FACILITY FINANCING/CONSTRUCTION WORK PROJECT
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
FACILITY FINANCING/CONSTRUCTION WORK PROJECT
- FACILITY FINANCING/CONSTRUCTION 75 Pts. Due 4/30
This project will allow group members (2-3) to develop financing for the construction of a sport facility from scratch by utilizing the fund raising and financing ideas discussed throughout the semester.
Facility Construction
Your group has been hired as an outside consultant by the Bay Area Parks & Recreation District and is charged with the following responsibilities:
1) You will develop two feasible financing strategies for the project (#1 Private; #2 Combination Private/Public). Each of the funding options must be sufficient to cover both the construction and operational costs for the project.
2) For each of the two financing alternatives that you identify, furnish the following information:
- a) A detailed explanation of what you have planned for the debt retirement (sources of revenue, coverage rate, discounted payback period, total interest paid)
- b) The economic feasibility and/or realistic nature of your financing option. Example: are the taxes/prices/attendance estimates… realistic?
- c) A discussion of the relative pros and cons of adopting the financing option from both a financial as well as political (public support) perspective
- d) Detailed table that illustrates the financial information for the alternatives that are identified (e.g., bond retirement schedules on Excel). Tables should include explanations of all revenue generated. All calculations and assumptions should be explained and easy to follow and well organized. Show all formulas.
3) Finally, provide a rationale justifying the “one best strategy” your group would recommend that the District adopt from among the list of two options that you have identified and explained.
Information: The Bay Area Parks & Recreation District Wave Pool Proposal –
COSMA Goal #1, #2, #3
Currently, the residents of the Bay Area suffer from a significant deficiency in the provision of swimming opportunities. The Park and Recreation District serves just over 40,000 people in the center of a rich hospitality and tourism community. The original Districts ‘city pool’, which served the community for 50 years, was recently closed and demolished because of its age and safety concerns.
District staff recommended that instead of building another traditional pool, a wave pool should be constructed. There were two primary reasons for this suggestion. First, they believed that a wave pool offered a superior recreational experience to the consumer. The second reason was that the wave pool would be more advantageous economically. Experience from other communities suggested that it was probable that revenues from such a facility would at least equal operational costs and perhaps even exceed them. Thus, instead of losing $75,000 per year as the traditional pool had, the wave pool could likely be counted on to break even until the payback period and potentially profit after.
There are approximately 200 wave pools operating in the United States. Most of these are in the private sector, where they have been popularized by the development of aquatic theme parks, but some are operated by government agencies.
When the wave activating mechanism in a wave pool is set in motion, waves roll from the deep end, where they are the highest, down to the shallow end, declining in height as they dissipate along the widening fan shaped pool. The usual operation is to switch on the waves for 10 minutes every 20 or 30 minutes, so those who do not enjoy the waves can swim also.
To determine the cost and attendance projections, the District hired a consulting firm which specialized in wave pool facilities. Their preliminary feasibility study determined that the total development cost of the wave pool project would be $ 6.0 million (See Exhibit A). The consultants estimated initial annual operation and maintenance costs to be $375,000 (See Exhibit B). The uniqueness of the facility led the consultants to project substantial local and regional (50 mile trading radius) demand with annual attendance estimates ranging from a most conservative scenario of 100,000 to the most optimistic of 150,000 users per year, of which half would be children. The suggested admission price was set at $10 for adults and $5 for children. The study implied that the wave pool would be profitable, but did not calculate a detailed pro forma (“according to form”) analysis.
Recently, the wave pool has been a main story in the local media. A number of citizens have expressed concern about the proposed development. Several people spoke out against the project because of their concern that waves would make the pool unsafe for small children. A vocal segment of the community residents argue that if the wave pool is capable of making profit, then the private sector, not a public agency, should build and operate the facility. Some community members oppose any tax money being spent on the project.
Despite these mounting public concerns, the Bay Area Board of Directors has decided to go forward with the project. They voted unanimously to set aside a 5-acre tract of land in one of the community’s most accessible parks for development of the wave pool facility. The major issue facing operation of the proposed facility is financing.
The present aggregate value of property in the Bay Area District is $350 million. The average home value is $200,000. The district has no outstanding debt, so it can legally use all of its 2% debt ceiling capacity. Revenue bonds are currently rated at 8.0% and general obligation bonds are 6.50%.
Other potential financial assistance opportunities have been identified as follows:
State Recreation Development Assistance Fund
1) Competitive grant for one-time project funding
2) Grants amount up to $150,000
3) Covers new recreation facility construction or facility renovation
State Association Forestry Fund
1) Competitive grant, one-time per project funding
2) Grant amount up to $35,000
3) Covers tree planting
Community Economic Development Program
1) Competitive grant, one-time per project funding
2) Grant amount up to $40,000
3) Projects must provide regional economic benefits
4) Covers business development costs, including infrastructure and startup
Bay Area Adopt-A-Park Foundation
1) Annual fundraising averages $25,000
2) Covers all types of projects and programs
EXHIBIT A: CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE FOR BAY AREA WAVE POOL
ITEM COST
Bathhouse & Concession Stand $223,000
Wave Pool $2,250,000
Water Playground $300,000
Water Slides $850,000
Picnic Shelters $325,000
Chemical Storage & Maintenance Building $100,000
Utility Connection $300,000
Parking $350,000
Lighting $175,000
Landscape $300,000
Signage $10,000
Park Furniture $15,000
Permit Fees $2,000
Architectural $500,000
Contingency $300,000
TOTAL $6,000,000
EXHIBIT B: ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR BAY AREA WAVE POOL
ITEM COST
Management Salaries $150,000
Maintenance Salaries $50,000
Lifeguard and Instructor Salaries $50,000
Office Equipment and Supplies $5,000
Pool Chemicals and Maintenance Supplies $50,000
Advertising $5,000
Memberships $4,000
Electricity $50,000
Telephone $1,000
Water and Sewer $10,000
TOTAL $375,000
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME]and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!