Financial Structure Assignment

PRTM 454 & 466Summer session II

Financial Structure AssignmentCase Study

Matthew SalibaShadrach Thornton

David GrinnageNiles Clark

Jarrel Horton

i. As a student, you have had classes in research methodology and statistics. Based onYour training, what is your overall opinion of this survey?

Our group believes that this survey was very bias. We say that this is bias because of the area that they are in and the people that live around that area. There are a bunch of retired military men and women and they tend to not use public facilities because they like to use like local YMCA’s and other private businesses. Also most of the people that were in the survey were in an age group between 30 and 50. With that being the case it means that no one is really going to have a different opinion. When you get a bunch of people in the same or around the same generation, you are typically going to get the same answers. The survey could have been conducted in a better way because they need to get more males and also need to get people in different age ranges.

The survey shows that people are against opening up a new facility in the area. The people in that area have the money to spend on building the new facility but the people in that area seem very conservative. Most of these people do not want to give the city their own money to spend on a facility they would not use. The survey shows that people are already spending their money on a private organization and do not need to use any other facility.

The survey shows that the people in city think the most important things are for things to be safe, secure, and clean. Also they just want to have better equipment in their private facilities, such as the YMCA so that they can keep their memberships and spend their money on getting better equipment. The next highest things on the city's priority list is hours of operation so that they can get to everything easier. A new facility is fourth on their list so that means that it is not one of their most important improvements that they want done around the city.

2. This was a mail survey. Do you think this type of survey methodology is appropriate for a study of this nature? Please elaborate as to why you either agree or disagree with the survey methodology.

Our group thinks that the mail survey is not appropriate for a study of this nature. Although the survey questions cover a broad area of information that focuses on the interests of the public and what they would like to see in a community activity center, using a mail survey is not the best method. First, there is a low response rate. Some people may not check their mail, or place the mail survey on the counter and forget about responding. Secondly, the mail survey would require that all respondents speak and understand English. There are many citizens who are Spanish who also have an interest in a community activity center. Those that do not speak, write, or understand English would not be able to complete the survey at all. And even if they attempted to, the accuracy of their answers would be questionable as to how well they understood the question. Lastly, if the mail survey does not have a cover letter included then there will be no incentive for the public to respond. The mail survey is very biased because it is only mailed to certain areas of Chesapeake. If it is not mailed to different areas, then planners and town managers will not get a good idea of what the community as a whole desires in a community activity center. Mailing the survey to a particular group, people between the age of thirty and fifty, will all basically have the same opinion. Researching different generation’s needs will include interests of all different age ranges for a likeable community activity center.

A more appropriate method for this type of study would have been to conduct a phone survey. When conducting a phone survey, researchers would need to make sure that they are calling at a prime time in the evening hours between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. to make sure that people are home and not working. Additionally, researchers will be able to get in touch with a wider range of the public, more so than a mail survey. There also may be trained interviewers that speak Spanish to accommodate the Hispanic population.

3. What would be your preferred method of collecting information of this type?

Judging by the type of questions asked and the data collected from the survey we agree that a mail survey could still a very viable option to use. The demographic population for respondents that completed and sent back the survey were primarily middle aged women that lived in a household comprised between 2 and 4 people. This data, specifically because of the amount of individuals between the ages of 30 and 50, was correctly gathered because people that represent this age range are typically more accustomed to mailed information or data collection. Although this survey was assumed to be administered around the years of 2009 and 2010, the technological age of social media was still developing at a rapid rate but was not what it is today, where other modes of collecting data such as twitter, Facebook, etc. could’t be as effectively used. Also this town is comprised of a solid percentage of elderly people which even further recognizes the need for paper filled, mailed surveys.

With all this being said we believe a greater alternative to approach this type of population would be to implement a mixed-mode survey. To explain, a mixed-mode survey allows for multiple means of collecting data, whether it be by, but not limited to, cell or telephone phone, internet, and email surveys or keeping the information used from the mail surveys, using in-person questioning of individuals, etc. Our primary reason for why we would choose this design as our preferred method of collecting data is because of its ability to broaden the scope of data collection and possibly increase the individual response rate which in turn would reduce the surveys non response error. As I alluded to before the data from the survey noted for a larger demographic of women, people in there middle aged years, and those that lived in households of around 2 to 4 people. The data seemed to definitely lack responses from those described to live in a household within the age range of 20-29.99, having only made up around 6.6% of the total population accounted for filling out the data, which is surprising considering a very populous community such as Chesapeake, VA not having more respondents accounting for this younger age range. Whether the data is an accurate portrayal of that portion of the total population is still not completely clear. Also, the lack of male recipients, which made up approximately 33% of the total respondents compared to the females 67%, is doubted to have accurately portrayed this portion of the demographic.

Though there can be cons associated to this type of survey data collection which could affect how a respondent answers, such as whether a person is interviewed and given the survey through oral or visual means, we do not believe for this survey, where the questions are not very open ended and do not require more opinion, will have cause for concern.

4. What conclusions can you draw about the amount of public support the citizens have for this project that was being proposed in 2008?

The citizens did not approve with the addition of the new facility in their city. The facilities are not too crowded, the people say that the facilities equipment are not up to par and the equipment is not up to date. The people that were surveyed say that they do not use the facilities that are ran by the city. People would rather have new activities to do around the city like new youth groups and weight training equipment. The people also say that they would not spend that much money on a new facility because they would only be using it for the new activity.

The biggest thing that stepped out to our group was when asked if they would sign someone else up that is close to them and most of them said no. The numbers were 134 yes and 878 no and that shows you right there that no one really wants to sign up for a membership at a new facility.

5. If you were the P&R director, how comfortable would you be moving forward with this project based on the summary of findings? Please explain in detail.

Being the Parks and Recreation Director in the City of Chesapeake would be a difficult task in this situation. This is a city that is close to the beach but not quite on the beach. The city of Chesapeake has potential but after reviewing the summary I do not think that the city should go forward with this project. Based on the findings from the survey the community of Chesapeake does not want a new facility. Even though the majority of those who answered the survey do think it is important for facilities to have safe and clean equipment, the equipment has to be in great shape because they care about the quality, and the hours of operation are important. I would like to focus on the median age of the people who live in this area. A high density of the population who answered the survey was from ages 30 to 50. With that being said most of that population probably has children that they care for.

The most important piece of information from this survey is the first question “Are you currently using any recreation or fitness facilities offered by the City of Chesapeake”? The majority of people answered no, 714 to be exact. Now as the Parks and Recreation director you have to understand that most of your citizens or at least the people who took the time out to fill out the survey are not using the city’s recreation and fitness facilities. I would like to also focus that the facility that most people are using is the YMCA. I understand the city is trying to draw in attention to get more people to use their facilities, but trying to use the public’s money to finance a large facility when in fact they aren’t’t using all of the facilities that the city has to offer right now is using inane judgment.

Yes the facility that is proposed can make it possible for the people of Chesapeake to have a swimming pool and tennis court, but it is not economically smart to go ahead with the project. The city of Chesapeake and their officials should let an expert firm like SFA to oversee their project. It is their job to project the future economic impacts of facilities for cities and companies. Based on the information from the survey the people of Chesapeake are not interested in a new facility. SFA would report to the city officials that they are not wise to go ahead with their proposed project that will ultimately fail.

Based on the findings of this survey, the City hired two consulting firms: Hasting + Chivetta and Don Schumacher and Associates. Hastings + Chivetta is a building design firm out of St. Louis,

and Schumacher is a consultant dealing with sport complexes. At this point in the overall design process, the Schumacher report is what you need to focus on.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Did you think this report provided enough data to support the expenditure of $35 million dollars for this facility?

In our opinion, this report did not provide enough data to support the expenditure of $35 million dollars for the facility. The report lists features of the facility, such as an aquatic center, separate fitness areas, indoor sports courts and multipurpose rooms. The report fails to list potentially how much each of these amenities would cost to build and maintain. Not only will it cost money to build the facility, but the report should have included how much it will cost on an annual basis to maintain the facility so it gives developers a good idea of how they should budget their money in the future. Additionally, the report lists site visits to Brittingham Midtown Aquatic Center, Boo Williams Sportsplex, and facilities in Hampton Roads. The information and research is helpful because it highlights different areas of the centers, diameters, layouts, and local competition. What would have been more helpful in this report would be to list the breakdown of costs of the centers that were visited and approximately how long it took to build the centers. This would give the City of Chesapeake a better idea of how costly the project would be and in what specific areas their funds would be allocated.

Additionally, the report could have included a separate section for the expenditure of $35 million dollars and titled it “Costs” or “Expenditures.” This would have flowed nicely either before or after the “Economic Impact” section. The economic impact section reports all of the potential revenue source that the center will profit off of, but what costs will the center have to incur to attract the public and maintain the facility? The report states venue set-up for special events may cause expenditure, but exactly how much? Fiscal spending is critical to report to give City planners and developers a realistic idea of how much the center is going to cost. Without this information, planners are really left on their own to figure out these costs. Ordinarily, planners would have to submit a budget proposal. In this proposal, costs would need to be broken down because otherwise, a budget would not be approved without this information. Overall, this report was shy of some very important data concerning the expenditure of $35 million dollars. The report should have included building and maintenance costs of recent site visits, and should have included a separate section listing potential costs of the community activity center in Chesapeake, Virginia.

2. If you were a City Council member and received this report, what would be your overall impression of this plan? What do you think the residents would like to see happen based on the report’s recommandations? As a City Council member, this report has some positive aspects but needs improvement and further research. The good thing is that the report was very thorough. The team did an impressive job of interviewing, studying, and analyzing other recreational facilities. Highlighting the positive impact that these facilities have on residents and the impact on the economy definitely are examples of why Chesapeake should invest in a community activity center. The only aspect that is missing that could have put this report over-the-top would be

financial costs of developing, building, and maintaining a community activity center. As a City Council member, it would have been helpful to see in what areas and specifically how much all aspects of the center would cost. It also would have been helpful to get an idea of how much other facilities studied in the case histories cost to develop.

Based off of the report’s recommendations, residents are first going to expect exercise, weight lifting, aerobic exercise, and basketball areas. From the results of the study, an estimated 8,000 users of each are expected to use these areas which amounts to almost 50,000 users per year. Residents will also expect swimming pools, whether it be for competition or recreational use. High schools and local swim teams have a larger interest in utilizing pool areas for competitions. Along with the pool for competitions, the public will expect field houses, meeting rooms, kitchens, concession areas, retail, and gathering space in the lobby to accommodate competition meetups. These areas will be important to have so that spectators as well as competition swimmers will have an enjoyable experience.

Since Chesapeake is already located around water, the public may not have as large of an interest in using indoor or outdoor pools in the community activity center for recreational use. The need for multiple recreational pools is not a must but the public is still going to expect a pool designated for recreational swimming purposes. If the recreational swimmers can still utilize the field houses, meeting rooms, and gathering space intended for the competition swimmers when it is not in use, then the area will serve more of a purpose. In our opinion and based off of the recommendations, the public will expect pool areas for competition, individual sport, and recreational use.

3. As a city council member, what would be your recommendation to the city manager? In other words, would you draw the conclusion that this was a good report and the city should proceed in building this complex? If yes, why. If no, why not?

Based off of the study provided from the Schumacher Report, in the role as a City Council member we believe that this report would be good to conclude off of and would recommend this to the City manager. Though there are obvious weaknesses to investing in a facility of this magnitude where the expense of building this facility will require an enormous amount of allocated costs toward the building and with the size estimated by the Schumacher Report to take up over 100,000 square feet of land would require a numerous amount of staff which in turn requires necessary parking areas. The design of the activity center and the aquatics facility will also cause for concern toward difficulty of building and maintaining a facility that is to be looked at as a landmark structure within this city.

Overall, the benefits of going on with this plan can provide for many financial incomings. Tourism income in itself could provide a great benefit and noted in the report could help the tax base of the city. The report also noted that the city has the funding to make this happen, at around $25 million, so building upon that time period, year 2010, where swimming is already on the increase with Michael Phelps popularity would be a good idea. Plus, in a city where none of the high schools have a swimming facility this could help provide a necessary athletic activity for safety programs by providing lessons toward swimming for an area that is primarily surrounded by water.

A community that is projected to only increase over the next upcoming years to more than 246,000 people will have the need and opportunity to build upon the potential revenue this type of population size. With the ability to use the facility for leisure and competitive use it allows for the opportunity to host meetings, competitive events, promote physical well-being to the city and act as a tourism attraction that could lead to more beneficial opportunities. One of those benefits it that the activity center could act as a marketing ploy for other businesses around the city by being the initial attraction ploy to visitors for the city.

4. What was your overall impression of this report? Please elaborate.

This report was long winded but thorough. The assessment team did their due diligence when looking at factors that could impact the success of a community center like the one proposed. The report suggests several reasons why a community center with an aquatic component could do well. Such a center could seize on community need as well as provide an opportunity for increased visitor traffic. First and foremost, the report establishes a need for such a center and cites community feedback which is important. Without a need, developers run the risk of their venture being a flop. In this case, many area high schools with swim teams could utilize the center. The center could serve as a place where swimming lessons and safety are taught and traveling swim clubs could use the center for competitions. Aside from the benefits to the community, the report suggests economic development as a major opportunity. If such a center existed, it would put Chesapeake on the map as a destination for regional or national swim competitions. The location of the proposed site is also strategically placed in an area where shopping, restaurants and hotels are prevalent thereby maximizing the economic boosting effect of the site. I think the report was professional in appearance and covered most of the major aspects of evaluating such a large proposal. That being said, there were some major drawbacks. Most of the data presented was not cited and there was much speculation as to effects/impact...etc. Additionally, I find troubling that the report does not delve into how much money the proposed facility could make over a year’s time. There is much assuming and speculation but no chart showing real numbers of anticipated revenue in a worst case/best case scenario. If the City of Chesapeake is going to invest in such a large project, they will want the assurance of accounting and numbers on their side.

Chesapeake is near many bodies of water and knowing how to swim is an important safety skill. An aquatics center can provide the opportunity and space for learning this life saving ability, making the community safer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Do you think the data presented in this document is accurate? If not, why not?

I do think the data is accurate from the Economic Impact study by SFA. The SFA is a professional consulting firm. It is their job to discover the economic impacts of new sports facilities. In this case they did a particularly great job showing the demographics in this area, more specifically which area codes have over 2000 people in population. The SFA Economic impact report is a reliable company and displays accurate data based on certain assumptions regarding the financing structure, the business and management model, regional and national economic trends, the need to market and effectively manage high[quality programs, and the competitive landscape. The financing structure will provide 100% funding and the facilities will not carry debt service. This is important for a city that has a limited funding that wants its public to provide money for a new Tennis and swimming center. The proposed Community Activity & Tennis Center will be professionally managed by experienced staff, and the facility operating systems, software, marketing and other systems will meet local market standards for excellence.

The most important pieces of data that SFA conveys to the city of Chesapeake is that they showed other tennis facilities that have done well. SFA basically showed their work of art to the city of Chesapeake they document the wide world of sports complex at Disney in Florida. SFA is a fantastic firm because they are showing the sports facilities that have been successful around the United States. These facilities have basketball courts, swimming pools, baseball fields, and tennis courts. SFA has done a great job portraying the economic impact of this facility. The data that SFA documents show the projected revenues and expense spreadsheet. This spreadsheet shows the impacts five years from the time the site is built. The total revenues are year one, $3,412,092; year two, $3,653,754; year 3, $4,213,164; year four, $4,423,822; and year five, $4,856,966. The thing that surprised me is that the expenses were not more than the revenue they brought in. Our belief is that this is a great piece of information to have for your facility. The dimensions of the tennis courts as well as the pools and basketball courts are all documented. Overall our group thinks this a great representation of SFA and they did a great job portraying accurate data.

2. Based upon the pro forma data, do you think this is a financially viable project for the city? If yes, why. If no, why not?

Based on the pro forma data, I would say this is likely a financially viable project. It is important to note however, that most (if not all) the economic impact expected to be generated by this project is through visitor spending. That means the revenue needed to sustain and justify this project must come from outside the city. Obviously, there are risks involved but I think if the aquatics center is marketed right, the city can generate enough revenue through this project to justify its existence and the Greenbrier T.I.F. This is due to limited competition and the need for such a facility. It is estimated that the average visitor spending in a day is $125. The average major swimming event brings in around 2000 people (according to the report). So, over the course of a weekend, Chesapeake can expect visitors to spend $500,000. This increases local

business revenue which in turn will generate more tax revenue. That is the theory behind the financial backing of this project. To me, it seems reasonable. As stated before, this revenue is completely dependent upon visitor traffic. The city must ensure that swimming events take place and spread the word about the new facility. It does not seem outlandish to think that a nice facility such as the one proposed, would increase visitor traffic. The conditions seem favorable for such a project to be a success.

3. Do you think this project should be managed by the Parks and Recreation Staff, a private contractor, a non-profit group, or a combination of any of the three? Please explain your decision in detail.

I think in this situation you need to be able to work together. The Parks and recreation staff should be able to work with a private contractor to help build this project. The parks and recreation staff knows the city of Chesapeake because chances are they live in this area. With that being said the survey that Chesapeake mailed out was a biased survey because they mailed the survey out to certain areas.

The survey also documented that the people Chesapeake did not want a new facility because they barely used the city run facilities. Most of people are using the YMCA. This is a problem when you want to establish new ground for a large sports complex. This is why you bring in a private contractor. This a group or person who has no boss they can provide the contact and attention that you need to get a new facility built.

The problem with letting the city work on the project is that the city can only put so much focus into one facility. They have to worry about raising the money as well as being profitable enough to attract tourism. This will required marketing to let people know that a large sports complex is being built , and they can be the first to be apart of it. This is what our group believes would be the best way to conduct this project. You should divide up tasks to insure that the job will get done in a timely manner as well as provide data showing that is good for the city of Chesapeake.

4. What was your overall impression of the report? Answer the question as if you were a City Council member.

The report was very detailed and it showed examples of successful sports complexes such as Cooperstown Dreams Park that exceeds $20 million annually. When put with those statistics you tend to get very convinced on producing a community activity center. It was helpful to include in the report what certain sports complexes made annually over the course of five years. This helps visualize how successful a facility will be over time and whether or not it is worth the risk. As a City Council member, revenue from facilities such as these could be allocated towards other aspects of the community that need improving. The only other information that would have been helpful in this report would have been to include how other projects marketed their facility to ensure that the public would actually utilize the space. Reassurance is a concern, especially in Chesapeake where the community is already surrounded by bodies of water. The project planners would need to propose thoughtful marketing ideas to attract the public. Research on this would have been helpful and would have given ideas or suggestions to the City of Chesapeake.

5. As a City Council member, what would be your greatest concerns in moving forward with this project?

The biggest concern as a City Council member on moving forward with this project would be that people fail to show up after it is completed. I would want reassurance from the swimming community that if such a facility were constructed, it would be well utilized. This means having confirmation ahead of time from people that would most likely use the facility (swim clubs/teams both regionally and nationally). Showing plans of the facility to such groups would serve as a way to market, increase awareness and generate excitement before it is built. This would set a tone of anticipation and ensure that visitors will want to use the facility. The ultimate incentive for this whole project is solely based on visitor traffic and the money visitors spend in Chesapeake. With the blessings of the Chesapeake community, as a City Council member I would vote to approve the proposal.

6. Do you think it will increase tourism traffic to the city? If no, why not?

In the grand scheme of the economic plan for the city if marketed correctly, as the Chesapeake Conventions & Tourism division was reported to committing to, we believe in due time this activity center may be a great tourism attraction for the city of Chesapeake. Tourism traffic would gain an increase from just hosting at competitive activities and with the broad variety of leisure activities is will facilitate will draw those from near by communities to want to exploit the opportunity of using this center.

7. Do you think operating this facility solely as a money making operation is the correct business philosophy to have? Please explain.

Operating any type of facility solely as a money making operation is always going to be the main goal. No matter whether it be a government entity or a sole proprietorship, a business will constantly be thinking of ways to generate more revenue. If the facility is successful and creates enough revenue as planners hoped that the facility would have, then that money will bring a lot of good to the community. If the revenue from the community activity center is channeled to the City, then additional funds are provided to help improve other aspects of the community as well as keeping work out equipment up-to-date and other areas of the community activity center.

Although our group believes that money is an important business philosophy when operating this facility, it is not the only business philosophy that one should have. Planners and City Council members have to think of how the facility will impact the public. Operating the facility will create more jobs because the facility will need employees to run retail, maintain the pool, lifeguards, safety course instructors, etc. Operating the facility will also unite the community whether it be the local high schools or families and friends looking to spend a day together. The facility could also act as a destination for tourists as they as passing through the city of Chesapeake.

8. What elements of the overall master plan of the site do you think are the most important? Why? Please explain.

The elements of the Master Plan that are most important are first its projections on the Economic Impact this facility will have on the future of the community and how tourism revenue can help improve the growth of the city. Added with that the competition analysis is important because it will allow the activity center to take an advantage of potential recreational opportunities that are not be utilized by other facilities around the area. It noted in the report that sport tourism would be the primary contributing factor toward this project succeeding because of its recreational and competitive uses. The draw of national and regional tournaments would help in these economic projections as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This entire project has been very controversial for years. Even with all of the reports and data sets, city council can not make up their minds. There is always yet another question. Based on what you know and can glean from these reports, do you think their hesitancy is warranted? On February 22, 2010, City Council directed staff to look for a public - private partnership. A branch of the “Y” is located about 300 yards from the proposed location of this complex. A few weeks later they submitted a recommendation of building the pool at their site using city money. Do you think this is a viable alternative? If no, why not?

Later that week, City Council rejected the “Y” offer. If you were the P&R director, what would you recommend to the city manager as to the “ next steps ” ? Explain in detail.

And finally in conclusion, based upon your own critical thinking skills I want you to write a brief summary of your findings concerning your overall impression of the various reports, how viable you think this project is, and finally what would you personally do to gather support from the community for this project.

Niles Clark's Final Thoughts: After reviewing the data from the SFA and The survey that was conducted by the city of Chesapeake I would conclude that they should not build this complex. The survey from the public has shown that they prefer to go to the YMCA. The YMCA is a great alternative to city recreation because it offers the same resources and in safe environment. The money and support for this facility is just not present. This is an area where the people are conservation when it comes to finances and with that being said I think it is obvious when you look at the data that the city doesn't want a new complex. The SFA did a great report illustrating the future economic impact of this project through 5 years. The next step should be to re design a complex that is economically safer as well as gain the support of the public to build some type of Sport complex. I believe this shows that the recreation staff of the city the project should not be built. In conclusion the idea was thought out but the support and feedback was against building a new swimming and tennis center.

Matthew Saliba Final Thoughts:As with any major construction proposal that uses city money, there will be hesitancy. Taking together all the data presented, I would recommend that the city manager approve the proposal to build a facility in conjunction with the YMCA. Partnering with the YMCA is a good alternative because it decreases direct completion which is only 300 yards away in this case. The YMCA

also has connections within the community and is a well known organization. Both the city and the YMCA stand to benefit from this partnership. The Y gets access to new accommodations and the city can utilize an existing site and organization to promote the new facility. Depending on the partnership agreement, the Y may be able to help with maintenance or staffing as well.

Shadrach Thornton Final Thoughts: Based off of the reports, I can understand how hesitancy is warranted regarding the community activity center. The reports are very biased in the sense that the research has only been conducted for a particular group of the public. City council members are not guaranteed that the opinion of the generation surveyed actually represents the public opinion as a whole. City council members may also warrant hesitation because retired military service members are more likely to use the YMCA, a well-known and long-standing establishment, more so that a new center. Additionally, the reports highlight how much revenue would be generated as a result of the center. But will the expenditures be worth it? The reports are missing one major component that I personally believe warrants the most hesitation-how much will the facility cost to develop and maintain? City council members need to see the breakdown of the budget requested and how much revenue the economy will profit from after maintenance fees, employee fees, and building costs.

I think that partnering up with the YMCA is a viable alternative. Having the pool built at the YMCA facility would first and foremost eliminate competition, especially with the YMCA being so close. It would reduce the amount of hesitancy among council members because they would know that retirees will continue to go to that facility. It would also share costs for building and maintaining the pool. The community center could look to allocate extra funds elsewhere that would hopefully generate additional revenue since they would not be spending as much on the pool. If the YMCA offer were rejected, I would propose that the city manager continue with the community activity center on their own but make sure that they introduce an improved survey that covers a broader area of the public.

In conclusion, the reports are okay. The case histories and other recreational facilities researched give insight to what is demanded by the public, amenities that the public enjoys, and different types of areas or activities that would be useful in a community activity center. There seems to be a high demand and general interest for competition swimming pools. However, the research is very biased and could use improvement. The surveys and research need to cover a broader area of the the public, like the younger generation. Further, the project seems somewhat viable. Community activity centers are a great way to unite the public, rather it be swimming teams, friends who want to get out of the house, or family members who want to gather and enjoy an outing together. Researchers first need to make sure that they are including the opinions of all age ranges and groups of people rather than focusing in on one particular generation, group, etc. Even though Chesapeake is already located around water where the public has everyday access to, the community activity center will hopefully offer more than that. Separate work out areas, indoor sports courts, and gathering spaces will attract more of the public. The great thing about having all of these different aspects is that you can experience and enjoy them in one place. So if you wanted to go swimming for a few laps and then work out at the basketball court, you could. Personally, I would gather support from the community by encouraging them to attend town council meetings. The public can speak on issues or suggestions that they feel strongly about. Although the town council does not make any promises to the public during these meetings, they

always have to take into consideration the public’s interest. I think that attending town council meetings would be extremely beneficial and raise awareness in regards to the need for a community activity center.

Jarrel Horton ’ s Final Thoughts: I definitely believe that hesitancy is warranted for any community or business entity that must invest the type of money that this facility needs and banking on a positive economic impact when some parts of the data can suggest that members community aren’t’t as high on the Chesapeake Activity Center as an investor would hope for. I also believe a partnership with the Y would be beneficial because of it name brand and widely recognized the Y is in every community. This would give the community activity center the necessary jump to get citizens more enthused and willing to accept this venue. As they mention in part of their organizational plan the Y looks to help organizations build on opportunities to provide communities a more appealing place to live. Also, rather than competing with the organization that is the Y having their aquatic built in accordance will benefit both partners. With the idea being rejected though I would advise the city manager too instead look into revising the plan and come back with a better outlook on how to gather funding for the center. The reports and information gather were good but more conclusive work I believe should be done before investing in something like this. In conclusion, like I said I believe the idea behind the project is a good one, the reports gathered a lot of necessary information, and the project (or any project of this kind) is a viable option for an already large and growing city to improve its economic impact. To gather support I would personally restart the survey process and look to gain a broader insight on the communities’ thoughts as well as nearby locals. I’d look for a partnership of some kind, preferably the YMCA, to build from it brand name and build support.

David Grinnage Final ThoughtsWhen going over the survey and the SFA project in the city of Chesapeake I found out that it would probably be best for the city to not build the facility. I believe that the facility will make the city lose money because after they spend the taxpayers money those same taxpayers would not go to that facility because of how much they hate that it was built. People would much rather go to a private organization where they have their memberships. I believe that the city should try and put more money in the facilities that they already have, so that the people would be happy that they got updated equipment. After doing that they should look at the people's interest and help them complete the most important improvements to the city that the citizens believe not the city.