
$492
$98,345
200
$506
$101,296
Lessons Revenues
Estimated participants
Cost per participant
Total Lesson/Instruction Revenues
800
$100
$80,000
900
$103
$92,700
1,000
$106
$106,090
1,200
$109
$131,127
1,200
$113
$135,061
Daily Users
Average Daily User Fee
Total User Fees
1,500
$20.00
$30,000
1,700
$20.60
$35,020
1,800
$21.22
$38,192
1,800
$21.85
$39,338
1,800
$22.51
$40,518
Facility Rentals
# of Hours Reserved by Clubs & Associations
Rental Rate per Hour
Total Rental Revenues
468
$150
$70,200
600
$155
$92,700
750
$159
$119,351
750
$164
$122,932
750
$169
$126,620
$50,000
$275,000
$75,000
$351,000
$75,000
$410,000
$75,000
$467,000
$75,000
$478,000
Special Events & Equipment Rental
Total Revenues (rounded)
We project that the facility will offer annual memberships to more avid track cycling athletes
that will use the facility more frequently. We project a smaller number of members in the first
year. We project this number to increase with increased awareness. We project additional
revenues from lessons and instructions, daily usage fee and from facility rentals by clubs. We
project the subject will also offer equipment rentals to riders including bikes and helmets. We
have projected an additional $50,000 from special events and equipment rental.
Velodromes are quite often run at a deficit. Most of the existing velodromes in the country
are operated by non-profit local cycling associations or cities and operate at a loss. The
facilities are generally run by volunteers and offer limited services. Other international
velodromes such as the Dunc Gray Velodrome in Sydney, which was build for the 2000
Summer Olympics operates at a loss of AUD$500,000. The Manchester Velodrome in England
receives operating grants from the national sporting authority and local municipality totaling
£250,000 to cover its operating shortfall. There are exceptions, such as the Home Depot
Center Velodrome in Carson, California, which is the most comparable facility to the subject
and operated by a private company. The facility’s business plan projected a loss for the first
few years and a profit in the fifth year. The facility was on track and made a profit in its fifth
year of operations.
In an ideal scenario which is accomplished at several tracks, there is a good balance between
elite athlete usage of the track and development of high performance athletes, and
accessibility of the venue for recreational uses for all local residents. We recommend that the
facility have linkages with both national and international cycling associations and get an
official training track designation which will put the facility on the national and international
level.
D-15
Infield Usage
The infield of the velodrome track can accommodate several different type of sports. With a
turf floor, the infield can be used for indoor soccer, futsal, lacrosse, football and gymnastics.
Weber State University has also indicated an interest in using the infield for football practice
for October and November and spring training. We recommend a clear policy for infield
bookings be established to ensure smooth operations of the velodrome track and the infield.
In some occasions the track or the infield may not be used simultaneously. The infield can
also be booked by larger events taking place at the adjacent conference center that need an
exhibition area. The following table highlights our revenues related to the infield.
Infield Usage
Hours Available Daily
Summer
Winter
Estimated # of hours available annually
Daily
8
12
Annual (360 days)
1,440
2,160
3,600
Totals hours used
Less: Freetime allotment to WSU
Total paid hours
50%
1,800
75
1,725
Average Rental fee per hour
Total Revenues in First Year
$75
$135,000
We estimate fewer infield available hours than the velodrome track. We estimate 50% of the
total infield hours available to be used for activities. We project the infield will be used for
indoor soccer primarily. Our discussion with local indoor soccer facilities revealed that indoor
soccer facilities are busier during the winter months and in some cases facilities are open
until past midnight due to higher demand. During summer months, there are more outdoor
soccer field options which reduces indoor facilities usage. We recommend that during
summer months when schools are not in session, the facility run soccer, lacrosse and
gymnastics camps. These camps can either be run by the facility or be rented to a private
operator. For the purposes of our projections we assume that the facility will be rented to
various groups and teams. Similar to tennis, we project that Weber State University will get
some free time of infield usage for football practice as they are projected to contribute
towards the development of the subject facility. The university is projected to pay for
additional hours. We estimate an average rental fee of $75 hour. For special events and
competitions the facility will be rented for half day or full day and will get discounted rates.
Our estimates as outlined in this section of the report are predicated on the following
assumptions:
1. The subject waterpark and fieldhouse will be professionally managed and maintained;
2. The subject waterpark and fieldhouse will be effectively promoted with a well-targeted
marketing program throughout the analysis period;
D-16
3. A continued program of periodic replacement of furniture, fixtures and equipment will
continue throughout the analysis period to help maintain the efficiency of operation
for the subject.
Financial Analysis
E-1
INTRODUCTION
To estimate the statement of annual operating results of the subject property, we
analyzed the subject proposed development’s scope and characteristics. We have
identified operating statements of comparable properties and reviewed industry standards
for comparable properties in forecasting the financial performance of the subject.
The general steps include the following:
•
Estimate the potential gross revenues for the subject property based upon an
examination of the prior operating history of the subject property (if available),
operating history of comparable properties in the subject market area and on a
national basis, and an analysis of industry trends.
•
Analyze departmental, undistributed, and fixed expenses, and project appropriate
amounts in each category.
•
Project the resultant net operating income (cash flow before debt service) over an
appropriate holding period.
All percentages or amounts per visitor presented in the following pages were first
computed on the basis of the revenue and expenses expressed in constant dollars and
then inflated. All dollar amounts are expressed in stated year dollars unless otherwise
noted.
The prospective financial analysis is based on the results of operations of comparable
facilities, industry standards, and projections regarding the future environment in which
the subject will operate. This includes the assumption that the property will be operated
in a competent and professional manner and will be properly advertised and promoted.
Financial Comparables: The prospective financial analysis is based on the results of
operations of comparable facilities and industry standards from outdoor waterparks as
reported from the Waterpark Resort Task Force, by the World Waterpark Association, and
Managing Attractions for More Profit 2009 Edition by the International Association of
Amusement Parks and Attractions. Our analysis considers that the subject will be built by
a municipality but will be operated by a private company with a goal to earn a modest
profit. We have presented actual operating statements of comparable indoor waterpark
facilities and a municipal recreation facility.
Financial Analysis
E-2
Comparable Properties and Industry Standards
Name
Attendees
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Comparable 5
World Waterpark Association
IAAPA (< 500,000 visitors)
Indoor Waterpark
Indoor Waterpark
Municipal Recreation Center
200,000 - 300,000
Ratio
Per Attendee
200,000 - 300,000
Ratio
Per Attendee
300,000 - 400,000
Ratio
Per Attendee
100,000 - 200,00
Ratio
Per Attendee
600,000 - 700,000
Ratio
Per Attendee
Revenues:
Aquatics/Admission
69.0%
$13.46
60.5%
$13.14
50.2%
$22.45
79.8%
$18.96
70.6%
$3.14
Tennis
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
Velodrome
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
$0.97
Multi-Use Field
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
21.9%
Food and Beverage
14.3%
$2.80
24.0%
$5.21
34.0%
$15.20
17.6%
$4.18
4.5%
$0.20
Retail
Sponsorships & Other Income (net)
3.8%
12.8%
$0.75
$2.51
3.7%
11.8%
$2.60
$2.60
5.4%
10.4%
$2.41
$4.65
0.0%
2.6%
$0.00
$0.63
0.8%
2.2%
$0.04
$0.10
Total
100.0%
$19.51
100.0%
$23.55
100.0%
$44.72
100.0%
$23.76
100.0%
$4.45
Cost Of Sales:
Food & Beverage
26.2%
$0.73
44.2%
$2.30
30.1%
$4.58
65.0%
$2.72
80.2%
$0.16
Retail
Other
49.7%
0.0%
$0.37
$0.00
28.1%
0.0%
$0.23
$0.00
42.6%
0.0%
$1.03
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
$0.00
$0.00
56.7%
0.0%
$0.02
$0.00
5.7%
$1.11
11.6%
$2.53
12.5%
$5.61
11.4%
$2.72
4.1%
$0.18
94.3%
$18.41
88.4%
$19.19
87.5%
$39.11
88.6%
$21.05
95.9%
$4.27
$2.88
Total
Undistributed Expenses:
Labor
28.9%
$5.63
28.3%
$6.15
22.3%
$9.95
23.6%
$5.61
64.9%
4.5%
$0.87
7.4%
$1.61
3.4%
$1.54
6.7%
$1.59
6.2%
$0.27
Marketing
6.9%
$1.36
8.6%
$1.87
3.6%
$1.60
6.5%
$1.55
2.1%
$0.09
Management Fees
4.3%
$0.84
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
Operating Supplies
3.7%
$0.72
5.2%
$1.13
0.0%
0.0%
7.0%
$1.67
3.2%
$0.14
3.0%
$0.59
13.2%
$2.87
2.1%
$0.95
6.1%
$1.45
17.6%
$0.78
Other
1.0%
$0.20
3.9%
$0.84
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
Utilities
Total
5.5%
$1.07
4.3%
$0.92
4.4%
$1.96
14.3%
$3.41
16.3%
$0.73
57.8%
$11.28
70.8%
$15.38
35.8%
$16.00
64.3%
$15.28
110.2%
$4.90
36.5%
$7.13
17.5%
$3.81
51.7%
$23.11
24.3%
$5.77
-14.3%
-$0.63
Fixed Charges:
1.9%
$0.37
0.0%
$0.00
1.3%
$0.59
3.3%
$0.79
0.0%
$0.00
Building & Contents Insurance
3.0%
$0.58
4.5%
$0.97
3.9%
$1.74
3.8%
$0.89
2.8%
$0.13
Land Use/Other Rental Fees
Total
Net Income
5.0%
$0.98
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
9.9%
$1.93
4.5%
$0.97
5.2%
$2.32
7.1%
$1.69
2.8%
$0.13
26.6%
$5.20
13.1%
$2.83
46.5%
$20.78
17.2%
$4.08
-17.1%
-$0.76
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
3.9%
$0.18
26.6%
$5.20
13.1%
$2.83
46.5%
$20.78
17.2%
$4.08
-21.0%
-$0.94
Financial Analysis
E-3
INCOME AND EXPENSE ANALYSIS
The following highlights the various revenue and expense categories indicating our
projections. We project the subject facility will be open 360 days a year as presented in
the previous section of this report.
Aquatics Revenue: This line item includes all revenues related to the indoor waterpark
and the swimming pool. This includes revenue earned by selling individual tickets, season
passes, birthday parties, and group tickets. This was calculated by estimating annual
visitors and average rates per visitor. Our estimates of visitors and revenue per visitor
and the rationale supporting these estimates are presented in Subject Usage section of
this report. The following table outlines aquatics related revenue.
Aquatics/Admission Revenue
Comparables
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Comparable 5
Amount
Ratio
$3,831,122
$3,073,672
$7,628,479
$2,938,354
$2,146,240
$3,923,573
Average
H&LA 1st Year Projection
H&LA Stabilized Year Projection
$3,715,241
$4,298,363
69.0%
60.5%
50.2%
79.8%
70.6%
66.0%
Per Attendee
$13.46
$13.14
$22.45
$18.96
$3.14
$14.23
60.2%
60.9%
$8.78
$9.20
We project the indoor waterpark and the swimming pool to generate a majority of the
revenue for the facility. The facility will be the largest indoor waterpark in the state and
the region.
Tennis Revenues: This line item includes all revenues generated from the operations of
the six indoor tennis courts, the analysis of which was presented in the previous section.
The following table outlines our analysis of the subject’s tennis related revenue.
Tennis Revenue
Comparables
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Comparable 5
Amount
Average
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$297,000
$350,000
Ratio
Per Attendee
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
4.8%
5.0%
$0.70
$0.75
Velodrome Revenue: This line item includes all revenues generated from the operations
of the velodrome, the analysis of which was presented in the previous section. The
following table outlines our analysis of the subject’s velodrome related revenue.
Financial Analysis
E-4
Velodrome Revenue
Comparables
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Comparable 5
Amount
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Average
$275,000
$410,000
Ratio
Per Attendee
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
4.5%
5.8%
$0.65
$0.88
We project velodrome revenues to increase as the facility gains more recognition both
locally and nationally. We project the demand for the facility to increase with the facility
hosting national events and being designated as a national training center.
Multi-Use Field: This line item includes all revenues generated from the operations of
the velodrome infield, the analysis of which was presented in the previous section. We
have not projected any revenues related from the indoor running and jogging track,
which will be at the outer banks of the velodrome. We project the running track and
jogging track will be free for members and users of the facility. The following table
outlines our analysis of the subject’s infield related revenue.
.
Multi-Use Field Revenue
Comparables
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Comparable 5
Amount
Average
$0
$0
$0
$0
$666,671
$133,334
$135,000
$143,000
Ratio
Per Attendee
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
0.0%
$0.00
21.9%
$0.97
4.4%
$0.19
2.2%
2.0%
$0.32
$0.31
We project that on some occasions the infield will not be available due to the events at
the velodrome track. We project indoor soccer to be the primary use of the infield.
Food and Beverage Revenue: The subject will offer food service through a central food
and beverage outlet that will serve the entire facility. The food and beverage outlet will
serve quick-service food items such as hamburgers, hot dogs, pizza, and other foods.
Visitors will be required to purchase food and beverages from the outlet, and the subject
is not projected to allow people to bring in their own food and beverages. The following
table outlines our analysis of the subject’s food and beverage department revenue.
Financial Analysis
E-5
Food and Beverage Revenue
Comparables
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Comparable 5
Amount
Ratio
Per Attendee
$796,635
14.3%
$2.80
$1,219,308
24.0%
$5.21
$5,166,200
34.0%
$15.20
$648,074
17.6%
$4.18
$136,049
4.5%
$0.20
$1,593,253
18.9%
$5.52
Average
$1,200,000
$1,273,000
19.4%
18.0%
$2.84
$2.73
We have projected food and beverage revenues of $1,200,000 in total dollars or $2.84
per waterpark attendee in the first year of our analysis.
Retail Revenue: This occurs from the subject selling various retail items, including
waterpark-related items like T-shirts, swimsuits, goggles, snacks and other items. The
retail store will also act as a pro shop selling cycling and tennis related gear. The retail
store could also sell local high school and Weber State University related apparel. The
following table outlines our analysis of the subject’s retail revenue.
Retail Revenue
Comparables
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Comparable 5
Average
Amount
Ratio
Per Attendee
$212,712
3.8%
$0.75
$187,977
3.7%
$2.60
$818,400
5.4%
$2.41
$0
0.0%
$0.00
$25,550
0.8%
$0.04
$248,928
2.8%
$1.16
$250,000
$266,000
4.1%
3.8%
$0.59
$0.57
We have projected retail revenues of $250,000 in total dollars in the first year of our
analysis.
Sponsorship and Other Income (net): This line item includes all income (net)
associated with sponsorship and other income. Being the second competition level indoor
velodrome in the country, the subject management should aggressively market the
facility and find a sponsor for the facility. The sponsor is projected to get the naming
rights to the entire facility which is projected to be a multi-year contract. The line item
also includes sponsorship income from a variety of other small sponsors that will want to
affiliate with the subject property and include their company banner and information on
the velodrome track, infield, next to various slides or food and beverage outlets. The
following table outlines our analysis of the subject’s sponsorship and other income.
Financial Analysis
E-6
Sponsorships & Other Income (net)
Comparables
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Comparable 5
Amount
Ratio
Per Attendee
$713,331
12.8%
$2.51
$599,493
11.8%
$2.60
#######
10.4%
$4.65
$97,131
2.6%
$0.63
$67,157
2.2%
$0.10
$611,603
8.0%
$2.10
Average
$300,000
$318,000
4.9%
4.5%
$0.71
$0.68
We project total sponsorship and other income of $300,000.
Total Revenue: The following table indicates the comparables, and our projection of
first-year total revenue.
Total Revenue
Comparables
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Comparable 5
Average
Amount
Ratio
Per Attendee
$5,553,800
100.0%
$19.51
$5,080,450
100.0%
$23.55
$15,193,981
100.0%
$44.72
$3,683,559
100.0%
$23.76
$3,041,667
100.0%
$4.45
$6,510,691
100.0%
$23.20
$6,172,241
$7,058,363
100.0%
100.0%
$14.59
$15.11
The projected total revenues for the subject on a per waterpark attendee basis is lower
than many of the comparable properties shown due to the subject offering discounts to
Weber County residents. Although we project a private management company to operate
the facility we project that the city will impose some pricing restrictions for county
residents.
Departmental Expenses
Departmental expenses are costs borne by individual departments of the facility and can
be segmented separately. Labor costs including payroll and benefits are shown separately
as a single line item.
Food and Beverage Expenses: These expenses reflect the cost of food and beverages,
and other expenses related to the operation of the food and beverage outlet. Labor costs
are shown separately. The following table outlines our analysis of the subject’s food and
beverage department expenses.
Financial Analysis
E-7
Food & Beverage Expense
Comparables
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Comparable 5
Amount
Ratio
Per Attendee
$209,085
26.2%
$0.73
$538,934
44.2%
$2.30
$1,556,602
30.1%
$4.58
$421,248
65.0%
$2.72
$109,055
80.2%
$0.16
$566,985
49.1%
$2.10
Average
$396,000
$420,000
33.0%
33.0%
$0.94
$0.90
We have reviewed the Restaurant Industry Operations Report published by the National
Restaurant Association. According to the report, quick-service restaurants have food and
beverage expenses ranging from 27% to 35% of food and beverage revenues. We project
the subject will be at the higher end of the range and have projected an expense of
33.0% of food and beverage revenues.
Retail Expenses: This line item represents the cost of goods for the retail operations.
Labor costs are shown separately. The following table outlines our analysis of the
subject’s retail department expenses.
Retail Expense
Comparables
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Comparable 5
Average
Amount
Ratio
Per Attendee
$105,623
49.7%
$0.37
$52,822
28.1%
$0.23
$348,728
42.6%
$1.03
$0
0.0%
$0.00
$14,487
56.7%
$0.02
$104,332
35.4%
$0.33
$112,500
$120,000
45.0%
45.1%
$0.27
$0.26
We project retail expenses of 45.0% which is within the range of the comparables.
Undistributed Expenses
Undistributed operating expenses are costs borne by the entire operation and are not
attributable to any one specific department or profit center.
Labor Costs: This involves both direct and indirect labor costs such as hourly workers’
wages, management’s salaries, and taxes paid on these wages and salaries for the
waterpark operations including food and beverage, retail and parking departments. The
following table outlines our analysis of the subject’s labor department expenses.
Financial Analysis
E-8
Labor Expense
Comparables
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Comparable 5
Amount
Ratio
Per Attendee
$1,603,843
28.9%
$5.63
$1,437,767
28.3%
$6.15
$3,380,786
22.3%
$9.95
$869,499
23.6%
$5.61
$1,972,940
64.9%
$2.88
$1,852,967
33.6%
$6.05
Average
$2,376,000
$2,520,000
38.5%
35.7%
$5.62
$5.40
We have projected a labor expense figure at the higher end of the range of the
comparables on a percentage basis. Our labor expenses are based upon the following
number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff positions in each area of the proposed facility.
Projected Labor Expenses
Position
Management
Lifeguards
Ticketing/Staff/Attendants
Administrative & Marketing
Maintenance & Cleaning
Food & Beverage
Total
Number of FTE
Positions
6
35
10
4
12
15
82
Salary
$60,000
$18,000
$18,000
$45,000
$18,000
$18,000
Benefit %
40%
25%
25%
40%
25%
25%
Total
$504,000
$787,500
$225,000
$252,000
$270,000
$337,500
$2,376,000
In reality, the actual number of jobs will be higher because many aquatics and recreation
center jobs are part-time. Specifically, we estimate that the actual number of jobs
including part-time and full-time employment will be approximately two to three times the
number of full-time equivalent jobs.
Administrative and General Expenses: These expenses represent expenses for
management and administration. Administrative and general expenses include such items
as the cost of accounting and legal fees, credit card commissions, general liability
insurance, donations, and telephone charges. It excludes labor costs which are included
above. The following table outlines our analysis of the subject’s administrative and
general department expenses.
Financial Analysis
E-9
Administrative & General Expense
Comparables
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Comparable 5
Amount
Ratio
Per Attendee
$248,259
4.5%
$0.87
$376,969
7.4%
$1.61
$523,089
3.4%
$1.54
$246,976
6.7%
$1.59
$187,147
6.2%
$0.27
$316,488
5.6%
$1.18
Average
$216,028
$230,000
3.5%
3.3%
$0.51
$0.49
Some of the comparables above include management-related labor expenses. We have
projected a figure at the lower end of the range of the comparables as a percentage of
revenue and on a per attendee basis because our projections exclude labor costs.
Management related labor expenses have been included in the labor department.
Marketing Expenses: This includes the cost of advertising in various media such as
television, newspapers, magazines and directories, as well as direct mail campaigns,
billboards and miscellaneous sales and marketing expenses. It excludes labor costs which
are included above. The following table outlines our analysis of the subject’s marketing
department expenses.
Marketing Expense
Comparables
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Comparable 5
Average
Amount
Ratio
Per Attendee
$385,791
6.9%
$1.36
$436,919
8.6%
$1.87
$543,600
3.6%
$1.60
$240,141
6.5%
$1.55
$62,697
2.1%
$0.09
$333,830
5.5%
$1.29
$462,918
$491,000
7.5%
7.0%
$1.09
$1.05
We have shown higher marketing expenses because this will provide the subject with
sufficient funds to achieve the projected attendance figures and promote the property.
Management Fee: The projection for the subject’s income and expenses assumes
competent management by a professional management company. Management fees
typically range between 2% to 5% of total revenue for amusement and recreation related
properties. We have accounted for management fee of 3.0% of total revenue throughout
our analysis. Our fees assume a combination of a base and incentive management fee.
Operating Supplies: These include costs necessary for operating the waterpark, tennis,
velodrome and swimming pool, such as replacing rental equipments, nets, wristbands,
uniforms, tubes, floats, rafts, life jackets, chemicals to treat water and other supplies. The
Financial Analysis
E-10
following table outlines our analysis of the subject’s operating supplies department
expenses.
Operating Supplies Expense
Comparables
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Comparable 5
Average
Amount
Ratio
Per Attendee
$205,898
3.7%
$0.72
$263,167
5.2%
$1.13
$0
0.0%
$0.00
$259,188
7.0%
$1.67
$98,752
3.2%
$0.14
$165,401
3.8%
$0.73
$350,000
$372,000
5.7%
5.3%
$0.83
$0.80
Repair and Maintenance: This category includes expenses related to maintenance and
repairs for the entire operation. The following table outlines our analysis of the subject’s
repairs and maintenance department expenses.
Repair & Maintenance Expense
Comparables
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Comparable 5
Average
Amount
Ratio
Per Attendee
$168,556
3.0%
$0.59
$670,619
13.2%
$2.87
$324,218
2.1%
$0.95
$224,365
6.1%
$1.45
$534,013
17.6%
$0.78
$384,354
8.4%
$1.33
$350,000
$424,000
5.7%
6.0%
$0.83
$0.91
We have projected repair and maintenance expenses within the range of the
comparables. We have also projected a separate reserve for replacement.
Utilities Expenses: These represent expenditures for electricity, water pumping,
heating, fuel, water, waste removal and related operating supplies. The following table
outlines our analysis of the subject’s utilities department expenses.
Financial Analysis
E-11
Utilities Expense
Comparables
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Comparable 5
Amount
Ratio
Per Attendee
$303,362
5.5%
$1.07
$215,919
4.3%
$0.92
$664,700
4.4%
$1.96
$528,040
14.3%
$3.41
$496,789
16.3%
$0.73
$441,762
9.0%
$1.62
Average
$1,200,000
$1,452,000
19.4%
20.6%
$2.84
$3.11
As a comparison, other indoor waterparks we have studied have utilities expenses
ranging from $10 to $13 per square feet of waterpark aquatic area. Our estimate equals
$15.00 per square feet of aquatic area (80,000 square feet) which is higher than other
comparable indoor waterparks because the subject will also have tennis and velodrome
areas.
We recommend the facility management have a tight control over the heating and cooling
costs of the building. We recommend the waterpark hours be reduced during slower
periods.
Fixed Charges:
Real Estate and Property Taxes: We assume that the property will be exempt from
paying property taxes.
Building and Property Insurance: The insurance expense category includes the cost of
insuring the entire building and its contents against damage or destruction from fire,
weather, sprinkler leakage, boiler explosion, breakage, and other potential disasters. It
also includes insurance from liability from swimmer accidents. The following table outlines
our analysis of the subject’s insurance department expenses.
Insurance Expense
Comparables
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Comparable 5
Average
Amount
Ratio
Per Attendee
$165,763
3.0%
$0.58
$227,604
4.5%
$0.97
$590,000
3.9%
$1.74
$138,694
3.8%
$0.89
$85,950
2.8%
$0.13
$241,602
3.6%
$0.86
$200,000
$212,000
3.2%
3.0%
$0.47
$0.45
We have projected first year insurance expense of $200,000 or 3.2% of total revenues.
Financial Analysis
E-12
Income before Reserve: The following table indicates the comparable statements for
income before reserve.
Comparables
Comparable 1
Comparable 2
Comparable 3
Comparable 4
Comparable 5
Average
Amount
Ratio
Per Attendee
$1,479,950
26.6%
$5.20
$663,115
13.1%
$2.83
$7,062,258
46.5%
$20.78
$632,620
17.2%
$4.08
($520,163)
-17.1%
($0.76)
$1,863,556
17.3%
$6.43
$323,627
$605,612
5.2%
8.6%
$0.77
$1.30
We have projected first year income before reserve of $323,627.
Reserve for Replacement: This represents a reserve set aside to provide for the
periodic replacement of furniture, fixtures and equipment during the life of the building
and waterpark area. Although the comparables standards do not separately account for
this figure in their income statements, our financial analysis assumes that enough cash
would be available to maintain the overall condition of the subject over its useful life.
Accordingly, we have applied reserve for replacement of 4.0% of total revenues.
Inflation: The assumed 3% per annum rate of inflation for the analysis is derived by a
review of historical increase to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). To the extent that actual
rates differ from this percentage, the estimates would have to be adjusted. All revenue
and expense items were first calculated in 2013 dollars. A 3.0% growth rate was applied
to all revenue and expenses.
PROSPECTIVE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS IN INFLATED DOLLARS
The following forecasts of income and expenses reflect the subject’s anticipated
performance for 11 years beginning in 2013. We have projected that the subject
operations will stabilize in the third year and all income and expense items will increase
thereafter at the underlying inflation rate of 3.0%. All other expense ratios are expressed
as a percentage of total revenues. We have presented rounded figures to the nearest
thousand.
Financial Analysis
E-13
Prospective Financial Analysis - First Year
Aquatics Attendance
423,000
Total Attendees
Revenues:
Aquatics
Tennis
Velodrome
Multi-Use Infield
Food and Beverage
Retail/Pro Shop
Total
Cost Of Sales:
Food & Beverage
Retail
Total
Amount
$3,715,241
297,000
275,000
135,000
1,200,000
250,000
300,000
6,172,241
Ratio
60.2%
4.8%
4.5%
2.2%
19.4%
4.1%
4.9%
100.0%
423,000
Per Attendee
$8.78
$0.70
$0.65
$0.32
$2.84
$0.59
$0.71
$14.59
396,000
112,500
508,500
33.0%
45.0%
8.2%
$0.94
$0.27
$1.20
5,663,741
91.8%
$13.39
Labor
Marketing
Management Fees
Operating Supplies
Utilities
Total
2,376,000
216,028
462,918
185,167
350,000
350,000
1,200,000
5,140,114
38.5%
3.5%
7.5%
3.0%
5.7%
5.7%
19.4%
83.3%
$5.62
$0.51
$1.09
$0.44
$0.83
$0.83
$2.84
$12.15
523,627
8.5%
$1.24
Fixed Charges:
Insurance
Total
0
200,000
200,000
0.0%
3.2%
3.2%
$0.00
$0.47
$0.47
323,627
5.2%
$0.77
246,890
4.0%
$0.58
Net Income
76,737
1.2%
$0.18
98.8%
1.2%
Note: Ratio is to total revenue with exception of the cost of sales which are the ratio to their respective departmental revenues.
Net income is before other fixed charges such as interest, amortization and depreciation
Financial Analysis
E-14
Proposed Fieldhouse and Indoor Waterpark, Prospective Financial Analysis
1
2013
423,000
2
2014
444,000
3
2015
467,000
4
2016
467,000
5
2017
467,000
6
2018
467,000
7
2019
467,000
8
2020
467,000
9
2021
467,000
10
2022
467,000
11
2023
467,000
423,000
444,000
467,000
467,000
467,000
467,000
467,000
467,000
467,000
467,000
467,000
$3,715,241
$297,000
$275,000
$135,000
$1,200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$6,172,241
$3,995,708
$327,000
$351,000
$139,000
$1,236,000
$258,000
$309,000
$6,615,708
$4,298,363
$350,000
$410,000
$143,000
$1,273,000
$266,000
$318,000
$7,058,363
$4,427,314
$361,000
$467,000
$147,000
$1,311,000
$274,000
$328,000
$7,315,314
$4,560,133
$372,000
$478,000
$151,000
$1,350,000
$282,000
$338,000
$7,531,133
$4,696,937
$383,000
$492,000
$156,000
$1,391,000
$290,000
$348,000
$7,756,937
$4,837,845
$394,000
$507,000
$161,000
$1,433,000
$299,000
$358,000
$7,989,845
$4,982,981
$406,000
$522,000
$166,000
$1,476,000
$308,000
$369,000
$8,229,981
$5,132,470
$418,000
$538,000
$171,000
$1,520,000
$317,000
$380,000
$8,476,470
$5,286,444
$431,000
$554,000
$176,000
$1,566,000
$327,000
$391,000
$8,731,444
$5,445,037
$444,000
$571,000
$181,000
$1,613,000
$337,000
$403,000
$8,994,037
$396,000
$112,500
$508,500
$408,000
$116,000
$524,000
$420,000
$120,000
$540,000
$433,000
$123,000
$556,000
$446,000
$127,000
$573,000
$459,000
$131,000
$590,000
$473,000
$135,000
$608,000
$487,000
$139,000
$626,000
$502,000
$143,000
$645,000
$517,000
$147,000
$664,000
$532,000
$152,000
$684,000
$5,663,741
$6,091,708
$6,518,363
$6,759,314
$6,958,133
$7,166,937
$7,381,845
$7,603,981
$7,831,470
$8,067,444
$8,310,037
Labor
Marketing
Management Fees
Operating Supplies
Utilities
Total
$2,376,000
$216,028
$462,918
$185,167
$350,000
$350,000
$1,200,000
$5,140,114
$2,447,000
$223,000
$477,000
$198,471
$361,000
$385,000
$1,320,000
$5,411,471
$2,520,000
$230,000
$491,000
$211,751
$372,000
$424,000
$1,452,000
$5,700,751
$2,596,000
$237,000
$506,000
$219,459
$383,000
$437,000
$1,496,000
$5,874,459
$2,674,000
$244,000
$521,000
$225,934
$394,000
$450,000
$1,541,000
$6,049,934
$2,754,000
$251,000
$537,000
$232,708
$406,000
$464,000
$1,587,000
$6,231,708
$2,837,000
$259,000
$553,000
$239,695
$418,000
$478,000
$1,635,000
$6,419,695
$2,922,000
$267,000
$570,000
$246,899
$431,000
$492,000
$1,684,000
$6,612,899
$3,010,000
$275,000
$587,000
$254,294
$444,000
$507,000
$1,735,000
$6,812,294
$3,100,000
$283,000
$605,000
$261,943
$457,000
$522,000
$1,787,000
$7,015,943
$3,193,000
$291,000
$623,000
$269,821
$471,000
$538,000
$1,841,000
$7,226,821
$523,627
$680,236
$817,612
$884,854
$908,199
$935,229
$962,150
$991,081
$1,019,176
$1,051,501
$1,083,216
Fixed Charges:
Insurance
Total
$0
$200,000
$200,000
$0
$206,000
$206,000
$0
$212,000
$212,000
$0
$218,000
$218,000
$0
$225,000
$225,000
$0
$232,000
$232,000
$0
$239,000
$239,000
$0
$246,000
$246,000
$0
$253,000
$253,000
$0
$261,000
$261,000
$0
$269,000
$269,000
$323,627
$474,236
$605,612
$666,854
$683,199
$703,229
$723,150
$745,081
$766,176
$790,501
$814,216
$246,890
$264,628
$282,335
$292,613
$301,245
$310,277
$319,594
$329,199
$339,059
$349,258
$359,761
$76,737
$209,608
$323,277
$374,242
$381,954
$392,952
$403,556
$415,882
$427,117
$441,243
$454,455
Year
Aquatics Attendance
Total Attendees
Revenues:
Aquatics
Tennis
Velodrome
Multi-Use Infield
Food and Beverage
Retail/Pro Shop
Total
Cost Of Sales:
Food & Beverage
Retail
Total
Net Income
Inflation Multiple
Rate
98.8%
1.2%
96.8%
3.2%
95.4%
4.6%
94.9%
5.1%
94.9%
5.1%
94.9%
5.1%
94.9%
5.1%
94.9%
5.1%
95.0%
5.0%
94.9%
5.1%
94.9%
5.1%
1
1.03
103%
1.03
106%
1.03
109%
1.03
113%
1.03
116%
1.03
119%
1.03
123%
1.03
127%
1.03
130%
1.03
134%
Financial Analysis
E-15
We project that the facility will operate with a slight profit in the first year of operations.
We project the revenues from the velodrome to increase over the years as the facility
gains more recognition and attracts elite athletes for training from around the country.
We recommend that the facility market the indoor waterpark to the entire region as the
indoor waterpark is projected to be the strongest demand generator for the subject
facility. Most of the demand for tennis and swimming will come from Weber County
residents; however, we do project people from outside of the county to also use the
facility.
As indicated earlier, pricing is a key issue at the facility. The facility should not price
tickets and passes so low for residents that the facility cannot breakeven. However, the
facility should not price it so high that many of the county residents will not be able to
take advantage of the facility.
Certification
F-1
We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:
−
The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
−
The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported
assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased
professional analyses, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations.
−
I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this
report, and I have no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.
−
I have no bias with respect to any property that is the subject of this report or to the
parties involved with this assignment.
−
My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting
predetermined results.
−
My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the
development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors
the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated
result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of
this appraisal.
−
The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has
been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics
& Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute.
−
The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has
been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice.
−
The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating
to review by its duly authorized representatives.
−
David J. Sangree, MAI, ISHC and Nuresh Maredia have made a personal inspection of
the property that is the subject of this report.
−
Kyle Mossman and Hollie Gibbs provided significant real property appraisal or appraisal
consulting assistance to the person signing this certification.
−
As of the date of this report, David J. Sangree, MAI, ISHC has completed the
continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute.
__________________________
David J. Sangree, MAI, ISHC
President
_________________________
Nuresh Maredia
Associate
ADDENDUM I
QUALIFICATIONS
OF
HOTEL & LEISURE ADVISORS
Table of Contents
Summary of Qualifications
Section A
Services
Section B
• Market and Financial Feasibility Studies
• MAI Appraisals and Tax Appeal Appraisals
• Economic Impact Studies
• Impact Analysis
• Management Company Analysis
• Litigation Support and Witness Testimony
• Operational Analysis and Review
• Asset Management Services
• Project Development Analysis and Physical Condition
Assessment
• Other Development Services
• Seminars, Presentations, and Industry Research
Property Type Specialties
• Hotels & Resorts
• Indoor Waterpark Resorts, Waterparks,
& Amusement Parks
• Golf Courses and Ski Resorts
• Restaurants
• Conference, Convention, & Exposition Centers
Section C
Clients
• Developers & Investors
• Hotel Companies
• Lenders
• Management Companies
• Attorneys
• Others
Section D
Staff
Section E
Partial Listing of Projects by Property Type
Section F
Summary of Qualifications
A

Hotel & Leisure Advisors (H&LA) is a hospitality consulting firm specializing in appraisals,
feasibility studies, impact analyses, economic impact studies, asset management, and property
condition assessments for hotels, waterparks, resorts, golf courses, ski resorts, amusement
parks, restaurants, conference and convention centers, and other leisure real estate.

We work exclusively in the hospitality industry and concentrate our efforts on in-depth
understanding of the trends and factors related to hospitality.

We participate in industry associations and trade groups to keep us abreast of developments
affecting our clients and give us access to rich sources of data.

We follow news and transactions occurring in the hospitality industry on a daily basis.

Our consultants have more than 100 years combined experience in the hospitality industry and
have studied more than 1,000 properties throughout the United States, Canada, and Caribbean.

Our consultants analyze a variety of property types and work with clients who have many
different objectives.

We apply appropriate and detailed analysis to projects ranging from stand-alone properties to
complex multi-component developments.

The consultants of Hotel & Leisure Advisors have degrees from recognized hospitality programs at
leading universities.

All consultants participate in continuing education programs provided by appraisal and hospitality
organizations.

David J. Sangree (President) holds the MAI designation from the Appraisal Institute, is a CPA, and
is a member of the International Society of Hospitality Consultants (ISHC). Eric Hansen (Director
of Development Services) is an American Institute of Architects (AIA) member and a member of
the ISHC.

Hotel & Leisure Advisors produces comprehensive, detailed reports that meet the high standards
outlined by the Appraisal Institute and adheres to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice (USPAP).

We are members of and obtain statistical data from Smith Travel Research, PKF, World Waterpark
Association, International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, American Resort
Development Association, National Golf Foundation, National Ski Areas Association, International
Association of Assembly Managers, and National Restaurant Association.

Hotel & Leisure Advisors acquires much of its business from referrals by clients who recognize the
quality and value of our reports. We are happy to provide references on request.

Our reports are respected by clients and lenders for providing the reasoning and research behind
our conclusions.

Our consultants are quoted in the media and contribute articles to leading industry publications.
Services
B-1
Hotel & Leisure Advisors is proud to provide an extensive range of
services to our clients that can be tailored to meet specific needs. We
are interested in working with you to create a package that satisfies all
your requirements.
Market & Financial Feasibility Studies
A market and financial feasibility study is performed for proposed projects or for
existing properties being considered for significant changes. The study is an analysis of
market conditions, economic and demographic factors, site conditions, and their effects
on the proposed project. Hotel & Leisure Advisors performs a detailed analysis of
comparable properties’ performance and conditions. We research and present
information concerning properties that are closing and new supply additions. We
analyze existing and projected demand generators in the market. The study estimates
the operating performance of the proposed project and may suggest variations in size
or scope that would improve performance.
Lenders may require a feasibility study as part of a financing application. Developers,
investors, owners, and managers may use a feasibility study in their planning
processes. H&LA performs market and financial feasibility studies for all types of hotels
and leisure real estate. We perform extensive supply and demand interviews when
researching performance levels of hotels and leisure real estate within local and regional
markets. We utilize a sophisticated hospitality valuation and analysis model that
provides a detailed analysis of a market by evaluating competitive factors, several
databases of financial information, and comparisons with other similar properties and
industry standard reports. These reports are generated from Smith Travel Research,
the Host Study, PKF, IAAPA, the World Waterpark Association, the American Resort
Development Association, the National Golf Foundation, and the National Restaurant
Association.
MAI Appraisals & Tax Appeal Appraisals
An appraisal is a professional opinion of the value of a property. It is often used in the
process of obtaining financing and establishing a market value for a sale. Periodic
appraisals may be required to assess the quality of a lender’s portfolio. Appraisals are
often ordered by lenders, buyers, sellers, owners wishing to refinance, and investors.
An appraiser with the MAI designation exceeds the minimum state certification and
licensing required of all appraisers. When you hire an MAI, you are receiving the
services of a professional with specialized training and experience in the appraisal
industry who adheres to specific standards and ethics and must fulfill continuing
education requirements. David J. Sangree, MAI, CPA, ISHC, is certified by the Appraisal
Institute and licensed to conduct appraisals in Ohio and many other states. He and the
experienced staff of H&LA perform the highest quality real estate appraisal assignments
related to the hospitality industry. We also perform appraisal reviews of other
hospitality-related appraisals.
H&LA utilizes a sophisticated hospitality valuation model which provides a detailed
analysis of a market and determines the valuation for a property. Our analysis
considers the income capitalization approach, sales approach, and cost approach, with a
primary focus on the income capitalization approach for a hospitality project.
Services
B-2
A tax appeal appraisal is a specialized form of an MAI appraisal that is typically done in
relationship to a tax assessment appeal by either the government or the property
owner when wanting to determine the market value for assessment purposes.
H&LA will prepare a market value appraisal to determine the real estate component of
the going concern hospitality property. Our analysis includes a detailed review of the
market and determines the going concern valuation. We then allocate that value
among the real estate, personal property, and any business value component that may
exist. David J. Sangree, MAI, CPA, ISHC, has testified in numerous tax appeal cases in
various states for both the property owner and the government entities concerning
appraisals performed.
Economic Impact Studies
An economic impact study analyzes the financial impact a particular project will have
throughout the many levels of the economy, both locally and countywide. This impact
will include both temporary and permanent effects on the economy. Temporary
impacts will include jobs and revenues created during the construction of the facility as
well as related costs. Permanent economic impacts will be generated by permanent
jobs created, ongoing revenues realized by service providers, and other sources.
Hotel & Leisure Advisors provides economic impact studies for all types of hotels and
leisure real estate projects. Our studies identify significant economic events resulting
from construction and operations of a proposed facility, review and analyze event
patron surveys throughout the nation to estimate spending patterns, analyze relevant
municipal revenues, and project the impact on the market for the development of
proposed facilities. We estimate three types of economic impact, including Direct-Effect
Impact, Indirect or Induced Impacts, and Final Impacts on local economies. We utilize
the RIMS II multipliers for output earnings and employment by industry for the county,
which are generated by the U.S. Department of Commerce. We calculate the projected
jobs and output for the proposed development for a ten-year period. We also calculate
projected tax revenue from all sources for a ten-year period.
Impact Analysis
An impact analysis for a proposed project details the effects of that project in a market
where an existing franchise exists. An owner of an existing franchise or the franchising
company may order an impact analysis when a new franchise is being considered in an
area where similar properties are in operation.
David J. Sangree, MAI, CPA, ISHC, is on the recommended list of many hotel companies
to prepare impact analyses for their franchises. An impact analysis prepared by H&LA
provides a detailed look at the actual performance of the subject hotel and considers
demand sources for the proposed hotel. After performing various interviews in the
market, we prepare a detailed analysis that considers the potential impact the proposed
property will have on the existing property. We utilize a detailed computer-based model
to determine the existing demand at the objecting property and consider specific
demand segments that may switch to a new property if it were constructed. We
analyze potential additional demand which could come to the objecting property from
having another brand affiliation in a general market. We estimate the amount of
occupancy, average daily rate, and room revenue impact that may occur from the
Services
addition of a new property to an existing market.
incremental impact.
B-3
We estimate both base and
Management Company Analysis
A management company analysis is a review of an existing or proposed hospitality
project and the identification of appropriate management companies to consider as
operators of the facility. Hiring a qualified management company can make or break a
hotel or resort development. Spending the appropriate resources to identify the most
qualified management company is a useful analysis to perform. Hotel & Leisure
Advisors is available to assist our clients in identifying appropriate management
companies for all types of hospitality projects.
Our consultants will analyze our extensive database of management companies to find
those that are best suited for a specific project. We will obtain proposals and conduct
interviews with representatives from each company we view as potential candidates
(minimum of six). We will then prepare a profile of each management company for our
client that conveys the company’s philosophy, properties currently under management,
geographic expertise, and future pipeline of management contracts. The profile will
include an analysis of the fee structure of each company and the historical performance
of the properties each company operates. We will prepare a matrix analyzing the
advantages and disadvantages of each company. Based upon the results of this
analysis, we will utilize a scoring system to rank each of the management companies
and provide an opinion as to which companies would be the most appropriate to
interview and consider for the project.
Our goal is to provide our client with the profiles of competent and experienced
management companies that will share similar goals and vision for the project.
Litigation Support & Expert Witness Testimony
Hotel & Leisure Advisors is available to provide expert witness testimony for attorneys
in various litigation cases involving the hospitality industry or valuations. David J.
Sangree, MAI, CPA, ISHC, has testified in a number of courtrooms in various states
concerning hotel- and hospitality-related projects. As an expert witness, he provides
high level qualifications and strong research capabilities.
Operational Analysis & Reviews
The consultants of Hotel & Leisure Advisors have over 100 years of combined
experience in managing, reviewing, and operating hotels. We are available to prepare a
one-time operational analysis and review of an existing hotel to analyze areas where
the hotel is performing well and areas that are in need of improvements. Our report
considers both objective and subjective performance characteristics through our
inspection of the property and the completion of various interviews. During the course
of our research, we will interview management of the property, management of
comparable properties, clients of the property, and knowledgeable city and county
officials. We will also perform a financial review comparing the financial performance of
the subject property with industry standards and our database of over 1,000 financial
statements of hotels.
As an addition to an operational review, we are available to perform a physical condition
assessment. A physical condition assessment is an analysis that assesses the general
Services
B-4
physical condition and maintenance status of an existing building and property. This
survey provides recommendations for repair/renovation with cost estimates which
affords receivers, owners, brokers, and lenders the opportunity to improve the value of
a hotel.
Asset Management Services
For hotels requiring ongoing operational analysis, Hotel & Leisure Advisors offers asset
management services to optimize the performance of the property. Our qualified asset
managers provide additional resources for the property to improve success. We will
work with the hotel management company and the owner to optimize the value of the
hotel property. Our experienced consultants will offer specific services tailored to the
client and his/her property. Specific service offerings include market research,
operations oversight, accounting review, meetings with management, contract
negotiations, and advice on various aspects of operating and marketing the hotel
property.
As part of a yearly contract, consultants will make periodic site visits throughout the
year. During the site visit, the consultant will conduct a financial review and meet with
management concerning current performance, strategic marketing efforts, capital
expenditure plans, and any other concerns management may have. Between visits the
consultants will perform market research and financial analysis for the property. We will
evaluate the effectiveness of current marketing plans, monitor performance of the hotel
compared to the competitive set, monitor changes in the market, and conduct
performance benchmarking. We will analyze financial performance on a monthly basis
and identify areas where opportunities exist to improve performance.
As part of our asset management services, we will work with the management company
and owner in performing contract negotiations and providing advice and/or assistance
in selecting operators, franchisors, suppliers, contractors, and other outside services.
Additionally, we analyze the compliance of the hotel with loan documents, franchise
brand product improvement plans (PIP), and/or franchise agreements. Other services
may be provided on an as-needed basis.
Receivership Services: As a court-appointed trustee, H&LA acts as a receiver, controls
cash flow, and protects the operational integrity of the asset. The physical integrity of
the property is protected through capital expenditure analysis and various asset
management strategies. H&LA assists in determining the appropriate course of action
for the property, including liquidation and disposition activities if required.
Project Development Analysis and Property Condition Assessment
A project development analysis is a professional consulting service that provides
necessary and specific information for developers and owners to make informed
decisions prior to the commitment phase of a new construction or renovation project.
The project development analysis is a written, detailed complement to the feasibility
and market studies that H&LA already performs. The information gleaned is used to
communicate the vision of the project to lenders, equity investors, and design
professionals prior to their engagements. The information also details the specific
jurisdictional protocols necessary for development and identifies potential issues that
will need to be addressed.
Services
B-5
A physical condition assessment is an analysis that assesses the general physical
condition and maintenance status of an existing building and property. This survey
provides recommendations for repair/renovation with cost estimates. This survey gives
receivers, owners, and lenders the opportunity to stabilize and protect the value of their
hotels. Additionally, brokers can utilize hotel physical condition assessment surveys to
enhance their property offering materials.
Hotel & Leisure Advisors performs project development analyses and physical condition
assessment reports for all types of hotels and leisure real estate. As Director of
Development Services for Hotel & Leisure Advisors, Eric B. Hansen, AIA, ISHC, is a
licensed architect and hospitality consultant. He and his staff leverage their knowledge
of the development process and their financial acumen to assess and communicate the
appropriate direction for a project.
Other Development Services
Hotel & Leisure Advisors performs other development related services on an as-needed
basis. For site analyses and reviews, we research potential locations for lodging and
leisure facilities, prepare a detailed analysis on the location, and review performance of
comparable properties. Studies include analyzing traffic counts, access to the site,
visibility, proximity and travel time, nearby visitor attractions, nearby corporate and
group demand generators, and access to convention and event facilities. We analyze
primary leisure, group, and commercial attractions and organizations within the market
to identify distances from the site to potential demand generators.
Hotel & Leisure Advisors also provides the following development services:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Site Verification
RFQ/RFP Preparation
Hotel Brand Facilitator
Hotel Brand Selection Assistance
Hotel Brand Compliance Services
Product Research Assistance
Our services help the developer, corporate brand franchisor, and/or owner with their
development needs.
Seminars, Presentations, and Industry Research
David J. Sangree, MAI, CPA, ISHC, and Eric Hansen, AIA, ISHC have presented at
seminars for a range of national hotel, waterpark, and amusement conferences. The
consultants of H&LA are available to lead seminars and presentations for various
organizations concerning hospitality industry topics or about a specific topic for a
company or organization.
Hotel & Leisure Advisors is available to prepare industry research concerning the
hospitality industry on a wide range of topics. Our consultants have written numerous
publications about various topics in the hospitality industry, including indoor waterpark
resorts, hotel capitalization rates, hotel impact studies, management fees in hotels,
overviews on various markets within the United States, and other topics. We are
available to prepare specific research concerning a requested topic.
C-1
Hotel & Leisure Advisors is a hospitality consulting firm specializing in
hotels, resorts, outdoor and indoor waterparks, amusement parks, golf
courses, restaurants, conference and convention centers, ski resorts, and
other leisure real estate. Our focus on these property types provides our
clients with access to the latest hospitality industry trends and resources.
Our experience with these property types allows us to analyze your
project within the broader hospitality industry context and give you more
meaningful reports.
Hotels & Resorts
Limited-Service Hotels  Select-Service Hotels  Full-Service Hotels  All Suite Hotels 
Extended Stay Hotels  Resorts  Condominium Hotels  Timeshare Resorts  Casino
Hotels  Spa Hotels  Ski Resorts ● Fractional Hotels




We have studied more than 1,000 existing and proposed hotels and resorts in
more than 45 states since 1987.
We have analyzed hotel and resort markets throughout the United States,
Canada, and the Caribbean
We have experience with a wide range of property types and hotel franchises
We have databases of thousands of hotel and resort financial statements, sales
comparables, and performance data to provide us with actual operating
information.
Indoor Waterpark Resorts, Waterparks, & Amusement Parks
Indoor Waterpark Resorts  Indoor Waterparks  Outdoor Waterparks  Amusement
Parks




David Sangree, MAI, CPA, ISHC, is a recognized national expert on indoor
waterpark resorts and has visited most of the open waterpark properties in the
United States and Canada.
David Sangree has been a featured speaker and roundtable participant at
industry conferences sponsored by the World Waterpark Association,
International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, Aquatics
Magazine, and the International Society of Hospitality Consultants.
He has performed more than 200 studies of hotels and resorts with indoor
waterparks since 1999, when indoor waterparks were first proposed in the
United States outside of the Wisconsin Dells.
The firm has analyzed a range of outdoor waterparks and amusement parks with
annual attendance from 50,000 to over 2,000,000 people.
Golf Courses
Golf Courses  Golf Course Resorts  Country Clubs



We have analyzed stand-alone golf courses, golf course resorts, and golf course
residential developments in 14 states.
Our consultants are members of the National Golf Foundation.
We maintain databases of golf course financial statements and golf course sales
comparables.
C-2
Ski Resorts



We have studied a wide range of ski resorts in the northeastern United States.
Our consultants are members of the National Ski Areas Association.
We maintain databases of ski resort financial statements and sales comparables.
Restaurants
Restaurants in Hotels  Stand-Alone Restaurants



We have analyzed a wide range of restaurants throughout the United States.
Our staff has extensive work experience in a wide range of restaurants and
hotels.
We have experience with both high-end and chain-style restaurants.
Conference, Convention, & Exposition Centers
Conference Centers  Convention
Amphitheaters  Fairgrounds



Centers

Exposition
Centers

Arenas

We have conducted studies on larger conference and convention centers located
in major metropolitan areas, as well as smaller conference centers in hotels.
We have experience with both stand-alone facilities and centers connected with
hotels.
We have performed feasibility studies for proposed facilities and appraisals of
existing centers.
Analysis Methods
The consultants of Hotel & Leisure Advisors gather data from many
sources and conduct thorough analyses for reports prepared for all
property types. The following is a representative list of the functions that
may be performed in the preparation of a consulting study or appraisal:







Analyze in detail the local and regional markets for the project
Review the overall development and projected development within the
neighborhood
Assess the economic and demographic factors of the general area to determine
the economic environment of the subject and the sources from which business is
generated within the area. This will include a review of the local and larger
region’s
population,
household
growth,
employment,
income
levels,
transportation, etc.
Consider supply and demand changes, cyclical patterns, and potential growth in
the market
Evaluate trends in the supply of and demand for hospitality properties to
forecast future supply and demand situations
Collect data about existing primary and secondary competition through
interviews, financial statements, and public information
Determine new supply proposed for a market area using our databases of
proposed and under construction properties and other resources








C-3
Conduct demand interviews with individuals, groups, and corporations that are
potential users of the new property
Perform detailed analyses of demand generators within the market, potential
demand generators which may be coming into the market, and those which may
be leaving the market
Analyze pricing and usage at comparable facilities
Utilize a complex computer-based model to synthesize gathered data into
projections about demand, rates, usage, and financial performance
Analyze historical performance of comparable properties contained in our various
databases
Utilize income capitalization approach, sales comparison approach, and cost
approach as applicable when doing market value appraisals
Allocate going concern value among real estate, personal property and business
values for appraisals
Review sizing and components planned for proposed development and
recommend changes for feasibility studies
Resources
Hotel & Leisure Advisors’ unique position in the hospitality industry
allows us to access many resources that give more depth to the reports
we prepare for our clients. We utilize the following resources:















Reliable contacts with developers, lenders, architects, and franchise companies
that provide information on performance, fees, and new supply information
Financial statements database of more than 1,000 hotels and resorts throughout
the United States and Canada
Hotel sales database that contains more than 5,000 different sales across a wide
range of prices
Financial statements database and sales database for existing indoor waterpark
resorts
Frequently updated list of new indoor waterpark resorts proposed in the U.S. and
Canada
World Waterpark Association and the International Association of Amusement
Parks and Attractions memberships, which provide extensive data and research
concerning indoor and outdoor waterparks, amusement parks, and family
entertainment centers
Financial and usage databases for outdoor waterparks, amusement parks, and
family entertainment centers
Smith Travel Research, PKF Trends, Lodging Econometrics, and other hotel data
sources
Golf course financial statements and golf course sales database
Statistical data concerning the performance of golf courses from National Golf
Foundation, Pellucid, and others
Ski Resort financial statements database and ski resort sales database
Ski resort data from National Ski Areas Association, RRC Associates, and others
National Restaurant Association and related statistical restaurant data
International Association of Assembly Managers, Meetings Magazine, Tradeshow
Week, and other sources that profile the meetings industry
American Resort Development Association membership that provides extensive
information concerning timeshare and fractional interest resorts
C-4
Our consultants continue to find additional resources that provide valuable information
for our clients and the respective projects we are analyzing.
Clients
D-1
Hotel & Leisure Advisors works with a wide range of developers,
investors, hotel companies, lenders, management companies, attorneys,
and others in providing appraisals, market feasibility studies, impact
studies, and other consulting reports. The following lists include clients
served by the consultants of H&LA at various firms.
If you would like specific references relevant to your type of project, please contact us.
Developers & Investors
ABN Realty Company, LLC
Acheson Ventures
Action Pittsburgh, LLC
Ameri Shal Investments
American Property Hospitality Management
Aquatic Resorts & Entertainment
Asha Companies
Atrium Holding Company
Audubon Land Development Co.
BBL Construction Services
Bedford Development
Beta West, Ltd.
Bettendorf Development Corp.
Big Water Resort
Blue Dolphin Development
Blue Sky Development
Brandicorp
Brenda Lawson, LLC
Brooklyn Hospitality
The Burke Group
BVT-Akins
Carlson Development
Casa de Mijos Ltd
Casino RV Resort, Inc.
The Catlett Corporation
CB Richard Ellis
CDA Hospitality, LLC
Chehalis Tribal Enterprises
Charter Township of Lansing
Chippewa Partners, LLC
CNL Lifestyle Corp
Columbus Zoo and Aquarium
Corporex Realty & Investment Corp.
The Cortex Alliance, LLC
Cross Holdings
Crystal Golf Resort
Cumberland Development
C.W. Craig
David Gross Contracting Corp.
DBG Enterprises
David Thie & Associates
Dial Companies
Dolphins Stadium
Eastdil Realty
Emmco Corporation
Equity Real Estate Group
EV Bishoff Company
EVS Consulting Inc.
Excel Hospitality
Farda Associates
Felcor Lodging Trust
Flats East Development Company
Focus Development
Forest City Enterprises
Further Lane Securities
G Hospitality Group
General Electric Capital Corporation
Georgia Land and Commercial Solutions
The Georgetown Company
Giambrone Companies
GK Development, Inc
Glenmoor Country Club
Glen Properties
Golf Management Services Corp.
Greenleaf Co.
Haberhill, LLC
Heritage Development Company
Heritage Hills Golf Resort
Highlander Properties
Hollister Interchange Resort Development, LLC
Horizon Development Co.
Hotel Development Services, LLC
Howes Caverns
HP Development, LLC
Resorts II, LLC
HRS
Hunter Hospitality, LLC
Indiana Motel Developers, Inc.
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Indicom Appraisal Associates
Inner-Urban Homes & Hospitality, LLC
iPro Realty Ltd
Iskalo Development Corp.
JJR
JMD Management, LLC
Kel Cross, Inc.
Kiebler Recreations LLC
Kirkland Development
Kobe Realty, LLC
Konover Companies
Krishna Akron Hospitality
KSL Capital Partners
Lake Michigan Resorts
Lake Rudolph Campground and RV Resort
Lemery Greisler, LLC
Lost Island Waterpark
Mar Holdings, LLC
Martin Capital Group
Maxwell Development & Construction
McArdle Enterprises
MDA Hospitality Consultants
Meadowview Development, LLC
Clients
Millbrook First Nation Economic Development
Corp.
Momentum Commercial Real Estate
Monsoon Lagoon
Moody National Companies
Mountain Manor Development Company
Moyar Enterprises
Murphy, McEnery & Company, LLC
Nationwide Realty
NeuBridge, LLC
NK Enterprises, LLC
Otsego Club
Paer Ahnert Enterprises
Palm Springs Real Estate Services
Peak Resorts Inc. & Affiliates
Peeples Business Development
Peerless Group
Pegasus Partners, LLC
Petro Environmental Tech., Inc.
Pharmacia & Upjohn
Pioneer Companies
Pittsburgh Mills Limited Partnership
Platinum Realty Holdings
Platinum Ridge Properties
Playhouse Square Center
Pomeroy Enterprises
Port Hospitality, LLC
Powder Ridge White Water Mountain Resorts
Puller Group, Inc.
Quinn Evans Architects
Rand, LLC
RCI Consulting dba Ragatz Consulting
Real Estate Investors of Decatur, LLC
Reed Hill, LLC
Resort at Split Rock
Riverpointe South Hotel Partners, LLC
Riversedge Development Corp.
R&R Global Hospitality
RSK Properties
Rymine Properties
Sanford Associates
Schacet Companies
Scott Enterprises
SDC University Circle Developer
Shani Corporation
D-2
Sheboygan Development Corporation
Shield Hotel Management
Shelter Canadian Properties Limited
Silver Companies
Skipper Marine Corporation
Skowron Real Estate
Skyline Plaza Development
Smiley’s Fun Zone
Smokin’ Joe’s
Snavely Development Co.
Somerset Plaza Partners, LLC
Splash Zone
Stark Enterprises
Stonehenge Real Estate
Strategic Growth Company
Street Corner Group
Structured Development, LLC
Sultans Run Golf Course
Sunshine Home Development, Inc.
Tarbell Management Group
Tee Bar Corporation
Thunder Enterprises
Timothy Harvey Properties
Towne Development Group, Ltd.
Tri-Hotels, Inc.
Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh
Vandermolen Recreational
Vandyne Enterprises
Vedder Price
Vista Research
Vitale Realty Advisors
VMS Realty
Wasatch Spectrum
Waterpark H2O
Water Technology Inc.
Wave House Belmont Park, LLC
Waveloch, Inc.
Waves of Fun
Waveyard Resort
Weingart Development Company
Wells Fargo RETECHS
Westshore Improvement, LLC
Wilderness Ventures
Win Sum Ski Corp.
Windsor Capital Group, Inc.
Hotel Companies
American Youth Hostels
Bertram Inn and Conference Center
Best Western City View Motor Inn
Best Western International
BMV Hospitality
Boykin Lodging Co.
BRE/Homestead Village, LLC
Buffalo Lodging Associates
Choice Hotels
Choice Hotels International
Columbia Sussex
Comfort Inn
Comfort Inn North
Continental Wingate
Côte Family Companies
Days Inns Worldwide, Inc.
Dillon International
Dollywood Company
Erie County Hoteliers Association
Felcor Lodging Trust
Floridian Motel
Focus Hotels
The Galbreath Company
Gaylord Entertainment
Glenmoor Country Club
The Great Lakes Companies, Inc.
Great Wolf Resorts
Great Northern Resorts Limited
Harrison Inn
HD Hotels
Historic Roberts Hotel, LLC
Holiday Inn Express
Clients
Holiday Inns and Resorts
Homestead Village
Host Hotels and Resorts
The Hotel Group
InterContinental Hotels Group
JW Marriott
Kalahari Resorts
Keswick Hall and Golf Club
Lodgian, Inc.
Marriott International, Inc.
New Castle Hotel Group
Orient Express Hotels
P & G Hospitality Group
Peak Resorts, Inc.
Radius Hospitality
Ramada Franchise Systems, Inc.
D-3
Ritz Carlton Hotels
Roscoe Village Inn
RSDS Hotel Group
Sage Hospitality Resources
Scott Enterprises
The Sea Hotel Company, LLC
Seven Springs Mountain Resort
Sheraton Suites
Starboard Hospitality, LLC
Sunstone Hotel Investors
Walden Country Inn
Wave Pointe Marina and Resort
White Lodging Services
Wilderness Resort
Willow Valley Resort
Wyndham Hotels & Resorts
Lenders
Allstate Appraisal, LP
American National Bank
Anglo Irish Boston Corporation
Associated Bank National Association
Banc One Capital Corporation
Bancorp South
BankFirst Corp
Bank Midwest
Bank of America
Bank of Arizona
Bank of Nova Scotia
Bank One
BB Syndication Services
Bremer Bank
Cambridge Capital
Capital One Bank
Capmark Finance, Inc.
Capstone Realty Advisors
Cardinal Investment Company
Charter One Bank
Chase Commercial Mortgage Banking
Chase Manhattan Bank
Chase Real Estate Finance Group
Chemical Bank of New York
CIBC
CIT Small Business Lending
Citicapital Small Business Finance
Citicorp Real Estate, Inc.
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.
Citizens Financial Bank
City National Bank of West Virginia
CNL Lifestyle Company
Comerica Bank
The Commercial Capital Group, Ltd.
Criimi Mae Services
Deutsche Bank
Dougherty Funding
FDIC
Fifth Third Bank
First Bank of Arizona
First Community Financial
First National of America
First Place Bank
First Savings Bank of Perkasie
First Service PGP Valuation
Five Star Commercial Mortgage
GE Capital Franchise Finance
GE Capital Real Estate
GE Franchise Finance Corporation
General Electric Capital Corporation
GMAC Commercial Mortgage
GMAC Hospitality Division
Grand Pacific Financing Corporation
Greenwich Capital
Greenwich Capital Financial Products, Inc.
Horizon Bank
Huntington National Bank
Indianapolis Bond Bank
Infinity Commercial Capital
iStar Financial, Inc.
Key Bank
Legg Mason Real Estate Capital, Inc.
Lehman Brothers
Marine Bank
Marshall BankFirst
Marshall Group
Marshall Investments
Merrill Lynch Capital
Metropolitan Life
Michigan Commerce Bank
Midland Loan Services
Mortgage Company of Indiana
M&I Bank
M&T Bank
Nara Bank
NationsBank Corporation
Nationwide Insurance
Newbridge Capital Group
Nomura Capital
Ocwen Financial Corp.
Ohio Equities, Inc.
Orix Capital Market, LLC
Overseas Chinese Bank
Peoples Bank of Western Pennsylvania
PNC/National City Bank
Promac
Prudential Realty Group, Inc.
Rockbridge Capital, Inc.
Clients
S & T Bank
Salomon Brothers Realty Corporation
Sky Bank
Southwest Bank
Standard Bank and Trust Co.
Stearns Bank NA
Stonehenge Holdings, Inc.
Summit Financial Group
D-4
Tennessee Commerce Bank
UPS Capital Business Credit
US Bank
Vanguard Financial Company
Washington Mutual
Wells Fargo Retechs
Wheeling National Bank
Management Companies
Alliance Hospitality, Inc.
American Hospitality Management Company
Babson Capital Management, LLC
Brilyn, Inc.
Cedar Fair
CK Capital Management
Concord Columbus Limited Partnership
Concord Hospitality Enterprises Company
DBG Enterprises, Inc.
First Hospitality Company, LLC
Galbreath Company
H & W Management, Inc.
Hostmark Hospitality Group
Huron Partners
Impac Hotel Group
Keller Enterprises
Landcor Hospitality
Lend Lease Asset Management, LLP
Lexington Management Corporation
Madden Group, Inc.
Meander Hospitality Group
Moreland Management
Shree Radha Krishna
Tarbell Management Group
Wilson Hotel Management Company, Inc.
Attorneys
Auble, Jolicoeur & Gentry
AVTI
Baker & Hostetler
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz
Brindza McIntyre & Seed
Britton Smith Peters & Kalail, Co., LPA
Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin
Cohen & Grigsby
Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP
Fabyanske Westron Hart & Thompson
Feil, Pettit & Williams, Esq
Goldstein Goldstein Rikon & Gottlieb
Holliday Fenoglio Fowler, LP
Kohrman Jackson Krantz
Lemery Greisler, LLC
Loniello, Johnson & Simonini
Lowe, Gray, Steele & Darko, LLP
McDonald, Carano, Wilson, LLP
McDonald, Illig, Jones & Britton
McDonald Hopkins, LLC
Murphy Desmond S.C.
Murray, Murphy, Moul & Basil, LLP
Paul Roland Law Offices
Payne & Hodous
Piper Rudnick
Plunkett & Cooney, P.C.
Schottenstein Zox & Dunn
Schuler, Plank, Morgan & Braham
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
Thompson Hine
Weiss, Berzowski, Brady & Donahue
Whalen & Compton
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP
Yukevich, Calfo & Cavanaugh
Others
Allstate Appraisal L.P.
Blue & Co., LLC
BTL SR Toledo, Inc.
City Club of Gastonia
City of Port Clinton
Clark County Fairgrounds
Clear Channel Entertainment
Columbus Convention & Visitors Bureau
Columbus Redevelopment Commission
Columbus Regional Airport Authority
Columbus Zoo and Aquarium
Contemporary Technologies
Continental Companies
Continental Valuations
Five Seasons Country Clubs
Fort Findlay Brewing Company
Franklin County Convention Facilities
Grobmyer Associates
Interwestern of Ohio
I-X Center Corporation
Kelsey Foods, Inc.
Landauer Associates, Inc.
Landauer Hospitality Group
Lawrenceburg Redevelopment Commission
Life Start Wellness Network
Lodging Hospitality
Lorain County Metropolitan Park District
Marion Cando
Clients
Marshall County Chamber of Commerce
Meridian Pacific, Ltd.
Michigan State University
Middletown Convention & Visitors Bureau
MTB Corporation
Ohio Department of Transportation
Ohio State University at Newark
Orion Consulting Inc.
P & S, LLC
Pinnacle Advisory Group
Piqua Improvement Corporation
PKF Consulting
Redevelopment Authority of the County of
Washington
D-5
Reed & Associates
Revere Local School District
Shaker Associates Limited
Sierra Liberty Associates
Solid Waste Authority
Suburban Press, Inc.
Swaco
Thalen Boyd Emery Architects
The Trust for Public Land
Vanguard Appraisal, Inc.
Vedant, Inc.
Warnick & Company, LLC
Warren Township Assessor’s Office
Wave2Wave Communications, Inc.
Zapis Communications
Staff
E-1
Hotel & Leisure Advisors is a team of qualified appraisal professionals and
support staff with more than 100 combined years of experience in the
hospitality industry. Our knowledge of hospitality industry trends, access
to superb resources, and experience result in detailed, functional, and
informative reports for our clients.
David J. Sangree, MAI, CPA, ISHC - President
Mr. Sangree’s expertise is in the appraisal and analysis of hotels, resorts, indoor and
outdoor waterparks, amusement parks, conference centers, golf courses, restaurants,
ski resorts, and other leisure real estate. He has performed studies on more than 1,000
existing and proposed hotels throughout North America in all price ranges, including
economy, full-service, extended-stay, luxury hotels, resorts, and indoor waterpark
resorts. He has extensive experience in performing market studies, feasibility and
impact analyses, appraisals, financial analyses, and site selection. Since 1987, Mr.
Sangree has provided consulting services to banks, hotel companies, developers,
management companies, and other parties involved in the lodging and leisure sectors
throughout the United States, Canada, and the Caribbean.
Mr. Sangree was formerly employed by US Realty Consultants in Cleveland and
Columbus, Pannell Kerr Forster in Chicago, and Westin Hotels in Chicago, New York,
Fort Lauderdale, and Cincinnati. Mr. Sangree received his Bachelor of Science degree
from Cornell University School of Hotel Administration in 1984.
He has spoken at many seminars throughout the United States, has written numerous
articles, and is frequently quoted in magazines and newspapers about the hospitality
and waterpark industry. He has appeared on Good Morning America and CNBC in
segments profiling resorts and waterparks. In 2008, Mr. Sangree was named one of
Aquatics International Magazine’s “Power 25,” an annual list of professionals it deems
the most powerful people in the aquatics industry. Mr. Sangree was profiled as one of
the first consultants serving the waterpark resort industry and for his expertise and
experience in shaping some of the latest industry trends.
Eric B. Hansen, AIA, ISHC – Director of Development Services
Mr. Hansen’s expertise is in performing appraisals, market feasibility studies, property
condition assessments, project development analysis, and impact studies for hotels,
resorts, waterparks, golf courses, conference centers, and other hospitality properties.
Mr. Hansen offers 16 years of hospitality experience, working throughout the United
States to provide consulting and architectural services for the hospitality industry. Along
with skills in performing consulting reports and designing hospitality properties, he has
expertise in performing site planning and development services, planning and zoning
expert witness testimony, jurisdictional due diligence, and PIP analysis. He has worked
with various major hotel company corporate offices and has extensive knowledge of
brand criteria.
Mr. Hansen received his Bachelor of Architecture from the University of Cincinnati in
1989 and a certification in Hotel Financial Management from the Cornell University
School of Hotel Administration Professional Development Program in 2007. Mr. Hansen
was formerly employed by Cole + Russell Architects, Inc., as the Director of the C+RA
Hospitality Studio. As an eighteen-year hospitality consultant and architect with a
Staff
E-2
foundation in financial management, appraisal theory, and hospitality consulting, Mr.
Hansen brings well-rounded expertise to various H&LA assignments and assists clients
with their pre-development, consulting, and valuation needs.
Joseph Pierce - Senior Associate
Mr. Pierce performs appraisals, market feasibility studies, economic impact studies and
impact studies throughout North America for a wide range of hospitality properties. He
has been a hospitality consultant and appraiser since 2003. He has a wide range of
experience in operations and accounting for hotels and resorts. Mr. Pierce has been a
Controller and Director of Finance and Accounting for Clarion, Renaissance, Marriott,
and Westin Hotels. He also managed The Talbott Hotel, an independently-owned hotel
in Chicago. Mr. Pierce received an MBA from Michigan State University’s hospitality
program in 1981 and a Bachelor of Science in Accounting from the State University of
New York at Brockport in 1978.
Laurel A. Keller – Senior Associate
Ms. Keller performs appraisals, market feasibility studies, and impact studies
throughout North America for a wide range of hospitality properties. She has been a
hospitality consultant and appraiser since 2001. She is active in valuations and
consulting for hotels, resorts, golf courses, ski resorts, timeshare resorts, and other
leisure-oriented income-producing properties. She has held management positions with
the Sheraton Cleveland Airport Hotel, the Sheraton Cleveland City Center Hotel, the
Avon Oaks Country Club in Avon, Ohio, and the Onwentsia Country Club in Lake Forest,
Illinois. Ms. Keller received her Bachelor of Science in Hospitality Management from
Purdue University in 1997. She is a state certified Commercial Real Estate Appraiser in
Ohio.
Nuresh Maredia – Associate
Mr. Maredia performs appraisals, market feasibility studies, economic impact studies,
and impact studies throughout North America for a wide range of hotels, waterparks,
amusement parks, ski resorts, family entertainment centers, timeshare resorts, and
other leisure real estate. He has a wide range of experience in hotels and resorts. He
has worked in management positions at a hotel and restaurant in Texas and has also
helped operate and manage four independent hotels in and around Mumbai, India. Mr.
Maredia received a Masters of Science in Hospitality Business in 2005 and a Bachelor of
Arts in Business Finance in 2003 from Michigan State University.
Chantal Ge Wu – Associate
Ms. Wu performs appraisals, market feasibility studies, and impact studies throughout
North America for a wide range of hospitality properties. She spent three years with
Ernst & Young’s U.S. and China practices as a corporate tax accountant and business
advisory consultant prior to joining H&LA. She also obtained hotel operations
experience from Hyatt Regency Crown Center in Kansas City, Missouri and the Statler
Hotel in Ithaca, New York. Ms. Wu received a Master of Management in Hospitality from
the School of Hotel Administration at Cornell University in 2010 and a Bachelor of
Science in Business Administration from the Walter A. Haas School of Business at the
University of California, Berkeley in 2006.
Staff
E-3
Kyle Mossman – Senior Research Analyst
Mr. Mossman researches various hospitality-related topics for the firm and performs
reviews and math checks of reports. He is a 1999 graduate of Otterbein College and
obtained his Master's Degree in Library and Information Science from Kent State
University in 2006.
Laura M. Sangree – Business Manager
Mrs. Sangree manages accounting, human resources, and technology functions for
Hotel & Leisure Advisors. She performs reviews and math checks of reports and
conducts research on various topics. She received an MBA from the University of
Chicago in 1988 and a Bachelor of Arts from The College of Wooster in 1984.
Heidi Banak – Research Analyst/Administrative Assistant
Ms. Banak provides administrative support, conducts hospitality research, and performs
reviews and math checks of reports. She manages our website and other
communications and assists with marketing. She received a Bachelor of Arts from Kent
State University in 2003.
Hollie Gibbs – Research Analyst
Ms. Gibbs provides research and administrative support to Hotel & Leisure Advisors’
staff members and performs reviews and math checks of reports. She received her
Bachelor of Science degree in Journalism and Mass Communication from Kent State
University in 1998.
BY
PARTIAL LIST OF HOTELS AND RESORTS APPRAISED OR STUDIED
CONSULTANTS OF HOTEL & LEISURE ADVISORS AT VARIOUS FIRMS
ARIZONA
Radisson Inn (proposed)
Stonington
Connecticut Grand Hotel
Waterbury
HoJo Inn
Flagstaff
Courtyard by Marriott (Proposed)
Goodyear
Ramada Inn
Goodyear
FLORIDA
Proposed Resort
Mesa
Sea Turtle Inn
Atlantic Beach
Courtyard by Marriott
Phoenix
Proposed G Resorts
Fort Lauderdale
Residence Inn (Proposed)
Phoenix
Proposed Hotel
Fort Lauderdale
TownPlace Suites
Phoenix
Pink Shell Resort
Fort Myers Beach
Residence Inn
Scottsdale
Proposed Hotel
Fort Myers
Residence Inn – Mayo Clinic
Scottsdale
Value Place Hotel
Proposed Candlewood Suites
Tolleson
Fairfield Inn
Proposed Hotel Indigo
Tolleson
Proposed Resort
Yuma
Best Western
Fort Myers
Fort Walton
Beach
Fort Walton
Beach
Fort Walton
Beach
Fort Walton
Beach
Jacksonville
Hampton Inn (proposed)
Jacksonville
Fort Walton Beach Hotel
Hampton Inn
ARKANSAS
DoubleTree Guest Suites
Bentonville
Holiday Inn
Jacksonville
Hilton Inn
Little Rock
CALIFORNIA
Comfort Park Suites
Anaheim
Embassy Suites
Arcadia
Econolodge
Bakersfield
Quality Inn
Bakersfield
Chase Suite Hotel
Brea
Woodfin Suites Hotel
Cypress
Proposed Cambria Suites
El Segundo
Woodfin Suites
Emeryville
Horizon Casino Resort
Lake Tahoe
Desert Springs JW Marriott Resort
Proposed Fractional Condo
Complex
La Costa Resort
Palm Desert
Palm Springs
Proposed Resort
San Diego
Woodfin Suites Hotel
San Diego
San Diego
COLORADO
Proposed Resort
Colorado Springs
Renaissance Hotel
Colorado Springs
Residence Inn
Colorado Springs
Courtyard-Cherry Creek
Denver
Fairfield Inn
Denver
Proposed Residence Inn
Denver
Proposed Resort
Keystone
Howard Johnson Express Inn
Kissimmee
Banana Bay Resort
Marathon
Homewood Suites
Miami
Sagamore, the Art Hotel
Miami Beach
Ritz Carlton
Naples
Sheraton (proposed)
North Naples
Four Points by Sheraton
Orlando
Holiday Inn
Orlando
Howard Johnson Express
Orlando
Lake Buena Vista Hotel
Orlando
Marriott Orlando World Center
Orlando
Quality Inn Airport
Orlando
South Seas Resort (proposed)
Orlando
Panama City
Beach
Saint Petersburg
Panama City Beach Hotel
Saint Petersburg-Marina Cove
Proposed Hotel
Courtyard by Marriott –
Sarasota/Bradenton
Courtyard by Marriott – University
Town Center (Proposed)
Residence Inn
Sarasota
Sarasota
Springhill Suites
Sarasota
Dolcevita Resort
Singer Island
Sarasota
Sarasota
Chase Suite Hotel
Tampa
Comfort Suites
Tampa
Days Inn
West Palm Beach
GEORGIA
CONNECTICUT
Proposed Resort
East Hartford
Clarion/Doubletree
Norwalk
Hampton Inn
Rocky Hill
Updated August 2010
Page 1 of 14
Proposed Courtyard Marriott
Embassy Suites
Alpharetta
Crowne Plaza Ravinia
Atlanta
Harvey Hotel - Powers Ferry
Atlanta
BY
HI Sunspree Resort Brand Analysis
Atlanta
Embassy Suites
East Peoria
Holiday Inn - Airport South
Atlanta
Atlanta
Atlanta
Proposed Resort
Proposed Holiday Inn Indoor Water
Resort
Proposed Hilton Garden Inn
East Peoria
Holiday Inn Express
Holiday Inn Express - Cobb
Galleria
Radisson Expert Witness
Atlanta
Best Western Midway Motor Lodge
Elk Grove Village
Radisson Hotel College Park
Atlanta
Holiday Inn
Elk Grove Village
Radisson Hotel
Atlanta
Sheraton Suites
Elk Grove Village
Radisson Hotel Airport
Atlanta
Holiday Inn
Elmhurst
Radisson Hotel NorthLake
Atlanta
Fox Lake Resort (proposed)
Fox Lake
Residence Inn - Midtown
Atlanta
Holiday Inn
Glen Ellyn
Ritz-Carlton – Atlanta/Buckhead
Atlanta
Gurnee
Ritz-Carlton – Atlanta/Downtown
Ritz-Carlton – Atlanta/Midtown
(Proposed)
Hotel & Indoor Waterpark
(Proposed)
Best Western (proposed)
Atlanta
Hoffman Estates
Atlanta
Key Lime Cove Resort
Full-Service Hotel at Sears
(proposed)
Holiday Inn
Buford
Hilton Garden Inn
Kankakee
Best Western
Best Western & Denny’s
Restaurant
Holiday Inn Express
Port West Worth
Savannah
Savannah
Smyrna
IDAHO
Effingham
Effingham
Itasca
Best Western Inn
La Grange
Hilton Garden Inn (proposed)
Mattoon
Mattoon Conference Center
Mattoon
Proposed Resort
Mokena
Fairfield Inn – Normal
Normal
Holiday Inn
Normal
Adam’s Mark Hotel
Northbrook
Holiday Inn Airport
Boise
Northbrook Hilton
Northbrook
Holiday Inn Express
Hotel & Indoor Waterpark Resort
(Proposed)
Hayden
Wyndham Garden
Oak Brook
Post Falls
Holiday Inn Brandywine
Peoria
Holiday Inn City Center
Peoria
Signature Inn
Peoria
Bloomington
Fairfield Inn – Rockford
Rockford
Hawthorn Suites
Bloomington
Doubletree O’Hare
Rosemont
Holiday Inn
Bloomington
Holiday Inn O’Hare
Rosemont
Signature Inn
Bloomington
Waves of Fun
Sandwich
Proposed Hotel
Bolingbrook
Schiller Park
Proposed Bridgeview Hotel
Bridgeview
Holiday Inn Express (proposed)
Schiller Park
Proposed Hotels
Bridgeview
Howard Johnson at O’Hare
Schiller Park
Hawthorn Suites Hotel
Champaign
Holiday Inn
Schaumberg
Chicago
Hyatt Place
Schaumberg
Chicago
Marriott Schaumburg
Schaumberg
Chicago
Best Western
Urbana
Omni Hotel (proposed)
Chicago
Villa Park
Proposed Boutique Hotel
Chicago
Proposed Full-Service Hotel
Chicago
Motel 6
Conference Center Hotel
(proposed)
ILLINOIS
Fairfield Inn & Suites
Crowne Plaza Hotel
Country Inn & Suites
Woodridge
Wyndham Garden O’Hare
Chicago
INDIANA
Westin Hotel
Chicago
Bluffton
Camelot Inn (Motel 6)
Collinsville
Carmel
Best Western
Collinsville
Fairfield Inn – Castleton
Castleton
Holiday Inn Decatur
Decatur
Limited Service Hotel (proposed)
Corydon
Radisson Suites
Downers Grove
Baymont Inn & Suites
Dale
Baymont Inn
East Peoria
Ramada Limited
Evansville
Updated August 2010
Page 2 of 14
BY
Fishers
Rising Sun
Proposed Resort
Fishers
Proposed Indoor Waterpark Resort
Santa Claus
Candlewood Suites (proposed)
Fort Wayne
Shipshewana
Holiday Inn Airport
Fort Wayne
Wana Waves Hotel & Waterpark
Shipshewana
Sumner Suites
Fort Wayne
Holiday Inn
Shelbyville
Proposed Ramada Inn
Gary
Holiday Inn Express
Shelbyville
Gas City
Proposed Resort
Holiday Inn Express & Suites
(proposed)
Proposed Resort
Greendale
Holiday Inn Express
Howe
Proposed Hotels
(proposed)
Proposed Hotel and Indoor
Waterpark
Proposed Holiday Inn Express
Holiday Inn Express
Greensburg
Greenwood
South Bend
West Lafayette
Whitestown
Whitestown
Best Western Castleton Inn
Indianapolis
Best Western-Indianapolis
Indianapolis
Days Inn East
Indianapolis
Embassy Suites Downtown
Indianapolis
Embassy Suites North
Indianapolis
Harrison Inn & Conference
(proposed)
Hampton Inn East (proposed)
Indianapolis
Hampton Inn Northeast
Indianapolis
Holiday Inn East
Indianapolis
KANSAS
Holiday Inn Southeast
Indianapolis
Great Wolf Lodge
Kansas City
Holiday Inn Select North
Indianapolis
Shawnee
Intown Suites (proposed)
Indianapolis
IOWA
Holiday Inn Amana Colonies
Amana
Proposed Resort
Amana
Proposed Resort
Bettendorf
Marriott Hotel
Des Moines
Grand Harbor Resort
Dubuque
Indianapolis
Hampton Inn & Suites
Marshalltown
Indianapolis
Proposed Resort
Waterloo
Indoor Waterpark Resort
Indianapolis
KENTUCKY
Motel 6
Indianapolis
Holiday Inn Airport (proposed)
Omni Severin Hotel
Indianapolis
Best Western Continental Inn
Bowling Green
Omni Indianapolis North Hotel
Indianapolis
Best Western Motor Inn
Bowling Green
Proposed 750-room Hotel
Proposed Banquet and Conference
Center
Proposed Downtown Hotel
Indianapolis
Bowling Green
Indianapolis
Holiday Inn Express
Carrollton
Signature Inn
Indianapolis
Staybridge Suites (proposed)
Indianapolis
University Place Hotel
Indianapolis
Proposed Hotel
Proposed Hotel & Conference
Center
Holiday Inn
Jasper
Luxury Hotel (proposed)
Indianapolis
Boone County
Days Inn
Danville
Holiday Inn
Florence
Knights Inn - South
Florence
Drawbridge Inn
Fort Mitchell
Best Western Hancock Inn
Lewisport
Best Western Regency
Lexington
Holiday Inn South
Lexington
Marion
Holiday Inn
Louisville
Madison
Holiday Inn - Airport East
Louisville
Knights Inn
Merrillville
Holiday Inn - Rivermont
Louisville
Radisson Star Plaza
Merrillville
Holiday Inn - Southeast
Louisville
Holiday Inn
Michigan City
Wilson Inn - Airport
Louisville
Holiday Inn (proposed)
Mishawaka
Holiday Inn
Morehead
Roberts Hotel & Waterpark
Muncie
Proposed Resort
Morehead
Limited-Service Hotel (proposed)
New Albany
Mount Sterling
Proposed Hotel
Noblesville
Newport
Proposed Resort
Portage
L&K Motel & Restaurant
Richmond
Updated August 2010
Page 3 of 14
Lawrenceburg
BY
Wise Motel
Richmond
Holiday Inn
Winchester
LOUISIANA
Proposed Resort
Benton Harbor
Holiday Inn Express
Birmingham
Dilworth Hotel
Boyne City
DoubleTree Dearborn
Detroit
Chase Suite Hotel
Baton Rouge
DTE Energy Music Theatre
Detroit
Holiday Inn Select
New Orleans
Hilton Garden Inn
Detroit
Omni Royal Orleans Hotel
New Orleans
Royal Sonesta
New Orleans
Dundee
Windsor Court
New Orleans
The Palace @ Auburn Hills
Holiday Inn Express with
Waterpark
Splash Universe Resort
East Lansing
East Lansing
MAINE
Detroit
Dundee
Proposed Skyline Hotels
Baltimore
Marriott Hotel
Proposed Holiday Inn Express &
Suites
(proposed)
Courtyard Hotel
Residence Inn
Frederick
Crowne Plaza
Grand Rapids
Chase Suite Hotel
Hunt Valley
Hampton Inn
Grand Rapids
McHenry
Holiday Inn Express
Grand Rapids
Proposed Doubletree Hotel
Linthicum
Holiday Inn
Grayling
Proposed Summerfield Suites
Linthicum
Holiday Inn Holland
Holland
Proposed Renaissance Hotel
Linthicum
Holland
Crosswinds Resort
Linthicum
Holiday Inn
Kalamazoo
Doubletree Club Hotel
Largo
Days Inn
Kalamazoo
Ramada Inn
Oxen Hill
Radisson Hotel
Kalamazoo
Inn at Perry Cabin
St. Michaels
St. Michaels
White Marsh
Lansing
Residence Inn
White Marsh
Clarion Hotel & Conference Center
Proposed Hotels with Indoor
Waterpark and Conference Center
Holiday Inn Lansing - South
Lansing
Inn at Perry Cabin Expansion
Springhill Suites (proposed)
White Marsh
Holiday Inn Lansing - West
Lansing (West)
Bar Harbor Hotel
Bar Harbor
MARYLAND
Fenton
Gaylord
Grand Rapids
Lansing (South)
Proposed Waterpark Resort
Lansing
Best Western of Mackinaw City
Mackinaw City
Best Western, Thunderbird
Mackinaw City
Holiday Inn Express
Mackinaw City
Marshall
Hampton Inn
Muskegon
Fitchburg
Pellston
Holyoke
Holiday Inn Express
Hotel with Indoor Waterpark
(proposed)
Petosky
Double JJ Resort
Rothbury
MASSACHUSETTS
Wyndham Copley Plaza
Boston
Holiday Inn
Best Western - Fitchburg and
Trade Center
Proposed Resort – Hotel and
Conference Center
Holiday Inn-Holyoke
Boxborough
Rockland
Fitchburg
Petosky
Port Huron
MICHIGAN
(proposed)
Holiday Inn Express
Acme
Hotel with Conference Center
Romulus
Allen Park
Blue Water Inn
St. Clair
Hampton Inn
Ann Arbor
Best Western – Lakefront
St. Ignace
Ann Arbor
Straits Breeze Inn
St. Ignace
Brooke Lodge
Augusta
Radisson Town Center
Southfield
Holiday Inn
Battle Creek
Holiday Inn
Southgate
Bay City
Proposed Resort
South Haven
Super 8
Belleville
Comfort Suites
Stevensville
Holiday Inn North Campus
Updated August 2010
Page 4 of 14
BY
Sturgis
Holiday Inn Select (Proposed)
Jackson
Ramada Inn & Suites
Taylor
Jackson
Condo Hotel Resort (proposed)
Traverse City
Knights Inn
Great Wolf Lodge
Traverse City
MISSOURI
Great Buffalo Lodge (proposed)
Traverse City
Atrium Inn Addition
Branson
Holiday Inn
Traverse City
Castle Rock Resort
Branson
Fairfield Inn – Warren
Warren
Grand Country Inn
Branson
Proposed Ramada Inn with IWP
Watervliet
Motel 6
Fenton
Ramada Inn
Watervliet
Proposed Resort
Hazelwood
Williamsburg
Proposed Wilderness Resort
Hollister
Best Western
Woodhaven
Crowne Plaza
Jackson
Holiday Inn & Express
Woodhaven
Days Inn South
Kansas City
MINNESOTA
Country Club Hotel & Spa
Lake Ozark
Best Western Airport
St. Louis
Holiday Inn
Arden Hills
Chase Plaza Hotel
St. Louis
Holiday Inn Express
Baxter
Holiday Inn Select
St. Louis
Radisson Hotel
Bloomington
Proposed Resort
St. Louis
Holiday Inn Minneapolis North
Brooklyn Center
Holiday Inn
St. Peters
Northland Inn
Brooklyn Park
Hawthorn Suites
Springfield
Best Western
Chaska
Best Western Edgewater
Duluth
NEBRASKA
Best Western Downtown
Duluth
Holiday Inn
Edge Hotel
Duluth
Holiday Inn
Duluth
NEVADA
Super 8
Golden Valley
Holiday Inn
Kearney
Holiday Inn Metrodome
Minneapolis
Embassy Suites
Las Vegas
Radisson Hotel - Metrodome
Minneapolis
Comfort Inn
North Las Vegas
Nisswa
Comfort Inn and Suites (proposed)
North Las Vegas
Holiday Inn
Ostego
Inn at Amoskeag Falls
Manchester
Holiday Inn
Owatonna
Proposed Resort
Tilton
Best Western Kelly Inn
Plymouth
Holiday Inn Express Airport
(proposed)
Holiday Inn Express
Rochester
NEW JERSEY
Rochester
Hampton Inn
Absecon
Crowne Plaza
Clark
Best Western
Shakopee
Residence Inn
East Rutherford
Best Western Kelly Inn
St. Paul
Roseville
Kearney
Crowne Plaza
Edison
Days Inn
Edison
Holiday Inn Express
Flemington
Days Inn River Center
St. Paul
Holiday Inn I-94 East
St. Paul
Holiday Inn St. Paul North
South St. Hotel and Conference
Center
St. Paul
Proposed Resort
May’s Landing
Vadnais Heights
Mt. Arlington
Holiday Inn
Winona
Staybridge Suites
Parsippany
Proposed Resort
Pequannock
St. Paul
MISSISSIPPI
Proposed Resort
Jackson
Courtyard by Marriott (proposed)
Lyndhurst
Best Western
Rahway
Jackson
Renaissance Hotel
Rutherford
Harvey Hotel & Suites
Jackson
Crowne Plaza
Somerset
Holiday Inn Express
Jackson
Holiday Inn
Somerset
Harvey Hotel Downtown
Updated August 2010
Page 5 of 14
BY
Ramada Inn Plainfield
South Plainfield
Proposed Resort
Clinton Inn
Tenafly
Proposed Resort
Harriman
Sunrise Suites Hotel
Tinton Falls
Proposed Radisson Hotel
Henrietta
Legends Hotel
Vernon
Hogansburg
Mountain Creek Hotel
Vernon
Best Western - MacArthur
Holtsville
Proposed Resort
Vernon
Best Western - Strathmore
Holtsville
West Orange
Proposed Resort
Howes Cave
Proposed Resort
Wildwood
Inn at Hyde Park
Hyde Park
NEW MEXICO
Great Valley
Best Western – Kennedy Airport
Jamaica
Hudson Valley Resort
Kerhonkson
Lake George
Albuquerque Grand Hotel
Albuquerque
Proposed Fractional Condo Resort
Carlisle Hotel
Albuquerque
Best Western City View
Long Island
Motel 6
Albuquerque
Proposed Hotel
Malone
Proposed Hotel
Radisson Hotel Indoor Waterpark
Addition
Albuquerque
Proposed Hotel
Massena
Albuquerque
Indoor Waterpark (proposed)
Proposed Indoor Waterpark and
Family Entertainment Center
Rodeway Inn
Monroe
Monticello
New York
NEW YORK
New Paltz
Albany Ramada Inn
Albany
21 Club
Best Western Albany Airport Inn
Albany
Best Western
New York
Proposed Candlewood Suites
Amherst
New York
Amherst
Marriott Downtown
New York
Proposed Springhill Suites
Amherst
Ramada Inn
New York
Ramada Inn
Armonk
Holiday Inn
Orangeburg
Proposed Hotel and Conference
Center
Comfort Inn
Auburn
Six Flags Resort (proposed)
Queensbury
Auburn
Six Flags Great Escape Resort
Queensbury
Batavia
Holiday Inn – Henrietta
Rochester
Best Western Brooklyn Bay
Brooklyn
Lodge At Woodcliff
Rochester
Best Western Downtown
Brooklyn
Best Western Rotterdam Motor Inn
Schenectady
Brooklyn
Ramada Inn & Convention Center
Schenectady
Adam’s Mark Hotel
Buffalo
Proposed Resort
Syracuse
Proposed Indoor Waterpark
Catskills
Best Western Rensselaer Inn
Troy
Holiday Inn Express
Cheektowaga
La Quinta Inn
Verona
Best Western
Chestnut Ridge
Hope Lake Resort Development
Virgil
Extended Stay Hotel (proposed)
Clarence
Fairfield Inn
Webster
Best Western
Clifton Park
Best Western
West Coxsockie
Microtel
Colonie
Radisson Hotel
Corning
NORTH CAROLINA
Greek Peak Resort
Cortland
Comfort Suites
Asheville
Coxsackie
Proposed Convention Hotel
Asheville
East Elmhurst
Renaissance by Marriott
Asheville
Quality Inn - LaGuardia
East Elmhurst
Homewood Suites
Charlotte
Holiday Inn
East Syracuse
Microtel Inn
Charlotte
Proposed Resort
Ellicottville
Summerfield Suites
Charlotte
Ramada Inn
Elmsford
Prop Indoor Waterpark Resort
Cherokee
Proposed Glacier Lakes Resort
Farmington
Microtel
Cornelius
Findley Lake
Sheraton Imperial Hotel
Durham
Flushing
Proposed Hotel
Fayetteville
Best Western Gregory Hotel
Best Western New Baltimore Inn
Best Western City View
Peek n Peak Hotel
Updated August 2010
Page 6 of 14
BY
Best Western
Kenly
Holiday Inn Belden Village
Microtel Inn
Morrisville
McKinley Grand Hotel
Canton
Holiday Inn State Capital
Raleigh
Canton
Raleigh
Randleman
Communities of Penland Hotel
Spruce Pine
Microtel Inn and Suites (proposed)
Hotel
Holiday Inn Express
Wilmington
Best Western
Wilmington
Holiday Inn
Proposed Canad Inns Indoor
Waterpark Resort
Twin Oaks Resort (proposed)
Chillicothe
Cincinnati
Eastgate Hotel (proposed)
Cincinnati
Cincinnati
Fargo
Hawthorn Suites – Downtown
(proposed)
Hilton Garden Inn
Grand Forks
Holiday Inn - Downtown
Cincinnati
Grand Forks
Lake Metigoshe
OHIO
Best Western
Akron
Best Western Executive Inn
Akron
Akron
Knights Inn - South
Akron
Knights Inn
Akron
Quaker Square Hilton
Akron
Residence Inn (proposed)
Akron
Proposed Hampton Inn
Ashland
Comfort Inn
Ashtabula
Ohio University Inn
Athens
Value Place Hotel
Avon
Aqua Marine Resort
Avon Lake
Bertram Inn & Conference Center
Aurora
Proposed Resort
Aurora
Walden Country Inn & Stables
Aurora
Proposed Country Inn & Suites
Austintown
Holiday Inn
Beachwood
Residence Inn
Beachwood
Red Roof Inn
Bedford Heights
Ramada Inn
Bedford Heights
Holiday Inn
Bellefontaine
Clarion Inn
Boston Heights
Bowling Green
Brook Park
Brooklyn
Brooklyn
Prop. Holiday Inn Express & Suites
Brooklyn
Proposed Select-Service Hotel
Brooklyn
Holiday Inn
Cambridge
Comfort Inn
Canton
Glenmoor Club
Canton
Updated August 2010
Page 7 of 14
Centerville
Garfield Suites Hotel
NORTH DAKOTA
Country Inn and Suites
Canton
Cincinnati
Cincinnati
Holiday Inn Eastgate
Cincinnati
Cincinnati
Holiday Inn North
Cincinnati
Hyatt Regency Hotel
Cincinnati
Signature Inn - Northeast
Cincinnati
Circleville
Best Western Greentree
Clarksville
Best Hotel & Suites
Cleveland
Comfort Inn
Cleveland
Embassy Suites
Cleveland
Hampton Inn
Cleveland
Hilton Garden Inn
Cleveland
Holiday Inn Express-Downtown
Cleveland
Cleveland
Holiday Inn - Airport
Cleveland
Holiday Inn and Suites (proposed)
Cleveland
Holiday Inn - Lakeside
Cleveland
Holiday Inn Select
Cleveland
Lakefront Boat Hotel (proposed)
Cleveland
Marriott Downtown
Cleveland
Proposed Courtyard Marriott
Cleveland
Proposed Downtown Hotel
Cleveland
Proposed Flats Luxury Hotel
Cleveland
Proposed Hotel at CAC
Cleveland
Proposed University Hospital Hotel
Cleveland
Radisson Hotel
Cleveland
Residence Inn Colonial Arcade
Cleveland
Ritz Carlton
Cleveland
Sheraton Cleveland Airport
Cleveland
Sheraton - City Center
Cleveland
Travelodge/Holiday Inn
Cleveland
Wyndham Hotel
Cleveland
Youth Hostel (proposed)
Cleveland
Baymont Inn
Columbus
Best Western
Columbus
Concourse Hotel
Columbus
BY
Comfort Inn & Suites
Convention Center Hotel
(proposed)
Courtyard by Marriott - Downtown
Columbus
Delaware
Columbus
Red Roof Inn
Delaware
Courtyard by Marriott - Airport
Columbus
Former Best Western
Columbus
Extended Stay Hotel (proposed)
Columbus
Hampton Inn
Columbus
Columbus
Hampton Inn & Suites (proposed)
Columbus
Hilton Garden Inn
Columbus
Holiday Inn Downtown
Columbus
Holiday Inn Select
Columbus
Holiday Inn - Airport
Columbus
Holiday Inn - East
Holiday Inn Express - West
(proposed)
Holiday Inn Express
Columbus
Columbus
Columbus
Howard Johnson - West
Columbus
Hyatt Regency
Columbus
Columbus
Hyatt Regency Expansion
Columbus
Marriott North
Columbus
Proposed Sleep Inn
Columbus
Columbus
Ramada Plaza
Columbus
Ramada Inn East Airport
Columbus
Residence Inn
Columbus
Columbus
Towneplace Suites
Value Place Hotel
Dublin
Wyndham Dublin Hotel
Dublin
Radisson Hotel
Eastlake
Clarion Hotel
Eastlake
Holiday Inn
Elyria
Hampton Inn
Englewood
Holiday Inn Northwest
Englewood
Euclid Hotel (proposed)
Euclid
Proposed Hotels and Conf Center
Fairborn
Fairfield
Hilton
Fairlawn
Holiday Inn
Fairlawn
Radisson Hotel
Fairlawn
Best Western
(proposed)
Forest Park
Forest Park
Holiday Inn
Freemont
Holiday Inn Fostoria
Fostoria
Gahanna
Gahanna
Forest Park
Proposed Towneplace Suites
Gahanna
Proposed Cambria Suites Hotel
Green
Green
Columbus
Proposed Resort
(proposed)
Proposed Hampton Inn
Columbus
Huber Heights
Westin Great Southern
Columbus
L&K Motel/Hotel & Restaurant
Huber Heights
Westin Hotel
Columbus
Holiday Inn
Hudson
Renaissance Quail Hollow
Concord Twp.
Independence
Residence Inn
Copley Twp.
Doubletree Hotel
Independence
Roscoe Village Inn
Coshocton
Holiday Inn
Independence
Country Inn and Suites
Cuyahoga Falls
Marriott Hotel (proposed)
Independence
Sheraton Suites
Cuyahoga Falls
Residence Inn
Independence
Country Inn and Suites (proposed)
Dayton
Jeffersonville
Crowne Plaza
Dayton
Holiday Inn
Kent
Doubletree Guest Suites
Dayton
Holiday Inn Express Kings Island
Kings Mill
Fairfield Inn
Dayton
Proposed Hotel and Residences
Lakewood
Hampton Inn
Dayton
Best Western
Lancaster
Holiday Inn
Dayton
Hampton Inn
Lancaster
Holiday Inn - South
Dayton
Shaker Run Hotel (proposed)
Lebanon
Holiday Inn - Dayton Mall
Dayton
Lodi
Holiday Inn - North
Dayton
Limited-Service Hotel (proposed)
Lodi
Knights Inn
Dayton
London
Signature Inn
Dayton
Erieview Motel
Lorain
Stouffers Renaissance
Dayton
Proposed Hotel
Lyndhurst
Updated August 2010
Page 8 of 14
Groveport
Heath
BY
Macedonia
Norwood
Microtel Inn (proposed)
Madison
Holiday Inn Express
Oakwood Village
L&K Motel/Hotel
Mansfield
Obetz
Marblehead Inn
Marion Conference Center
(proposed)
Days Inn - Kings Island
Marblehead
Oxford
Marion
AmeriHost
Painesville
Quail Hollow Resort
Painesville
Great Wolf Lodge
Mason
Howard Johnson
Perry Township
Hannaford Inn & Suites
Mason
Proposed Extended Stay Hotel
Signature Inn/Country Inn
Northeast
Comfort Inn and Suites
Mason
Mason
Comfort Inn West
Maumee
Economy Inn
Maumee
Holiday Inn
Maumee
Tharaldson Inn & Suites
Maumee
Maumee
Holiday Inn
Mayfield
Baymont Inn & Suites
Mayfield Heights
Mason
Maumee
Proposed Chippewa Lake Resort
Medina
Medina
Holiday Inn Express
Mentor
Residence Inn
Mentor
Holiday Inn Dayton Mall
Convention Center (proposed)
Miamisburg
Middleburg
Heights
Middleburg
Heights
Middleburg
Heights
Middleburg
Heights
Middleburg
Heights
Middleburg
Heights
Middleburg
Heights
Middletown
Manchester Inn
Middletown
Comfort Inn
Holiday Inn
Proposed Courtyard by Marriott
Ramada Inn
Residence Inn
Proposed Towneplace Suites
Holiday Inn French Quarter
Perrysburg
Perrysburg
Perrysburg Inn
Perrysburg
Comfort Inn
Proposed Hotel & Conference
Center
Proposed Hotel
Piqua
Best Western
Port Clinton
Proposed Resort
Port Clinton
Holiday Inn
Portsmouth
Proposed Hotel
Powell
Piqua
Piqua
Proposed Country Inn & Suites
Reynoldsburg
Proposed Fairfield Inn
Reynoldsburg
Days Inn/Quality Inn
Richfield
Super 8 Motel
Richfield
Best Budget Inn
Sandusky
Best Western
Sandusky
Castaway Bay
Sandusky
Clarion Hotel
Sandusky
Floating Hotel (proposed)
Sandusky
Comfort Inn & Suites
Sandusky
Great Wolf Lodge
Sandusky
Holiday Inn
(proposed)
Kalahari Resort
Sandusky
Sandusky
Sandusky
Maui Sands Resort
Sandusky
Proposed Coyote Falls Resort
Sandusky
Quality Inn
Sandusky
Rodeway Inn
Sandusky
Milan
Travelodge
Sandusky
Milford
Comfort Inn
Sharonville
Cherry Valley Lodge
Newark
Holiday Inn - North
Sharonville
Proposed OSU Conference Center
Newark
Preston Hotel
Sharonville
Newark
Comfort Inn
Sidney
Proposed Select-Service Hotel
New Albany
Best Western
Springdale
Super 7
New Philadelphia
Howard Johnson Hotel
Springdale
Jackson Motor Lodge
North Jackson
Holiday Inn
Springfield
Homestead Village
North Olmsted
Holiday Inn - Express
St. Clairsville
North Olmsted
Strasburg
Radisson
North Olmsted
Best Western Inn & Suites
Streetsboro
Best Western
Norwalk
Streetsboro
Towneplace Suites
Updated August 2010
Page 9 of 14
BY
Proposed Hotel w/ Indoor
Waterpark
Wingate Inn
Streetsboro
Hampton Inn
Stow
Holiday Inn
Strongsville
Holiday Inn Select
Strongsville
Proposed Resort
(proposed)
Sugar Creek
Proposed Hotel
Swanton
Seven Springs Resort
Champion
Proposed Hotel
Chester
Holiday Inn at Southwyck
Toledo
Knights Inn
Clarion
Toledo Marriott Portside
Toledo
Best Western
Concordville
Toledo Hilton Inn
Toledo
Best Western
Danville
Holiday Inn West
Toledo
Comfort Suites (proposed)
Twinsburg
Best Western
Uhrichsville
Vermillion
Wadsworth
Ramada Inn
Wadsworth
West Chester
Proposed Hotel
West Chester
Streetsboro
Tiffin
PENNSYLVANIA
Microtel Inn
Allentown
All-Suite Hotel (proposed)
Altoona
Proposed Resort
Beaver Falls
Black Moshannon
State Park
California
Edinboro
Bayfront Hotel
Erie
Best Western
Erie
Comfort Inn
Erie
Erie
Erie
Erie
Westerville
Full-Service Hotel (proposed)
(proposed)
Holiday Inn Express
Westlake
Erie
Proposed Crocker Park Hotel
Westlake
Erie
Residence Inn
Westlake
Towneplace Suites
Westlake
Howard Johnson - East
Whitehall
Knights Inn
Downtown Full-Service Hotel
(proposed)
Residence Inn
Holiday Inn
Wickliffe
Splash Lagoon
Erie
Country Hearth Inn (proposed)
Willard
Best Western
Harrisburg
Marriott Courtyard
Willoughby
Erie
Erie
Erie
Erie
Four Points Sheraton Inn
Harrisburg
Harrisburg
Holiday Inn
Worthington
Holiday Inn East
Holiday Inn Harrisburg Hotel &
Conf.
Holiday Inn Harrisburg West
Worthington
Holiday Inn Express Riverfront
Harrisburg
Towneplace Suites (proposed)
Worthington
Radisson Hotel & Conference Ctr.
Harrisburg
Proposed Hotel
Woodmere
Wooster
Harrisburg
Harrisburg
Ramada Inn Market Square
Harrisburg
Best Western Hershey Inn
Hershey
Clinton
Hershey
Courtyard
Oklahoma City
Proposed Hotels
Indiana
Embassy Suites
Oklahoma City
Best Western Inn at Towamencin
Kulpsville
Holiday Inn
Oklahoma City
Resort @ Split Rock
Lake Harmony
Holiday Inn Express (2)
Oklahoma City
Lancaster
Oklahoma City
Springhill Suites (proposed)
Oklahoma City
Ramada Brunswick Hotel
Willow Valley Resort proposed
addition
Proposed Resort
OKLAHOMA
Howard Johnson Express
OREGON
Lancaster
Marshalls Creek
Best Western
Middletown
Days Inn
Monroeville
New Galilee
Hampton Inn
Clackamas
Proposed Hotel
Proposed Resort
McMinnville
Oakdale
Proposed Hotel
Oaks
Updated August 2010
Page 10 of 14
BY
Proposed Resort
Oaks
Garden City
Best Western City Center
Philadelphia
Holiday Inn & Suites (proposed)
Little River
Best Western Independence Park
Philadelphia
Embassy Suites
Myrtle Beach
Best Western Penn Landing
Philadelphia
Hilton Resort
Myrtle Beach
Sheraton - Northeast
Philadelphia
Holiday Inn Express Broadway
Myrtle Beach
Comfort Inn
Pittsburgh
Holiday Inn - Kings Highway
Myrtle Beach
Pittsburgh
Holiday Inn - Oceanfront
Myrtle Beach
Fox Chapel Resort
Pittsburgh
Holiday Inn - Sunspree Resort
Myrtle Beach
Holiday Inn (McKnight Road)
Pittsburgh
Kingston Plantation
Holiday Inn Parkway East
Pittsburgh
Holiday Inn
Holiday Inn Greentree
Pittsburgh
Marriott Hotel
Pittsburgh
Myrtle Beach
Myrtle Beach
West
Murrells Inlet
Proposed Extended Stay Hotel
Pittsburgh
Holiday Inn
N. Myrtle Beach
Proposed Hotel: Bakery Square
Pittsburgh
Holiday Inn
Pawleys Island
Pittsburgh
Residence Inn
Spartanburg
Westin William Penn
Pittsburgh
Proposed Resort
Summerton
Holiday Inn Airport
Pittsburgh
Great Wolf Lodge (proposed)
Pocono Township
Poconos
Wyomissing Square Courtyard
Reading
Great Wolf Lodge
Scotrun
Comfort Inn
Selinsgrove
Proposed Hotel with Waterpark
Somerset
Tarentum
Best Western Hill Motor Lodge
Tannersville
SOUTH DAKOTA
Hilton Garden Inn
Rapid City
TENNESSEE
Proposed Resort
Chattanooga
Econo Lodge
Columbia
Franklin
Gatlinburg
Tannersville
Best Western
Gatlinburg-Great Smoky Mountains
Hotel
Wild Bear Falls Indoor Waterpark
Holiday Inn
Uniontown
Proposed Resort
Jellico
Holiday Inn Meadowlands
Washington
Best Western
Johnson City
Proposed Full Service Hotel
West Homestead
Whitestone Country Inn
Kingston
Pocono Mountain Lodge
Whitehaven
Best Western Luxbury Inn
Knoxville
Holiday Inn Williamsport
Williamsport
Signature Inn
Knoxville
Williamsport
Embassy Suites
Memphis
York
Ramada Inn Midtown
Memphis
Embassy Suites
Murfreesboro
Proposed Hyatt Place
Murfreesboro
Heritage Hills Resort
RHODE ISLAND
Gatlinburg
Lincoln
Best Western Airport Inn
Nashville
Providence Lincoln Courtyard
Lincoln
Best Western Opryland
Nashville
Providence Marriott
Providence
Opryland Resort and Conv. Center
Nashville
Warwick
Proposed Best Western
Nashville
Proposed Shipwreck Falls Resort
West Warwick
Holiday Inn Select
Nashville
West Warwick
Proposed Resort
Pigeon Forge
Proposed 7th Wave Resort
West Warwick
Proposed Resort
Pigeon Forge
SOUTH CAROLINA
Proposed Resort
Sevierville
Wilderness Resort
Sevierville
Charleston Place Hotel
Charleston
Proposed Wyndham Hotel
Sevierville
Orient Express Hotel
Charleston
Best Western
Shelbyville
Omni Hotel at Charleston Place
Charleston
Best Western
Tullahoma
Charleston
Days Inn
White House
Planters Inn
Updated August 2010
Page 11 of 14
BY
Best Western
Winchester
TEXAS
Hyatt Regency Hotel
Richardson
San Antonio
Ramada Limited (I-10)
San Antonio
San Antonio
South Padre
Island
Crowne Plaza (proposed)
Addison
Ramada Limited (SW Loop 410)
Harvey Hotel
Addison
South Padre Island
Holiday Inn Express
Addison
Blue Cypress Hotel
Arlington
Proposed Hotel & Indoor
Waterpark
Holiday Inn Airport West
Bedford
Harvey Hotel
Brook Hollow
UTAH
Commerce
Park City
Corpus Christi-North Padre Island
Corpus Christi
Chase Suite Hotel
Salt Lake City
Days Inn
Corpus Christi
Holiday Inn Express
Salt Lake City
Dallas
Quality Inn Center
Salt Lake City
Dallas
Sheraton City Center
Salt Lake City
Proposed Hotel & Indoor
Waterpark
Proposed Resort
Springville
Bristol Suites
Harvey Hotel
Holiday Inn Aristocrat
Dallas
Holiday Inn Central
Dallas
Holiday Inn - Market Center
Dallas
Holiday Inn
Holiday Inn
(proposed)
Holiday Inn
Lane
Holiday Inn
Dallas
- North Park Plaza
Select – Downtown
Select - Mockingbird
Select - North
Dallas
Dallas
Dallas
Holiday Inn Sunland Park
El Paso
Sheraton Hotel
Forth Worth
Galveston Beach Hotel
Galveston
Holiday Inn Select
Garland
Great Wolf Lodge
Grapevine
Holiday Inn Express
Greenville
Crowne Plaza - Galleria
Houston
Harvey Suites Medical Center
Houston
Holiday Inn and Suites
Houston
Holiday Inn Astrodome
Houston
Holiday Inn Medical Center
Houston
Holiday Inn Northwest
Houston
Ramada Plaza Northwest
Houston
Harvey Hotel
Irving
Harvey Suites
Irving
Holiday Inn Airport South
Irving
Holiday Inn Select
Irving
Proposed Hotel
Laredo
Fairfield Inn
Laredo
Fairfield Inn and Suites (proposed)
Laredo
Plano
Harvey Hotel
Plano
Holiday Inn
Plano
Marriott Hotel
Plano
Proposed Renaissance Hotel
Plano
Holiday Inn Select
Richardson
Updated August 2010
Page 12 of 14
Sandy
Sandy
VERMONT
Sheraton Hotel & Conference Ctr.
Burlington
Long Trail House
Stratton Mountain
Stratton Springs Lodge
Stratton Mountain
VIRGINIA
Hampton Inn
Alexandria
Proposed Resort
Ashland
Courtyard By Marriott (proposed)
Blacksburg
Keswick Hall
Charlottesville
Keswick Hall Orient Express
Charlottesville
Chesapeake
Holiday Inn
Chesapeake
Chesapeake
Residence Inn
Chesapeake
Best Western
Fredericksburg
Best Western Thunderbird
Fredericksburg
Johnny Appleseed Inn
Fredericksburg
Kalahari Resort
Fredericksburg
Fredericksburg
Hawthorn Suites
Herndon
Comfort Inn
Hillsville
Super 8
Hillsville
Homestead Resort
Hot Springs
Holiday Inn
Newport News
Proposed Hotel
North Stafford
Proposed Hotel
Richmond
Virginia Beach-On the Ocean
Virginia Beach
Best Western Historic Area Inn
Williamsburg
Williamsburg
BY
Williamsburg
Excel Grand Hotel
Madison
Best Western
Wytheville
Holiday Inn East
Madison
Holiday Inn Madison West
Madison
Holiday Inn Select
Madison
Madison
Ramada Limited Northeast
(Proposed)
Madison
WASHINGTON
Grand Mound
Hawthorn Suites
Kent
Courtyard
Lynnwood
Proposed Resort
Moses Lake
Holiday Inn
Renton
WASHINGTON, DC
Proposed Hotel at Catholic Univ.
Washington, DC
W Hotel
Washington, DC
WEST VIRGINIA
Holiday Inn on the Hill
Bluefield
Charleston
Sleep Inn/Harding Rest.
Charleston
Sleep Inn (proposed)
Cross Lanes
Proposed Volcano Island Resort
Fairmont
Holiday Inn Hotel & Suites
Huntington
Holiday Inn Conference Center
Marshfield
Park Oasis Inn
Mauston
Milwaukee
Holiday Inn – Airport
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Sheraton Four Points
Milwaukee
Waters of Minocqua
Minocqua
Valley Inn
Neenah
New Lisbon
Oak Creek
Pioneer Inn and Marina
Oshkosh
Oshkosh
Racine
Huntington
Pioneer Resort
(proposed)
Holiday Inn Express
Holiday Inn
Morgantown
Marriott Hotel
Racine
Proposed Hotel-Marshall County
Moundsville
Sheboygan
Sleep Inn (proposed)
Moundsville
Sheboygan
Holiday Inn
Weirton
Proposed Resort
Wheeling
Blue Harbor Resort
Sheboygan Condominiums
(proposed)
Waterpark Resort (proposed)
Sparta
Holiday Inn Convention Center
Stevens Point
WISCONSIN
Appleton
Pleasant Prairie
Sheboygan
Best Western Bridgeview
Superior
Superior
Holiday Inn
Hotel & Conference Center
(proposed)
Paper Valley Hotel
Appleton
Holiday Inn
Tomah
Appleton
Three Bears Lodge
Warrens
Sheraton Hotel (proposed)
Appleton
Indoor Waterpark Resort (prop.)
Wausau
Best Western
Baraboo
Best Western
Wisconsin Dells
Holiday Inn & Express
Black River Falls
Great Wolf Lodge
Wisconsin Dells
Fairfield Inn
Brookfield
Holiday Inn
Wisconsin Dells
Residence Inn
Brookfield
Kalahari Resort
Wisconsin Dells
Inn at Mount Telemark
Cable
Holiday Inn Express
DeForest
Proposed Resort
Wilderness Resort
Wisconsin Dells
Wisconsin Dells
Lake Lawn Resort
Delavan
Greenfield
American Club
Kohler
WYOMING
Multiple Resorts
Proposed Resort
Lake Delton
Grand Geneva Resort
Lake Geneva
INTERNATIONAL
Rodeway Inn
Lake Mills
Little Sturgeon
Bay
Madison
BAHAMAS
Proposed Wave Point Resort
Crowne Plaza
Updated August 2010
Page 13 of 14
Proposed Upscale Golf Resort
Yellowstone
National Park
Great Harbor Cay
Island
BY
ONTARIO
CANADA
Proposed Resort
Boblo Island
ALBERTA
Niagara Falls
Proposed Resort
Grand Prairie
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Holiday Inn Whistler Village Center
Whistler
Proposed Resort
Niagara Falls
Proposed Resort
Rama
QUEBEC
Proposed Courtyard by Marriott
NOVA SCOTIA
Proposed Resort
Updated August 2010
Page 14 of 14
Truro
Montreal
Proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites
Montreal
Montreal
PARTIAL LIST OF INDOOR WATERPARK RESORTS, INDOOR AND OUTDOOR WATERPARKS AND
AMUSEMENT PARKS APPRAISED OR STUDIED BY CONSULTANTS
OF HOTEL & LEISURE ADVISORS AT VARIOUS FIRMS
ARKANSAS
Magic Springs and Crystal Falls
Estates
Amusement Park
Hot Springs
Hoffman
Mokena
Waves of Fun Indoor Waterpark
Sandwich
ARIZONA
Recreation Center
INDIANA
Mesa
Proposed Outdoor Waterpark and
Fishers
Greendale
Greenwood
Sports Complex
Tolleson
Proposed Splash Universe Resort
Yuma
Proposed Hotel w/ Indoor Waterpark
Indianapolis
Holiday Inn and Caribbean Cove
Indianapolis
Roberts Hotel & Waterpark
Muncie
CALIFORNIA
Proposed Outdoor Waterpark
Palm Desert
Portage
Proposed Wave House Resort
San Diego
Santa Claus
Shipshewana
COLORADO
Colorado
Wana Waves Hotel & Waterpark
Shipshewana
Prop. Hotel with Indoor Waterpark
South Bend
Prop. Hotel with Indoor Waterpark
West Lafayette
Keystone
Proposed Hotel & Indoor Waterpark
Whitestown
East Hartford
Amana
Outdoor Waterpark (proposed)
Middlefield
Holiday Inn/Wasserbahn Waterpark
Amana
Proposed Indoor Waterpark Addition
Waterbury
Colonies
Springs
IOWA
CONNECTICUT
FLORIDA
Bettendorf
Grand Harbor Resort
Dubuque
Miami
Waterloo
Naples
Lost Island Waterpark
Waterloo
Proposed Waterpark at Orlando Resort
Orlando
Cypress Gardens Amusement Park
Winter Haven
KANSAS
Great Wolf Lodge
Kansas City
GEORGIA
Buford
MARYLAND
Proposed Family Entertainment Center
Statesboro
Proposed Crosswinds Resort
IDAHO
Boise
Holiday Inn Express
Hayden
Post Falls
ILLINOIS
Linthicum
Proposed Skyline Hotels with IWP
Linthicum
Linthicum
McHenry
MASSACHUSETTS
Best Western Indoor Waterpark
Fitchburg
Fitchburg
Bridgeview
Proposed Hotels & Indoor Waterpark
Bridgeview
MICHIGAN
Bolingbrook
Benton Harbor
Holiday Inn Decatur & Waterpark
Decatur
Holiday Inn Express with Waterpark
Dundee
East Peoria
Splash Universe Resort
Dundee
Prop. Holiday Inn & Indoor Waterpark
Effingham
Gaylord
Holiday Inn and Mayan Adventure
Waterpark El
mhurst
Grand Rapids
Holiday Inn Express
Grand Rapids
Prop. Fox Lake Resort with Waterpark
Fox Lake
Proposed Hotels w/ Indoor Waterpark
Lansing
Key Lime Cove Resort
Gurnee
Lansing
Updated August 2010
Page 1 of 3
Muskegon
Greek Peak Ski Resort
Cortland
Petosky
Ellicottville
Port Huron
Farmington
Double JJ Resort-Indoor Waterpark
Rothbury
Farmington
Great Wolf Lodge
Traverse City
Great Valley
Proposed Condo Hotel Resort
Traverse City
Howes Cave
Waterpark Addition to Resort
Kerhonkson
Proposed Ramada Inn with
Indoor Waterpark
Watervliet
MINNESOTA
Arden Hills
Family Entertainment Center
Monticello
New Paltz
Proposed Randall’s Island Aquatic Center New York
Fallsville Splash Waterpark
Niagara Falls
Baxter
Six Flags Great Escape Resort
Queensbury
Waterpark of America
Bloomington
Syracuse
Best Western Edgewater
Duluth
Hope Lake Lodge (proposed)
Virgil
Edge Hotel & Indoor Waterpark
Duluth
Holiday Inn Wildwoods Waterpark
Ostego
Holiday Inn Express and
Three Bears Lodge
Holiday Inn and Great Serengeti
Proposed Convention Hotel with
Waterpark Owatonna
Indoor Waterpark
Nisswa
MISSOURI
Atrium Inn Indoor Waterpark Resort
NORTH CAROLINA
Asheville
Cherokee
Fayetteville
Communities of Penland w/ Waterpark
Penland
Branson
Castle Rock Resort and Indoor
NORTH DAKOTA
Waterpark Branson
Canad Inns w/ Indoor Waterpark
Grand Forks
Holiday Inn
Grand Forks
Grand Country Inn
Branson
Hazelwood
Proposed Wilderness Resort
Hollister
OHIO
St. Louis
Fort Rapids Indoor Waterpark
Columbus
Holiday Inn East w Indoor Waterpark
Columbus
NEBRASKA
Holiday Inn with Water Feature
Kearney
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Tilton
NEW JERSEY
Holiday Inn Select Fort Rapids
Columbus
Forest Park
Green
Proposed Great Wolf Lodge
Mason
Port Clinton
Monsoon Lagoon
Port Clinton
Castaway Bay
Sandusky
May’s Landing
Great Bear Lodge
Sandusky
Jackson
Great Wolf Lodge
Sandusky
Pequannock
Holiday Inn and Maui Sands Resort
Sandusky
Somerset
Kalahari Resort
Sandusky
Legends Hotel and Indoor Waterpark
Vernon
Proposed Coyote Falls Resort
Sandusky
Vernon
Streetsboro
Sahara Sam’s Indoor Waterpark
West Berlin
Sugarcreek
Wildwood
Comparable Amusement Park Sales
Various
NEW MEXICO
Radisson Hotel Indoor Waterpark Al
OREGON
buquerque
NEW YORK
Updated August 2010
Page 2 of 3
McMinnville
PENNSYLVANIA
Catskill
Beaver Falls
Champion
Edinburg
VERMONT
Splash Lagoon Indoor Waterpark
Erie
Proposed Waterpark Addition
Expansion
Lake Harmony
Willow Valley Resort Addition
Lancaster
Kalahari Resort
Fredericksburg
New Galilee
Fredericksburg
Resort at Split Rock – Waterpark
Burlington
VIRGINIA
Marshalls Creek
Oaks
Proposed Fox Chapel Marina Resort
Pittsburgh
Ashland
Hot Springs
Great Wolf Lodge
Williamsburg
Pittsburgh
WASHINGTON
Pocono
Grand Mound
Moses Lake
Township
Poconos
Great Wolf Lodge
Scotrun
WEST VIRGINIA
Somerset
Proposed Volcano Island
Fairmont
Tarentum
Fairmont
Tannersville
Wheeling
Heritage Hills Indoor Waterpark
York
Waterpark Addition to Resort
York
WISCONSIN
Proposed Addition of an Indoor
RHODE ISLAND
Waterpark C
able
Proposed Shipwreck Falls Resort
West Warwick
Black Wolf Lodge
Proposed 7th Wave Resort
West Warwick
Proposed Condos at Great Wolf Lodge
Lake Delton
Proposed Resort w/ Indoor Waterpark
Lake Delton
SOUTH CAROLINA
Proposed Wavepoint Resort Li
Myrtle Waves Waterpark
Myrtle Beach
Summerton
TENNESSEE
& Marina
Lake Delton
ttle Sturgeon
Bay
Holiday Inn & Waterpark
Madison
Waters of Minocqua Resort
Minocqua
Proposed Indoor Waterpark Resort P
leasant Prairie
Chattanooga
Blue Harbor Resort
Sheboygan
Wild Bear Falls Indoor Waterpark
Gatlinburg
Sheboygan
Jellico
Proposed Sheboygan Condominiums
Sheboygan
Proposed Waterpark Addition to Hotel
Johnson City
Three Bears Lodge
Warrens
Nashville
Wausau
Proposed Waterpark Addition to Hotel
Nashville
Wilderness Resort
Wisconsin Dells
Pigeon Forge
Kalahari Resort
Wisconsin Dells
Proposed Resort
Pigeon Forge
Great Wolf Lodge
Wisconsin Dells
Wilderness Resort
Sevierville
Proposed Resort w/ Indoor Waterpark
Wisconsin Dells
Proposed Wyndham Hotel
Sevierville
CANADA
TEXAS
Great Wolf Lodge
Grapevine
ALBERTA
Proposed Waterpark
McAllen
UTAH
NOVA SCOTIA
Park City
Salt Lake City
Sandy
ONTARIO
Springville
Splash Canyon Waterpark
Updated August 2010
Page 3 of 3
Grand Prairie
Truro
Barrie
Boblo Island
Great Falls Lodge
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Proposed Waterpark
Rama
Updated August 2010
Page 4 of 3
PARTIAL LIST OF GOLF COURSES, COUNTRY CLUBS & SKI AREAS APPRAISED OR STUDIED
BY CONSULTANTS OF HOTEL & LEISURE ADVISORS AT VARIOUS FIRMS
CALIFORNIA
Desert Springs JW Marriott
Palm Desert
CONNECTICUT
Powder Ridge Ski Resort
Middlefield
Keystone
Copperhead Golf Club
Lehigh Acres
Ritz Carlton Naples
Naples
Orlando
GEORGIA
Golf Driving Range
Statesboro
HAWAII
Westin Kauai Resort - Proposed
Golf Course
Proposed Resort and Golf Course
KENTUCKY
Proposed Residential and Golf
Course Development
MICHIGAN
Ostego Club Ski Resort and Golf
Course
Double JJ Resort and Golf
Course
MINNESOTA
Grand View Lodge Golf Course
Nisswa
MISSOURI
Golf Course
Avon Lake
Glenmoor Club
Five Seasons Sports Country
Club
Proposed Golf Course
Canton
Phoenix Golf Course
Renaissance Quail Hollow and
Golf Course
Amana
Rothbury
Camdenton
Avon
Avon Lake
Shaker Run Hotel & Golf Course
Five Seasons Sports Country
Club
Gaylord
Spruce Pine
Sweetbriar Golf Course
Proposed Golf Course
Harodsburg
Windham
Aqua Marine Resort Golf Course
Kauai
IOWA
Rochester
OHIO
Red Tail Golf Club
FLORIDA
Monticello
NORTH CAROLINA
Proposed Penland Golf Course
COLORADO
Keystone Mountain
Holiday Mountain Ski Resort
Lodge at Woodcliff and Golf
Course
Windham Mountain Ski Area
PENNSYLVANIA
Seven Springs Resort and Golf
Course
Big Boulder Ski Area
Proposed Jack Frost National
Golf Course and Ski Resort
Resort at Split Rock and Golf
Course
Willow Valley Resort and Golf
Course
Heritage Hills Golf Resort
SOUTH CAROLINA
Kingston Plantation and Golf
Course
Cincinnati
Cincinnati
Columbus
Concord
Township
Jackson
Township
Lebanon
Westlake
Champion
Kidder Township
Kidder Township
Lake Harmony
Lancaster
York
Myrtle Beach
VERMONT
Stratton Mountain
NEVADA
Stallion Mountain Country Club
Las Vegas
NEW JERSEY
Pine Hill Golf Club
Mountain Creek Ski Resort
Pine Hill
Vernon
NEW YORK
Proposed Greek Peak Ski Area
Cortland
Proposed Hope Lake Golf Course
Cortland
Holiday Valley Golf Course
Hudson Valley Resort and Golf
Course
Peek n Peak Resort
Ellicottville
Updated August 2010
Page 1 of 2
Stratton
VIRGINIA
Glenmore Country Club
Charlottesville
Keswick Club and Subdivision
Charlottesville
Homestead Resort
Hot Springs
WASHINGTON
Proposed Resort w/ Golf Course
Moses Lake
WISCONSIN
Kerhonkson
Mount Telemark
Cable
Findley Lake
Lake Lawn Resort and Golf
Delavan
PARTIAL LIST OF GOLF COURSES, COUNTRY CLUBS & SKI AREAS APPRAISED OR STUDIED
Course
American Club
Kohler
INTERNATIONAL
Grand Geneva Resort
Proposed Resort with Golf
Course
Trappers Turn Golf Course and
Proposed Resort
Lake Geneva
Little Sturgeon
Bay
Proposed Indoor Ski Resort
Updated August 2010
Page 2 of 2
Wisconsin Dells
ONTARIO
Rama
PARTIAL LIST OF RESTAURANTS AND CLUBS APPRAISED OR STUDIED
BY
FLORIDA
Quaker Steak and Lube (proposed)
Sarasota
KENTUCKY
Former Restaurant
Lexington
INDIANA
Proposed Restaurant and Banquet Center
Jasper
MICHIGAN
Gandy Dancer
Ann Arbor
Charley's Crab
Grand Rapids
Meriwether's
Southfield
River Crab & Blue Water Inn
St. Clair
Charley's Crab
Troy
NEW YORK
Quaker Steak and Lube (proposed)
Clarence
21 Club
New York
NORTH CAROLINA
City Club of Gastonia
Gastonia
OHIO
L&K Restaurant
Chester
Prop. Colonial Arcade Restaurant
Cleveland
Prop. Restaurant at Cleveland Athletic Club
Cleveland
Engine House #5
Columbus
Prop. Microbrewery and Restaurant
Findlay
Prop. Dinner Theater at Chippewa Lake
Medina
Middleburg
Heights
Westlake
Prop.Valentino's Restaurant
Five Seasons Club
PENNSYLVANIA
Boston’s Restaurant
Erie
Quaker Steak and Lube
Erie
Safari Steakhouse Restaurants
Erie
Grand Concourse
Pittsburgh
West
Conshohocken
Big Fish
Note: Refer to the list of Hotels & Resorts for additional hotels and resorts with food and beverage
outlets.
Updated August 2010
Page 1 of 1
PARTIAL LIST OF CONFERENCE, CONVENTION AND EXPOSITION CENTERS APPRAISED OR STUDIED
ARIZONA
Proposed Conference Center
Mesa
CALIFORNIA
JW Marriott Resort
Palm Desert
COLORADO
Colorado Springs
FLORIDA
Germain Arena
Resort
South Seas Resort (proposed)
Estero
Orlando
Orlando
GEORGIA
Embassy Suites Downtown
Indianapolis
Embassy Suites North
Harrison Inn & Conference Center
(proposed)
Holiday Inn Select North
Indianapolis
Omni Severin Hotel
Indianapolis
Omni Indianapolis North Hotel
Indianapolis
Proposed Banquet and Conference
Center
University Place Hotel
Indianapolis
Indianapolis
Performing Arts Theater (proposed)
Lawrenceburg
Indianapolis
Indianapolis
Indianapolis
Proposed Hotel & Conference Center
Lawrenceburg
Luxury Hotel (proposed)
Madison
Radisson Star Plaza
Merrillville
Mishawaka
Holiday Inn
Shelbyville
Shipshewana
Crowne Plaza Ravinia
Atlanta
Radisson Hotel
Atlanta
Proposed Hotel with Conference
Center
Kauai
IOWA
South Bend
HAWAII
Westin Kauai Resort
ILLINOIS
Holiday Inn Amana Colonies
Amana
Proposed Indoor Water Park Resort
Amana
Marriott Hotel
Des Moines
Crowne Plaza Hotel
Chicago
Chicago
Omni Hotel (proposed)
Chicago
KENTUCKY
Westin Hotel
Chicago
Drawbridge Inn
Fort Mitchell
Downers Grove
Holiday Inn
Louisville
Radisson Suites
Effingham
Sheraton Suites
Elk Grove Village
LOUISIANA
Fox Lake Resort (proposed)
Fox Lake
Omni Royal Orleans Hotel
KeyLime Cove
Full-Service Hotel at Sears
(proposed)
Hilton Garden Inn & Conference Ctr.
Gurnee
Royal Sonesta
New Orleans
Windsor Court
New Orleans
Mattoon Conference Ctr.
Mattoon
Adam’s Mark Hotel
Northbrook
MARYLAND
Proposed Crosswinds Resort &
Conference Center
Proposed Renaissance Hotel and
Conference Center
Linthicum
Hoffman Estates
Kankakee
New Orleans
Northbrook Hilton
Northbrook
Holiday Inn Brandywine
Peoria
Peoria
MASSACHUSETTS
Doubletree O’Hare
Rosemont
Wyndham Copley Plaza
Boston
Rosemont
Holiday Inn
Boxborough
Holiday Inn
Schaumberg
Best Western Fitchburg & Trade Ctr.
Fitchburg
Marriott Schaumburg
Schaumberg
Conference Center Hotel (proposed)
Woodridge
INDIANA
Linthicum
MICHIGAN
Brooke Lodge
Augusta
Compuware Sports Arena
Detroit
Columbus
DTE Energy Music Theatre
Detroit
Fishers
Hilton Garden Inn
Detroit
Updated August 2010
Page 1 of 4
The Palace @ Auburn Hills
Detroit
Marriott Hotel
East Lansing
NEW YORK
Crowne Plaza
Grand Rapids
Auburn
Holiday Inn
Grayling
Radisson Hotel
Corning
Radisson Hotel
Kalamazoo
Greek Peak Resort
Cortland
Clarion Hotel & Conference Center
Proposed Hotels and Conference
Center
Holiday Inn Lansing - South
Lansing
Farmington
Lansing
Peek n Peak Resort
Findley Lake
Radisson Hotel
Henrietta
Holiday Inn Lansing - West
Lansing (West)
Double J Resort
Rothbury
Proposed Hotel and Conference Ctr.
Romulus
Radisson Town Center
Condo Hotel & Conf. Ctr. Resort
(proposed)
Southfield
Lansing (South)
Traverse City
Hudson Valley Resort
Kerhonkson
Holiday Inn
Orangeburg
Six Flags Resort (proposed)
Queensbury
Lodge At Woodcliff
Rochester
Ramada Inn & Convention Center
Schenectady
NORTH CAROLINA
MINNESOTA
Proposed Convention Hotel
Asheville
Northland Inn
Brooklyn Park
Renaissance by Marriott
Asheville
Holiday Inn
Duluth
Raleigh
Holiday Inn Metrodome
Minneapolis
Radisson Hotel - Metrodome
Minneapolis
NORTH DAKOTA
Nisswa
Alerus Convention Center Hotel
Rochester
Holiday Inn St. Paul North
St. Paul
MISSISSIPPI
Grand Forks
OHIO
Quaker Square Hilton
Akron
Ohio University Inn
Athens
Aurora
Harvey Hotel Downtown
Jackson
Bertram Inn & Conference Center
Holiday Inn Select (Proposed)
Jackson
I-X Convention Center
Berea
Glenmoor Club
Canton
MISSOURI
Proposed Wilderness Resort &
Conference Center
Crowne Plaza
Chase Park Plaza & Conference
Center
Holiday Inn Select
Firstar Arena
Cincinnati
Hollister
Holiday Inn Eastgate
Cincinnati
Jackson
Hyatt Regency
Cincinnati
Holiday Inn - Lakeside
Cleveland
Marriott Downtown
Cleveland
St. Louis
St. Louis
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Holiday Inn
Concord
Holiday Inn
Manchester
NEW JERSEY
Crowne Plaza
Edison
Renaissance Hotel
Rutherford
Holiday Inn
Somerset
Clinton Inn
Tenafly
NEVADA
Embassy Suites
Updated August 2010
Page 2 of 4
Las Vegas
Sheraton - City Center
Cleveland
Concourse Hotel
Columbus
Convention Center Hotel (proposed)
Columbus
Hyatt Regency
Columbus
Marriott North
Columbus
Columbus
Westin Great Southern
Columbus
Renaissance Quail Hollow
Concord Twp.
Sheraton Suites
Cuyahoga Falls
Doubletree Guest Suites
Dayton
Stouffers Renaissance
Dayton
Wyndham Dublin Hotel
Dublin
Radisson Hotel
Eastlake
Clarion Hotel
Proposed Hotels and Conference
Center
Eastlake
Fairborn
Hilton
Hancock County Fairgrounds and
Civic Center (proposed)
Marriott Hotel (proposed)
Marion Conference Center
(proposed)
Great Wolf Lodge Conference Center
Proposed Conference Center at
Chippewa Lake
Holiday Inn Dayton Mall
Fairlawn
SOUTH CAROLINA
Findlay
Charleston Place Hotel
Charleston
Orient Express Hotel
Charleston
Independence
Marion
Mason
Omni Hotel at Charleston Place
Charleston
Embassy Suites
Myrtle Beach
Hilton Resort
Myrtle Beach
Medina
Miamisburg
Middletown
Manchester Inn
Middletown
Cherry Valley Lodge
Newark
Proposed OSU Conference Center
Newark
Holiday Inn French Quarter
Perrysburg
Piqua
Proposed Resort & Conference Ctr.
Port Clinton
Holiday Inn - North
Sharonville
Exposition Center (proposed)
Springfield
Holiday Inn Select
Strongsville
TENNESSEE
Proposed Resort and Conference
Center
Proposed Resort with Conference
Ctr
Wilderness Resort and Expo Ctr.
Pigeon Forge
Sevierville
TEXAS
Crowne Plaza (proposed)
Addison
Harvey Hotel
Dallas
Dallas
Dallas
Fort Worth
Toledo Marriott Portside
Toledo
Holiday Inn - Market Center
Holiday Inn Select – Downtown
(proposed)
Holiday Inn Select - North
Toledo Hilton Inn
Toledo
Sheraton Hotel
OKLAHOMA
Nashville
Dallas
Great Wolf Lodge & Conference Ctr.
Grapevine
Crowne Plaza - Galleria
Houston
Embassy Suites
Oklahoma City
Harvey Hotel
Irving
Holiday Inn
Oklahoma City
Harvey Hotel
Plano
PENNSYLVANIA
UTAH
Proposed Resort
Beaver Falls
Proposed Resort
Centre
Best Western Hotel and Conference
Center
Downtown Full-Service Hotel
(proposed)
Holiday Inn Harrisburg Hotel &
Conference Ctr.
Radisson Hotel & Conference Ctr.
Champion
VERMONT
Concordville
Sheraton Hotel & Conference Ctr.
Erie
Sheraton City Center
Salt Lake City
Burlington
VIRGINIA
Harrisburg
Ashland
Harrisburg
Holiday Inn & Conference Center
Chesapeake
Lake Harmony
Kalahari Resort & Conference Ctr.
Fredericksburg
Lancaster
Fredericksburg
Sheraton - Northeast
Philadelphia
Homestead Resort
Hot Springs
Marriott Hotel
Pittsburgh
Williamsburg
Westin William Penn
Pittsburgh
Tannersville
WASHINGTON
Holiday Inn Meadowlands
Heritage Hills Resort and
Conference Center
Washington
Centralia
Holiday Inn
Renton
Resort at Split Rock
Willow Valley Resort
York
WEST VIRGINIA
RHODE ISLAND
Providence Marriott
Updated August 2010
Page 3 of 4
Providence
Fairmont
Holiday Inn
Morgantown
Holiday Inn
Weirton
Wheeling
WISCONSIN
Hotel & Conference Center
(proposed)
Paper Valley Hotel
Appleton
Sheraton Hotel (proposed)
Appleton
Appleton
Inn at Mount Telemark
Cable
Lake Lawn Resort
Delavan
American Club
Kohler
Grand Geneva Resort
Lake Geneva
Little Sturgeon
Bay
Madison
Proposed Wave Point Resort
Crowne Plaza
Madison
Holiday Inn Conference Center
Marshfield
Sheraton Four Points
Milwaukee
Marriott Hotel
Racine
Blue Harbor Resort
Sheboygan
Holiday Inn Convention Center
Stevens Point
Kalahari Resort & Convention Ctr.
Wisconsin Dells
Wisconsin Dells
Wilderness Resort & Conference Ctr.
Wisconsin Dells
Updated August 2010
Page 4 of 4
David J. Sangree, MAI, CPA, ISHC
President
14805 Detroit Avenue, Suite 420
Cleveland, Ohio 44107-3921
Phone: 216-228-7000 ext. 20
Fax: 216-228-7320
E-mail: dsangree@hladvisors.com
www.hladvisors.com
Professional Affiliations
International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions (IAAPA)
World Waterpark Association (WWA)
WWA’s Waterpark Resort Task Force
Appraisal Institute, MAI (Former President, Northern Ohio Chapter)
The Appraisal Journal Review Panel
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
Cornell Hotel Society (Past Treasurer - Chicago, IL chapter)
International Society of Hospitality Consultants (ISHC)
Ohio Travel Association
Ohio Hotel and Lodging Association
National Golf Foundation
National Ski Areas Association
Education
Bachelor of Science, Hotel Administration, Cornell University, 1984
Various International Society of Hospitality Consultants, Appraisal Institute, & CPA
continuing education courses
Experience

President, Hotel & Leisure Advisors, Cleveland, Ohio, 2005 –

Director of Hospitality Consulting and Principal in Cleveland office, US Realty
Consultants, Inc., Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio, 1992-2005

Financial & Training Consultant with Malawi National Credit Union League (US
Peace Corps), Malawi, Africa, 1989-1991.

Senior Consultant in the Hospitality Group of Pannell Kerr Forster, Chicago,
Illinois, 1987-1989.

Management positions with four Westin Hotels and Resorts in Cincinnati, Chicago,
New York, and Fort Lauderdale - 1983-1987.
Mr. Sangree’s expertise is in the appraisal and analysis of hotels, resorts, indoor
waterpark resorts, waterparks, amusement parks, conference centers, ski resorts, and
golf courses. He has performed studies on more than 1,000 existing and proposed hotels
Qualifications of David J. Sangree, MAI, CPA, ISHC
Page 2
in more than 46 states in all price ranges including economy, full-service, extendedstay, and luxury hotels and resorts including indoor waterpark resorts.
He has extensive experience in performing market and feasibility studies, impact
analysis, appraisals, financial analysis and performance projections, site selection, and
financial reviews for hospitality properties. He has been an active appraiser/consultant
since 1987 and also has 10 years of work experience in the hotel/restaurant industry
including management positions with four Westin Hotels properties. He also performs
feasibility studies, appraisals, and economic impact analysis for proposed and existing ski
areas, waterparks, amusement parks, conference and convention centers, arenas and
entertainment centers. He is active in the analysis and valuation of land and other
income-producing property types including casinos, golf courses, office, retail centers,
housing developments, and multi-property portfolios.
Mr. Sangree is a nationally recognized expert on waterpark resorts and has visited most
of the open waterpark properties in the United States and Canada. He has performed
more than 200 studies of hotels and resorts with indoor waterparks since 1999, and he
maintains a database of statistical information concerning indoor waterpark resorts. Mr.
Sangree was named in 2008 one of Aquatics International Magazine’s “Power 25.”
Aquatics International publishes an annual list of professionals it deems the most
powerful people in the aquatics industry. Mr. Sangree was profiled as one of the first
consultants serving the waterpark resort industry and for his expertise and experience in
shaping some of the latest industry trends. Mr. Sangree has appeared on Good Morning
America and CNBC on special reports concerning resorts and waterparks.
State Certification
Certified as a General Real Estate Appraiser in the states of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, New
York, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. Temporary certification available in all other states.
Certified as a Public Accountant in the state of Ohio.
Published Articles
“The Lodging Market is Improving in Ohio's Big Cities" Hotel Online, September 2010
“Waterpark Resorts Supply and Demand 2010 Update” Hotel Online, June 2010
“Financing your Indoor Waterpark Resort in 2010” Hotel News Now, June 2010
“2009 Median Hotel Prices Plummet – Is it Time to Appeal Your Property Taxes? Hotel
Online, November 2009
“Financing Your Indoor Waterpark Resort in 2009” Hotel Online, September 2009
“Outdoor Waterparks: Private vs. Municipal” Aquatics International, September, 2009
“Indoor Waterpark Supply and Demand Mid-Year 2009 Update” Hotel Online, July 2009
"Indoor Waterpark Resort Supply Grows and Faces Challenges in 2009” Hotel News Now
February, 2009
"Dealing With the Economic Downturn: 10 Ideas for Hotels and Resorts" Hotel Online,
December, 2008
"Cleveland's Second Wind: 2008 Overview" Hotel Online, September, 2008
“Financing Your Indoor Waterpark,” World Waterpark Association’s 2008 Development
and Expansion Guide
“Indoor Waterparks Surfing a Wave in North America in ‘08” Hotel Online, July 2008 and
Water Leisure and Lodging, July, 2008
"Economic Impact Studies Help Land Financing" Hotel Motel Management, May 2008
“Unique Ways for Resorts to Radically Increase Revenue” Developments Magazine an
ARDA Publication, April, 2008
Page 3
“Indoor Waterparks Supply and Demand Growth in ‘07,” Lodging Hospitality, September
2007
“Appraisal & Market Analysis of Indoor Waterpark Resorts,” Waterpark Development and
Expansion Guide ’07
“Financing Your Indoor Waterpark Resort,” Waterpark Development and Expansion Guide
’07 and Hotel Online, August 2007
“Indoor Waterparks Make a Bigger Splash in North America,” Water Leisure & Lodging
2007 and Hotel Online, July 2007
“Waterpark Resorts Top 10 by Revenue,” Waterpark Resorts Today Annual IT Book,
2007-2008
“Number of Indoor Waterpark Destination Resorts Grow in 2007,” Hotel Online, February
2007
“Riding the Wave, Indoor Waterpark Resort Numbers Increase in ‘06” Water Leisure and
Lodging and Hotel Online, September 2006
“Appraisal & Market Analysis of Indoor Waterpark Resorts,” Waterpark Development and
Expansion Guide ’06 and Hotel Online, September 2006
“Financing Your Indoor Waterpark Resort,” Waterpark Development and Expansion Guide
’06 and Hotel Online, September 2006
“Adding a Waterpark to a Hotel: Is it a Good Idea?” Hotel & Motel Management, June
2006
“Midwest Whets Appetite for Indoor Waterparks,” Heartland Real Estate Business, May
2006
“Ohio’s Lodging Market: Historical Analysis & 2006 Forecast,” Hotel Online, March 2006
“Indoor Waterparks and Hotels, a Case Study,” Hotel Investment Issues and Perspectives
Fourth Edition, January 2006 & Hotel Online, February, 2006
“Indoor Waterpark Destination Resorts, a Growing Trend,” Aquatics Magazine, October
2005
“Splashtacular Growth,” Water Leisure and Lodging, September 2005
“Hotel Capitalization Rates Drop Further,” Hotel Online, May 2005
“Indoor Waterpark Resorts Continue Growth in ’05,” Midwest Real Estate News, May
2005
“Hotel Condominium Sales Grow at Indoor Waterpark Resorts,” Hotel Motel Management,
April 2005
“Cleveland’s Lodging Market: a Slow Climb Back,” Hotel Online, February 2005
“Indoor Waterpark Resorts Continue Impressive Growth in ’05,” Hotel Online, January
2005
“Splashtacular Growth of Indoor Waterpark Resorts,” World Waterpark Magazine, October
2004
“Financing Challenges for Indoor Waterpark Resorts,” World Waterpark Development and
Expansion Guide 2004-2005
“Indoor Waterparks Appeal to Hotels, Large Destination Resorts,” Hotel Motel
Management, July 2004
“Indoor Waterpark Resorts Expand Nationwide,” Hotel Online, April 2004
“Hotel Capitalization Rates Drop,” Hotel Online, March 2004
“Cleveland Market at Bottom with Improvement Predicted,” Hotel Online, January 2004
“Appraisal and Financing of Indoor Waterpark Resorts,” Hotel Online, October 2003 &
World Waterpark Development and Expansion Guide, 2004
“Indoor Waterpark Resorts: Independent Versus Franchised,” USRC Hospitality
Perspectives, Spring 2003
“Indoor Waterpark Resorts Enjoy Competitive Advantages over Traditional Hotels,”
Lodging Hospitality, May 2003
“War in Iraq Expected to Have Limited Effect on Hotel Values,” Hotel Motel Management,
May 2003
Page 4
“Cleveland Hospitality Market Faces Increased Vacancies,” Heartland Business, March
2003
“Hotel Capitalization Rates Drop,” Hotel Online, February 2003 and USRC Hospitality
Perspectives Spring 2003
“Analyzing the Impact of a New Hotel on Existing Properties,” AAHOA Lodging Business,
October 2002
“Indoor Waterpark Resorts Make a Splash in Midwest,” Hotel Motel Management, August
2002
“Full-service Hotel Capitalization Rates Jump,” Hotel Interactive, April 2002 and USRC
Hospitality Perspectives, Winter/Spring 2002
“Midwest Cities Drop in Occupancy,” USRC Hospitality Perspectives, Winter/Spring 2002
“Recession Aids Capitalization Rate Increase for Full-service Hotels,” Hotel Motel
Management, February 2002
“Investors Demand Higher Capitalization Rates from Hoteliers,” Hotel Motel Management,
February 2001
“Investment Parameters Rising in the Limited and Full-service Sectors,” Lodging Real
Estate, May 2000
“Hotel Capitalization Rates Start to Rise,” USRC Hospitality Perspectives, Fall/Winter
1999/2000
“Northern Operators Test Waters for Indoor Recreation Areas,” Hotel Motel Management,
February 2000
“Midwest Cities Continue New Hotel Expansion,” USRC Hospitality Perspectives,
Fall/Winter 1999/2000
“Hotel Capitalization Rates Continue to Rise,” UNLV Hospitality Financial Management
Review, Winter 2000
“Hotel Investments on Rise,” USRC Hospitality Perspectives, Fall/Winter 1998/1999
“Hotel Investments Nearing Replacement Cost,” USRC Hospitality Perspectives,
Summer/Fall 1997
“Hotel Investments Shows Strong Improvement,” USRC Hospitality Perspectives,
Summer 1996
“Trends in Hotel Management Contracts,” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly,
October 1996
“Management Fees Survey,” USRC Hospitality Perspectives, Fall/Winter 1995/1996
“Dramatic Expansion Continues for Chicago Hotel Market,” Chicago Commerce Magazine,
1988
Quoted extensively in CNN.com, Columbus Business First, Columbus Monthly, Hotel
Business, Chicago Sun Times, Columbus Dispatch, Cleveland Crain's, Cleveland Plain
Dealer, Cincinnati Business Courier, Fort Myers News-Press, Hotel Interactive, Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly, Meeting News, Aquatics International, Midwest Real
Estate News, New York Times, CNBC, Albany Times Union, RCI Ventures, Time Magazine,
USA Today, and other publications. He has appeared on CNBC and ABC on segments
concerning resorts and waterparks.
Recent Major Speaking Engagements
"Waterpark Resorts Market and Feasibility Analysis" October 2010 at the World
Waterpark Association Annual Convention in San Antonio, TX
“Valuation Issues Affecting Hotel Properties In The Current Real Estate Economy” August
2010 at the Institute for Professionals in Taxation in Cleveland, OH
“Indoor Waterpark Resorts: Where Are the Opportunities?”
July 2010 at the Midwest Lodging Investors Summit in Chicago, IL
Page 5
“Opportunities for Innovation” April 2010 at the Cornell University School of Hotel
Administration's Hotel Ezra Cornell (HEC) conference, Ithaca, NY
"How to Analyze the Market and Determine Economic Feasibility" October 2009 at the
World Waterpark Association Development Workshop in Orlando, FL
“Case Study Presentation on Performing a Market Feasibility Study” October 2009 at the
International Society of Hospitality Consultants annual conference in Québec City
“Insights into 2010 Market Performance” October 2009 - a video segment on Hotel News
Network interviewing Mr. Sangree along with other leading ISHC consultants
“Hotel Financing Track - Taking Advantage of Distress: Where are the Opportunities?”
July 2009 at the Midwest Lodging Investors Summit in Chicago, IL
"How to Analyze the Market and Determine Economic Feasibility" October 2008 at the
World Waterpark Association Development Workshop in Las Vegas, NV
“Indoor Waterpark Resorts” July 2008 at the Midwest Lodging Investors Summit in
Chicago, IL
“Seminar on Hospitality Industry” February 2008 at the Northern Ohio Chapter of the
Appraisal Institute quarterly meeting in Cleveland, OH
“Challenges of Obtaining Financing for Indoor Waterpark Resorts,” November 2007 at the
World Resort Leadership and Development Conference in Orlando, FL
“How to Analyze the Market and Determine Economic Feasibility,” October 2007 at the
World Waterpark Association Conference in Palm Springs, CA
“Industry Outlook and Trends,” October 2007 at the World Waterpark Association
Conference in Palm Springs, CA
Port Clinton Ohio City Council Meeting, Provided description of resort feasibility study and
economic impact study performed for the city council and attendees in September and
October, 2007
“Water Park Wars” An in depth news segment on Good Morning America on June 23,
2007 featured Mr. Sangree as an interviewee
"Financing 101: Preparing Financial Projections and Obtaining Financing for Indoor
Waterpark Resorts," November 2006 at the Waterpark Resorts Leadership and
Development Conference (WRLD) in Las Vegas, NV
“How to Analyze the Market and Determine Economic Feasibility,” October 2006 at the
World Waterpark Association Conference in Orlando, FL
“Feasibility Analysis for Indoor Waterpark Resorts,” October 2006 at Cornell University’s
School of Hotel Administration Development Class
“Indoor Waterparks and Hotels,” January 2006 at ALIS (America's Lodging Investment
Summit) conference in Los Angeles
“Indoor Waterpark Resorts - Feasibility and Statistics,” November 2005 at International
Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions (IAAPA) conference in Atlanta
“Indoor Waterpark Destination Resorts” and “Market Feasibility Study Methodology,”
October 2005 at the World Waterpark Association conference in Las Vegas
“Financing Challenges for Hotel Indoor Waterparks Resorts,” October 2004 at the World
Waterpark Association conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida
“Buy, Sale, or Refinance: Which One of These Is in Your Future,” June 2004 at the Best
Western regional conference, Detroit, Michigan
“Trends in Hotel Values,” March 2004 at the Hotel Investment Conference, Atlanta,
Georgia
“Appraising and Financing Hotel Indoor Waterpark Resorts,” October 2003 at the World
Waterpark Association conference in Palm Springs, California
“Underwriting and Market Analysis,” September 2003 at the International Society of
Hospitality Consultants conference in Chicago, Illinois
“Buying and Selling Hotels Panel,” March 2003 at the Hotel Investment Conference,
Atlanta, Georgia
Page 6
“Analysis of Indoor Waterparks Impact on Resort Performance,” September, 2002 at the
International Society of Hospitality Consultant's conference in Montréal, Canada
“Changes in Hotel Capitalization Rates,” January 2002 at the Hotel Brokers International
Annual Conference, Orlando, Florida
Recent Litigation Assignments Involving Expert Testimony
Licking County Board of Revision (2010)
Cherry Valley Lodge and CoCo Key Indoor Waterpark, Newark, Ohio
Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (2010)
Re: Doubletree Hotel, Independence, Ohio
Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (2010)
Re: Courtyard Hotel, Willoughby, Ohio
San Diego Superior Court (2010)
Re: La Costa Resort and Spa, Carlsbad, California
Board of Revisions Tax Appeal (2010)
Re: Crowne Plaza and Fairfield Inn, Sharonville, Ohio
United States Bankruptcy Court (2010)
Re: Peek ‘n Peak Resort, Findley Lake, New York
Board of Review Tax Appeal, Lake Delton, Wisconsin (2009)
Re: Great Wolf Lodge Wisconsin Dells
Board of Revisions Tax Appeal (2008)
Re: Residence Inn, Cleveland, Ohio
Marion County Indiana Superior Court (2008)
Re: Indiana Stadium and Convention Building Authority vs. Michael A. Maio
New York Supreme Court, Niagara County (2008)
Re: Splash Outdoor Waterpark
State of Virginia Circuit Court (2005 and 2008)
Re: Keswick Club, Charlottesville, Virginia
Board of Revision Tax Appeal (2006)
Re: Five Seasons Country Club, Cincinnati, Ohio
Board of Revision Tax Appeals (2005)
Re: Various Residence Inns, Hilton Garden Inn, Embassy Suites, Cuyahoga County, Ohio
United States Bankruptcy Court (2004)
Re: Days Inn, Monroeville, Pennsylvania
State of Florida Circuit Court (2004)
Re: Howard Johnson Plaza, Orlando, Florida
Page 7
Re: Preston Hotel, Sharonville, Ohio
College Park Holdings, LLC versus RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. (2002)
Re: Radisson Hotel-Old National Highway, College Park, Georgia
Re: Radisson Gateway Hotel, Cleveland, Ohio
Nationwide Insurance versus Motor Inn, Inc. (2003)
Re: Drawbridge Inn, Fort Mitchell, Kentucky
Page 8
Historical Clients (Partial Listing)
American Youth Hostels
Baker & Hostetler
Bancorp South
Bank of America
Bank of Nova Scotia
Best Western International
BMV Hospitality
Brilyn Inc.
Buffalo Lodging Associates
Capmark Financial
Capstone Realty Advisors
Cedar Fair
Choice Hotels International
Citizens Financial Bank
CIBC
Citicorp Real Estate, Inc.
CNL Income Corporation
Columbia Sussex
Columbus Convention & Visitors Bureau
Comfort Inn
Commercial Mortgage Corporation
Concord Columbus Limited Partnership
Concord Hospitality Enterprises Co.
Continental Companies
Corporex
Days Inns Worldwide Inc.
DBG Enterprises, Inc.
Deutsche Bank
Dillon International
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
Emerald Hospitality
Fifth Third Bank
First Bank of Arizona
First Hospitality Company LLC
Floridian Motel
Focus Hotels
Fort Findlay Brewing Company
Franklin County Convention Facilities
GE Capital Real Estate
Glen Properties
Greenwich Capital
Great Wolf Resorts
Grobmyer Associates
H & W Management Inc.
Harrison Inn
Holiday Inn Express
Homestead Village
Hotel Development Services LLC
Hostmark Hospitality Group
HP Development LLC
Huntington National Bank
Huron Partners
Impac Hotel Group
Indiana Motel Developers, Inc.
Indianapolis Bond Bank
Intercontinental Hotels & Resorts
istar Financial
I-X Center Corporation
Kalahari Resorts
JP Morgan Chase
Landcor Hospitality
Lawrenceburg Redevelopment Commission
Lehman Brothers
Lend Lease
Life Start Wellness Network
M & T Bank
Lowe Gray Steele & Darko, LLP.
Madden Group, Inc.
Marion Cando
Marriott Corporation
Marshall BankFirst
Mcardle Enterprises
Meander Hospitality Group
Meridian Pacific, Ltd.
Metropolitan Life
Michigan State University
Middletown Convention & Visitors Bureau
Mortgage Company of Indiana
MTB Corporation
National City Bank
Nationwide Insurance
Nationwide Realty
New Castle Hotel Group
Nomura Capital
Ocwen Financial Corp.
Ohio Equities, Inc.
Orient Express Hotels
Ohio State University
Overseas Chinese Bank
P & G Hospitality Group
P & S LLC
Peak Resorts Inc.
Peoples Bank of Western Pennsylvania
Petro Environmental Tech. Inc.
Pharmacia & Upjohn
Piqua Improvement Corporation
Prudential Mortgage Capital
Ramada Franchise Systems, Inc.
Roscoe Village Foundation
Rockbridge Capital, Inc.
S & T Bank
Schacet Companies
Schuler, Plank, Morgan and Braham
Scott Enterprises
Sheraton Suites
Shree Radha Krishna
Sheboygan Development Council
Six Flags
Solid Waste Authority
Stonehenge Holdings, Inc.
Suburban Press, Inc.
Sunstone Hotels
Sunshine Home Development
The Catlett Corporation
The Trust for Public Land
Timothy Harvey Properties
Towne Development Group, Ltd.
Vanguard Financial Company
Vedant Inc.
Virchow Krause
Washington Mutual
Wells Fargo Bank
Wheeling National Bank
Wilderness Resorts
Wilson Hotel Management Company Inc
Win Sum Ski Corporation
Wyndham Hotels & Resort
Nuresh Maredia
Associate
14805 Detroit Avenue, Suite 420
Cleveland, Ohio 44107-3921
Phone: 216-228-7000 ext. 24
Fax: 216-228-7320
E-mail: nmaredia@hladvisors.com
Web: www.hladvisors.com
Professional Affiliations
World Waterpark Association
Ohio Travel Association
Ohio Hotel and Lodging Association
National Golf Foundation
National Ski Areas Association
American Resort Development Association
Education
Masters of Science in Hospitality Business, Michigan State University, 2005
Bachelor of Arts in Business Finance, Michigan State University, 2003
Appraisal Institute courses:
Basic Appraisal Procedures
Basic Appraisal Principles
Basic Income Capitalization
Advanced Income Capitalization
National USPAP
Fair Housing
General Appraisal Site Valuation & Cost Approach
Real Estate Finance Statistics and Valuation Modeling
General Market Analysis & Highest and Best Use
State Certification
Certified as a Registered Real Estate Appraisal Assistant in the state of Ohio
Experience
• Associate, Hotel & Leisure Advisors, Cleveland, Ohio February 2006 – Present
• Assistant Manager, Comfort Suites, Houston, Texas June 2003 – December 2003
• Assistant Manager, Samarkand Restaurant, Houston, Texas - 2002 - 2003
Published Articles
“Outdoor Waterparks: Private vs. Municipal” Aquatics International, September, 2009
Mr. Maredia is a hospitality consultant and appraiser. He has a wide range of experience in
operations in hotels and resorts. During Mr. Maredia’s career he has also helped his family
operate and manage four independent hotels in and around Mumbai, India including a five
star holiday resort in Khandala, India.
ADDENDUM II
Demographic and Income Profile
Ogden city
Ogden city, UT (4955980)
Geography: Place
Prepared by David Sangree
Summary
2000
2010
2015
Population
77,226
85,195
90,204
Households
27,384
30,219
32,088
Families
18,405
19,262
20,039
2.73
2.74
2.73
Owner Occupied Housing Units
16,752
18,221
19,307
Renter Occupied Housing Units
10,632
11,998
12,781
28.7
30.4
30.7
Area
1.15%
1.21%
0.79%
1.16%
3.61%
State
2.41%
2.39%
2.22%
2.47%
2.91%
National
0.76%
0.78%
0.64%
0.82%
2.36%
2015
Median Age
Trends: 2010 - 2015 Annual Rate
Population
Households
Families
Owner HHs
Median Household Income
2000
Households by Income
2010
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
<$15,000
5,247
19.2%
4,054
13.4%
3,688
11.5%
$15,000 - $24,999
4,406
16.1%
3,942
13.0%
3,595
11.2%
$25,000 - $34,999
4,417
16.1%
3,449
11.4%
2,977
9.3%
$35,000 - $49,999
5,350
19.5%
5,769
19.1%
4,246
13.2%
$50,000 - $74,999
4,594
16.8%
6,785
22.5%
8,746
27.3%
$75,000 - $99,999
1,716
6.3%
3,733
12.4%
4,214
13.1%
$100,000 - $149,999
971
3.5%
1,528
5.1%
2,761
8.6%
$150,000 - $199,999
270
1.0%
455
1.5%
1,082
3.4%
$200,000+
408
1.5%
504
1.7%
781
2.4%
Average Household Income
Per Capita Income
$34,065
$45,761
$16,632
$44,829
$54,076
$19,651
2000
Population by Age
$53,515
$63,977
$23,259
2010
2015
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
0-4
7,586
9.8%
8,366
9.8%
8,844
9.8%
5-9
6,052
7.8%
7,281
8.5%
7,647
8.5%
10 - 14
5,310
6.9%
6,372
7.5%
7,022
7.8%
15 - 19
6,207
8.0%
6,061
7.1%
6,717
7.4%
20 - 24
8,327
10.8%
6,768
7.9%
7,242
8.0%
25 - 34
12,242
15.9%
14,505
17.0%
13,100
14.5%
35 - 44
10,172
13.2%
10,732
12.6%
12,901
14.3%
45 - 54
7,835
10.1%
9,492
11.1%
9,164
10.2%
55 - 64
4,768
6.2%
7,077
8.3%
8,115
9.0%
65 - 74
4,104
5.3%
4,027
4.7%
5,118
5.7%
75 - 84
3,441
4.5%
2,984
3.5%
2,858
3.2%
85+
1,182
1.5%
1,529
1.8%
1,477
2000
2010
1.6%
2015
Race and Ethnicity
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
White Alone
61,016
79.0%
62,882
73.8%
65,115
72.2%
Black Alone
1,785
2.3%
2,235
2.6%
2,482
2.8%
927
1.2%
1,126
1.3%
1,200
1.3%
1,105
1.4%
1,256
1.5%
1,355
1.5%
133
0.2%
166
0.2%
170
0.2%
9,997
12.9%
14,700
17.3%
16,776
18.6%
American Indian Alone
Asian Alone
Pacific Islander Alone
Some Other Race Alone
Two or More Races
Hispanic Origin (Any Race)
2,263
2.9%
2,830
3.3%
3,105
3.4%
18,253
23.6%
26,753
31.4%
31,142
34.5%
Data Note: Income is expressed in current dollars
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census of Population and Housing. ESRI forecasts for 2010 and 2015.
November 18, 2010
©2010 ESRI
Page 1 of 2
Ogden city
Ogden city, UT (4955980)
Geography: Place
Trends 2010-2015
Annual Rate (in percent)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
Area
State
USA
0.5
0
Population
Households
Families
Owner HHs
Median HH Income
Population by Age
16
14
Percent
12
10
8
6
4
2010
2015
2
0
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-34
2010 Household Income
$50K - $74K
22.5%
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75-84
85+
2010 Population by Race
70
$75K - $99K
12.4%
65
60
$100K - $149K
5.1%
55
50
$200K+
1.7%
$35K - $49K
19.1%
Percent
$150K - $199K
1.5%
45
40
35
30
25
< $15K
13.4%
20
15
10
$25K - $34K
11.4%
5
$15K - $24K
13.0%
0
White
Black
Am. Ind.
Asian
Pacific
Other
Two+
2010 Percent Hispanic Origin: 31.4%
November 18, 2010
©2010 ESRI
Page 2 of 2
Weber County
Weber County, UT (49057)
Geography: County
Summary
2000
2010
2015
196,533
234,099
255,870
Households
65,698
78,820
86,258
Families
49,549
57,755
62,509
2.95
2.93
2.93
49,190
58,911
64,734
16,508
19,909
21,524
29.3
31.5
32.4
Area
1.79%
1.82%
1.59%
1.90%
3.01%
State
2.41%
2.39%
2.22%
2.47%
2.91%
National
0.76%
0.78%
0.64%
0.82%
2.36%
2015
Population
Median Age
Population
Households
Families
Owner HHs
2000
2010
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
<$15,000
7,713
11.7%
5,900
7.5%
5,208
6.0%
$15,000 - $24,999
7,891
12.0%
6,473
8.2%
5,653
6.6%
$25,000 - $34,999
8,863
13.5%
7,029
8.9%
5,746
6.7%
$35,000 - $49,999
13,295
20.2%
12,959
16.4%
9,031
10.5%
$50,000 - $74,999
14,679
22.3%
20,285
25.7%
24,766
28.7%
$75,000 - $99,999
7,192
10.9%
14,797
18.8%
15,629
18.1%
$100,000 - $149,999
4,336
6.6%
8,052
10.2%
14,184
16.4%
$150,000 - $199,999
876
1.3%
1,907
2.4%
3,805
4.4%
$200,000+
863
1.3%
1,418
1.8%
2,236
2.6%
Per Capita Income
$44,099
$53,997
$18,246
$57,280
$66,655
$22,672
2000
Population by Age
$66,445
$77,672
$26,423
2010
2015
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
0-4
17,705
9.0%
21,751
9.3%
23,630
9.2%
5-9
16,394
8.3%
19,957
8.5%
22,008
8.6%
10 - 14
16,346
8.3%
18,357
7.8%
21,222
8.3%
15 - 19
17,671
9.0%
17,433
7.4%
18,886
7.4%
20 - 24
17,559
8.9%
15,566
6.6%
16,524
6.5%
25 - 34
27,331
13.9%
37,942
16.2%
35,687
13.9%
35 - 44
27,595
14.0%
29,949
12.8%
38,094
14.9%
45 - 54
22,115
11.3%
28,412
12.1%
27,789
10.9%
55 - 64
13,537
6.9%
21,558
9.2%
24,907
9.7%
65 - 74
10,520
5.4%
12,028
5.1%
15,674
6.1%
75 - 84
7,531
3.8%
7,756
3.3%
7,966
3.1%
85+
2,229
1.1%
3,390
1.4%
3,483
2000
2010
1.4%
2015
Race and Ethnicity
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
White Alone
172,339
87.7%
198,626
84.8%
214,664
83.9%
Black Alone
2,748
1.4%
3,684
1.6%
4,231
1.7%
1,510
0.8%
2,016
0.9%
2,250
0.9%
Asian Alone
2,508
1.3%
3,172
1.4%
3,578
1.4%
319
0.2%
453
0.2%
483
0.2%
12,943
6.6%
20,380
8.7%
24,035
9.4%
4,166
2.1%
5,768
2.5%
6,629
2.6%
24,858
12.6%
39,468
16.9%
47,792
18.7%
Two or More Races
November 18, 2010
©2010 ESRI
Page 1 of 2
Weber County
Weber County, UT (49057)
Geography: County
Trends 2010-2015
3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Area
State
USA
Population
Households
Families
Owner HHs
Median HH Income
Population by Age
16
14
Percent
12
10
8
6
4
2010
2015
2
0
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-34
35-44
55-64
65-74
75-84
85+
$75K - $99K
18.8%
$100K - $149K
10.2%
$200K+
1.8%
< $15K
7.5%
$15K - $24K
8.2%
$25K - $34K
8.9%
Percent
$150K - $199K
2.4%
$50K - $74K
25.7%
$35K - $49K
16.4%
45-54
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
White
Black
Am. Ind.
Asian
Pacific
Other
Two+
November 18, 2010
©2010 ESRI
Page 2 of 2
Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area (36260)
Geography: CBSA
Summary
2000
2010
2015
Population
442,656
555,595
617,809
Households
138,945
176,193
196,363
Families
110,604
137,345
151,834
3.14
3.12
3.11
106,191
134,670
150,705
32,754
41,523
45,658
27.9
30.0
30.7
Area
2.15%
2.19%
2.03%
2.28%
2.86%
State
2.41%
2.39%
2.22%
2.47%
2.91%
National
0.76%
0.78%
0.64%
0.82%
2.36%
2015
Median Age
Population
Households
Families
Owner HHs
2000
2010
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
<$15,000
12,404
8.9%
9,870
5.6%
8,470
4.3%
$15,000 - $24,999
14,333
10.3%
11,230
6.4%
9,496
4.8%
$25,000 - $34,999
17,277
12.4%
13,208
7.5%
10,427
5.3%
$35,000 - $49,999
26,919
19.4%
25,967
14.7%
16,800
8.6%
$50,000 - $74,999
33,620
24.2%
45,542
25.8%
55,517
28.3%
$75,000 - $99,999
17,943
12.9%
31,920
18.1%
34,230
17.4%
$100,000 - $149,999
11,384
8.2%
27,264
15.5%
42,161
21.5%
$150,000 - $199,999
2,645
1.9%
6,322
3.6%
11,920
6.1%
$200,000+
2,357
1.7%
4,870
2.8%
7,342
3.7%
Per Capita Income
$49,040
$59,500
$18,917
$63,885
$76,008
$24,296
2000
Population by Age
$73,574
$87,877
$28,127
2010
2015
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
0-4
41,615
9.4%
55,139
9.9%
61,416
9.9%
5-9
39,630
9.0%
50,512
9.1%
57,244
9.3%
10 - 14
40,233
9.1%
46,976
8.5%
55,070
8.9%
15 - 19
42,572
9.6%
44,696
8.0%
48,575
7.9%
20 - 24
38,158
8.6%
37,393
6.7%
39,963
6.5%
25 - 34
61,313
13.9%
89,181
16.1%
88,345
14.3%
35 - 44
62,708
14.2%
72,231
13.0%
91,403
14.8%
45 - 54
48,791
11.0%
66,181
11.9%
66,288
10.7%
55 - 64
29,196
6.6%
46,864
8.4%
54,769
8.9%
65 - 74
20,872
4.7%
25,143
4.5%
32,437
5.3%
75 - 84
13,586
3.1%
15,083
2.7%
15,818
2.6%
3,982
0.9%
6,196
1.1%
6,481
85+
2000
2010
1.0%
2015
Race and Ethnicity
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
White Alone
399,819
90.3%
489,338
88.1%
540,890
87.5%
Black Alone
5,366
1.2%
7,979
1.4%
9,439
1.5%
2,902
0.7%
3,910
0.7%
4,314
0.7%
Asian Alone
6,184
1.4%
8,605
1.5%
9,841
1.6%
958
0.2%
1,637
0.3%
1,739
0.3%
18,476
4.2%
30,899
5.6%
36,409
5.9%
8,951
2.0%
13,227
2.4%
15,177
2.5%
37,916
8.6%
64,718
11.6%
79,067
12.8%
Two or More Races
November 18, 2010
©2010 ESRI
Page 1 of 2
Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area (36260)
Geography: CBSA
Trends 2010-2015
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Area
State
USA
Population
Households
Families
Owner HHs
Median HH Income
Population by Age
16
14
Percent
12
10
8
6
4
2010
2015
2
0
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75-84
85+
$75K - $99K
18.1%
80
$100K - $149K
15.5%
70
60
$200K+
2.8%
$50K - $74K
25.8%
< $15K
5.6%
$15K - $24K
6.4%
Percent
$150K - $199K
3.6%
50
40
30
20
10
$25K - $34K
7.5%
$35K - $49K
14.7%
0
White
Black
Am. Ind.
Asian
Pacific
Other
Two+
November 18, 2010
©2010 ESRI
Page 2 of 2
Salt Lake City MSA
Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area (41620)
Geography: CBSA
Summary
2000
2010
2015
Population
968,858
1,153,603
1,258,207
Households
318,150
379,296
414,060
Families
231,730
267,913
289,042
3.00
3.00
3.00
221,343
264,476
290,096
96,807
114,820
123,964
28.9
30.7
31.2
Area
1.75%
1.77%
1.53%
1.87%
3.12%
State
2.41%
2.39%
2.22%
2.47%
2.91%
National
0.76%
0.78%
0.64%
0.82%
2.36%
2015
Median Age
Population
Households
Families
Owner HHs
2000
2010
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
<$15,000
31,306
9.8%
23,922
6.3%
19,692
4.8%
$15,000 - $24,999
34,232
10.8%
24,466
6.5%
19,928
4.8%
$25,000 - $34,999
39,540
12.4%
28,614
7.5%
21,747
5.3%
$35,000 - $49,999
58,432
18.4%
52,731
13.9%
34,924
8.4%
$50,000 - $74,999
73,350
23.0%
95,601
25.2%
111,789
27.0%
$75,000 - $99,999
39,225
12.3%
67,955
17.9%
66,885
16.2%
$100,000 - $149,999
27,782
8.7%
57,221
15.1%
90,991
22.0%
$150,000 - $199,999
6,956
2.2%
15,345
4.0%
28,279
6.8%
$200,000+
7,516
2.4%
13,441
3.5%
19,825
4.8%
Per Capita Income
$48,716
$61,348
$20,444
$64,057
$78,339
$25,995
2000
Population by Age
$74,695
$91,689
$30,421
2010
2015
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
0-4
86,427
8.9%
107,426
9.3%
117,831
9.4%
5-9
80,301
8.3%
97,960
8.5%
109,186
8.7%
10 - 14
79,210
8.2%
91,416
7.9%
104,206
8.3%
15 - 19
84,596
8.7%
87,562
7.6%
94,493
7.5%
20 - 24
88,863
9.2%
82,076
7.1%
87,529
7.0%
25 - 34
155,438
16.0%
195,758
17.0%
192,511
15.3%
35 - 44
141,782
14.6%
161,785
14.0%
192,523
15.3%
45 - 54
112,344
11.6%
140,780
12.2%
142,506
11.3%
55 - 64
62,796
6.5%
97,173
8.4%
109,725
8.7%
65 - 74
40,700
4.2%
49,393
4.3%
63,570
5.1%
75 - 84
27,431
2.8%
29,140
2.5%
30,482
2.4%
8,970
0.9%
13,134
1.1%
13,645
85+
2000
2010
1.1%
2015
Race and Ethnicity
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
White Alone
839,295
86.6%
951,439
82.5%
1,021,382
81.2%
Black Alone
10,088
1.0%
19,088
1.7%
23,130
1.8%
8,677
0.9%
11,320
1.0%
12,684
1.0%
Asian Alone
23,520
2.4%
32,857
2.8%
38,712
3.1%
11,160
1.2%
13,981
1.2%
14,926
1.2%
51,616
5.3%
88,780
7.7%
105,227
8.4%
Two or More Races
24,502
2.5%
36,138
3.1%
42,146
3.3%
113,407
11.7%
196,392
17.0%
242,313
19.3%
November 29, 2010
©2010 ESRI
Page 1 of 2
Salt Lake City MSA
Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area (41620)
Geography: CBSA
Trends 2010-2015
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
Area
State
USA
0.5
0
Population
Households
Families
Owner HHs
Median HH Income
Population by Age
16
14
Percent
12
10
8
6
4
2010
2015
2
0
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-34
$75K - $99K
17.9%
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75-84
85+
80
$100K - $149K
15.1%
75
70
65
60
$150K - $199K
4.0%
$50K - $74K
25.2%
< $15K
6.3%
55
Percent
$200K+
3.5%
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
$15K - $24K
6.5%
$35K - $49K
13.9%
$25K - $34K
7.5%
15
10
5
0
White
Black
Am. Ind.
Asian
Pacific
Other
Two+
November 29, 2010
©2010 ESRI
Page 2 of 2
Provo-Orem UT MSA
Provo-Orem, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area (39340)
Geography: CBSA
Summary
2000
2010
2015
Population
376,774
557,878
681,483
Households
102,393
150,045
183,885
82,721
118,482
143,938
3.59
3.64
3.64
68,747
101,472
125,315
33,646
48,573
58,570
23.4
24.5
24.5
Area
4.08%
4.15%
3.97%
4.31%
2.97%
State
2.41%
2.39%
2.22%
2.47%
2.91%
National
0.76%
0.78%
0.64%
0.82%
2.36%
2015
Families
Median Age
Population
Households
Families
Owner HHs
2000
2010
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
<$15,000
10,331
10.1%
9,170
6.1%
8,844
4.8%
$15,000 - $24,999
12,668
12.3%
11,464
7.6%
10,830
5.9%
$25,000 - $34,999
13,584
13.2%
12,340
8.2%
10,942
6.0%
$35,000 - $49,999
19,864
19.4%
23,235
15.5%
18,570
10.1%
$50,000 - $74,999
23,402
22.8%
39,065
26.0%
51,968
28.3%
$75,000 - $99,999
11,531
11.2%
26,851
17.9%
28,988
15.8%
$100,000 - $149,999
7,707
7.5%
19,936
13.3%
38,204
20.8%
$150,000 - $199,999
1,964
1.9%
3,999
2.7%
8,625
4.7%
$200,000+
1,560
1.5%
3,983
2.7%
6,912
3.8%
Per Capita Income
$45,576
$56,073
$15,496
$59,777
$72,182
$19,776
2000
Population by Age
$69,213
$84,352
$23,097
2010
2015
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
0-4
41,293
11.0%
60,888
10.9%
74,351
10.9%
5-9
34,724
9.2%
50,899
9.1%
63,477
9.3%
10 - 14
32,251
8.6%
46,651
8.4%
59,446
8.7%
15 - 19
42,361
11.2%
56,855
10.2%
65,837
9.7%
20 - 24
56,169
14.9%
70,933
12.7%
85,560
12.6%
25 - 34
57,248
15.2%
85,396
15.3%
96,556
14.2%
35 - 44
40,141
10.7%
62,734
11.2%
82,068
12.0%
45 - 54
30,128
8.0%
52,386
9.4%
60,966
8.9%
55 - 64
18,147
4.8%
36,047
6.5%
46,750
6.9%
65 - 74
12,856
3.4%
18,889
3.4%
27,637
4.1%
75 - 84
8,462
2.2%
11,186
2.0%
13,062
1.9%
85+
2,994
0.8%
5,014
0.9%
5,773
2000
2010
0.8%
2015
Race and Ethnicity
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
White Alone
348,343
92.5%
501,550
89.9%
614,301
90.1%
Black Alone
1,108
0.3%
3,234
0.6%
3,951
0.6%
2,290
0.6%
3,594
0.6%
4,036
0.6%
Asian Alone
3,945
1.0%
7,937
1.4%
9,826
1.4%
2,126
0.6%
3,274
0.6%
3,508
0.5%
12,045
3.2%
25,523
4.6%
30,448
4.5%
6,917
1.8%
12,766
2.3%
15,413
2.3%
26,008
6.9%
55,749
10.0%
70,534
10.4%
Two or More Races
December 06, 2010
©2010 ESRI
Page 1 of 2
Provo-Orem UT MSA
Provo-Orem, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area (39340)
Geography: CBSA
Trends 2010-2015
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
Area
State
USA
1
0.5
0
Population
Households
Families
Owner HHs
Median HH Income
Percent
Population by Age
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2010
2015
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75-84
85+
$75K - $99K
17.9%
80
$100K - $149K
13.3%
70
$150K - $199K
2.7%
$50K - $74K
26.0%
< $15K
6.1%
60
Percent
$200K+
2.7%
50
40
30
20
$15K - $24K
7.6%
$35K - $49K
15.5%
$25K - $34K
8.2%
10
0
White
Black
Am. Ind.
Asian
Pacific
Other
Two+
December 06, 2010
©2010 ESRI
Page 2 of 2
ADDENDUM III
Recreation Expenditures
Weber County
Geography: County
Demographic Summary
Population
2010
2015
234,099
255,870
Households
78,820
86,258
Families
57,755
62,509
Median Age
Entertainment/Recreation Fees and Admissions
Admission to Movies, Theater, Opera, Ballet
Admission to Sporting Events, excl. Trips
31.5
32.4
$57,280
$66,445
Spending
Average
Potential
Amount
Index
Spent
Total
98
$607.05
$47,847,656
97
$147.56
$11,631,022
$4,737,757
101
$60.11
Fees for Participant Sports, excl. Trips
98
$105.03
$8,278,427
Fees for Recreational Lessons
99
$134.72
$10,618,741
Membership Fees for Social/Recreation/Civic Clubs
97
$158.95
$12,528,144
Dating Services
88
$0.68
$53,565
Rental of Video Cassettes and DVDs
98
$40.52
$3,193,730
Toys & Games
97
$141.54
$11,155,980
Toys and Playground Equipment
97
$137.49
$10,836,791
Play Arcade Pinball/Video Games
96
$1.81
$142,417
Online Entertainment and Games
97
$2.24
$176,772
$22,290,195
Recreational Vehicles and Fees
88
$282.80
Docking and Landing Fees for Boats and Planes
97
$6.86
$540,394
Camp Fees
97
$28.03
$2,209,082
Purchase of RVs or Boats
86
$239.88
$18,907,594
Rental of RVs or Boats
94
$8.03
$633,125
Sports, Recreation and Exercise Equipment
76
$137.55
$10,841,811
Exercise Equipment and Gear, Game Tables
81
$66.53
$5,243,627
Bicycles
97
$19.26
$1,517,924
Camping Equipment
40
$5.72
$450,569
Hunting and Fishing Equipment
56
$21.49
$1,694,124
Winter Sports Equipment
87
$5.60
$441,051
Water Sports Equipment
89
$5.92
$466,756
Other Sports Equipment
98
$9.26
$729,569
Rental/Repair of Sports/Recreation/Exercise Equipment
95
$3.78
$298,191
$7,936,796
Photographic Equipment and Supplies
97
$100.70
Film
94
$6.90
$543,544
Film Processing
96
$21.46
$1,691,477
Photographic Equipment
98
$42.05
$3,314,449
Photographer Fees/Other Supplies & Equip Rental/Repair
98
$30.29
$2,387,326
95
$147.12
$11,595,882
Magazine/Newspaper Subscriptions
95
$60.34
$4,756,256
Magazine/Newspaper Single Copies
93
$17.74
$1,398,531
Books
95
$69.03
$5,441,095
Reading
Data Note: The Spending Potential Index (SPI) is household-based, and represents the amount spent for a product or service relative to a national average of
100. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Source: ESRI forecasts for 2010 and 2015; Consumer Spending data are derived from the 2006 and 2007 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
©2010 ESRI
11/24/2010
Page 1 of 1
Sports and Leisure
Market Potential
Utah
Utah
Geography: State
Demographic Summary
2010
2015
Population
2,841,749
3,200,614
Population 18+
1,948,589
2,177,516
Households
891,250
1,003,042
$59,738
$68,954
Expected
Number of
Product/Consumer Behavior
Adults
Percent
MPI
Participated in aerobics
209,488
10.8%
114
Participated in archery
46,702
2.4%
105
Participated in auto racing
41,812
2.1%
103
Participated in backpacking/hiking
166,112
8.5%
109
Participated in baseball
102,947
5.3%
106
Participated in basketball
196,720
10.1%
114
84,631
4.3%
113
Participated in bicycling (road)
196,277
10.1%
111
Participated in boating (power)
123,440
6.3%
109
Participated in bowling
244,413
12.5%
117
Participated in canoeing/kayaking
90,923
4.7%
109
Participated in downhill skiing
60,984
3.1%
108
280,501
14.4%
107
84,388
4.3%
104
Participated in football
128,553
6.6%
113
Participated in Frisbee
102,702
5.3%
111
Participated in golf
226,054
11.6%
114
85,922
4.4%
119
113,804
5.8%
109
Participated in horseback riding
58,419
3.0%
107
Participated in hunting with rifle
97,419
5.0%
104
Participated in hunting with shotgun
82,029
4.2%
104
Participated in ice skating
53,564
2.7%
105
209,515
10.8%
116
Participated in martial arts
29,991
1.5%
112
Participated in motorcycling
76,374
3.9%
109
Participated in Pilates
74,642
3.8%
112
Participated in roller blading/in-line skating
53,793
2.8%
113
Participated in snorkeling/skin diving
48,061
2.5%
111
Participated in snowboarding
34,241
1.8%
107
Participated in soccer
81,265
4.2%
106
Participated in softball
81,419
4.2%
112
393,600
20.2%
113
Participated in target shooting
84,680
4.3%
111
Participated in tennis
88,341
4.5%
109
Participated in volleyball
67,247
3.5%
107
Participated in walking for exercise
574,724
29.5%
107
Participated in weight lifting
285,831
14.7%
118
Participated in yoga
104,189
5.3%
105
Spent on high end sports/recreation equipment/12 mo: <$250
86,799
4.5%
112
Spent on high end sports/recreation equipment/12 mo: $250+
88,738
4.6%
120
Attend sports event: auto racing (NASCAR)
137,954
7.1%
114
Attend sports event: auto racing (not NASCAR)
108,273
5.6%
110
Attend sports event: baseball game
289,587
14.9%
113
Participated in bicycling (mountain)
Participated in fishing (fresh water)
Participated in fishing (salt water)
Play golf < once a month
Play golf 1+ times a month
Participated in jogging/running
Participated in swimming
Data Note: An MPI (Market Potential Index) measures the relative likelihood of the adults in the specified trade area to exhibit certain consumer behavior or purchasing patterns
compared to the U.S. An MPI of 100 represents the U.S. average.
Source: These data are based upon national propensities to use various products and services, applied to local demographic composition. Usage data were collected by GfK MRI in
a nationally representative survey of U.S. households. ESRI forecasts for 2010 and 2015.
©2010 ESRI
11/23/2010
Page 1 of 4
Sports and Leisure
Market Potential
Utah
Utah
Geography: State
Expected
Number of
Adults
Percent
MPI
Attend sports event: basketball game (college)
148,594
7.6%
111
Attend sports event: basketball game (pro)
161,417
8.3%
116
Attend sports event: football game (college)
207,079
10.6%
120
Attend sports event: football-Monday night game (pro)
104,524
5.4%
112
Attend sports event: football-weekend game (pro)
177,403
9.1%
116
Attend sports event: golf tournament
93,182
4.8%
112
Attend sports event: ice hockey game
118,957
6.1%
113
Attend sports event: soccer game
112,419
5.8%
114
Attend sports event: tennis match
73,046
3.7%
104
Attended adult education course in last 12 months
134,630
6.9%
106
Attended auto show in last 12 months
169,541
8.7%
106
Went to bar/night club in last 12 months
398,516
20.5%
112
Went to beach in last 12 months
491,973
25.2%
107
82,392
4.2%
101
190,839
9.8%
106
1,015,856
52.1%
107
90,797
4.7%
107
Dine out once a month
126,356
6.5%
104
Dine out 2-3 times a month
232,619
11.9%
107
Dine out once a week
246,165
12.6%
110
Dine out 2+ times per week
210,826
10.8%
107
Gambled at casino in last 12 months
329,217
16.9%
105
Gambled at casino 6+ times in last 12 months
54,027
2.8%
104
Gambled in Atlantic City in last 12 months
41,096
2.1%
77
Gambled in Las Vegas in last 12 months
99,453
5.1%
110
Attended dance performance in last 12 months
Danced/went dancing in last 12 months
Dined out in last 12 months
Dine out < once a month
Attended horse races in last 12 months
55,820
2.9%
102
1,204,770
61.8%
106
Attended movies in last 90 days: < once a month
655,797
33.7%
107
Attended movies in last 90 days: once a month
213,822
11.0%
109
Attended movies in last 90 days: 2-3 times a month
137,153
7.0%
107
Attended movies in last 90 days: once/week or more
53,048
2.7%
100
Prefer to see movie after second week of release
504,602
25.9%
108
Went to museum in last 12 months
253,257
13.0%
107
Attended country music performance in last 12 mo
110,529
5.7%
111
Attended rock music performance in last 12 months
215,296
11.0%
111
Attended classical music/opera performance/12 mo
91,817
4.7%
97
Went to live theater in last 12 months
256,058
13.1%
104
Visited a theme park in last 12 months
111
Attended movies in last 6 months
482,608
24.8%
Visited Disneyland (CA) in last 12 months
55,839
2.9%
91
Visited Disney World (FL)/12 mo: Animal Kingdom
53,780
2.8%
113
Visited Disney World (FL)/12 mo: Epcot Center
61,988
3.2%
111
Visited Disney World (FL)/12 mo: Magic Kingdom
77,985
4.0%
115
Visited any Sea World in last 12 months
80,533
4.1%
125
Visited any Six Flags in last 12 months
125,177
6.4%
104
Went to zoo in last 12 months
281,026
14.4%
117
Played backgammon in last 12 months
37,594
1.9%
110
Participated in book club in last 12 months
56,329
2.9%
96
207,315
10.6%
112
83,748
4.3%
97
Played billiards/pool in last 12 months
Played bingo in last 12 months
©2010 ESRI
11/23/2010
Page 2 of 4
Sports and Leisure
Market Potential
Utah
Utah
Geography: State
Expected
Number of
Adults
Percent
MPI
Did birdwatching in last 12 months
120,154
6.2%
102
Played board game in last 12 months
375,438
19.3%
113
Played cards in last 12 months
460,731
23.6%
108
Played chess in last 12 months
71,711
3.7%
105
Cooked for fun in last 12 months
424,439
21.8%
110
Did crossword puzzle in last 12 months
278,103
14.3%
100
Participated in fantasy sports league last 12 mo
69,789
3.6%
123
Flew a kite in last 12 months
57,462
2.9%
112
Did furniture refinishing in last 12 months
66,192
3.4%
106
204,615
10.5%
104
85,183
4.4%
106
687,514
35.3%
101
Bought lottery ticket in last 12 mo: Daily Drawing
86,200
4.4%
88
Bought lottery ticket in last 12 mo: Instant Game
324,805
16.7%
101
Bought lottery ticket in last 12 mo: Lotto Drawing
445,750
22.9%
105
Played lottery: <2 times in last 30 days
235,460
12.1%
103
Played lottery: 2-5 times in last 30 days
231,891
11.9%
102
Played lottery: 6+ times in last 30 days
220,467
11.3%
99
Played musical instrument in last 12 months
166,398
8.5%
111
Did painting/drawing in last 12 months
131,307
6.7%
101
Did photography in last 12 months
275,645
14.1%
110
Read book in last 12 months
797,307
40.9%
105
Participated in trivia games in last 12 months
129,798
6.7%
111
Played video game in last 12 months
252,948
13.0%
112
95,142
4.9%
104
Participated in word games in last 12 months
185,829
9.5%
101
Member of AARP
292,249
15.0%
97
46,654
2.4%
111
Did indoor gardening/plant care in last 12 months
Participated in karaoke in last 12 months
Bought lottery ticket in last 12 months
Did woodworking in last 12 months
Member of business club
Member of charitable organization
131,307
6.7%
106
Member of church board
84,695
4.3%
100
Member of fraternal order
75,709
3.9%
102
Member of religious club
134,873
6.9%
104
35,868
1.8%
107
101,381
5.2%
95
66,335
3.4%
95
Bought any children`s toy/game in last 12 months
720,024
37.0%
107
Spent on toys/games in last 12 months: <$50
125,547
6.4%
103
54,512
2.8%
102
Spent on toys/games in last 12 months: $100-199
138,851
7.1%
100
229,737
11.8%
114
Spent on toys/games in last 12 months: $500+
123,836
6.4%
115
Bought infant toy in last 12 months
169,874
8.7%
106
Bought pre-school toy in last 12 months
182,227
9.4%
112
Spent on toys/games (for child <6)/12 mo: <$100
231,484
11.9%
106
Spent on toys/games (for child <6)/12 mo: $100-199
143,712
7.4%
110
Spent on toys/games (for child <6)/12 mo: $200+
167,103
8.6%
114
Bought for child in last 12 mo: boy action figure
170,408
8.7%
110
Bought for child in last 12 mo: girl action figure
62,858
3.2%
103
Bought for child in last 12 mo: bicycle
141,550
7.3%
112
Bought for child in last 12 mo: board game
264,626
13.6%
112
73,255
3.8%
106
Member of school or college board
Member of union
Member of veterans club
Bought for child in last 12 mo: builder set
©2010 ESRI
11/23/2010
Page 3 of 4
Sports and Leisure
Market Potential
Utah
Utah
Geography: State
Expected
Number of
Adults
Percent
MPI
Bought for child in last 12 mo: car
196,516
10.1%
110
Bought for child in last 12 mo: construction toy
110,090
5.6%
111
Bought for child in last 12 mo: large/baby doll
135,556
7.0%
104
Bought for child in last 12 mo: fashion doll
113,020
5.8%
107
Bought for child in last 12 mo: plush doll/animal
181,619
9.3%
113
Bought for child in last 12 mo: doll accessories
81,917
4.2%
104
Bought for child in last 12 mo: doll clothing
83,342
4.3%
101
Bought for child in last 12 mo: educational toy
310,730
15.9%
113
Bought for child in last 12 mo: electronic game
199,601
10.2%
111
Bought for child in last 12 mo: mechanical toy
86,041
4.4%
109
Bought for child in last 12 mo: model kit/set
58,969
3.0%
114
Bought for child in last 12 mo: sound game
53,313
2.7%
97
211,675
10.9%
116
Bought for child in last 12 mo: water toy
Bought for child in last 12 mo: word game
77,137
4.0%
106
1,014,509
52.1%
105
Bought 1-3 books in last 12 months
381,561
19.6%
101
Bought 4-9 books in last 12 months
320,354
16.4%
106
Bought 10+ books in last 12 months
312,611
16.0%
110
Bought paperback book in last 12 months
778,970
40.0%
107
Bought <3 paperback books in last 12 months
253,616
13.0%
103
Bought 3-6 paperback books in last 12 months
279,235
14.3%
109
Bought 7+ paperback books in last 12 months
246,808
12.7%
109
Bought hardcover book in last 12 months
574,440
29.5%
107
Bought <3 hardcover books in last 12 months
249,761
12.8%
107
Bought 3-5 hardcover books in last 12 months
165,203
8.5%
106
Bought 6+ hardcover books in last 12 months
164,056
8.4%
107
Bought book (fiction) in last 12 months
579,019
29.7%
107
Bought book (non-fiction) in last 12 months
537,667
27.6%
108
Bought biography in last 12 months
138,793
7.1%
101
Bought children`s book in last 12 months
268,336
13.8%
109
Bought cookbook in last 12 months
219,083
11.2%
102
41,020
2.1%
94
Bought history book in last 12 months
156,899
8.1%
104
Bought mystery book in last 12 months
232,335
11.9%
103
Bought personal/business self-help book last 12 mo
157,467
8.1%
111
Bought religious book (not bible) last 12 months
170,754
8.8%
110
Bought romance book in last 12 months
124,624
6.4%
101
Bought science fiction book in last 12 months
87,336
4.5%
109
Bought book through book club in last 12 months
98,315
5.0%
104
Bought book at book store in last 12 months
695,636
35.7%
109
Bought book at Barnes & Noble in last 12 months
405,630
20.8%
109
Bought book at Borders in last 12 months
226,221
11.6%
108
Bought book at convenience store in last 12 months
37,742
1.9%
91
Bought book at department store in last 12 months
158,984
8.2%
106
Bought book in last 12 months
Bought desk dictionary in last 12 months
Bought book at drug store in last 12 months
39,321
2.0%
92
Bought book through Internet in last 12 mo
196,143
10.1%
110
Bought book through mail order in last 12 months
64,695
3.3%
93
Bought book at supermarket in last 12 months
98,624
5.1%
102
122,158
6.3%
105
Bought book at warehouse store in last 12 months
©2010 ESRI
11/23/2010
Page 4 of 4

market feasibility study and financial analysis

Transcription

Similar documents

View as a single PDF file

Holiday Inn Express Fact Sheet - Q3 2014

whole pack!

At Aquafantasy in Turkey

We would also like to remind you that we can

coconut coast po`ipu 5 princeville

choice hotel pages

Pit-spittin`, Pie-eatin`, Cherry Kind of Time