Multi Use Sports Complex Planning Study

M U LT I - U S E S P O R T S C O M P L E X P L A N N I N G S T U D Y R E P O R T P R E P A R E D F O R
DAUPHIN COUNTY
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
O C T O B E R 1 7, 2 0 1 2
FINAL REPORT
Brailsford & Dunlavey, Inc. 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTIONS
EXHIBITS
1.0.......Preface
ASAV Analysis
2.0..Executive Summary
B.Market Profiles
3.0..SAV Analysis
C.Primary Research
4.0..Market Analysis
D.SGMA Data
5.0..Demand & Tournament Analysis
E..Site Analysis & Evaluation
6.0..Site Analysis & Evaluation
FFinancial Analysis
7.0..Financial Analysis
8.0..Development Plan
9.0..Next Steps
DAUPHIN COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MULTI-USE SPORTS COMPLEX

PLANNING STUDY
1.0 - PREFACE
In 2012, Brailsford & Dunlavey (B&D) was retained by the Dauphin County Redevelopment
Authority (The County) to conduct a planning study (Study) for a multi-use sports complex
(sports complex) to be located in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. The study consists of two
phases, the first of which is a preliminary analysis that includes a strategic asset visioning
session, preliminary market analysis, local demand and tournament analysis, and preliminary
financial analysis. Upon receiving notification to proceed with Phase II from the County, B&D
completed the second phase of study which included project concept refinement, a detailed
financial analysis, and development plan.
The findings contained herein constitute the professional opinions of B&D personnel based on
the assumptions and conditions detailed throughout. All financial projections were developed
on the basis that the sports complex will be completed as recommended should the facility be
completed in phases, actual financial performance may vary to a large degree. The project
team has conducted research using both primary and secondary information sources which are
deemed reliable, but whose accuracy B&D cannot guarantee. Due to variations in the national
and global economic conditions, actual revenue and expenses may vary from the projections,
and these variances may be material.
THE PROJECT TEAM WAS COMPRISED OF THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS:
Bill Mykins, Vice President
Ryan Conway, Assistant Project Manager
Bryan Slater, Project Analyst
Throughout this process, B&D coordinated efforts with the Mid State Alliance (MSA) and
Herbert, Rowland, & Grubic (HRG) while reporting to the County. B&D would like to give
special thanks to members and officials of each organization that helped direct the study. A list
of these individuals is provided below:
George Connor, Dauphin County Deputy Economic Development Director
Steve Mizak, President, MSA
Andrew Kenworthy, HRG Inc.
Mark Shade, MSA
October 17, 2012
1.1

PLANNING STUDY
2.0 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROJECT BACKGROUND
In 2011, eight Dauphin County residents formed the Mid State Alliance (MSA), a non-profit
organization and enlisted Dauphin County (County) support to complete this study. Upon
project initiation, there was no defined project concept, development budget, or site identified.
The only program document provided was the MSAs Field of Dreams white paper, which
consisted of a wish list for competition spaces at a sports complex. Due to the undefined
nature of the project, B&D considered several options and ultimately developed the most
market-responsive and achievable project concept.
FINDINGS
B&D believes a sports complex anchored by a local non-profit organization can cater to an
underserved local recreation market and host approximately 40 weekend tournaments
annually. Currently proposed to accommodate 13 outdoor competition spaces and a 7,560 SF
clubhouse, B&D projects that a sports complex could realize a small operational profit in the
fourth year of operations. The preliminary development budget of $12.97 million in 2012
dollars, exclusive of land acquisition costs, should utilize private donations and contributions as
the foundation for any funding plan. Ultimately, the level of private funding realized will dictate
the level of public assistance needed to complete the recommended project concept. Detailed
findings from each section of the report are provided below.
STRATEGIC ASSET VALUATION
B&D held a strategic asset valuation session (SAV) with the County and MSA representatives
to develop a detailed understanding of the mission and vision for the sports complex. The
outcome of the session provided four overriding goals for planning the facility: it should appeal
to all age groups and provide a place for congregation, generate economic benefit, operate with
a positive net operating income, and be developed with an emphasis on quality in lieu of size.
MARKET ANALYSIS
Market and demographic characteristics specific to Dauphin County were evaluated to gauge
support levels and, along with SAV findings, serve as the basis for developing the project
concept and corresponding financial projections. A more detailed description of findings can be
found in the Market Analysis section of this report, but key findings are provided below.
October 17, 2012
2.1

PLANNING STUDY
There are nearly 600,000 residents within a 30 minute drive time area from the
preferred location between the I-81 and 76 corridors. The drive time area exhibits
strong household income and recreation spending characteristics in comparison to
both state and national levels. Additionally, there are nearly 31 million people within
150 miles, providing access to 1/10th of the national population for tournament play.
B&Ds findings suggest there is a major shortage in outdoor fields in the County.
This is consistent with HRGs 2009 Dauphin County Open Space Study, which
concludes the County is deficient in rectangle and baseball diamonds by 19 and 39
fields, respectively. In contrast, there are several for-profit indoor facilities in the
market that would provide a high level of competition for indoor recreational use.
The County offers strong transportation infrastructure, over 75 lodging properties
and 7,800 hotel rooms, and possesses a number of civic and cultural assets.
Collectively, these traits create ideal conditions for hosting large-scale tournaments.
Market analysis findings indicate that Dauphin County presents a unique opportunity for
developing a sports complex due to the local demographic profile, geographic location, and
ideal market conditions for a sports complex. Between the strong local market and ideal
geographical location, B&D believes that a sustainable operational model could be developed
out of local weekday use and a number of weekend tournaments.
DEMAND AND TOURNAMENT ANALYSIS
Local demand from the 30-minute target market area will comprise the vast majority of
weekday utilization. Each of the sports that utilize rectangle fields is outlined in red in Figure
2.1, totaling an estimated 35,000 rectangle field users. Baseball and softball, which require
diamonds in place of rectangles for competition and recreational use, have nearly 38,000 and
19,000 estimated users, respectively. Inclusive of these numbers is the projected number of
MSA members, which could include 11,000 local participants from the sports listed below.
30-Minute Estimated Number of Participants
Baseball
Field Hockey
Football
Lacrosse
Rugby
Soccer
Softball
37,800
2,500
2,900
2,500
1,600
25,800
18,700
Source: SGMA, ESRI

Note: Shown are regular, frequent, and core participation rates
Figure 2.1 Total Number of Participants
In contrast to local demand, tournaments with non-local participants are normally held on
weekends. B&D projects a sports complex could host between 18 and 22 rectangle field
October 17, 2012
2.2

PLANNING STUDY
tournaments annually. These tournaments provide net new economic benefit to the County
through introduction of new, non-local spending, and provide hotel room rebate, concession,
registration, and parking revenues. It is also expected that the facility would host between 22
and 26 two-day, 30-team baseball and softball weekend tournaments annually.
SITE ANALYSIS & EVALUATION
B&Ds site analysis by Dauphin County ZIP codes revealed that the most advantageous regions
for location of the sports complex would be between the I-81 and 76 corridors. This general
location would allow a sports complex to leverage transportation infrastructure, civic and
community assets, and hotel supply. B&D proceeded to evaluate several listed sites, ideally
within this corridor, that satisfied the 60 acre requirement as stipulated by the project concept.
One site, denoted herein as Site C, was identified by B&D as the best option for development
but presents extensive land acquisition and site work costs. As a result, B&D recommends the
County explore additional opportunities in the recommended corridor with private land owners
who may have unlisted agricultural land available for purchase or, preferably, donation.
OPERATIONAL MODEL
B&D recommends the County employ a public/nonprofit model for facility operations. The goal of this
model is not profit generation; rather, the objective is
to cater to a specified member base and achieve
break-even operations.
The operational model
presents several advantages and poses less risk to
the County in comparison to other commonly
employed models. In this model, a public entity
typically owns and leases land to a non-profit
organization for a period of no less than 30 years for
a nominal amount. The non-profit is responsible for
operations and financial performance.
B&D
assumes the MSA would oversee operation of the
facility, and hire an experienced operator to manage
day-to-day operations.
RECOMMENDED PROJECT CONCEPT
Courtesy: ESRI
Figure 2.2: Sites A, B, & C
The recommended project concept includes eight rectangle fields, four with lighted, synthetic
surfaces and four with unlit, natural surfaces. B&D also proposes including five baseball fields,
preferably in a wheel configuration to satisfy demand for weekend baseball and softball
tournament play. To support the competition spaces, B&D recommends the inclusion of a 7,560
October 17, 2012
2.3

PLANNING STUDY
SF clubhouse, 900 parking spaces, a family pavilion, and playground structure. The proposed
program will require no less than 60 acres of land, depending on configuration.
DEVELOPMENT BUDGET
The development budget for the proposed sports complex is $12.97 million in 2012 costs, not
including land acquisition. This figure includes both hard and soft costs of construction. Land
acquisition should range from $40,000 to $60,000 per acre adding an additional $2.4 to $3.6
million in total project cost should a land donor not emerge.
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
Based upon the project concept and non-profit operational model, B&D projects a small positive
operating income in year four of the moderate or baseline scenario, not inclusive of debt
service. Primary revenue drivers include tournament income, concession sales, advertising and
sponsorship agreements, membership fees, and programming. Though performance would
theoretically vary with the actual site selected, B&D believes the actual site will have little
impact on performance should it be located in or proximate to the recommended corridors.
Stabilization Period (2016 - 2018)
4
5
2016
2017
2018
7
2019
8
2020
Revenues (2016)
Tournament-Related Income
$278,400
$328,000
$381,300
$417,300
$434,200
Concession Income
$46,700
$55,100
$64,000
$70,100
$72,900
Advertising & Sponsorship Income
$40,700
$46,100
$51,500
$54,300
$54,300
Membership Income
$77,200
$91,000
$105,700
$115,800
$120,400
Programming Income
$27,400
$32,200
$37,400
$41,000
$42,700
Tenant Income
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Revenues
$470,000
$552,000
$640,000
$699,000
$725,000
$201,300
$209,300
$217,700
$226,400
$235,500
Utilities
$48,300
$56,900
$66,100
$72,400
$75,300
General & Admin
$26,300
$27,400
$28,500
$29,600
$30,800
Insurance
$17,500
$18,200
$19,000
$19,700
$20,500
Advertising
$23,400
$24,300
$25,300
$26,300
$27,400
Expenses (2016)
Personnel
Clubhouse Maintenance
$5,800
$6,100
$6,300
$6,600
$6,800
Field Maintenance
$206,200
$243,000
$282,500
$309,200
$321,600
Total Expenditures
$529,000
$585,000
$645,000
$690,000
$718,000
$0
$0
$0
$6,750
$5,250
$2,000
$2,000
Less: Replacement Reserve

Net Income before Contributions
($59,000)
($33,000)
($5,000)
Figure 2.3: Moderate Scenario Five Year Pro Forma

October 17, 2012
2.4

PLANNING STUDY
As shown in Figure 2.3, the primary revenue driver for the sports complex would be created as a
result of approximately 40 total tournaments annually. These tournaments in addition to local
demand should result in an attendance level of over 100,000 annually in a stabilized year.
Expected revenues for the first year of operation in 2016 are projected to be approximately
$470,000. In contrast, expenses should total approximately $530,000, with nearly 40% devoted
to personnel expenditures. The replacement reserve is set at 75% of any net operating income
the facility may generate. Fundraisers will be a necessary component, even in profitable years,
to develop a healthy replacement reserve to ensure longevity of the facility.
AVAILABLE FUNDING OPTIONS
The Pennsylvania Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program (RACP) has provided matching
reimbursable funding for several public assembly and tourism-driven projects in Pennsylvania
and is considered a highly suitable source of funding for the project. Smaller grant programs,
such as the grants administered by the US Soccer Foundation and MLB Baseball Tomorrow
Fund, could also be applied for to reduce the amount of financing required. In addition to grant
programs, significant donations and/or contributions typically serve as the crux for financing
plans of sports complexes. Finding a private partner to provide capital in the form of donations
or, more preferably, land is a necessary first step to developing any funding plan. Depending on
the level of private investment, County-level involvement via existing lodging tax and/or local
share gaming grants could be used to complete a financing package. The levying of additional
taxes was not considered as part of this analysis.
October 17, 2012
2.5

PLANNING STUDY
3.0 - STRATEGIC ASSET VALUATOIN

Nationwide, communities are realizing the critical role that community recreation facilities and
sports complexes, in particular, play in the advancement of community goals. In many
communities, sports complexes are utilized as a strategic development tool to enhance quality
of life, build a sense of camaraderie among community residents, and/or create economic
benefit. Understanding each communitys goals for construction and operation of a sports
complex is a crucial consideration in facility development. In this section, goals for
development and operation are summarized to provide a basis for B&D to develop the project
concept, development budget, and operational model.
October 17, 2012
3.1

PLANNING STUDY
S T R A T E G I C A S SE T V A L U A T I O N
OBJECTIVES & METHODOLOGY
B&D conducted a Strategic Asset Visioning session (SAV) with County officials and MSA
representatives to develop a detailed understanding of the mission and vision for the sports
complex. The SAV session consists of four primary SAV chapters including Dauphin County
Quality of Life, Community Building, Financial Performance, and Facility Concept. Each of the
chapters is comprised of several sub-categories, for which the client working group performed
a gap analysis between current and aspiratory conditions.
Strategic Objectives
IV. Facility Concept
b. Scale and Appeal
10
O
X
Comments
Comments
0 = The facility should be developed to accommodate
the maximum possible number of users and overall facility
quality can be compromised accordingly. Ultimately, the
facility will be positioned as a regional asset that can
accommodate bulk numbers of participants.
10 = The facility should be developed as "the Best on the
East Coast" and should hold a national appeal.
Figure 3.1 Example SAV Figure
The graphic above depicts the results from the scale and appeal sub-category, which gauges
the County and MSAs goals for scale and appeal of the facility. The X, which represents
current conditions, is currently scored a zero since the facility is yet to exist. The 0, which
indicates aspiratory conditions, represents the County and MSAs goals and aspirations for the
facility stating that the facility should hold a national appeal and be the best on the east
coast. Should the 0 be put in a category further to the left, the goal for the facility would be
accommodating more users, potentially at the expense of quality. The results from each of the
SAV Chapters are detailed in greater depth below and the completed SAV worksheet is included
as an attachment, Exhibit A.
Dauphin County Quality of Life

o
Responsiveness to Community Interest: The County and MSA are

committed to providing programs and activities that respond to all age
groups.
Employer and Family Recruitment: County officials remarked that quality

of life issues are one of the biggest challenges facing communities when
attracting and retaining families and employers. Accordingly, the facility
should be developed with an emphasis on quality and appearance.
October 17, 2012
3.2

PLANNING STUDY
Community Building
o
Community Engagement: County and MSA representatives placed an

extremely high emphasis on positioning the facility as a place for Dauphin
County citizens to congregate.
Equitable Access: While efforts should be made to provide equitable

access, it was noted in the SAV session that achieving sustainable
financial operations may provide some obstacle to 100% equitable access.
Financial Performance
o
Revenue Generation: A positive annual operating scenario was identified

as a high priority for the facility. The working group placed a value of 10
on a positive annual operating scenario stipulating that a positive
operating income is necessary for the project to move forward.
Operating Expense Management: The facility should be operated as a

premier facility. Private operation of the facility should be considered.
Funding Method: It has been established that absorption of debt service

is undesirable for the County. Facility funding should come from a variety
of public and private sources.
Economic Impact: Significant efforts will be made to bring in visitors

through tournaments and other special events to promote traffic for
hotels, retail centers, and restaurants.
Facility Concept
o
Quality: The facility should be constructed with the highest quality fields
and courts, including indoor spaces.
Scale and Appeal: The facility should be positioned as the best on the
east coast. If size must be compromised to achieve the highest level of
quality, then that is an acceptable compromise.
Competitive Positioning: It was determined that, to the greatest extent

possible, the facility should complement existing facilities (both public
and private) in and around the County.
October 17, 2012
3.3

PLANNING STUDY
4.0 - MARKET ANALYSIS

The Market analysis is an in-depth examination of specific characteristics unique to Dauphin
County and serves as the basis for planning a sports complex. This section examines various
characteristics of the market through a series of tasks that includes:
A Demographic Analysis of the local market to determine potential user base size
and characteristics, including patterns of growth and change;
an Existing Conditions Analysis to identify existing supply and quantity of indoor
and outdoor spaces, transportation infrastructure, civic assets, and hotel supply for
tournament usage;
a Primary Market Research component to help define the overall need and scope
of the project;
and an Examination of National Facilities that are instructive in developing a
program and informing the operational model.
October 17, 2012
4.1

PLANNING STUDY
D E M O G R A P HI C A N A L Y SI S
B&D utilized a drive time analysis to measure and evaluate Dauphin Countys local market with
a focus on demographic and economic conditions. The analysis considers standard indicators
including current and future population characteristics, market wealth, age characteristics, and
consumer spending patterns. Ultimately, the findings from this analysis have a direct
correlation to expected utilization levels and the recommended project concept.
Data provided by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) was utilized to complete
the drive time analysis. ESRI combines geographic information systems (GIS) technology with
demographic, consumer, and business information to generate a detailed statistical profile for
specific areas. Data were collected from the 10-minute, 20-minute, and 30-minute drive time
(collectively, the local market) areas from the Swatara, Hummelstown, and Rutherford
Heights region of Dauphin County. Additionally, B&D also evaluated the regional market by 50mile, 100-mile, and 150-mile radii from the same area to evaluate the market potential for
staging tournaments that contain non-local participants.
FINDINGS
LOCAL POPULATION
As of 2010, the 30-minute drive time area, considered the primary market area for a sports
complex, contains nearly 600,000 people. This drive time area experienced a sustained growth
rate of three-quarters of a percent over the past ten years, outpacing Pennsylvania growth
levels but lagging the national average. Though growth rates across all three drive times are
projected to slow over the next five years, the projected decrease in local population growth
rates most closely mirrors national trends.
Population & Growth
10 min.
20 min.
30 min.
State
National
Population (2000)
Population (2010)
Annual Growth
64,843
68,062
0.50%
364,232
385,830
0.59%
551,975
593,711
0.76%
12,281,054 281,421,906
12,574,407 311,212,863
0.24%
1.06%
Population (2015)
Annual Growth
69,663
0.47%
395,387
0.50%
611,857
0.61%
12,637,100 323,209,391
0.10%
0.77%
Source: US Census Bureau and ESRI

[1] Drivetime is taken from Hummelstown, PA
Figure 4.1: 10, 20, and 30 Minute Population
October 17, 2012
4.2

PLANNING STUDY
LOCAL TARGET MARKET POPULATION
Though gross population figures are instructive in developing projections such as sponsorship
revenue, identifying the size of the target market population provides the best basis for
utilization projections. Through empirical research provided by SGMA and B&Ds experience,
the two target market population groups for a sports complex are between the ages of 5 and 24
and, to a lesser degree for most activities, 25 to 44. To that end, there are approximately 34,000
total target market users within a 10-minute drive time and nearly 300,000 target market users
in the 30- minute drive time areas, respectively.
Ages 5 to 24 Percent of Population

Number of Potential Users
Ages 25 to 44 Percent of Population
Nubmer of Potential users
Compsition of Total Populatoin
10 min.
20 min.
30 min.
State
National
23.7%
16,131
26.3%
17,900
24.8%
95,686
25.1%
96,843
25.0%
148,428
24.9%
147,834
25.7%
27.0%
24.5%
26.7%
50%
50%
50%
50%
54%
Source: ESRI
Figure 4.2: Target Market User Analysis

LOCAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME PROFILE
Median household income levels are a useful tool for developing appropriate, marketresponsive rental rates and helping to inform a facilitys operational model. Figure 4.3 contains
median household income comparisons for the state, the nation, and each of the three local
drive times. As seen in the table, local median household income levels are commensurate
with national levels and far greater than those of the state. Additionally, the 10-minute drive
time is projected to experience the highest median household income growth among all
geographical areas analyzed.
10 min.
20 min.
30 min.
State
National
Median Household Income (2000) $46,512

Annual Growth
3.01%
$44,311
$59,040
3.32%
$44,902
$59,246
3.19%
$40,108
$52,723
3.15%
$52,723
$59,736
1.33%

Annual Growth
3.26%
$67,281
2.79%
$66,816
2.56%
$59,736
2.66%
$61,189
0.49%
Source: ESRI
Figure 4.3: Median Household Income Levels
October 17, 2012
4.3

PLANNING STUDY
Research has shown that households with incomes of $50,000 and greater contain members
who are more likely to patronize a sports complex on a recurring basis. As seen in Figure 4.4,
the three local drive time markets have a significantly higher concentration of households
located in higher income brackets than both the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United
States providing an optimal market from which to draw.
HH Income Brackets (2010)
10 min.
20 min.
30 min.
State
National
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 - $150,000
$150,000 +
14.9%
25.1%
22.1%
19.5%
12.0%
6.5%
16.6%
25.2%
21.9%
19.9%
11.3%
5.2%
16.1%
25.3%
22.7%
19.9%
11.2%
5.0%
22.1%
25.2%
21.3%
15.2%
10.6%
5.6%
20.8%
24.7%
21.6%
14.1%
11.9%
6.9%
Percent in Higher Income Brackets
60.1%
58.3%
58.8%
52.7%
54.5%
Figure 4.4: Household Income Bracket Analysis

LOCAL RECREATION SPENDING
An additional indicator that influences pricing and utilization levels is entertainment and
recreation spending per household. Such spending is higher in each of the drive times than
state and national levels, as shown in Figure 4.5. The 10-minute drive time, in particular,
exhibits extremely strong entertainment and recreation spending per household figure.
Entertainment & Recreation

Spending per Household
10 min.
20 min.
30 min.
State
National
$3,465
$3,266
$3,259
$3,142
$3,224
Figure 4.5: Per Household Recreation Spending
October 17, 2012
4.4

PLANNING STUDY
REGIONAL MARKETPLACE
A major consideration in developing a sports complexs

operational model is evaluating the strength of the regional
market. The regional market can provide non-local tournament
participants who generate economic benefit through
introduction of non-local spending. Through B&Ds primary
research phase, interviewees indicated that parents and
participants are willing to drive up to three hours to
tournaments that are either played at a premier venue or in a
competition that offers a high level of visibility. To evaluate the
strength of the regional market, B&D placed 50-, 100-, and 150mile radius rings from the same area in the County. As Figure
4.6 illustrates, several of the nations largest metropolitan
areas, including New York City, are within an acceptable radius
for tournament users. The presence of several proximate,
regional and national markets gives a sports complex located in
Dauphin County an almost unrivaled population base for which
to attract tournament participants. As a result, B&D believes
any operational model should be based on tournament play.
Market
MSA Size Rank
New York City
18,897,109
1st
5,965,343
6th
Washington D.C. 5,582,170
7th
Philadelphia
Baltimore
2,710,489
20th
Allentown
824,916
64th
Scranton
563,631
90th
Lancaster
519,445
99th
Harrisburg
549,475
94th
Source: US Census 2010

Note: Showing top 100 markets
Figure 4.6: MSA Populations
Courtesy: ESRI
Figure 4.7: 50-, 100-, and 150- Mile Radii

October 17, 2012
4.5

PLANNING STUDY
To help conceptualize the number of potential users available to a sports complex, Figure 4.8
shows the gross population and target market population statistics for the 50-, 100-, and 150mile radii from the County. Nearly 10% of the United States 310 million people are
concentrated within 150 miles of the local market, while there are just over 16 million
concentrated in the two primary age brackets between the ages of five and 24 and 25 and 44
years old.
Population (2010)
50 miles
100 miles
150 miles
2,350,382
15,850,297
31,047,063
601,698
580,544
4,184,478
4,121,077
8,072,236
8,258,519
Target Market Age Groups

Ages 5 - 24
Ages 25 - 44
[1] Drivetime is taken from Hummelstown, PA
Figure 4.8: 50-, 100-, and 150- Mile Radii Population
October 17, 2012
4.6

PLANNING STUDY
E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S A NA L Y S I S
OBJECTIVES & METHODLOGY
The existing conditions analysis is intended to identify challenges and opportunities associated
with locating a sports complex in Dauphin County. B&D first analyzed HRGs 2009 Dauphin
County Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Greenway Study and afterward toured select parks
and recreation spaces in the County to assess current recreational offerings. Additionally,
County transportation infrastructure, hotel rooms, and civic assets were evaluated to inform the
site analysis and evaluation process.
CURRENT RECREATIONAL OFFERINGS
The 2009 Dauphin County Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Greenways Study completed by
HRG showed that the County is nearly 447 acres short of meeting parkland needs of current
residents. This shortage is partially attributed to the acute differential in unlighted baseball
diamonds, rectangle fields, and tennis courts. With this taken into consideration, B&D toured
facilities often utilized by residents for competitive and recreational play to assess actual
conditions of the facilities. These tours included visits to County parks in addition to reviews of
George and Shank Park, Keller Field, In the Net, and the Lower Paxton Friendship Center.
George Park (Ranger Fields): Ranger Fields is operated by the Lower Paxton
Township Parks and Recreation Department and offers high quality outdoor
recreation spaces. The 45-acre park has a basic concession stand and restroom
facilities, but is capable of hosting various sized tournaments depending on format,
length, and type of play. Due to the parks location, George Park represents an ideal
overflow site for tournaments that cannot be accommodated at one site.
View of George Park from parking lot; seen in the

foreground is a roller hockey rink with dasher boards
The acreage allows for fields to be configured as

several youth or adult multi-purpose rectangle fields
October 17, 2012
4.7
Shank Park: Shank Park is a 90-acre community park operated by Derry Township.
The park, which hosts several community events, includes four diamonds and can be
configured with up to five youth rectangle fields for tournaments. On-site amenities
include a playground, barbecue pavilion, and a nature trail. Although the Park is
primarily used for recreational purposes, it is often utilized in summer months for
various soccer, rugby, and lacrosse tournaments.
Keller Field (Lower Dauphin Fields): Keller Field has three baseball diamonds and
three natural grass rectangles on nearly 50 acres. Due to flooding in September of
2011, the fields were mostly destroyed and are currently in the process of being
restored. Operated by South Hanover Township, Keller Field has basic on-site
amenities and is often used for competitive and recreational play. However, due to
continual overuse and a lack of irrigation, field quality is often poor and best suits
Keller Field for recreational purposes.
Flooding has caused pervasive damage to Keller Field;

a family pavilion and playground can be seen in the
background

PLANNING STUDY
When restored, Keller Field can be configured with

several multi-purpose rectangle fields due to its
significant green space
In the Net Sports: In the Net Sports is located in Palmyra, PA. The community
recreation facility includes a full-size indoor synthetic field, the Paramount Sports
Complex, one outdoor synthetic field, and three diamonds that can also be utilized as
rectangle fields.
Though In the Net will provide competition for weekday
recreational users, the facility could serve as a partner for large tournaments.
Sports City Harrisburg: Located on Linglestown Rd. in Harrisburg, Sports City is an
indoor facility that has three synthetic turf fields, one large field, one multipurpose, and one small field. Sports City also includes several multi-purpose
rooms and is home to The Harrisburg Heat, a minor league indoor soccer club.
October 17, 2012
4.8
Lower Paxton Friendship Center: The Lower Paxton Friendship Community Center
is a 62,000 SF indoor facility located in Harrisburg that also includes an outdoor
softball diamond suitable for competition play. The Friendship Center is owned and
operated by the Lower Paxton Township Parks and Recreation Department and
contains a natatorium, weight and fitness area, gymnasium, and several multipurpose rooms. The operational model is heavily based on memberships and
programming, accounting for roughly 50 and 25 percent of revenues, respectively.
The Friendship Center has a well-maintained exterior

and interior

PLANNING STUDY
The Friendship Center has two full-size basketball

courts in addition to several multi-purpose rooms
Twin Ponds East and West: Twin Ponds East and West are two facilities that serve
as family entertainment centers for County residents. Twin Ponds East, which has
77,000 SF of indoor space and three indoor skating rinks, includes eight locker
rooms and a full-service pro shop. Twin Ponds West, located across the
Susquehanna River, is slightly larger at 88,000 SF and includes two ice surfaces and
an indoor synthetic field. Should the sports complex program include indoor spaces,
it is assumed Twin Ponds West will offer direct competition.
Susquehanna Sports Center: Located in Lemoyne, Susquehanna Sports Center
includes a full-size sport court surface in addition to an indoor synthetic field. The
facility includes six locker rooms, a pro shop, and a snack shop and hosts several
hockey tournaments and leagues each year.
Spooky Nook: Spooky Nook Sports Complex is a planned development in
Landisville, PA. The facility is proposed to be an adaptive re-use of a 600,000 SF
warehouse that will contain indoor recreation, competition, and family entertainment
space in addition to outdoor fields. Spooky Nook would provide a significant amount
of competition for both indoor and outdoor users should it move forward.
October 17, 2012
4.9

PLANNING STUDY
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
VEHICULAR ACCESS
Dauphin County and Harrisburg, in

particular, are easily accessible by several
Interstates with access to Baltimore,
Washington D.C., Philadelphia, and New
York City. Smaller markets just outside of
the 30-minute target market, York and
Lancaster, are easily reached by several
major transportation arteries. Interstate 81,
which offers direct access to the Scranton
market, connects to Route 209 and provides
access to the Townships of Millersburg and
Elizabethville, among others in the northern
portion of the County.
AIR ACCESS
Demand for air travel in the County is

primarily served by Harrisburg International
Airport (HIA). HIA, located eight miles
south of downtown Harrisburg, has access
to all major air hubs east of Chicago and
seasonal air service to Denver. Served by
Courtesy: ESRI
seven major carriers and regional Figure 4.9: County Transportation Infrastructure
affiliates, HIA accommodated 2.7 million
passengers in 2011. HIAs mix of carriers, access to major hub gateways, and reputation for
ease of use positions it as a strategic asset for helping attract national-level tournaments with
participants from around the nation.
RAIL ACCESS
Although vehicular and air access are the most important considerations when evaluating
transportation infrastructure, Dauphin County has two Amtrak stations, one at HIA and another
in downtown Harrisburg. Multiple departures to New York via Philadelphia are offered every
day on the Key Stone route while the Pennsylvanian route offers direct access to Pittsburgh.
October 17, 2012
4 . 10

PLANNING STUDY
HOTEL SUPPLY
According to Smith Travel Research,

Dauphin County has 77 total motel and
hotel properties and over 7,800 rooms, far
more than the usual requirement of 2,000
necessary to host large, national-level
tournaments. Of those 7,800 rooms, the
vast majority are comprised by a diverse
mix of budget and mid-quality properties
that are most often utilized by participants
and parents traveling to youth and amateur
competitions.
Location of hotel offerings within the County
is a major consideration for site selection
(detailed in Section 6.0) and for determining
the number of rooms that could be utilized
in a tournament setting.
Tournament
organizers have indicated that it is highly
desirable that hotel offerings are within a
10-mile drive from the competition site(s).
Because of the Countys unique northCourtesy: ESRI
south geographical boundaries and drive Figure 4.10: Zip Codes with Hotel Inventory
time
from
the
northernmost
to
southernmost portion of the County (estimated at one hour, 30 minutes), understanding the
location of the hotel offerings is imperative. As shown below in Figure 4.11, there are 12 zip
codes with hotel offerings in the County, with the most in Zip Code 17111 and with one offering
in Zip Code 17078. The corresponding map, shown above, has zip codes with hotel offerings
highlighted in blue suggesting any sports complex located between the I-81 and 83 corridors
would have access to over 7,000 rooms at any given time.
Zip Code
Properties
Rooms
17111 17033 17112 17110 17028 17036 17109 17101 17055 17057 17104 17078
15
16
12
1957
1521
815
621
557
443
288
602
105
101
114
80
Source: STR Travel Research

Note: STR did not provide a zip code for 7 properties but each are factored into
total property and bed count
Figure 4.11: Hotel Inventory by ZIP Code
October 17, 2012
4 . 11

PLANNING STUDY
CIVIC & CULTURAL ASSETS
Civic and cultural assets play a large role in providing appeal to tournament organizers and
participants.
These assets add destination value to a tournament, as well known
establishments, parks, venues, and museums make the region an attractive and exciting
location to visit. Through B&Ds extensive market research phase it was discovered that the
County has several civic and cultural assets that are detailed in greater depth below:
Pennsylvania State Capitol: Often known as a "palace of art" for its artistic decor,
the Pennsylvania State Capitol near downtown Harrisburg features paintings,
stained glass and furnishings by some of the best artisans of 20th century America.
More than 100,000 people visit the Capitol building annually.
State Museum of Pennsylvania: The State Museum offers exhibits that detail
Pennsylvanias Civil War history, the foundations of American industry and
Pennsylvania political history dating back to the early republic. The State Museum,
which hosts approximately 135,000 visitors annually, provides the public with a full
expanse of the states heritage and connections to the national experience.
Hersheypark is a well-known theme park throughout

the nation operated by Herco
Pennsylvania State Capitol
Hersheypark: Hersheypark features 67 rides, including 12 roller coasters, nine

water attractions, and 20 kiddie rides. Adjacent to the park is Hershey's Chocolate
World, which contains shops and restaurants. According to park management, an
estimated two million patrons visit the park each year. Due to the parks
attractiveness to youth and teen markets, Hersheypark will provide a significant
amount of appeal to tournament participants wishing to visit the park.
National Civil War Museum: The National Civil War Museum is the nations largest
museum portraying the entire war without bias to Union or Confederate causes. The
exhibitions cover the period from 1850 to 1876 with their major focus on the Civil War
October 17, 2012
4 . 12

PLANNING STUDY
years of 1861 to 1865. It boasts a collection of over 24,000 artifacts, photographs,

documents, and manuscripts from this period.
AACA Auto Museum: AACA Museum is dedicated to raising public awareness and
appreciation of the role that the automobile has played in shaping 20th century
America. The AACA Museum hosts drive-in weekends as well as the Museum of Bus
Transportation Collection. A floor full of buses and more than 30 motorcycles
complement the over 100 cars on display. The AACA Museum has been recognized
as one of the Top 16 Automotive Museums in the world.
The Whitaker Center for Science and Arts: The Whitaker Center is the mid-states
premier center for arts, education, entertainment and cultural enrichment. It
features three floors of hands-on science exhibits and galleries. In addition to being
home to a blend of arts, science, and entertainment activities, the Whitaker Center is
one of downtown Harrisburgs most unique architectural treasures. Approximately
285,000 patrons of all ages visit the Whitaker Center annually.
Fort Hunter Mansion and Park: Built on a bluff overlooking the Susquehanna River,
Fort Hunter Mansion and Park has served as a war fort, a hub for frontier
commerce, and an exclusive private estate. Visitors can explore the 40-acre historic
grounds and enjoy professionally guided tours of the elegantly restored Mansion
House. The park also offers picnic pavilions, play equipment, free walking tour
brochures, a river front walk, and a Pennsylvania Canal trail.
Giant Center & Hersheypark Stadium: The Giant Center is a 10,500 seat arena that
has served as home to the American Hockey Leagues Hershey Bears since 2002. In
addition to hockey games, the Giant Center hosts over 100 concerts, sporting events
and family shows annually. Next to the Giant Center is Hersheypark Stadium, which
is an outdoor venue which hosts high school championships, sporting exhibitions,
and concerts.
City Island: This mile-long island is located just outside downtown Harrisburg and
offers panoramic views of the Susquehanna River and Harrisburg skyline. The City
Island includes such attractions as Harbourtown, Skyline Sports Complex, Carriage
House, Harrisburg Paddlewheel Riverboat, a miniature golf course, three boat
marinas and the City Island Railroad. The Island includes Metro Bank Park, home to
the Harrisburg Senators of the Double-A Eastern League.
October 17, 2012
4 . 13

PLANNING STUDY
INTERVIEWS
OBJECTIVES & METHODLOGY
To supplement the demographic and existing conditions analyses, B&D conducted over 35
interviews with community members, league leaders, tournament organizers, and key
stakeholders in 15 to 20 minute increments. Each of the interviews was transcribed to the
highest degree of accuracy and has been aggregated into general themes detailed below. At
the request of interviewees and the consent of B&D, each of the responses is confidential in
nature. However, the full interview list is attached to this report as Exhibit C.
INTERVIEW FINDINGS
Theme #1: Interviewees indicated that there is a lack of outdoor field space in the County.
Several quotes are provided below:
Most facilities are either at a township facility or at schools. There arent enough
rectangle fields in the County. People generally just use whatever is available. The
township fields are just beat up from too much play.
CASA completed a study in 2008 for a similar sports complex to be located in Lower
Paxton. The effort was to get quality fields to showcase our kids. Currently there are no
travel teams that come to the region; instead, they go elsewhere for competitive play.
There is definitely a lack of facilities. The problem is access. Our club would be willing
to pay a membership fee to a facility through yearly dues increases and fundraising.
High quality fields are needed to showcase our youth. We just dont have good facilities.
We have agreements with schools but they are often at bad times.
Theme #2: The complex should include baseball diamonds and an indoor field house concept.
Several quotes are provided below:
The area is lacking soccer, lacrosse, and field hockey fields. There are few lighted
fields in the County. I only know of two synthetic fields in the County and they can cost
up to $400 to rent. Part of this facility should really include volleyball and basketball too
gyms are nearly as difficult to rent.
Baseball diamonds are a major need. This facility should be modeled after
Cooperstown and have an event concept. Charging walk-up user fees is not a
sustainable business model.
We could fill a clover diamond complex almost every weekend in the summer.
October 17, 2012
4 . 14

PLANNING STUDY
Its extremely difficult to get a gym for competition. Part of the facility should
absolutely encompass multiple basketball and volleyball spaces.
Lower Dauphin baseball fields have been destroyed through the floods. Almost all of
the 90 and 75 diamonds are destroyed or overused, creating a major need for the
facility.
Theme #3: It is not anticipated that the complex could be operated by a public agency. The
quotes provided below summarize findings:
It is something that is needed but we would not envision operating the facility.
A sports complex would be incredibly well supported. The City of Harrisburg right now
just cant upgrade their parks and recreation facilities, so theres definitely a need.
Theme #4: The facility should explore synergies with existing community assets and be located
in the Harrisburg-Hershey corridor. The quotes provided below summarize findings:
With the infrastructure in place and the strategic location of the County, (the County)
would provide a great platform to host these (tournament) teams. Try to utilize
community attractions in any way possible.
The County is really divided into two sections, north and south. There are three
community parks in the north and three in the south. There are not many athletic
spaces offered at these parks.
There is really no central location for recreation and the facilities are all very, very old.
Please consider Hershey when selecting location. Hershey is the major calling card for
the County.
October 17, 2012
4 . 15

PLANNING STUDY
F O C U S G R O U P SE S S I O N S
OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the focus group interviews is to collect qualitative data that will contribute to the
shaping of the program that will be of the highest appeal and utility to Dauphin County and the
potential patrons and participants. The focus groups were designed to develop general
concepts with the input of known project supporters and potential users from Dauphin County.
Working with the MSA and the County, two focus group sessions were organized and conducted
at Central Dauphin High School. The focus groups included parents, league leaders, club
organizers, and community figureheads. The session included a presentation that briefed the
participants on the study process, described the proposed program, and outlined key decision
points regarding the sports complex development. A short discussion period followed the
presentation to solicit input from each of the participants. The focus group results are included
in Exhibit C of this study.
FINDINGS
The focus groups were divided into four general categories expressing preferences for
rectangle fields, softball and baseball diamonds, various indoor field house concepts, and onsite amenities. The focus group findings are encapsulated below:
Rectangle Field Preferences

o
o
o
Participants preferred turf over natural grass rectangle fields. This preference
was especially strong for the months from October through February. The
groups preferred to practice on rectangle fields during the week at night and to
compete at all times of the day on weekends.
Participants indicated that lighting was desired at a championship field. A
scoreboard and concession areas were other highly requested amenities.
Participants estimated that each team would spend on average 10 hours per
week practicing and 7 hours per week competing, although this time
commitment varied slightly by sport.
For practice, focus group participants indicated that $90 would be an appropriate
rental rate for both natural grass and synthetic fields. For competition,
participants considered $190 to be an appropriate rental rate for synthetic turf
fields and $90 an appropriate rate for natural grass.
Participants considered an average clinic price of $125 to $400, while leagues
could range from $600 to as high as $3,000 per team per season.
October 17, 2012
4 . 16
Diamond Preferences
o
o
o
o
Participants expressed a strong preference for natural grass over synthetic turf
diamonds, but indicated that synthetic turf diamonds would have a longer season
of use.
Participants were unanimous in saying that the peak use season for a natural
grass diamond component was April through September. For synthetic turf, that
peak was year-round.
Participants stressed the need for additional diamonds, especially to serve local
high school and college-level baseball teams.
Focus group participants indicated that portable fences were acceptable, but that
portable mounds were not a desirable trait.
The group considered an average price of $200 per child to be appropriate for 3day skills camps, $300 for 5-day skills camps, and $150 for clinics.
Indoor Fieldhouse Preferences

o
o
o

PLANNING STUDY
The most desired component in an indoor Fieldhouse was an indoor turf field.
Participants agreed these components would be most utilized in the winter.
Participants indicated that the indoor Fieldhouse would be most heavily utilized
in the fall and winter months.
The groups expressed minimal support for a wrestling-specific space and
generally believed it could be accommodated on a multi-purpose court.
On-Site Amenities
o
o
o
o
Family friendly amenities such as a playground area, family pavilion, and picnic
area were the most popular on-site amenities among participants.
Participants were in favor of including banquet space for potential meetings and
banquets at a two-story clubhouse
Outdoor basketball courts were highly requested by participants.
Participants also commented they would like to see batting cages, cardio and
strength training areas, tennis courts, and a 200-meter track at the facility.
October 17, 2012
4 . 17

PLANNING STUDY
N A T I ON A L C A S E S T U DI E S
Four case studies on national and regional facilities were compiled to provide insight into
appropriate operating strategies, project economics, and creative funding methods. Each of the
case studies was not selected solely on the basis of financial performance. Instead, facilities
were selected on the basis of operational model employed, primarily to gain an understanding
of best practices associated with each, and to demonstrate funding methods that have been
successfully utilized in similar cases. The following facilities were selected as case studies:
Council Bluffs Recreation Complex (Council Bluffs, IA)
United Sports Training Center (Downingtown, PA)
Citizens Bank Fields at Progin Park (Lancaster, MA)
Rocky Mount Sports Complex (Rocky Mount, NC)
To inform the planning process, several demographic comparisons were drawn between each
of the facilities listed above and the local market. At the conclusion of each case study, a series
of key takeaways and best practices was identified to use as a guide for planning a facility in
Dauphin County.
October 17, 2012
4 . 18

PLANNING STUDY
COUNCIL BLUFFS RECREATION COMPLEX
The Council Bluffs Recreation Complex (CBRC)

opened in 2002 and is operated by the Council Bluffs
Parks and Recreation Department. The facility is 84acres and includes 14 full-size rectangle fields, four
baseball and softball diamonds, and two youth baseball
fields. CBRC has 900 parking spaces, two concession
areas, several multi-purpose rooms, a playground, and
a bike trail.
The $12 million facility was originally developed as a
part of an economic development agreement with
Harveys Resort & Casino. The casino purchased a $4
million tract of land with the stipulation that half of the
purchased land be developed into a youth sports
complex. As gaming funds have become available the
City has continued to develop the complex over the
Council Bluffs Recreation Complex

Location:
Metro Area:
Council Bluffs, IA
Omaha
Acres:
84
Rectangles:
14
Diamonds:
10
Parking Spaces:
900
Project Cost
$12 million
Funding Participation:
Public
100%
Private
0%
Operating Model:
Public
Revenue:
$55,000 (Approximate)
Expenses:
$509,280 (2011)
Source: City of Council Bluffs
Figure 4.12: CBRC Profile
past 10 years. Due to its negative annual net operating

income, the complex is subsidized by a tourism tax and
the City of Council Bluffs general fund.
CBRC held 24 tournaments in a recent year in addition
to several yearlong soccer leagues. One of the recent
baseball tournaments, the Slump Buster Invitational,
hosted 238 teams from 40 states. Not all teams were
accommodated at the CBRC but it served as the primary
host for the tournament. Known for its high quality
playing surfaces, one of the CBRCs baseball fields was
Courtesy:
selected by the Iowa Sports Turf Management
Association for its outstanding maintenance and appearance.
City of Council Bluffs
As seen in Figure 4.13, Council Bluffs has a slightly higher number of gross users in
comparison to the local market and a significantly lower median age from 33.8 to 34.8. In line
with a younger median age, local median incomes are also significantly below that of the local
market. Whether coincidental or not, Council Bluffs seemingly has the appropriate operational
model for its user base as there is a significant quantity of users but a dearth of disposable
income in the closest drive time areas from the site.
October 17, 2012
4 . 19
Key Indicators
Local Population
Council Bluffs Population
Local Median Age
Council Bluffs Median Age
Local Median Income
Council Bluffs Median Income
10 min

PLANNING STUDY
20 min
30 min
68,082
96,595
385,830
513,193
593,711
725,430
41.1
33.8
40.9
34.7
41
34.8
$60,507
$42,921
$59,040
$52,317
$59,246
$59,213
Source: ESRI
Figure 4.13: Council Bluffs Demographic Comparison
Best Practices and Key Takeaways:
Similar to other publicly owned, operated, and funded community recreation

facilities, CBRC has a focus on providing a public utility and equitable access to
citizens. CBRC achieves these goals by renting fields on a daily basis and offering a
diverse program of spaces including rectangle fields, diamonds, and trails to cater to
the vast majority of City resident recreational needs. However, the resulting
outcome of this facility, and most other public facilities, is a negative operating
scenario that must be subsidized by a general fund or supported by a tax stream.
The CBRC was funded creatively through an economic development partnership.
Although built with public gaming funds, the facility exemplifies how various
community developments, especially those with a lodging component, can realize
synergies with sports complexes.
CBRCs quantity of fields, 14 rectangles and 10 diamonds, and award winning
facilities enables it to host large, national-scale tournaments that create substantial
economic benefit. For complexes to remain attractive to tournament providers both
quantity and quality of fields is a key consideration.
October 17, 2012
4 . 20

PLANNING STUDY
UNITED SPORTS
United Sports is located in Downingtown, Pennsylvania,

a western suburb of Philadelphia. The private facility
was developed on a 100-acre site of a former regional
airport. The site was chosen due to the acreage
available and Downingtowns strong demographic
profile. United Sports features 11 rectangle fields, two
of which are synthetic surfaces, and a large field house
with three playing surfaces for soccer, futsal, volleyball,
and basketball, among others. United Sports also
serves as the training home for the Philadelphia
Independence professional soccer team.
The private owners of United Sports employed a phased
approach to facility development and in 1999 had only
four natural grass rectangle fields and a field house on
United Sports
Location:
Metro Area:
Downingtown, PA
Philadelphia
Acres:
Rectangles:
Fieldhouse SF:
Parking Spaces:
[1] Project Cost
Public
Private
Operating Model:
100
11
127,000
1000
$15 million
0%
100%
Private
Source: Facility website, secondary research

[1] Project cost is estimated
Figure 4.14: United Sports Profile
the property. Though financial information for this

facility is proprietary, B&D believes that because of its
strong partnership with community hotels, retail
businesses, and local schools United Sports has built a
sustainable operational model.
As mentioned above, United Sports leverages an
extremely strong demographic user base. Despite
having fewer users (gross) than the local market, the
30-minute drive time from Downingtown contains a
higher number of users than the local market. Courtesy: Foursquare.com
Downingtown also has a tremendously strong
household income characteristic that enables the facility to charge market-rate rental rates,
assess membership dues, and offer a broad menu of services that cater to a population with a
high degree of disposable income.
October 17, 2012
4 . 21
Key Indicators
[1] Local Target Market
[1] Downingtown Target Market

PLANNING STUDY
10 min
30 min
34,031
28,607
192,529
134,969
296,262
301,170
41.1
38.3
40.9
38.2
41
39.5
$60,507
$77,551
$59,040
$84,795
$59,246
$85,204
Local Median Age

Downingtown Median Age
Local Median Income
Downingtown Median Income
20 min
Source: ESRI
[1] Entire target market is between ages of 5 and 44
Figure 4.15: Downingtown Demographic Comparison
The private ownership group developed the facility in phases and was able to
manage and mitigate financial and operating risk.
United Sports partnered with a local minor league team and athletic enhancement
clinics to create foot traffic and visibility. Such an approach eases the five to six year
participation stabilization process that is experienced upon opening of a complex.
October 17, 2012
4 . 22

PLANNING STUDY
CITIZENS BANK FIELDS AT PROGIN PARK
Completed in 2007, Citizens Bank Fields at Progin

Park features 16 full-size rectangle fields with 110 x
75 yard dimensions.
The facility is owned and
operated by the Mass Youth Soccer Association
(MYSA), a 501(c) 3 non-profit youth soccer
organization. The natural grass fields are regarded as
some of the best in the nation and are managed by a
professional grounds staff. Progin Park also includes
picnic benches, outdoor grills, a pavilion, concession
stand, and an office for facility management.
Citizens Bank Fields at Progin Park

Location:
County:
Lancaster, MA
Worcester
Acres:
136
Rectangles:
16
Synthetic Surface
5
Parking Spaces:
1500
[1] Project Cost
$9.5 million
Public
0%
Private
100%
Non-Profit 501 (c) 3
Operating Model:
Progin Park was financed through several sources,

though the majority came via a donation of over $5
million by the estate of George K. Progin, a local
[1] Project cost varies by source
philanthropist.
The 283-acre plot of land was
Figure 4.16: Progin Park Profile
originally purchased from Digital Equipment Corp by
the MYSA which proceeded to sell parcels of land to developers prior to breaking ground on the
136 acre soccer complex. The remaining portion of the project was financed by the MYSA and a
$3 incremental dues assessment on the 185,000 members until debt is retired on the facility.
Naming rights were also secured with Citizens Bank in a deal that originally started as a onetime soccer-ball giveaway program by the bank. The agreement is for five years at an
undisclosed amount.
Courtesy: Progin Park
Courtesy: Progin Park
Progin Park is home to the MYSA which serves as the unofficial governing body for
Massachusetts amateur soccer. As a result, accessibility for all Massachusetts youth soccer
participants and tournament participants is a greater consideration than serving the local
October 17, 2012
4 . 23

PLANNING STUDY
population. Accordingly, Lancaster is located in central Massachusetts, providing convenient

access to MYSA members while having over 800,000 users in the 30-minute drive time area
surrounding the park.
Population
Local Population
Lancaster Population
10 min
68,082
49,711
20 min
385,830
226,284
30 min
593,711
823,152
Source: ESRI
Figure 4.17: Lancaster Demographic Comparison
The facility was developed privately by a non-profit organization. Similar to many

non-profit developments, the MYSA relied on donations and a member dues
assessment to help finance its project.
Progin Park secured a naming rights sponsor to help subsidize annual operations.
The value of the naming rights contract for Progin Park is not available, but State
Farm Insurance recently completed a $500,000, 5-year naming rights agreement
with the City of Bakersfield to create the State Farm Sports Village.
Although Progin Park and Bakersfield have secured naming rights partners, these
agreements have traditionally been difficult for sports complexes to consummate.
Overland Park Soccer Complex, one of the most successful and visible complexes in
the nation, has not been able to secure a naming rights partner for an asking price of
$200,000 per year for five years.
Though Progin Park has a naming rights partner, it is possible to honor large donors
and/or project supporters by naming the complex after the donor and placing the
corporate sponsor in the title as well. For instance, Progin Park was originally
named Sixteen Fields at Progin Park.
October 17, 2012
4 . 24

PLANNING STUDY
ROCKY MOUNT SPORTS COMPLEX
Rocky Mount Sports Complex (RMSC) opened in 2008

for a project cost of approximately $12 million. Like
United Sports, RMSC was developed on the site of a
former regional airport. There are six youth baseball
and softball fields, four softball fields, one professional
baseball field, and eight Bermuda grass rectangles. Onsite amenities include a discus golf course, two
concession areas with restrooms, an air conditioned
tournament and umpire lounge, and a walking trail,
among others. Also, the addition of an indoor field
house/arena is currently being considered to
accommodate additional community uses.
Rocky Mount Sports Complex

Location:
Metro Area:
Rocky Mount, NC
Rocky Mount
Acres:
Rectangles:
Diamonds:
Parking Spaces:
Project Cost:
Public
Private
Operating Model:
143
8
11
600
$12 million
100%
0%
Public
Operated by the City of Rocky Mount, RMSC is Figure 4.18: RMSC Profile
scheduled to host over 30 tournaments in 2012 while
also providing at least a dozen league, skill camps, and
academies to residents. Like most sports complexes
with a public operational model, RMSC requires an
operational subsidy of roughly $100,000 annually on
$450,000 in operational expenses.
The financing for
RMSC was completed via a10-year bond issuance for $11
million and over $1 million of grant programs, creating
an estimated $1 million of debt service to the City of
Rocky Mount for the next seven years.
Courtesy: City of Rocky Mount
In comparison to the local market, RMSC caters to a

relatively small local population base. As a result, Rocky
Mounts business model relies heavily on tournaments
that create substantial economic benefit for local hotels,
restaurants, and retail establishments. According to the
City of Rocky Mount, visitation of nearly 75,000 people for
the year 2011 resulted in an estimated economic impact
of nearly $8.3 million to the City.
Courtesy: Site Solutions
October 17, 2012
4 . 25
Key Indicators
Local Population
Rocky Mount Population
Local Median Age
Rocky Mount Median Age
Local Median Income
Rocky Mount Population

PLANNING STUDY
10 min
20 min
30 min
68,082
56,393
385,830
102,585
593,711
184,904
41.1
37.5
$60,507
$41,884
40.9
38.8
$59,040
$44,163
41
38.9
$59,246
$42,968
Source: ESRI
Figure 4.19: Rocky Mount Demographic Comparison
Rocky Mount balances a full tournament schedule with leagues, skill camps, and
various academies. Accommodating community users while maximizing economic
benefit through weekend tournament play is an operational model for which many
publicly operated facilities employ.
Several grant programs are available to sports complex developments and should be
utilized to the greatest extent possible to minimize debt service. In the case of the
RMSC, the facility was able to realize at least $1 million in grants from state parks
and recreation funds, land and water conservation funds, and several US Soccer
foundation grants.
October 17, 2012
4 . 26

PLANNING STUDY
5.0 - DE MAND & TO URN AMENT AN ALY SIS

B&D conducted a demand and tournament analysis to identify the type and quantity of potential
local users who could patronize the complex. Demand from the local market is important for
filling weekday field rental time and providing participants for skill camps and leagues. To
supplement weekday demand, most sports complexes host a significant number of
tournaments annually. Tournaments generate net new economic benefits through non-local
participants expenditures at local hotels, restaurants, and retail establishments while visiting
for tournament play. Given the Countys interest in utilizing the sports complex to generate
economic benefit, it is assumed that tournaments will constitute the vast majority of weekend
programming. Collectively, both local demand and tournament play represent the vast majority
of revenues attributable to the facility.
October 17, 2012
5.1

PLANNING STUDY
DEMAND ANALYSIS
The demand analysis is designed to determine the number of potential local users available to a
sports complex and help inform the facility program. B&D utilized national-level data provided
by the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association (SGMA) to determine the estimated number
of users for baseball, field hockey, lacrosse, rugby, soccer, and softball. Additionally, B&D
utilized the MSAs football participation numbers in place of SGMA data, believing first-hand
knowledge of the team-oriented sport provides a more valid indicator of the football user base.
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS
National participation figures were applied to local drive time demographic characteristics to
conceptualize the number of regular, core, and frequent users by sport in the local market. As
seen in Figure 5.1, nearly 28% of children from ages 6 to 12 are a regular, frequent, or core
baseball participant. In contrast, only 1.4% of children in the same age bracket is a regular,
frequent, or core lacrosse participant. When the same exercise is conducted for each sport
across all age groups, there are an estimated 35,000 total participants, inclusive of football
figures provided by the MSA, who could regularly utilize a rectangle field. Additionally, there
are an estimated 55,000 total participants who could regularly utilize a baseball/softball
diamond. Please note that the table below shows only regular, core, and frequent users each
sport contains additional participants but are not a target market group for this facility.
Local Market Population by Age
Baseball
F.H.
28.10%
19.80%
5.70%
4.20%
3.40%
3.00%
1.70%
0.60%
1.30%
2.60%
0.60%
0.40%
0.00%
0.10%
0.00%
0.00%
1.40%
1.60%
0.80%
0.60%
0.20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.20%
0.40%
0.60%
0.60%
0.50%
0.20%
0.10%
0.00%
21.80% 9.00%
13.60% 10.00%
5.20% 4.17%
2.40% 3.07%
2.20% 2.49%
1.00% 1.50%
0.60% 1.00%
0.00% 0.90%
30 - Minute Estimated Users 37,800
2,500
2,500
1,600
25,800
10 Min 20 Min 30 Min

6-12
13-17
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
30-Minute Participants
6,062
4,742
5,590
8,780
9,120
10,754
8,712
10,822
35,921
28,037
33,228
44,756
52,087
60,189
50,544
60,189
56,600
43,737
50,537
67,683
80,151
94,400
78,370
90,838
Lacrosse Rugby
Soccer Softball
18,700
Source: SGMA, ESRI

Note: Shown are regular, frequent, and core participation rates
Figure 5.1: Estimated Number of 30-Minute Users
October 17, 2012
5.2

PLANNING STUDY
Each of the sports considered has different usage patterns, seasons, and frequency of use. As
seen in Figure 5.2, soccer and fast pitch softball regular users participate between 26 and 51
times per year while rugby and field hockey participants play between eight and 14 times
annually. The frequency of use informed both B&Ds tournament and recreational projections.
Frequency of Use
Regular
Frequent
Core
13 - 24
24 +
13 - 24
8 - 14
15+
8+
13 - 24
25+
13+
Rugby
8 - 14
15+
8+
Soccer
26 - 51
52+
26 - 51
Softball (Slow Pitch)
13 - 24
25+
13+
Softball (Fast Pitch)
26 - 51
52+
26 - 51
Baseball
Field Hockey
Lacrosse
Source: SGMA
Figure 5.2: Frequency of Use by Activity
For each of the sports analyzed above, SGMA has provided participation trends specific to each
sport. As seen in Figure 5.3 below, rugby is experiencing exponential growth as opposed to
more well-known and traditional offerings such as baseball and soccer. Although the
exponential growth is partially attributed to the smaller overall participation figures, the
explosion in growth of rugby, lacrosse, and field hockey speaks to the industry perception that
participants are looking for new and alternative sports and recreational outlets.
Total Participants
2007
Baseball
2008
2009
2010
16,058,000 15,020,000 13,837,000 14,558,000
1-Year Growth
5.20%
Field Hockey 1,127,000
1,118,000
1,066,000
1,298,000
21.80%
Lacrosse
1,058,000
1,127,000
1,197,000
1,648,000
37.70%
617,000
690,000
750,000
1,130,000
50.70%
Rugby
Soccer
13,708,000 14,223,000 13,691,000 14,075,000
2.80%
Softball
11,830,000 12,151,000 11,161,000 10,818,000
Source: SGMA
Figure 5.3: One Year Participant Growth
Although the tables above shows that baseball and softballs participation numbers have
essentially stagnated, recent developments such as the Ripken Experience and the highly
successful Cooperstown Dreams Park have heightened the demand for baseball tournaments
October 17, 2012
5.3

PLANNING STUDY
by providing a unique concept to tournament competitors. Participants play in week long,

tournaments in which the participants stay on the grounds in dormitories. Though participation
fees can exceed $1,000 per participant, each of these complexes success speaks to the value of
planning a facility with destination value and a unique product offering.
MID STATE ALLIANCE PARTICIPANTS
The Mid State Alliance provided B&D with additional

Number of
participation figures that are included in the overall Activity
Participants
estimated number of participants shown in the table
Soccer
4,125
above. As seen in Figure 5.4, the MSA has over 4,000
Football
2,930
potential soccer members as part of roughly 9,200 Baseball
1,985
users who would utilize a rectangle field. Although Rugby
1,000
the MSA has over 11,000 potential members, the Lacrosse
845
Field
Hockey
315
organization is in its formative stages and validating
235
the number of member clubs and the extent to which Cheerleading
each would like to be involved is a crucial next step Rectangle Users
9,215
for facility development. It has been suggested by Diamond Users
1,985
MSA leadership that additional sports such as Total Potential Users
11,435
basketball, softball, and volleyball be included, but Source: Mid State Alliance
to date no sport leader has provided reliable Figure 5.4: Mid State Alliance Users
participation figures to consider. For the purposes
of this analysis and financial modeling, B&D has assumed that the MSA will contain 11,000
members. It is highly unlikely that all proposed members will join the MSA, but B&D expects
additional interest will be expressed in the organization from local clubs once this effort is given
additional publicity.
October 17, 2012
5.4

PLANNING STUDY
T O U R N AM E N T A N A L Y SI S
The tournament analysis is designed to determine the number and type of tournaments that
could be held at a sports complex. Tournament characteristics such as number of teams,
number of games, room nights required, and entry fee were compiled and benchmarked by
B&D to project the number of tournaments that could be held at a sports complex located in
Dauphin County. The outcome of the tournament benchmarking analysis is a tournament
schedule that directly influences merchandise, parking, concession, and rental income.
RECTANGLE TOURANMENT SCHEDULE
The table below provides a sampling of the number of tournaments held at sports complexes
with rectangle fields around the nation. Each complex has between eight and 24 rectangle
fields available for tournament utilization. As seen in the chart, each of the selected complexes
holds a minimum of 12 tournaments and a maximum of 35 tournaments annually. Though
Reach 11 hosts more tournaments than all other facilities examined, each of the other facilities
hosts a relatively narrow range of tournaments due to weather constraints, field resting and
rotation patterns, usage limitations, and operational challenges.
Location
Fields
Indoor
Facilities?
Downingtown, PA
New Castle, DE
Overland Park, KS
Phoenix, AZ
Boyds, MD
Commerce City, CO
Virginia Beach, VA
11
15
12
18
24
24
8
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Facility Name
United Sports
Kirkwood Soccer Club
Overland Park Soccer Complex
Reach 11 Soccer Complex
Germantown Soccerplex
Dick's Sporting Goods Park
Virginia Beach Sportsplex
Estimated Number
of Tournaments
20
15
18
25
15
12
12
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
25
20
22
35
25
16
16
Source: Secondary research, facility websites

Note: Tournament range is an approximation
Figure 5.5: Rectangle Tournaments by Facility
As previously mentioned, weather limits the number of weekends available for tournament play
because most tournaments are held in warm weather months out of necessity and preference.
Reach 11 Soccer Complex, mentioned above, hosts up to 35 tournaments annually because
Arizona has an average temperature of over 60 degrees in every month thereby expanding the
number of weekends the complex is able to host tournaments. Other complexes, such as those
in nearby Downingtown and Virginia Beach offer more limited tournament schedules typical of
sports complexes with climates similar to Dauphin County.
October 17, 2012
5.5

PLANNING STUDY
Dauphin Countys average temperatures are provided

High
Low
Average
in Figure 5.5, showing that the months of April
38F
23F
31F
through October have average high temperatures January
February
41F
25F
33F
above 60 degrees and average temperatures of 50
March
51F
32F
42F
degrees or above. While there are no rules as to
April
63F
42F
53F
acceptable weather temperatures, B&D has assumed May
72F
51F
62F
that the months of April through October represent June
81F
61F
71F
the months in which tournaments will typically be July
85F
66F
76F
84F
64F
74F
held after conferring with tournament organizers. August
56F
66F
There could be cold-weather events such as a September 76F
October
64F
44F
54F
Thanksgiving weekend rugby or football invitational,
November
53F
36F
45F
but B&D believes the vast majority of tournaments
December
42F
27F
35F
will come from the 28 weekends between April and
Source: Weather.com
October. Given the difficulty in accommodating two
Figure 5.5: Dauphin County
tournaments simultaneously and the challenge in Temperatures
booking a tournament every weekend, B&D believes
a tournament schedule utilizing rectangle fields may fall between 18 and 22 each year.
However, for weekends that tournaments are not scheduled, opportunities exist to produce
internal fundraiser tournaments to raise money for improvements and/or expansion.
RECTANGLE TOURNAMENT CHARACTERISTICS
A random sampling of soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, rugby, and football tournaments was
performed to identify characteristics associated with tournaments in each sport. As seen in the
table below, soccer and lacrosse have the greatest average number of teams and, accordingly,
require the greatest number of fields with an average of three and four games guaranteed.
Tournaments for each sport typically require two days aside from football which guarantees
fewer games over more days due to the nature of the sport. Interestingly, entry fees for
lacrosse tournaments are significantly higher than any other sport considered suggesting that
internally produced lacrosse tournaments may yield the best results for fundraising efforts.
Average Number
of Teams
Days
Typical
Roster Size
Games
Gauranteed
High
Average Entry Fees

Low
Average
Soccer
128
18
$670
$560
$615
Lacrosse
107
20
$1,060
$990
$1,025
Field Hockey
35
16
$460
$440
$450
Rugby
36
18
$350
$350
$350
Football
33
22
$310
$290
$300
Source: Secondary Research
Figure 5.6: Rectangle Tournament Characteristics

October 17, 2012
5.6

PLANNING STUDY
Tournaments can be produced internally, co-produced with an organizer, or organized by an

outside club that leases the complex for a negotiated rental rate. In most tournament models,
facilities are leased to clubs as in-house facility management typically does not have the
internal capabilities to host large tournaments. However, if tournaments are produced
internally as fundraisers, the facility retains all event revenue and can utilize volunteers to
minimize tournament expense overhead. This is in contrast to co-produced events, in which the
facility splits revenue with a co-producer, and when the facility is leased to a club for a lease
rate in which the facility receives a smaller percentage of event revenues because it is not
assuming risk for the event.
BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE
B&D developed the baseball and softball tournament schedule by utilizing feedback from the
interviews and focus groups. Several interviewees indicated that their organization would be
interested in renting a wagon wheel (wheel) or clover of diamonds (clover) as seen below,
every weekend for approximately six to seven months annually with play ending in October due
to cold weather. Given the limited inventory of high quality diamonds in the county, strong
participation figures, and primary research, B&D projects a sports complex could hold between
22 and 26 two-day, weekend tournaments annually.
Courtesy: Playfield USA
Courtesy: Uniwatch.com
According to tournament organizers, a lighted clover could accommodate six teams per field
each weekend while an unlit clover could accommodate roughly four teams per field in weekend
tournaments. Although Cooperstown Field of Dreams operates week-long tournaments,
dormitories are utilized to house the participants. Such a model in Dauphin County has not
been considered primarily due to budgetary considerations. While it may seem like diamonds
limit the number of uses, clovers are often developed to also accommodate rectangle fields in
the outfield, thereby adding additional rectangle field inventory to the sports complex program
should the space be required.
October 17, 2012
5.7

PLANNING STUDY
6.0 - SITE ANALYSIS & EVALUATION

Identifying a suitable site for a sports complex development requires several considerations
such as land cost and availability, site infrastructure, interstate/state highway access, proximity
to hotels and retail, and zoning regulations, among others. B&Ds approach to identifying the
most suitable site in the County first entailed an objective evaluation of Dauphin County ZIP
codes to determine the most advantageous areas, or set of circumstances, for location of a
sports complex. Within the context of these findings, B&D evaluated several sites with the
intention of identifying a preferred site for development.
October 17, 2012
6.1

PLANNING STUDY
SITE ANALYSIS
Upon commencement of the planning effort neither a preferred site nor general location in the
County had been identified. To determine the best general location within the County, B&D
evaluated each ZIP code on the basis of population, household size, median household income,
and median age to develop a weighted rank of each of the ZIP codes. The weighted rank of each
ZIP code was overlaid with hotel inventory, transportation infrastructure, and the location of
civic assets and cultural attractions to identify ZIP codes that present the best set of
circumstances for development. For the purposes of the site analysis, financial sustainability
was the primary consideration.
FINDINGS
POPULATION & HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS BY ZIP CODE
Population, along with household income

Household
characteristics, is one of the most important Zip Code Population Households
Size
considerations in the site analysis process.
17112
33,850
13,607
2.47
The table to the right shows the ten most
17111
30,714
12,407
2.34
populous ZIP codes in Dauphin County,
17110
24,433
10,477
2.31
starting with ZIP code 17112 which has nearly
17036
23,425
8,726
2.51
34,000 residents which is mostly attributed 17109
23,131
10,494
2.19
to the ZIP Codes 66 square miles of land 17057
21,329
8,866
2.34
area. The third column contains the number 17104
20,962
7,647
2.70
16,972
6,442
2.25
of households for each area, which is 17033
11,848
4,504
2.62
ultimately used to determine average 17103
17113
10,749
4,297
2.49
household size. Average household size is a
significant consideration for site selection as
Source: Zip-Codes.com
areas with larger household sizes are more Figure 6.1: Population Characteristics by ZIP Code
likely to have target market users who may
patronize the complex. Those ZIP codes with strong average household sizes are outlined in
red to the right, with ZIP code 17104 having the highest average household size of the ten most
populous ZIP codes.
October 17, 2012
6.2

PLANNING STUDY
MEDIAN INCOME BY ZIP CODE
Above average median income levels are highly correlated with advanced median age levels
because, as the head(s) of household progress in their respective careers, earning power and
disposable income theoretically increase. As a result, finding areas with above average median
incomes and desirable, below average median age levels provides what B&D believes to be
ideal circumstances for which to locate a sports complex. Figure 6.2, shown below, shows the
top ten ZIP codes by household income levels with ZIP codes that possess comparatively young
average median age levels highlighted in red.
Median
Income
Zip Code
17036
17112
17018
17111
17028
17033
17032
17110
17057
17109
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
56,063
55,439
53,397
47,666
46,761
45,816
45,276
44,908
40,283
39,755
Median Age
Household
Size
40.9
43.8
46.0
40.2
43.0
35.4
42.5
39.1
41.1
39.2
2.51
2.47
2.40
2.34
2.40
2.25
2.56
2.31
2.34
2.19
Figure 6.2: Median Income by ZIP Code
ZIP code 17036, which has the highest median income level of the set, also has strong median
age level and average household size characteristics. The third and second ranked ZIP codes by
median income levels possess significantly higher average median age levels and would likely
possess fewer target market users, resulting in a less desirable environment for placement.
ZIP code 17032, which was not ranked as one of the ten most populous ZIP codes in the County,
has the highest average household size in the set at 2.56.
October 17, 2012
6.3

PLANNING STUDY
MEDIAN AGE LEVELS BY ZIP CODE
In addition to both population and median income

level characteristics, median age levels are
instructive in determining the number of users
from each ZIP code. Cross-tabulating median age
levels with median income and population is
necessary because the population sample may be
small and, if median income levels are too low,
the ZIP Code may not represent a strong target
market for the facility. As seen in the table to the
right, ZIP code 17104 has the lowest median age
levels but also has relatively weak income levels.
This is in comparison to ZIP code 17033, which
exhibits median age levels far under state and
national averages while exhibiting a strong
median household income level of over $45,000.
Zip Code
17104
17103
17033
17102
17113
17048
17110
17109
17111
17080
Median
Age
29.3
31.4
35.4
37.2
37.6
38.9
39.1
39.2
40.2
40.3
Median
Income
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
26,464
29,551
45,816
25,151
34,925
35,156
44,908
39,755
47,666
39,464
Population
20,962
11,848
16,972
7,628
10,749
4,046
24,433
23,131
30,714
298
Figure 6.3: Median Age Levels by ZIP Code
October 17, 2012
6.4

PLANNING STUDY
ZIP CODE RANKING
With each of the factors listed above taken into consideration, B&D developed a weighted
rank of each of the ZIP codes to determine the most advantageous areas in the County
strictly by ZIP code. The following ZIP codes were objectively ranked as the most
advantageous by the criterion evaluated by B&D:
1) ZIP code 17036 (Hummelstown) runs northsouth between the Hershey-Harrisburg
corridor and has the highest household
income level, fourth highest population, and a
relatively large household size of just over
2.5. Despite having the highest household
income levels, the region places in the middle
of all ZIP codes with a median age level of just
over 40 years old.
2) ZIP code 17111 (Rutherford Heights,
Lawnton) is located just east of downtown
Harrisburg and has the second highest
population and the second highest median
income level. However, in comparison to
17036 it has a slightly smaller average
household size.
3) ZIP code 17112 (Harrisburg) has the Source: Zip-Codes.com
highest population of any of the ZIP codes, Figure 6.4: Top Ranked ZIP Codes
due in large part to it being 66 square miles
in area. The area exhibits strong median household income at just over $55,000 but
has a median age of 44 years old, third oldest in the County.
4) ZIP code 17110 (North Harrisburg) ranks third in total population, eighth in median
income, and has the seventh lowest median age level but a relatively small average
household size of 2.31.
5) ZIP code 17033 (Hershey) is the eighth largest ZIP code area by population, has the
sixth highest median income level, and the third lowest median age.
As seen in the map above, several of the ZIP codes deemed advantageous by B&D are located in
the southeastern portion of the County near the major transportation arteries. Ideally, the
eventual site for the sports complex would be one of the ZIP codes specified above or, more
preferably, between or proximate to the I-81 and 76 corridors.
October 17, 2012
6.5

PLANNING STUDY
SITE EVALUATION
To evaluate potential sites in Dauphin County for a sports complex, B&D identified locations in
the County that either currently represent or could be assembled into the minimum
requirement of 60 acres necessary to accommodate the outline program. After coordination
with local developers and real estate professionals, B&D identified nine for sale sites within
County boundaries that satisfied acreage requirements. However, six of the sites were
considered unsuitable due to either extensive existing on-site improvements, such as large
horse stables, topography challenges, or unfavorable development conditions.
It must be noted that the site evaluation process was conducted without the benefit of site plans
or detailed surveys of proposed locations. Additionally, B&Ds evaluation of each of the sites is
in specific relation to its ability to serve as a development site for a sports complex and nothing
more. Should the County elect to further investigate any of the three sites below, a necessary
next step must include engaging an engineering partner to conduct a more detailed analysis.
FINDINGS
For each of the three identified sites B&D has completed a brief narrative describing site
location, accessibility, impediments to development, land cost, and site considerations. To
complete the site evaluation process, B&D produced a site evaluation matrix that identifies
advantages and disadvantages associated with each site and ultimately scored each site out of a
possible total of 85 points. The site evaluation is attached as Exhibit E to this report.
SITE A- HARRISBURG, PA, 17112
1) Location: Despite being located in ZIP Code

17112, the fifth most advantageous for
development, Site A is relatively secluded in the
northeastern portion in West Hanover Township.
Significant concentrations of retail and restaurant
establishments are nearly 14 miles away while
hotel accommodations are over six miles away in
Grantville. However, a potential tournament
support site could be utilized at Central Dauphin
High School, which has several high quality
athletic fields. Due to the isolated location, B&D
believes economic activity could leak to Lebanon
County while the potential for adjacent
Courtesy: Bing Maps
Figure 6.5: Site A Aerial View

October 17, 2012
6.6

PLANNING STUDY
development would be low. As a result of the relative isolation from supporting hotels
and restaurants, it is unlikely this site would be appealing to tournament organizers.
2) Transportation Accessibility: Site A is approximately five miles to the interstate and
over 24 miles from Harrisburg International Airport.
3) Impediments to Development: The site is advertised as a commercial and/or mixed
use development opportunity. However, B&D does believe that there would be a degree
of neighborhood opposition due to both an increase in traffic and the potential inclusion
of lights at a complex.
4) Land Cost: The asking price for the land is $3,850,000, or approximately $60,000 an
acre. B&D believes this asking price to be high in comparison to similar properties in
the nearby area.
5) Site Considerations: Site A is zoned as flexible rural agriculture by West Hanover
Township, which stipulates that permitted use includes public recreation areas including
parks, playgrounds, greenways, and open space. However, B&D believes extensive
sewer and water improvements and upgrades may be required to properly irrigate any
fields. Additionally, the site is not in FEMAs 100-year flood plain and the acreage is
assembled in a way for which various configurations could be laid out.
October 17, 2012
6.7

PLANNING STUDY
SITE B HARRISBURG, PA 17111
1) Location: Site Bs greatest advantage lies in location. The site is proximate to Route
441 which provides direct access to I-283 and the PA Turnpike. The site is located near a
light residential neighborhood and is approximately three miles to retail, restaurant, and
hotel establishments. Due to the nearby presence of these establishments, B&D
believes nearly all economic activity will be retained by the County. Just to the south is
the Little Hollywood Baseball Complex, which contains several diamonds configured for
softball and Little League Baseball.
2) Transportation Accessibility: Site B is approximately two miles to I-83 and just over
seven miles to Harrisburg International Airport and the Middletown Amtrak station.
3) Impediments to Development: Utility poles bisect the property and would need to be
relocated, which could add both significant costs and delays to the project. The nearby
light residential district to the south may also result in some neighborhood opposition
over increased traffic and the presence of lights.
4) Land Cost: The asking price for the land is $2,750,000, or nearly $40,000 an acre, which
B&D believes to be in line with other properties considered.
5) Site Considerations: Site B is zoned as unimproved farmland by Lower Swatara
Township, which allows membership sports and recreational club use. Due to the
unique configuration of the site, B&D believes that the proposed program would be a
tight fit and fields would have to be configured in an undesirable linear configuration.
Courtesy: Bing Maps
Figure 6.6: Site B Aerial View
October 17, 2012
6.8

PLANNING STUDY
SITE C LOWER SWATARA, 17057
1) Location: Site C is located just south of Site B in ZIP code 17057. The site is proximate
to PA-283 and is located between an industrial park to the north and light residential to
the south and east. B&D believes that the site presents a unique opportunity for
complementary development purposes, either on-site or nearby as the site was rezoned recently as commercial highway use. Allowed uses include hotels, shopping
centers, food stores, and retail stores, among others.
2) Transportation Accessibility: Site C is less than one mile to the interstate and just four
miles to Harrisburg International Airport and the Middletown Amtrak station.
3) Project Timing: As previously mentioned, the site was re-zoned recently as commercial
highway. Previous iterations for site development included the introduction of big-box
retail concepts such as Wal-Mart or Target. The scale and scope of previous land use
proposals leads B&D to believe that neighborhood opposition would be minimal.
Courtesy: Bing Maps
Figure 6.7: Site C Aerial View
4) Land Cost: It is estimated that the per acre land acquisition cost for this site is over
$60,000 per acre. However, given the expansive footprint of the site, opportunities could
exist to purchase a portion of the land for the sports complex only.
5) Site Considerations: Site C contains up to 120 acres. The land includes basic
improvements and has a two-story farmhouse on it. The land is sloped and could
require extensive site work to accommodate a sports complex. Utilities are available but
would need to be connected to the site.
October 17, 2012
6.9

PLANNING STUDY
The table below summarizes advantages and disadvantages for each of the sites and also
contains the overall score developed by B&D. As the table shows, Site C presents the best
option for location of a sports complex as currently constituted. Despite being outside of one of
the preferred ZIP Codes, the site is just southeast of the most advantageous ZIP Code of
17036 in the Lower Swatara Township.
Site A
Score
Site C
Configuration
Available acreage
Location
Economic benefits
Tournament capabilities
Hollywood Baseball Complex
Location
No sewer connection
Development potential
Economic activity leakage
Utility poles
Cost per acre
Neighborhood location
Topography
Configuration
Transportation infrastructure
Advantages
Disadvantages
Site B
50/85
Location
Development opportunity
Economic benefits
Tournament capabilities
Infrastructure
Extra acreage for expansion
60/85
69/85
Note: Characteristics highlighted in bold represent major challenges to development
Figure 6.8: Advantages and Disadvantages of Sites A, B, & C
Although Site C presents the best set of circumstances for development of any of the sites
analyzed, the cost per acre of nearly $60,000 and expected site work costs may inflate the
development budget. However, B&D believes the site presents a unique opportunity for
adjacent, complementary development given the expanse of the land and commercial highway
zoning. The remaining two sites, Site A and B, each have at least one or more major challenges
that pose serious roadblocks to development. As a result, B&D recommends the County
explore opportunities with private land owners who may wish to sell or donate unlisted land.
For frame of reference, Figure 6.9 the following page shows the general location of each of the
sites analyzed.
October 17, 2012
6 . 10

PLANNING STUDY
Figure 6.9: General Locations of Sites A, B, & C
October 17, 2012
6 . 11

PLANNING STUDY
7.0 - FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

The financial analysis consists of five sections detailing operational model, project concept
and facility program, budget, financial performance, and available funding options. The
primary purpose of this section is to define project parameters, quantify the revenue generated
by a sports complex, and to measure the capacity of those revenue streams to meet the
facilitys operating requirements. With this purpose in mind, the analysis applies the findings
and resultant projections of a previously completed market and demand/tournament analysis to
estimate the likely financial performance.
Due to the volatility of the industry and circumstances outside of the authors control, projected
results may vary significantly from the actual projects performance. Therefore, B&D cannot
ensure that the results highlighted in this report will portray the actual performance of the
proposed development project; however, to identify the range of risks inherent in the proposed
project, the model allows for testing of multiple performance scenarios to test the project
concept under a variety of economic conditions.
October 17, 2012
7.1

PLANNING STUDY
OPERATIONAL MODEL
Prior to developing the project concept and financial projections, B&D evaluated the
appropriateness of each of the four traditional community recreation operational models for
use in Dauphin County. The four models, known as the public, private, public/private, and
public/non-profit models, have vastly different operational outcomes and objectives.
MODEL TYPES AND CHARACTERISTICS
Provided below are brief descriptions of the four models mentioned above. The descriptions are
intended to help the reader understand the objectives and outcomes associated with each
model type.
Public Model: The land and assets are owned, maintained, and operated by a public
entity. The goal of operations is to provide equitable access to citizens and may be
utilized as a catalyst for economic development. Funding typically comes from
bonds or general fund allocations, with taxes and/or economic development
agreements utilized to support the operation of the facility. The public model is
employed at Council Bluffs Recreation Complex, referenced earlier in the report.
Private Model: The land and the complex are privately developed, maintained, and
operated in this model. Rates are assessed at market value to create a positive
operating scenario, effectively limiting access. Funding typically comes from private
equity or donations. This model has successfully been employed at United Sports.
Public/Private Model: In this model the land is owned by a public entity and leased
to a third party responsible for operating and maintaining the complex. Revenues
are derived from memberships, leagues, camps, sponsorships, and contributions.
This model is least often employed due to the scarcity of credible and stable
community recreation facility operators.
Public/Non-Profit Model: In this model the land is owned by a public entity, and the
complex is leased to and operated by a 501(c) 3 that utilizes memberships to cover
operations. The non-profit group typically gives first priority to its members, with
public use given secondary priority. This model has been employed at several
facilities, perhaps most notably at Progin Park and Hampton Roads Soccer Complex.
October 17, 2012
7.2

PLANNING STUDY
For comparison, each of the four models are summarized in Figure 7.1, listing operational
objectives, public access levels, typical financial outcomes, and management style most often
utilized. Note that access and financial outcomes are inversely related as access increases,
financial performance decreases and vice versa.
Operational Objectives
Public Access levels
Typical Financial Outcomes
Management
Public
Private
Public/Private
Public/Non-Profit
Public Utility,
Equitable Access
Revenue
Generation
Varies
Community interest &

Social Responsibility
High
Lowest
Lower
Medium
Losses
Profit Motive
Varies
Break-even
Parks & Rec

Department
Private or
Professional
Professional
Board of Directors or
Professional
Figure 7.1: Operational Model Characteristics
Public/Private
Public/Non-Profit
Economic Benefits
Alignment with
Community Interests
Sharing of Financial
Risk
Fundraising
Capabilities
Encourages a Sense
of Ownership
Agility of
Management
More Predictable
Utilization
Disadvantages
The remaining two models more closely align with

County goals. The public/private model would allow
the County to share or potentially be absolved of
operational risk, depending on the agreement.
However, because the facility could be operated
privately, the County could potentially lose control
and oversight over operations. This drawback could
be mitigated by structuring operational agreements
to allow specified levels of community usage in
return for a greater financial return. An additional
drawback of the public/private model is the lack of
credible operators. Any private operator engaged to
manage the facility should be thoroughly vetted to
ensure they possess the skill, expertise, and
financial wherewithal to operate a facility. Should
the operator lack adequacy or be unable to meet
contractual obligations, the County would be placed
at significant risk.
Advantages
Two of the four models, the public and private models, are poor fits for the County based on SAV
goals and drivers. The public model, which means the facility would operate in a similar
manner to a community park, does not align with established goals due to the annual
subsidization required. The private model, which requires the initiative of a local citizen with
access to capital, is not presently an option due to a lack of known investors and/or developers.
Lack of Facility
Control
Lack of Operational
Experience
Lack of Credible
Operators
Financial Risk
Lower Access Levels
Support is Needed for

Start-Up
Stability of Non-Profit
Access may be
Restricted
Figure 7.2: Model Advantages and

Disadvantages
October 17, 2012
7.3

PLANNING STUDY
The public/non-profit model is a slight variation to the public-private model as the complex is
overseen by a 501 (c) 3 with local citizens, preferably community figureheads, business leaders,
and/or sports leaders, directing operations to ensure community interests and goals are met.
This setup encourages community leadership and creates a sense of pride in the appearance
and operation of the facility. Most importantly, non-profit organizations can access several
large grant programs that can either contribute to start-up and construction costs or help
subsidize annual operations. Additional benefits of this model include its agility, which allows
management to levy dues to address operational shortfalls; it also provides a more stable base
of users, allowing management to more accurately forecast annual revenues and expenses.
Though the non-profit model presents several advantages, it also poses a significant amount of
risk. Non-profit groups often have limited experience and/or knowledge of facility operations
and could potentially place the County at risk should the organization dissolve. Additionally,
support is needed for start-up of operations as non-profit groups often lack assets or cash flow
to garner any significant bond issuance or financing resulting in a public or private entity
needing to provide credit enhancement to a non-profit.
RECOMMENDED MODEL
In consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of each model listed above, B&D
recommends the County employ a public/non-profit model. The non-profit operator is assumed
to be the MSA. It is understood that the MSA has the potential to include 11,000 members to
provide a stable user base. However, as detailed in the next steps section, the MSA needs to
secure firm commitments from local clubs to ensure stability and confirm the level of
anticipated interest in the project. Should the level of interest be as expected, the County could
assist with land acquisition, or some other form of start-up cost, and enter into a ground lease
with the non-profit for no less than 30 years at a nominal amount. The MSA would oversee
complex operations through a board of directors that would advise on facility policies, finance,
programming, and facility development initiatives. Day-to-day operation of the sports complex
would be managed by a professional management team that reports to the board of directors.
As part of any ground lease agreement, the County should be absolved of any operational risk
placing all responsibility on the MSA to ensure financial goals are met. Due to the non-profit
positioning of the MSA and the theoretical incorporation of 11,000 members, any ground lease
should stipulate that operational shortfalls be covered by club or player dues assessments,
contributions/donations, and MSA-produced fundraisers. Should the MSA not materialize as
planned, the County retains the option to engage a private partner to manage the complex and
potentially share or be absolved of operational risk. However, B&D recommends thoroughly
vetting any private operator to ensure adequacy and stability.
October 17, 2012
7.4

PLANNING STUDY
PROJECT CONCEPT & FACILITY PROGRAM

B&D balanced several considerations such as SAV drivers, County and MSA input,
recommended operational model, and estimated demand levels to develop a feasible project
concept and program. While this study is not an architectural exercise, it is nonetheless useful
in defining the parameters for a sports complex and providing a basis for estimating the project
budget. As the process moves forward, the program will be refined and adjusted in the design
and engineering phases.
PROJECT CONCEPT
The project concept had minimal definition prior to commencing the study. As a result, B&D
has developed the concept seen in the table below, with heavy consideration from both SGMA
participation figures and MSA activities. A detailed program is attached as part of Exhibit F.
Recommended Project Concept
Space Type
Natural Grass Rectangles
Synthetic Rectangles
Diamonds
[1] Indoor Fieldhouse
Clubhouse
Parking Spaces
Number
Lighted?
Units
4
4
5
0
7,560
900
No
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fields
Fields
Fields
SF
SF
Spaces
[1] Indoor fieldhouse is not a recommended component
Figure 7.3: Recommended Project Concept
The proposed concept shown above includes eight full-size rectangles, four lighted, synthetic
surfaces, and four unlit natural grass surfaces. Also included are five lighted diamonds,
preferably in a wheel configuration to maximize operational efficiencies. A 7,560 SF
clubhouse will contain locker rooms, concession points of sale, and restrooms.
To
accommodate large tournaments, 900 parking spaces will also be necessary. Each of the
components is described in further detail below.
NATURAL GRASS RECTANGLE FIELDS
Natural grass rectangle fields (natural grass rectangles) are a common inclusion in sports
complexes due to the flexibility of the fields and the ability to accommodate multiple sports at
varying ages. However, since natural grass rectangles require field rotation and rest each year,
B&D estimates only 550 usage hours per surface are available annually. Given local demand
October 17, 2012
7.5

PLANNING STUDY
levels and the County and MSAs interest in maintaining a high quality facility, it is
recommended that natural grass rectangles not be lighted to protect the fields from overuse.
The table below shows the relatively uniform size considerations as the minimum acreage
required for each field spans from 1.5 acres up to 2.1 acres.
Component
Recommended Size
Dimension:
Clearance:
Dimension:
Soccer (International)
Clearance:
Dimension:
Multi-Purpose
Clearance:
Rectangle
Soccer
195' to 330'
10' on all sides
225' to '360'
10' on all sides
160' to 330' and above
Minimum of 6' on all sides
Minimum Acreage
1.7 to 2.1
1.7 to 2.1
1.5 +
Source: National Parks and Recreation Association
Figure 7.4: Rectangle Field Dimensions

SYNTHETIC RECTANGLE FIELDS
Synthetic rectangle fields (synthetic rectangles) have become an increasingly popular

component at sports complexes primarily due to appeal and financial considerations. In B&Ds
experience, synthetic rectangles appeal to participants and add a heightened level of prestige to
tournaments. In contrast to natural grass rectangles, synthetic rectangles offer up to 2,000
playable hours annually, dictating the surfaces are lighted to maximize revenues. An additional
benefit of synthetic rectangles is maintenance costs that are roughly $15,000 less than a midquality natural grass rectangle. Although synthetic rectangles present several advantages,
every eight to ten years the carpet will need to be replaced at roughly half the cost of
installation. Due to long-term cost implications, B&D recommends limiting the program to four
synthetic rectangles, one of which should serve as the championship field with seating for 1,500.
BASEBALL & SOFTBALL DIAMONDS
Unlike rectangle fields where configurations are relatively uniform, baseball and softball
diamonds can have numerous configurations depending on desired usage and level of play. As
seen in the table on the following page, official baseball diamonds can have foul pole depths as
deep as 320 ft. to as shallow as 200 ft. for Little League play. Fields can also have skinned dirt
infields, grass infields, or be entirely synthetic. In general, baseball players desire natural
grass infields while both slow and fast-pitch softball participants require skinned infields.
October 17, 2012
7.6

PLANNING STUDY
Component
Recommended Size
Bases: 60'
Foul Pole/Center Field: 200' to 250'
Pitching Distance: 46'
Bases: 90'
Baseball Diamond
(Official)
Pitching Distance: 60.5'
Bases: 60'
Softball Diamond
(Slow and Fast Pitch)
Pitching Distance: 40' to 46'
Baseball Diamond
(Little League)
Minimum Acreage
1.2
3.0 to 3.85
3.0 to 3.85
Source: National Parks and Recreation Association
Figure 7.5: Diamond Dimensions
To accommodate softball and baseball users, B&D recommends skinned, dirt infields for the
four fields and utilization of portable mounds and fence systems to adjust outfield depths for
different age groups. The fifth field, proposed as a championship field, should include a grass
infield and allow the diamond to be adjusted between 75 ft. and 90 ft., while outfield fences
would be positioned no closer than 320 ft. at the foul poles. Basic spectator seating should also
be provided at each of the five diamonds.
INDOOR FIELDHOUSE
Although not included in the recommended

Proposed Fieldhouse Program
program, B&D developed an indoor fieldhouse
2,270
program based on feedback from the MSA. The 1 Administrative Suite
2,380
proposed indoor fieldhouse program consists of four 2 Wellness Component
65,690
basketball courts, eight volleyball courts, one multi- 3 Gymnasiums
4 Specialized Activity Spaces
13,800
purpose room, and two-indoor synthetic soccer
5 Support Zones
8,300
fields, totaling 118,300 square feet with a 72%
92,440
building efficiency factor. The program also includes Total SF
space for a physical therapy practice and Efficiency Factor
72%
administrative office suite, which collectively totals
Total Gross Area SF
118,300
over 4,600 square feet.
However, due to
competition from existing and planned facilities, the
Figure 7.6: Proposed Fieldhouse Program
Countys risk-averse stance, and the potential
effects on existing for-profit County businesses, B&D does not recommend moving forward with
this component in the initial development. While an outdoor component would introduce net
new economic benefit from non-local teams that participate in outdoor tournaments, it is
expected that an indoor fieldhouse would be sustained by local participants who re-direct
disposable income to a new facility. B&D also believes an indoor facility would have a direct and
measurable effect on existing county facilities such as Twin Ponds and Sports City Harrisburg.
October 17, 2012
7.7

PLANNING STUDY
FACILITY CLUBHOUSE
B&D developed a facility clubhouse to house

administrative functions, team facilities, and food &
beverage operations. The exact location of the
clubhouse is dependent upon the site that is
eventually selected, but is often centralized in the
middle of a clover or on the sidelines of a
championship field. The clubhouse is expected to be
approximately 7,560 SF, including circulation, and
constructed with decorative concrete block. A
summarized program of the clubhouse is provided
to the right in Figure 7.7.
Proposed Clubhouse Program

1 Spectator Facilities
1,930
2 Team Facilities
2,500
3 Food & Beverage
880
4 Administrative & Ticketing
500
5 Facility Operations
460
Total SF
6,300
Efficiency Factor
80%
Total Gross Area SF
7,560
Figure 7.7: Proposed Clubhouse Program

PARKING SPACES
The proposed program includes 900 parking spaces with a gravel surface. This quantity of
spaces could accommodate all vehicles for the vast majority of events aside from a select few
large tournaments. For these larger events, several complexes around the nation utilize
additional site acreage that is undeveloped or partner with nearby local schools and/or retail
establishments to help accommodate overflow parking.
October 17, 2012
7.8

PLANNING STUDY
DEVELOPMENT BUDGET
The sports complexs actual project budget may vary significantly with numerous factors,
including infrastructure costs, the type of financing implemented, actual facility program, and
conditions in the construction market at the time of bidding. At this point in the development
process, the documents which inform the estimating process detailed surveys and site plans
have not yet been completed, but preliminary costs can be created based on the budgeting
exercise performed by B&D. Ultimately, the budget(s) proposed herein should be used only as a
guideline for which the financing, design, and construction delivery process can be framed.
RECOMMENDED PROGRAM BUDGET
To develop the conceptual estimate and budget, B&D conducted an exercise that applied cost
factors to each of the program components. For example, it is estimated that each synthetic
turf field will be approximately $700,000 per field for four fields, resulting in $2.8 million in 2012
costs. A similar exercise was performed for all categories of hard cost of construction. The
budget, detailed in Figure 7.8, was developed on the basis of eight rectangles, four natural and
four synthetic, five diamonds, a 7,560 SF clubhouse, and 900 parking spaces.
2012 Dollars
2015 Dollars
HARD COST OF CONSTRUCTION

1 Land Acquisition
12 Construction Contingency
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,058,000
225,000
2,800,000
800,000
1,500,000
900,000
180,000
1,350,000
1,500,000
881,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,225,000
260,000
3,241,000
926,000
1,737,000
1,042,000
208,000
1,563,000
1,737,000
1,020,000
[2] Subtotal Hard Costs
10,854,000
12,571,000
Subtotal Soft Cost of Construction
2,120,000
2,450,000
Total Project Cost
12,974,000
15,021,000
2 Clubhouse
3 Fieldhouse
4 Spectator Seating
5 Artificial Turf Fields
6 Natural Grass Fields
7 Natural Grass Diamonds
8 Field Lights
9 Additional Equpiment (Shed, Pavilion)
10 Parking
11 Site Work/General Conditions/Utilities
[1] RS M eans Square Fo o t Co sts 33rd A nnual Editio n 2011
5%
[2] Utilizing Harrisburg' .97 lo catio n facto r applied to hard co sts o f co nstructio n.
Figure 7.8: Development Budget of Recommended Program

October 17, 2012
7.9

PLANNING STUDY
The budget shown above shows project cost in 2012 dollars and, after escalated at 5% per year,
2015 dollars when contracts may be out for bid. As previously noted, land acquisition costs are
not included but could range from $40,000 per acre to $60,000 per acre adding an additional
$2.4 million to $4.2 million in cost should a private partner or land donor not emerge. Soft
costs, which include architecture and engineering services, pre-opening expenses, financing
costs, etc., increase the total project cost by 20%. The greatest potential variance to the
development budget is in Category 11, Site Work/General Conditions/Utilities, which is heavily
dependent on the actual site selected.
INDOOR FIELDHOUSE BUDGET
As previously mentioned, due to a number of factors that culminate in a highly competitive

environment for indoor recreational users, B&D does not recommend the inclusion of any
indoor competition space. However, the budget for the program described earlier has been
attached to help conceptualize the additional financial commitment necessary to develop a
fieldhouse that is in line with SAV goals and aspirations.
2012 Dollars
2015 Dollars

1 Land Acquisition
Included
Included
2 Fieldhouse
$ 17,656,000 $ 20,439,000
3 Additional Parking
$
200,000 $
232,000
4 Site Work/General Conditions/Utilities $
700,000 $
811,000
5 Construction Contingency
761,000
881,000
$ 18,737,000
$ 21,692,000
$ 5,151,000
$ 5,966,000
Total Project Cost
$ 23,888,000
$ 27,658,000
[1] RS Means Square Foot Costs 33rd Annual Edition 2011

[2] Utilizing Harrisburg .97 location factor applied to hard costs of
construction.
5%
Figure 7.9: Indoor Fieldhouse Development Budget
At roughly $150 per square foot, the 118,000 SF mid-quality indoor fieldhouse would have a
hard cost of around $17.5 million. Additional parking, plus incremental site work costs
contribute to a subtotal of hard costs at almost $19 million for a fieldhouse alone. Soft costs for
the indoor fieldhouse are a comparatively higher percentage of hard cost at 28%. This can be
primarily attributed to a higher A&E fee, greater FF&E costs, and larger financing costs
associated with a more complex and larger development.
October 17, 2012
7 . 10

PLANNING STUDY
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
Key to the financial analysis is the comprehensive financial model developed by B&D. The tool
allows for understanding of all the financial implications associated with a facility development
by integrating the facility program, development costs, tournament schedule, revenue
calculations, and operating expense calculations into an all-inclusive model. All of these
elements and the underlying calculations are dependent on a consistent set of assumptions so
that any change in assumptions automatically triggers an adjustment to all of the affected
financial elements. The model enables any and all changes to the project to be quickly analyzed
on a specific and project-wide basis while maintaining the internal balance of the model.
ANNUAL ATTENDANCE
Based upon the findings contained in the market and demand/tournament analysis, B&D
projects that a sports complex in Dauphin County could host between 106,000 and 126,000
spectators and participants annually. Figure 7.10 details the projected stabilized attendance at
the sports complex. All revenue calculations, which follow, are developed on the basis of the
moderate or baseline scenario.
Annual Attendance
Conservative
Moderate
Aggressive
Spectators
49,600
55,000
62,300
Participants
56,400
59,400
63,600
106,000
114,400
125,900
Totals
Note: Stabilized year attendnance
Figure 7.10: Annual Attendance

REVENUES
Facility revenues are projected on the basis of a public/non-profit operational model. Revenues
include tournament-related activities, concession sales, advertising and sponsorship,
memberships, and programming. A detailed breakdown of each revenue category in the first
year of operation, 2016, is provided below. Important to note is that each revenue category is
shown for a full-year of operation.
TOURNAMENT REVENUES
B&D has developed a tournament schedule for each of the rectangle and diamond components.
In a stabilized year, B&D projects 18 rectangle tournaments and 22 two-day diamond
tournaments. Tournaments typically provide rental revenue, merchandise revenue, concession
October 17, 2012
7 . 11

PLANNING STUDY
revenues, hotel rebates, and parking revenues. Each of the tournament revenue sources are
explained in greater depth below.
Rental Revenue is a primary driver of tournament income. Based upon comparable
facilities and stakeholder input, B&D has assumed that a weekend rental rate per
rectangle field is $1,800 while the rental rate for the entire diamond complex is
$3,250. Collectively, total rental rate revenues are expected to exceed $192,000 in
the first year of operation. In this model, competition spaces are leased to outside
users for an agreed upon rental rate. Should management elect to operate
tournaments internally, all registration fees could be retained (for instance, $500 per
team for 100 teams) in place of a smaller rental fee. However, internally produced
tournaments place significant demand on facility management.
Tournament Revenues
Field Rental Revenue
Merchandise Revenue
Hotel Revenue
Parking Revenue
Less Direct Expenses
$
$
$
$
$
$
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
75%
192,600
93,100
23,600
30,900
278,400
85%
227,000
109,700
27,800
36,500
328,000
95%
263,900
127,500
32,300
42,400
381,300
100%
288,800
139,600
35,300
46,400
417,300
100%
300,400
145,200
36,800
48,200
434,200
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Figure 7.11: Tournament Revenues
Merchandise Revenue is not typically collected by the host facility as vendors

normally split proceeds with tournament organizers or retain all proceeds.
However, should the facility wish to negotiate an arrangement to retain a portion of
merchandise revenue, per capita spending is assumed at one dollar.
Hotel Rebates are agreements with hotels that provide a sports complex with a
percentage of room night stays generated by the facility. Revenue is based on three
people per room and a 3% rebate, which equates to roughly $93,000 in year one of
operation based on the moderate tournament schedule. To minimize stress on
facility management, B&D recommends utilizing a housing agency to ensure rebates
are received in a timely manner.
Parking Revenue should be charged for larger events that place significant
demands on parking availability. B&D assumes that for each large tournament a $2
per car parking fee will be charged.
Direct Expenses are incurred from hosting tournaments. Through conversations

with facility managers, it is estimated the facility would incur direct expenses of
October 17, 2012
7 . 12

PLANNING STUDY
approximately 10% of tournament revenues. These costs may stem from facility
preparation, additional event staffing, and purchase of marketing materials.
Facility managers have indicated that a stabilization period of between three and six years will
be incurred upon opening of the complex. B&D assumes the stabilization period will be
relatively brief at three years due to the presence of the MSAs user base and a lack of
alternative options available for field and diamond usage. In year one, it is anticipated that
operational revenue will represent 75% of stable year operations, increasing to 85% in year two
and 95% in year three. Year four of operations represents the first full year of stabilized
operations, as denoted by the 100% figure shown just below the operating year.
CONCESSION REVENUE
Concession revenue is developed on a per capita basis. For example, should attendance for a
tournament total 5,000 participants and spectators and each spent $2, then total concession
proceeds would equal $10,000. B&D has applied per capita spending metrics for tournaments,
general rentals, and programming. It should be noted that the proposed concession menu is
expected to be limited and that alcoholic beverages will not be offered.
2016
Concession Revenue
Rectangle Tournaments
Baseball Tournaments
General Play/Practice
Programming
Less Cost of Goods Sold
Concession Income
$
$
$
$
$
$
75%
92,900
44,600
21,500
9,800
106,500
46,700
2017
$
$
$
$
$
$
85%
96,700
46,400
22,400
10,200
110,900
55,100
2018
$
$
$
$
$
$
95%
100,500
48,200
23,300
10,600
115,200
64,000
2019
$
$
$
$
$
$
100%
104,600
50,200
24,200
11,000
119,900
70,100
2020
$
$
$
$
$
$
100%
108,700
52,200
25,200
11,500
124,700
72,900
Figure 7.12: Concession Revenues
Concession revenues are greatest from tournaments where per capita spending is assumed to
be $1.50. General field rentals and facility programming are expected to yield a lower per
capita spending figure of fifty cents. It is expected that gross concession proceeds will exceed
$150,000 before cost of goods sold, which are assumed at 67%. With cost of goods sold
deducted, the facility is expected to realize roughly $47,000 in concession income.
ADVERTISING & SPONSORSHIP REVENUE
Advertising and sponsorship revenue for sports complexes vary and are heavily dependent on
staff capabilities and objectives of corporate partners. Though some complexes around the
nation have outsourced advertising, B&D has assumed that the advertising and sponsorship will
be handled internally. Complexes typically offer a myriad of sponsorship opportunities based on
the composition of the facility. Accordingly, B&D has assumed that naming rights will be
October 17, 2012
7 . 13

PLANNING STUDY
available to the entire complex, the facility clubhouse, the rectangular field complex, the
diamond complex, scoreboards, and a family pavilion. To develop projections, B&D has created
an asking price and probability each is sold, as seen in the chart below.
Advertising/Sponsorship
2016
2017
75%
2018
85%
2019
95%
2020
Price
Probability
Naming Rights
$125,000
10%
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
100%
$
12,500
100%
Clubhouse
$ 25,000
50%
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
Field Complex
$ 25,000
50%
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
Diamond Complex
$ 25,000
50%
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
Scoreboards
$ 13,000
25%
3,250
3,250
3,250
3,250
3,250
Pavilion
$ 10,000
10%
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
40,700
46,100
51,500
54,300
54,300
Total Advertising/Sponsorshp Income
Figure 7.13: Advertising and Sponsorship Revenues
The resulting total of nearly $41,000 in advertising and sponsorship income is reasonable based
on attainment levels of similar complexes around the nation. Naming rights, which are offered
at $125,000 per year for five years, could be either used to subsidize annual operations or be
capitalized to offset capital costs.
MEMBERSHIP REVENUE
Membership revenue will be realized by assessing annual dues on each MSA member. B&D
has assumed the dues will be $8 annually for each of the 11,000 members. This membership
fee will grant priority access for field usage and weekend competition play should time be
available. B&D assumes it will take three years for memberships to stabilize. First year
proceeds are expected to realize in excess of $77,000 in revenues.
2016
Membership Revenue
Memberships
Membership Income
$
$
75%
77,175 $
77,200 $
2017
85%
91,035 $
91,000 $
2018
2019
2020
95%
105,735 $
105,700 $
100%
115,800 $
115,800 $
100%
120,400
120,400
Figure 7.14: Membership Revenue
It is important to note that, in the non-profit model, memberships are thought of as a

subsidization tool. Without the membership proceeds, which essentially grant priority field
access, the sports complex would struggle to meet operating requirements. By stipulating that
users pay a membership fee for facility usage, the cost of operating the facility is ultimately
passed back onto the end user. Realizing these memberships are an absolute necessity to
ensure operational expenditures are met.
October 17, 2012
7 . 14

PLANNING STUDY
PROGRAMMING
In comparison to other sports complexes around the nation, league play is expected to be
relatively limited to provide member clubs an opportunity to use the rectangles and diamonds
for practice time during weeknights. Leagues and skill camps are expected to be produced
internally and will create significant overhead for equipment, referees, supplies, and
advertising. Based upon B&Ds understanding of similar projects, the expenses are expected to
account for 75% of programming income, creating income of $27,400 in year one of operation.
Programming
Programming Income
Less Expense
Programming Income
$
$
$
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
75%
145,900 $
109,400 $
27,400 $
85%
151,700 $
113,800 $
32,200 $
95%
157,800 $
118,400 $
37,400 $
100%
164,100 $
123,100 $
41,000 $
100%
170,700
128,000
42,700
Figure 7.15: Programming Revenue

TENANT REVENUE
Several facilities around the nation serve as home to minor league organizations that may use a
facility for training, skill camps, and competition. B&D has considered that the facility may
employ a similar strategy, but would likely require special permits requiring the sale of alcohol
at games and a site the minor league tenant is ultimately comfortable with to host competition.
As a result, B&D has not assumed a minor league tenant will be part of the facility. However,
should an agreement be reached with a minor league tenant it is expected that as much as an
additional $50,000 in net operating income could be added to the facilitys bottom line.
EXPENSES
Expenses for the facility can be divided into two primary categories: personnel and nonpersonnel. Non-personnel expenses include utilities, general and administrative, insurance,
advertising, and clubhouse and field maintenance. Like revenues, expenses are projected in the
first year of operation in 2016 dollars and are based on the moderate scenario. Each of the
categories is detailed in greater depth below.
PERSONNEL
It is expected that the sports complex will be staffed by three full-time employees with benefits,
including a general manager, grounds superintendent, and assistant general manager. An
additional part-time administrative position will be required during peak seasons to leverage
managements capabilities. For the purposes of this model concessions staff are included as a
part of cost of goods sold. Likewise, any part-time grounds staff is included in field
October 17, 2012
7 . 15

PLANNING STUDY
maintenance cost. For a 2016 opening, the current staffing plan would create over $201,000 in
expenses and represent nearly one-third of all facility expenses.
UTILITIES
Utilities are a major expense for any sports complex and particularly for those that have lighted
fields. The expected utility cost of $48,300 in the first year of operations is an estimate and,
depending on actual program, could vary to a large degree. Watering and irrigation are
included in field maintenance costs.
GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE
General and administrative expenses are incurred through operation of the administrative office
and include supplies, professional services, travel, and telephone, among others. The general
and administrative budget is assumed to be roughly $26,300 in the first year of operation.
INSURANCE
The insurance expense estimate is based on anticipated utilization levels and the proposed
program and acreage required. For the first year of operation, it is expected the general liability
and property insurance premium would total nearly $17,500.
ADVERTISING
The advertising expense is an allowance for purposes related to advertising. In some cases,
sports complexes have outsourced advertising and sponsorship responsibilities to private
contractors in return for an annual payment or percentage of sales commission. For the
purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that advertising will be handled internally with a budget
of $23,400 in the first year of operations.
CLUBHOUSE MAINTENANCE
Clubhouse maintenance is projected at $5,800 in year one of operation and will escalate
thereafter.
FIELD MAINTENANCE
Field maintenance costs, which also include part-time grounds staff wages, are dependent upon
the capabilities of the superintendent and overall facility utilization. Through B&Ds experience,
it is estimated that natural grass rectangles require approximately $25,000 to $30,000 in annual
maintenance costs. In contrast, synthetic rectangles should require no more than $10,000 per
rectangle. B&D estimates that maintenance costs for each diamond will require between
$17,500 and $25,000 annually while a championship diamond with a grass infield could range
October 17, 2012
7 . 16

PLANNING STUDY
from $25,000 to $30,000. For the proposed program it is estimated that field maintenance costs
will exceed $200,000 in year one of operations.
MODERATE SCENARIO PRO FORMA
In Figure 7.16, a five year pro forma is shown detailing annual operations at the sports complex.
The pro forma is built on the basis of a public/non-profit model. In the first year of operations, it
is expected that losses will reach $60,000. This figure will improve to a loss of $33,000 in year
two, and nearly break even in year three, before finally realizing a small operational profit in the
first stabilized year of operation.
4
5
2016
2017
2018
7
2019
8
2020
Revenues (2016)
$278,400
$328,000
$381,300
$417,300
$434,200
Concession Income
$46,700
$55,100
$64,000
$70,100
$72,900
$40,700
$46,100
$51,500
$54,300
$54,300
Membership Income
$77,200
$91,000
$105,700
$115,800
$120,400
Programming Income
$27,400
$32,200
$37,400
$41,000
$42,700
Tenant Income
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Revenues
$470,000
$552,000
$640,000
$699,000
$725,000
$201,300
$209,300
$217,700
$226,400
$235,500
Utilities
$48,300
$56,900
$66,100
$72,400
$75,300
General & Admin
$26,300
$27,400
$28,500
$29,600
$30,800
Insurance
$17,500
$18,200
$19,000
$19,700
$20,500
Advertising
$23,400
$24,300
$25,300
$26,300
$27,400
$5,800
$6,100
$6,300
$6,600
$6,800
Expenses (2016)
Personnel
Field Maintenance
$206,200
$243,000
$282,500
$309,200
$321,600
Total Expenditures
$529,000
$585,000
$645,000
$690,000
$718,000
$0
$0
$0
$6,750
$5,250
$2,000
$2,000

($59,000)
($33,000)
($5,000)
Figure 7.16: Five Year Operational Pro Forma
The pro forma was developed with several key considerations and assumptions, which are
detailed in greater depth below.
The replacement reserve fund is set at 75% of any net operating income. The
remaining facility proceeds could be utilized to help pay down any debt incurred
through development of the facility.
October 17, 2012
7 . 17

PLANNING STUDY
Annual fundraiser tournaments will be necessary to develop a healthy replacement

reserve for re-surfacing of fields, replacement of synthetic rectangles, and general
facility upkeep. Establishing recurring tournaments with corporate partners as
event sponsors can sometimes yield over $10,000 per event.
The deficits in the first three years of operation should be addressed through
donations/contributions and internally produced fundraiser tournaments that
leverage members as volunteers to minimize tournament overhead.
Total memberships will vary after the MSA is incorporated. Based upon preliminary
data it is expected the organization will include 11,000 members. The model
assumes an $8 assessment on 11,000 members, yielding approximately $77,000 in
the first year of operations with the stabilization factor taken into consideration.
Rental income is a major revenue source for some complexes, but it is assumed any
field or diamond time not occupied by the MSA members, league play, or
tournaments will be allocated to community-based programming. This allocation of
field time will satisfy the Countys goal of providing the highest possible degree of
equitable access.
A major advantage of the non-profit model is the agility of the model. Should
memberships and/or tournament projections fall short, the board of directors can
direct actual facility management to utilize lower staffing levels, allocate smaller
budgets on maintenance and/or advertising, or assess higher membership fees to
address shortfalls. Expenses should be closely monitored to ensure revenues are
nearly commensurate.
October 17, 2012
7 . 18

PLANNING STUDY
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
B&D conducted a sensitivity analysis to project a range of financial outcomes at the sports
complex. For each input, assumptions were developed based on industry research, comparable
facility performance, and B&Ds expertise. Due to the dynamic nature of the model, B&D made
variations to these assumptions without compromising the balance of the model. Ultimately,
the sensitivity analysis resulted in conservative, moderate, and aggressive scenarios.
The table to the right shows the variables that B&D tested to
develop three scenarios. In the conservative scenario, B&D
projects 15 rectangle tournaments and 20 diamond
tournaments annually, resulting in 32,130 hotel room nights.
Also adjusted was the tournament concession per capita
spending, lowered to $1.00. In contrast, the aggressive
scenario has 21 rectangle tournaments and 24 diamond
tournaments annually with a $2.00 per capita concession
spending amount. The aggressive scenario includes the
addition of an annual event similar to the US Youth Soccer
Region 1 Championship, contributing to the total amount of
hotel room nights generated at 41,260.
Sensitivity Inputs
Concession Per Cap
$1.00
15
Diamond Tournamnets
20
Total Hotel Nights
32,130
Concession Per Cap
Diamond Tournamnets
Total Hotel Nights
$1.50
18
22
35,360
Concession Per Cap

Diamond Tournamnets
Total Hotel Nights
$2.00
21
24
41,260
Figure 7.17: Sensitivity Inputs
As seen in the table below, financial outcomes range from

an operating loss of $65,000 in year one of operation to a
loss of $24,000 in the aggressive scenario. As the complex stabilizes in year four, financial
performance ranges from a small operational loss to a net income of roughly $64,000.
Conservative Scenario
Revenues
Expenses
Replacement
NOI
2016
$433,000
$498,000
$0
($65,000)
2017
2018
2019
2020
$508,000 $589,000 $643,000 $666,000
$551,000 $608,000 $651,000 $677,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
($43,000) ($19,000) ($8,000) ($11,000)
Moderate Scenario
Revenues
Expenses
Replacement
NOI
$470,000
$529,000
$0
($59,000)
$552,000 $640,000 $699,000 $725,000

$585,000 $645,000 $690,000 $718,000
$0
$0
$6,750
$5,250
($33,000) ($5,000)
$2,000
$2,000
Aggressive Scenario
Revenues
Expenses
Replacement
NOI
$531,000
$555,000
$0
($24,000)
$624,000 $723,000 $790,000 $819,000

$615,000 $679,000 $726,000 $755,000
$6,750 $33,000 $48,000 $48,000
$2,000 $11,000 $16,000 $16,000
Note: Replacement reserve set at 75% in all scenarios

Note: Moderate scenario is shown throughout report
Figure 7.18: C, M, A Scenario Financial Performance

October 17, 2012
7 . 19

PLANNING STUDY
POSSIBLE FUNDING OPTIONS

The purpose of this analysis is to identify possible funding options that could be utilized for a
sports complex in Dauphin County. Both public and private sources are presented to provide
the County with a menu of appropriate funding mechanisms for a sports complex. In contrast to
public assembly venues, sports complexes offer a more defined range of funding vehicles as
sports complexes provide fewer revenue streams (e.g. suite revenues, team equity,
ticket/facility fees, etc.). This analysis was conducted under the following assumptions:
An increase in the established County property tax millage rate set at 6.876 mills is
not a consideration. The County has maintained the millage rate for several years
and has not indicated an interest in levying a higher rate for the purpose of this
project.
Local option sales taxes (LOST) are additional sales and use taxes levied at the
county or municipal level for the purpose of funding a specific project. This funding
technique, currently employed only by Allegheny County and the City of Philadelphia,
was recently rejected as part of Harrisburg Citys Act 47 recovery plan and is not
considered a viable funding option.
The possible funding sources for the project include general obligation bonds, revenue
bonds, state level tourism and redevelopment programs, hotel tax proceeds, local gaming
share revenue, intergovernmental agreements, naming rights, private and foundation
grants, and private contributions.
PUBLIC SOURCES
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
General obligation bonds are a debt instrument that pledges the full faith and credit of the
issuer to re-pay the debt. The primary advantage of general obligation bonds are reduced
interest rates and improved borrowing power due to the full faith and credit pledge. The main
obstacle to issuing these bonds is the presence of competing needs such as maintaining and
building schools, libraries, and/or essential infrastructure projects. Should bonds be issued for
this project it is possible a portion could be tax-exempt, which allows for lower interest rates as
the bond holder is exempt from state and local interest income taxes. The bond structure is
ultimately dependent upon the issuing entity and final composition of the project.
October 17, 2012
7 . 20

PLANNING STUDY
REVENUE BONDS
In contrast to general obligation bonds, revenue bonds are repaid through revenues realized out
of a specified revenue stream in place of ad valorem taxes. Revenue bonds do not include the
pledge of the full faith and credit of the issuer and have higher interest rates due to the reduced
security. Revenue bonds are an unlikely source of funding because the project will not generate
sufficient revenues to support a debt obligation of any size. As a result, a specified tax stream
would be needed to cover debt payments for a revenue bond.
STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Several programs administered at the state level have played a critical role in developing
infrastructure and civic assets in Pennsylvania. Given the projects emphasis on weekend
tournament play and generating corresponding economic benefit, tourism grant programs are
considered a viable funding mechanism for the project. A detailed breakdown of each
applicable grant program is provided below.
Pennsylvania
Redevelopment
Assistance
Capital
Program
(RACP)
/Pennsylvania Economic Growth Initiative: This program is administered at the
state level and is for economic development projects that have regional or a multijurisdictional impact and a direct and measureable impact on current levels of
employment, tax revenue, or other impacts. The grant program applies to projects
with a total cost of at least $1,000,000. General requirements of RACP grants follow:
o
o
o
o
o
o
Grants must be eligible for tax-exempt bond financing under existing

federal law requirements
50% of the project cost must be match, non-state participation
50% of the non-state participation must be secured at the time of
application
All sources must be documented at the time of application with
identifiable and firm commitments
The sources of match funds can be local, private, land, or building
appraised value
Local share gaming funds cannot be utilized as matching funds
In 2012 the program underwent an overhaul and now places priority on projects that
generate fiscal benefits and economic impact and have 75% or more of non-state
participation. However, B&D believes that RACP financing is the largest and perhaps
most viable source of funding at the state level.
October 17, 2012
7 . 21

PLANNING STUDY
First Industry Fund Planning Grant: This planning grant program offers awards of
up to $250,000 to pay for the cost of predevelopment activities for tourism-related
projects. The funds can be utilized for physical and financial feasibility assessments
and projections; architectural and engineering costs; economic impact analyses; and
other pre-development activities deemed pertinent by the CFA.
First Industry Loan Guarantee Program: The First Industry Loan Guarantee
Program ensures that loans of up to $2.5 million or 50% of the outstanding principal
balance, whichever is less, are available for non-profit or for-profit business
enterprises engaged in tourism-related activities when obtaining a loan from
commercial lending institutions. However, it must be noted that this program cannot
be utilized for projects the Commonwealth is providing matching financing for.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Community Grants:

This state-sponsored
program issues awards for recreation, park and conservation projects. These
awards can be purposed for the rehabilitation and development of parks and
recreation facilities; acquisition of land for park and conservation purposes; and
technical assistance for feasibility studies, trails studies, and site development
planning. The grant size can be as large as $40,000.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Marketing to Attract Tourists: This program

supports the development of heritage assets and outdoor recreation facilities that
promote overnight tourism. Funds may be used for new construction and/or
renovations, or for the development of marketing, advertising and public relations
campaigns to build attendance.
Land and Water Conservation Fund Program (LWCF): The Land and Water
Conservation fund is a federally administered program that provides 50% matching
grants to outdoor park, recreation, and conservation projects. The grant award is
capped at $500,000 and can only be awarded to political subdivisions, counties, and
school districts. Funding through the LWCF may be used for two purposes, facility
development and land acquisition. According to the National Park Service, a good
LWCF project can include any of the following:
o
Previously funded LWCF site
Single site development project with a cost of $400,000 or more
Land acquisition project with a total cost of $400,000 or more
Sites to be developed or acquired for public and recreation use
October 17, 2012
7 . 22

PLANNING STUDY
DAUPHIN COUNTY LODGING TAX
In 2000, Dauphin County adopted a 2% hotel room rental tax, which is an additional fee levied on
each room night rented within the County. In 2008, an additional 3% hotel tax was levied,
creating a 5% County-wide hotel occupancy tax in addition to the 6% hotel occupancy tax
collected by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Dauphin County Economic Development
Corporation receives 1% of the local portion of the tax that serves as a tourism budget, equating
to approximately $1.6 million in funds available to Dauphin County municipalities and non-profit
organizations. In 2011, $1.52 million in allocations were made to community organizations and
events with $460,000 devoted to debt service on infrastructure projects.
Lodging taxes are often seen as appropriate financing mechanisms for sports complexes due to
the effect on room night generation. For instance, the $36 million Overland Park Soccer
Complex was financed through a 6 to 9% hotel occupancy tax increase on top of a state 7.53%
occupancy tax. Based on the moderate scenario, B&D projects nearly 35,000 new room nights
will be generated as a result of the project. Smith Travel Research, which provides information
on lodging properties, estimates average daily rates to be $101 in the County. Shown below is
Figure 7.19, detailing the expected hotel occupancy tax proceeds to be generated for the County.
Conservative
Room Nights
ADR
Revenue
35,360
41,260
10%
15%
20%
28,917
30,056
33,008
$101
$101
$101
$2,929,292
$3,044,673
$3,343,710
Hotel Occupancy Tax

County Occupancy Taxes
Aggressive
32,130
Leakage & Displacement

Adjusted Room Nights
Moderate
5%
$146,500
5%
$152,200
5%
$167,200
Note: This is a basic analysis relying on assumptions
Figure 7.19: Room Night Analysis

DAUPHIN COUNTY LOCAL SHARE GAMING REVENUE
The Hollywood Casino located in East Hanover Township creates a gaming grant sharing pool
each year that is eligible for application by municipalities contiguous with East Hanover
Township and Dauphin County itself. Should a grant applicant not be a municipality, the entity
must be sponsored by a municipality or the County. In 2011, nearly $7 million in municipal
grants were awarded, $2.5 of which was designated to projects that have a direct connection to
the casino, leaving approximately $4.5 million in competitive grant gaming funds. The Dauphin
County Industrial Development Authority administers the grants that can be awarded on a
recurring basis.
October 17, 2012
7 . 23

PLANNING STUDY
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS
Intergovernmental agreements are partnerships between two or more governmental entities

that are formed to realize economies of scale, combine resources, or improve operational
efficiencies. Though often formed to provide public services, this type of agreement could yield
an additional funding source, such as a municipal-level tax levy, or upfront capital such as land.
However, any partnership would have an adverse effect on financial performance because the
involved municipality would likely stipulate that programming and/or field time be allocated to
their respective residents.
PRIVATE SOURCES
NAMING RIGHTS
Naming rights, considered a private source of funding, can be utilized to fund either the
construction of a sports complex or subsidize annual operations. Agreements for similar sports
complexes around the nation have been structured for five to six years at a value between
$100,000 and $200,000 annually, as seen in Figure 7.20.
Complex
Term (Yrs)
Annual Value
Total Value
State Farm Sports Village

US Cellular Sports complex
*Overland Park Soccer Complex
Citizens Bank Fields at Progin Park
*Hampton Roads Soccer Complex
*Franklin Pasture Sports Copmlex
5
6
5
5
Permanent
Permanent
$100,000
$108,333
$200,000
$250,000
$750,000
$500,000
$650,000
$1,000,000
$250,000
$750,000
Source: Internet Research

* Denotes asking price - no agreement in place
Figure 7.20: Sports Complex Naming Rights Sample
Naming rights can be offered on a recurring basis, like at State Farm Sports Village, or on a
permanent basis, as seen at Franklin Pasture Sports Complex. Should the complex secure a
naming rights partner, proceeds could be capitalized to reduce the amount of financing
required for the project. As noted earlier in the report, should a land donor emerge it is
possible to honor the donor while also placing a corporate partners name in the title, as done
at Citizens Bank Fields at Progin Park.
PRIVATE AND FOUNDATION GRANT PROGRAMS
Several grant programs administered by private organizations or foundations serve as major

sources of funding for sports complexes. Most of these grant programs are designed
October 17, 2012
7 . 24

PLANNING STUDY
specifically for counties, municipalities, or non-profit/tax-exempt organizations. Each of the

applicable grant programs for is explained in greater depth below.
Finish Line Legacy Grant:

This grant program is available to non-profit
organizations in need of improvements and/or renovations to existing buildings,
grounds, and property. The grant amount can range from $10,000 to $75,000 and
applications are accepted on a quarterly basis.
General Mills Champions for Healthy Kids Grant: This grant program was
launched in partnership with the Dietetic Association Foundation and the Presidents
Council on Physical Fitness and Sport. The goal of the program is to assist with
programming that helps youth develop good nutrition and fitness habits. Each year
more than $20 million in grants are issued to non-profit organizations through
General Mills, but the Healthy Kids Grants are issued in $10,000 increments.
MLB and MLB Players Association Baseball Tomorrow Fund: The Baseball
Tomorrow Fund awards grants to fund programs, fields, and equipment purchases
to encourage and maintain youth participation in the game. The program issues
grants to non-profit groups and tax-exempt organizations at an average amount of
$39,000.
US Soccer Foundation: The US Soccer Foundation has provided over $55 million in
grant assistance to organizations in all 50 states and awards several grants on an
annual basis. All applicants must be either a non-profit group or tax-exempt
organization and have a minimum 10-year land use agreement to be eligible for
application. The various US Soccer Foundation sponsored programs include:
o
Synthetic turf grants (up to $200,000)
Sport Court (up to $65,000)
Lighting (up to $50,000)
Irrigation ($15,000)
Planning (in kind, valued at $8,000)
DONATIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Donations and contributions represent a critical source of funding for sports complexes
operated by a non-profit organization. Donations and contributions may come in various forms
but often include land donation or corporate philanthropy. Recently, Nueces County, Texas,
received 48 acres from a local family and will repurpose the land into a sports complex. A
October 17, 2012
7 . 25

PLANNING STUDY
similar gift in Dauphin County, preferably in the recommended area, could serve as a basis for
facility development. Unlike naming rights and member dues assessments, donations and
contributions should be relied upon to both help fund the construction of the facility and
subsidize annual operations.
It should be noted that donations and contributions are most easily realized once the concept is
defined and a design exercise is completed providing the project with an illustrative image
and/or rendering will generate excitement and provide a sense of reality to the process.
Potential donor targets should include community businesses, which could be given a brief
presentation of the project, or local citizens which may be accessed through door to door
appeals and/or community events. Donations and contributions are typically secured by a
committee that may include business leaders, community figureheads, and project supporters.
Ultimately, the connections and persistence of a committee will determine the amount of
donations and contributions realized.
MEMBER DUES
Member dues are occasionally utilized to bridge financing gaps for construction of sports
complexes. This private financing technique was used at Progin Park, where a small annual
levy was assessed on each of its members to help pay off the note issued on the facility.
However, B&D has assumed that the entire portion of the annual $8 per player assessment will
be directed to subsidizing annual operations. Any additional membership due levied on a per
player basis would likely result in only a nominal amount available for capitalization and facility
development.
October 17, 2012
7 . 26

PLANNING STUDY
8.0 - DEVELOPMENT PLAN

A development plan is shown below that includes tasks associated with the pre-development,
pre-construction and construction phases of the multi-use sports complex. It is assumed that
fundraising will take place throughout the pre-development phase which includes site selection
(should a land donor not emerge), conceptual design, land acquisition, and the completion of a
funding package. The pre-development phase is expected to last just over a year. The preconstruction phase, which includes a detailed design of the complex, procurement, and permits,
is expected to last an additional year. The remaining category, construction, is expected to
commence in June of 2014 and be completed in July of 2016 requiring nearly 2 years of
additional time.
The schedule is a baseline scenario and is subject to variation. To that end, the schedule could
be compressed based on the timely and successful completion of predevelopment tasks. The
graphic on the following page illustrates the projected durations for each phase of the project.
Critical path items are highlighted in red.
October 17, 2012
8.1

PLANNING STUDY
October 17, 2012
8.2

PLANNING STUDY
9.0 - NEXT STEPS

In consideration of the findings and analyses included in this study, the following are
recommended next steps for Dauphin County and the MSA to consider completing.
Hold a strategic meeting at the conclusion of this study to determine which entity will
lead the development process. The goal of the meeting should be to establish
parameters such as fundraising timeline, assumed herein at one year, and define
realistic fundraising goals needed to move the project forward.
After the strategic meeting, form a fundraising committee and commence
fundraising. To assist with fundraising efforts, a basic design concept should be
completed. It is assumed that fundraising efforts will take place throughout the
series of recommended next steps.
The MSA should begin holding regularly scheduled monthly meetings with club
officials to confirm the level of interest in the project, provide updates to interested
clubs, and ultimately verify that the recommended project concept is appropriate
based upon the MSAs ultimate composition.
Should fundraising goals be met, select an architectural and engineering firm to
oversee design and proceed with selecting a development site identified in this study
or otherwise.
Select and engage an experienced construction or estimating firm to develop
accurate cost estimates and a construction schedule based on the design.
At the conclusion of the fundraising effort, determine the appropriate level of public
funding necessary to complete the project. Possible funding mechanisms may
include grants and debt from the state or county. All funding commitments must
provide sources to fund capital outlays and operating costs.
Manage the design, construction, and occupancy phases of the project.
October 17, 2012
9.1
EXHIBIT A SAV ANALYSIS
Dauphin County Redevelopment Authority

Multi-Use Sports Complex Planning Study
Strategic Asset Valuation
Legend:
O
X
DCRA/MSA's Target Objectives / Aspirations

DCRA/MSA's Existing Capacity / Achievements
I.
Strategic Objectives By Category

Dauphin County Quality of Life
10
Comments
Comments
a. Responsiveness to Community Interest
10 = The DCRA/MSA is strongly committed to providing a facility to support an

extensive menu of programs, and services that reflects the full spectrum of activity
interests of the Dauphin County population. In other words, the DCRA/MSA is
committed to providing a little something for everyone.
X
b. Character Development for Youth
O
X
0 = The DCRA/MSA does not believe it has any role or responsibility in assisting the
County with economic development initiatives or activities.
10 = The DCRA/MSA believes that it represents a significant component of the
Dauphin County "brand" and that the beauty and quality of the facility should be
actively used by the County, the Chamber of Commerce, and employers to recruit a
skilled workforce to Dauphin County.
X
d. Family Recruitment
0 = The DCRA/MSA views competitive sports as being equivalent to other sports

and recreational activities.
10 = The DCRA/MSA believes that highly competitive sports are uniquely effective
in the character development of young people and should be aggressively
supported through leagues and developmental programs.
X
c. Employer Recruitment
0 = The DCRA/MSA believes the facility should include programming for a specific
target market group of the Dauphin County population.
0 = Whether or not the facility attract families is not a decision-making factor when
developing the facility.
10 = The DCRA/MSA believes that the facility should represent the Dauphin County
"brand" and that the quality of the facility should be actively used by the County to
recruit families to Dauphin County.

Legend:
O
X

10
Comments
II. Dauphin County Community Building
a. Common Social Experience/Community

Engagement
10 = Creating opportunities for the entire community to come together in

celebration contributes significantly to the overall public health and welfare.
Additionally, maximizing opportunities for large numbers of people to enjoy its
facilities and programs is a core responsibility.
X
b. Equitable Access
0 = Price setting is an important strategy for revenue generation and the extent to
which segments of the population are precluded from participation is a non-issue
as long as revenues are maximized.
10 = No county residents should be turned away from the facility because they
cannot pay.
X
c. Participant diversity and balance
0 = Bringing people together from different backgrounds and from different

neighborhoods is not highly valued.
0 = As long as the facility and programs are well utilized, there is little concern as
to whether the patron base is demographically representative of the entire county.
10 = Facilities should be located and operated in such a way as to be directly

responsive to the needs and interests of all citizens.

Legend:
O
X
0
10
Comments
III. Facility Financial Performance
a. Revenue Generation
10 = Generating revenue through a broad menu of value added services and

programs is a high priority. A positive annual operating scenario is a must.
0 = Operating expenses should be kept as low as possible even if that results in

limited services and restricted hours of use.
b. Operating Expense Management
10 = The highest quality of service and professional standards should be pursued

even if high fees and charges must be passed on to Dauphin County residents and
other patrons.
0 = Any financing should be the obligation of a collection of public agencies. It is

assumed a debt issuance will be the primary instrument of financing.
c. Financing Method
10 = The financing plan will entail a significant amount of fundraising. Public

agencies will only be used for the purposes of leasing land and/or supporting the
project.
X
d. Generation of direct and indirect tax
revenues (Economic impact)
0 = A high value is placed on providing service to patrons through traditional

programs with patrons not being "nickeled and dimed" by extra charges. A
negative operating scenario will be tolerated in return for economic and fiscal
benefits.
0 = All programs and services will be targeted exclusively to Dauphin County

residents.
10 = Significant efforts will be made to bring in visitors through tournaments and

other special events to promote traffic for hotels, retail centers, and restaurants.

Legend:
O
X

IV. Facility Concept
10
a. Quality
0 = The facility should be constructed with an emphasis on functionality. Fields

will be unlit, natural grass fields and the parking will primarily be in grass/gravel
lots. Indoor components will be developed with a similar emphasis on
functionality.
10 = The facility should be constructed with the highest quality components and
finishes. Fields would ideally be lighted, synthetic turf fields and parking will be in
paved lots. Indoor components will be of the highest quality in accordance with
outdoor facilities.
X
b. Scale and Appeal
0 = The facility should be developed to accommodate the maximum possible

number of users and overall facility quality can be compromised accordingly.
Ultimately, the facility will be positioned as a regional asset that can accommodate
bulk numbers of participants.
10 = The facility should be developed as "the Best on the East Coast" and should
hold a national appeal.
X
c. Competitive Positioning
Comments
0 = The facility should compliment existing recreational facilities by targeting user

groups that are underserved. Existing parks and recreation operators should be
engaged to discuss potential synergies that could be realized.
10 = The facility should be operated and developed with minimal consideration for
existing facilities. Existing user groups and clubs should be considered a target
market for the facility to pursue and capture.
EXHIBIT B MARKET PROFILES
Market Profile
Drive Time Analysis
Hummelstown, PA
Drive Time: 10, 20, 30 minutes
Population Summary
2000 Total Population
2000 Group Quarters
2010-2015 Annual Rate
Household Summary
2000 Households
2000 Average Household Size
2010 Households
2015 Households
2000 Families
2000 Average Family Size
2010 Families
2015 Families
Housing Unit Summary
2000 Housing Units
Owner Occupied Housing Units
Renter Occupied Housing Units
Vacant Housing Units
2010 Housing Units
2015 Housing Units
Median Household Income
2000
2010
2015
Median Home Value
2000
2010
2015
Per Capita Income
2000
2010
2015
Median Age
2000
2010
2015
Latitude: 40.26268
Longitude: -76.7076
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
64,843
2,613
68,062
364,232
16,089
385,830
551,975
21,925
593,711
69,663
0.47%
395,387
0.49%
611,857
0.60%
26,447
2.35
28,008
2.35
28,722
2.34
0.51%
17,381
2.92
17,815
2.94
18,074
2.94
0.29%
147,951
2.35
158,921
2.33
163,489
2.32
0.57%
95,528
2.94
99,934
2.92
101,918
2.92
0.39%
219,795
2.41
240,212
2.38
248,656
2.37
0.69%
146,835
2.96
156,607
2.94
160,826
2.93
0.53%
28,053
61.6%
32.6%
5.8%
30,192
59.7%
33.1%
7.2%
31,152
59.4%
32.8%
7.8%
158,054
62.8%
30.9%
6.3%
172,013
61.6%
30.8%
7.6%
178,262
61.3%
30.5%
8.3%
233,529
65.2%
28.9%
5.9%
258,329
64.2%
28.8%
7.0%
269,675
63.8%
28.4%
7.8%
$46,512
$60,507
$70,376
$44,311
$59,040
$67,281
$44,902
$59,246
$66,816
$114,011
$179,688
$223,561
$108,739
$173,906
$217,041
$109,834
$175,411
$219,340
$25,468
$30,835
$35,130
$23,262
$29,079
$32,983
$22,881
$28,453
$32,221
38.6
41.1
41.3
38.1
40.9
41.4
38.0
41.0
41.6
Data Note: Household population includes persons not residing in group quarters. Average Household Size is the household population divided by total households.
Persons in families include the householder and persons related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. Per Capita Income represents the income received by
all persons aged 15 years and over divided by the total population. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Esri forecasts for 2010 and 2015.
January 23, 2012

2012 Esri
Made with Esri Business Analyst

www.esri.com/ba 800-447-9778
Try it Now!
Page 1 of 8
Market Profile
Drive Time Analysis
Hummelstown, PA
2000 Households by Income
Household Income Base
<$15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000+
Average Household Income
<$15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000+
<$15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000+
2000 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value
Total
<$50,000
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $299,999
$300,000 - $499,999
$500,000 - $999,999
$1,000,000 +
Average Home Value
2000 Specified Renter Occupied Housing Units by Contract Rent
Total
With Cash Rent
No Cash Rent
Median Rent
Average Rent
Latitude: 40.26268
Longitude: -76.7076
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
26,539
10.4%
11.5%
14.5%
17.1%
21.7%
11.8%
8.7%
1.8%
2.6%
$60,908
148,060
12.1%
12.4%
13.9%
17.8%
21.2%
11.3%
7.6%
1.8%
1.8%
$55,851
219,885
11.6%
12.3%
13.7%
18.1%
21.9%
11.3%
7.6%
1.7%
1.7%
$56,028
28,009
6.5%
8.4%
9.7%
15.4%
22.1%
19.5%
12.0%
3.3%
3.2%
$73,706
158,920
7.8%
8.8%
10.1%
15.1%
21.9%
19.9%
11.3%
2.7%
2.5%
$69,536
240,210
7.4%
8.7%
10.0%
15.3%
22.7%
19.9%
11.2%
2.6%
2.4%
$69,121
28,721
5.3%
6.4%
7.2%
11.1%
22.8%
20.7%
18.1%
4.5%
3.9%
$83,810
163,488
6.5%
6.9%
7.6%
11.3%
22.8%
21.2%
16.9%
3.7%
3.2%
$78,610
248,652
6.2%
6.9%
7.5%
11.4%
23.6%
21.0%
16.8%
3.6%
3.0%
$77,964
17,314
6.2%
33.1%
33.2%
13.7%
9.3%
3.2%
1.0%
0.2%
$137,349
99,058
8.7%
34.5%
32.7%
13.7%
7.4%
2.3%
0.5%
0.1%
$125,047
152,183
9.1%
33.4%
33.1%
13.8%
7.5%
2.4%
0.7%
0.1%
$126,678
9,060
97.4%
2.6%
$543
$547
48,442
97.0%
3.0%
$490
$493
66,827
96.2%
3.8%
$479
$484
Data Note: Income represents the preceding year, expressed in current dollars. Household income includes wage and salary earnings, interest dividends, net rents,
pensions, SSI and welfare payments, child support, and alimony. Specified Renter Occupied Housing Units exclude houses on 10+ acres. Average Rent excludes units
paying no cash.
January 23, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 2 of 8
Market Profile
Drive Time Analysis
Hummelstown, PA
2000 Population by Age
Total
0-4
5-9
10 - 14
15 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 - 84
85 +
18 +
Total
0-4
5-9
10 - 14
15 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 - 84
85 +
18 +
Total
0-4
5-9
10 - 14
15 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 - 84
85 +
18 +
2000 Population by Sex
Males
Females
Males
Females
Males
Females
Latitude: 40.26268
Longitude: -76.7076
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
64,842
5.6%
6.6%
6.9%
11.4%
13.7%
16.7%
14.8%
9.0%
7.5%
5.8%
2.0%
77.0%
364,231
6.0%
6.7%
6.8%
11.9%
13.7%
16.4%
14.7%
8.9%
7.5%
5.5%
1.9%
76.8%
551,979
6.0%
6.8%
6.9%
12.0%
13.3%
16.6%
14.7%
9.0%
7.4%
5.3%
1.9%
76.4%
68,065
5.5%
5.6%
5.8%
12.3%
12.9%
13.4%
15.8%
12.8%
7.4%
5.7%
2.8%
79.2%
385,830
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
12.9%
11.6%
13.5%
15.6%
13.1%
7.4%
5.5%
2.7%
78.4%
593,712
5.8%
6.0%
6.2%
12.8%
11.4%
13.5%
15.9%
13.2%
7.4%
5.4%
2.5%
78.1%
69,663
5.5%
5.6%
5.8%
11.4%
13.9%
12.5%
14.2%
13.7%
9.2%
5.4%
2.8%
79.7%
395,390
5.7%
5.8%
6.1%
12.4%
12.4%
12.2%
14.2%
13.8%
9.5%
5.2%
2.7%
78.9%
611,857
5.7%
5.9%
6.2%
12.3%
12.1%
12.3%
14.4%
14.1%
9.4%
5.1%
2.6%
78.6%
48.0%
52.0%
48.1%
51.9%
48.4%
51.6%
48.1%
51.9%
48.2%
51.8%
48.6%
51.4%
48.2%
51.8%
48.3%
51.7%
48.7%
51.3%
January 23, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 3 of 8
Market Profile
Drive Time Analysis
Hummelstown, PA
2000 Population by Race/Ethnicity
Total
White Alone
Black Alone
American Indian Alone
Asian or Pacific Islander Alone
Some Other Race Alone
Two or More Races
Hispanic Origin
Diversity Index
Total
White Alone
Black Alone
Two or More Races
Hispanic Origin
Diversity Index
Total
White Alone
Black Alone
Two or More Races
Hispanic Origin
Diversity Index
2000 Population 3+ by School Enrollment
Total
Enrolled in Nursery/Preschool
Enrolled in Kindergarten
Enrolled in Grade 1-8
Enrolled in College
Enrolled in Grad/Prof School
Not Enrolled in School
2010 Population 25+ by Educational Attainment
Total
Less Than 9th Grade
9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma
High School Graduate
Some College, No Degree
Associate Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Graduate/Professional Degree
Latitude: 40.26268
Longitude: -76.7076
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
64,843
88.2%
6.8%
0.1%
2.4%
1.0%
1.5%
2.6%
25.7
364,232
82.1%
12.5%
0.2%
2.1%
1.5%
1.6%
3.4%
35.6
551,974
86.4%
8.7%
0.1%
1.8%
1.6%
1.4%
3.4%
29.5
68,062
84.6%
7.7%
0.2%
3.5%
1.7%
2.3%
4.5%
34.0
385,830
79.4%
12.9%
0.2%
3.1%
2.3%
2.2%
5.4%
41.8
593,711
83.9%
9.1%
0.2%
2.5%
2.4%
1.9%
5.5%
36.0
69,663
82.7%
8.2%
0.2%
4.2%
2.0%
2.7%
5.7%
38.1
395,388
78.0%
13.1%
0.2%
3.6%
2.7%
2.5%
6.4%
44.8
611,857
82.7%
9.3%
0.2%
2.9%
2.7%
2.2%
6.5%
39.1
62,876
1.5%
1.2%
11.6%
5.7%
2.7%
1.9%
75.4%
351,609
1.5%
1.3%
11.5%
5.5%
3.8%
1.1%
75.3%
532,573
1.5%
1.4%
11.8%
5.6%
3.7%
0.9%
75.1%
48,188
2.3%
5.6%
34.6%
15.9%
8.2%
19.9%
13.4%
267,757
2.6%
6.9%
34.9%
16.2%
8.3%
19.9%
11.0%
411,275
2.9%
7.2%
37.0%
15.9%
8.1%
18.7%
10.3%
Data Note: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. The Diversity Index measures the probability that two people from the same area will be from different
race/ethnic groups.
January 23, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 4 of 8
Market Profile
Drive Time Analysis
Hummelstown, PA
2010 Population 15+ by Marital Status
Total
Never Married
Married
Widowed
Divorced
2000 Population 16+ by Employment Status
Total
In Labor Force
Civilian Employed
Civilian Unemployed
In Armed Forces
Not In Labor Force
2010 Civilian Population 16+ in Labor Force
Civilian Employed
Civilian Unemployed
Civilian Employed
Civilian Unemployed
2000 Females 16+ by Employment Status and Age of Children
Total
Own Children < 6 Only
Employed/in Armed Forces
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
Own Children <6 and 6-17 Only
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
Own Children 6-17 Only
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
No Own Children < 18
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
2010 Employed Population 16+ by Industry
Total
Agriculture/Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation/Utilities
Information
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate
Services
Public Administration
Latitude: 40.26268
Longitude: -76.7076
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
56,590
27.3%
317,691
28.5%
487,397
27.4%
55.6%
54.3%
55.9%
6.9%
10.1%
6.7%
10.5%
6.5%
10.2%
51,752
64.4%
62.2%
2.1%
0.1%
35.6%
289,495
65.2%
62.3%
2.6%
0.3%
34.8%
436,051
66.3%
63.6%
2.4%
0.3%
33.7%
92.4%
7.6%
91.6%
8.4%
91.9%
8.1%
93.6%
6.4%
93.0%
7.0%
93.3%
6.7%
27,368
6.5%
4.2%
0.2%
2.1%
4.8%
2.8%
0.2%
1.9%
17.3%
13.3%
0.3%
3.7%
71.4%
35.5%
1.2%
34.7%
152,326
6.7%
4.6%
0.3%
1.9%
5.0%
3.1%
0.2%
1.8%
16.5%
12.9%
0.3%
3.2%
71.7%
36.8%
1.5%
33.4%
227,835
6.7%
4.5%
0.2%
1.9%
5.2%
3.1%
0.1%
1.9%
17.0%
13.3%
0.3%
3.4%
71.1%
37.0%
1.5%
32.6%
33,731
0.4%
4.3%
7.5%
3.7%
10.0%
6.7%
1.7%
7.3%
46.6%
11.8%
189,073
0.7%
4.6%
6.5%
3.6%
10.6%
6.2%
2.0%
8.4%
44.8%
12.6%
295,120
1.0%
5.2%
8.3%
3.9%
11.1%
6.2%
1.9%
7.6%
44.3%
10.5%
January 23, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 5 of 8
Market Profile
Drive Time Analysis
Hummelstown, PA
Latitude: 40.26268
Longitude: -76.7076
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
33,736
71.3%
16.9%
28.2%
9.1%
17.1%
13.2%
15.6%
0.2%
3.4%
3.0%
3.3%
5.8%
189,074
68.1%
15.6%
24.6%
10.3%
17.6%
15.1%
16.8%
0.2%
3.5%
3.2%
3.6%
6.4%
295,120
64.9%
14.5%
23.2%
10.2%
17.0%
15.4%
19.7%
0.3%
4.0%
3.6%
4.7%
7.1%
31,726
83.0%
9.7%
1.0%
3.0%
0.5%
2.8%
178,151
81.0%
10.6%
1.8%
3.3%
0.8%
2.6%
274,194
81.6%
10.2%
1.4%
3.3%
0.8%
2.7%
31,725
97.2%
3.5%
12.6%
37.8%
18.2%
16.4%
3.2%
2.4%
1.6%
1.5%
2.8%
19.7
178,151
97.4%
3.4%
11.7%
39.1%
18.9%
15.7%
3.1%
2.5%
1.6%
1.4%
2.6%
19.7
274,197
97.3%
3.4%
11.5%
36.8%
18.2%
17.0%
3.9%
3.3%
1.8%
1.4%
2.7%
20.5
26,488
6.6%
36.7%
41.9%
11.5%
2.5%
0.8%
1.7
147,896
9.3%
36.8%
39.5%
11.0%
2.5%
0.9%
1.6
219,776
8.4%
34.8%
40.8%
12.1%
2.9%
1.1%
1.7
2010 Employed Population 16+ by Occupation

Total
White Collar
Management/Business/Financial
Professional
Sales
Administrative Support
Services
Blue Collar
Farming/Forestry/Fishing
Construction/Extraction
Installation/Maintenance/Repair
Production
Transportation/Material Moving
2000 Workers 16+ by Means of Transportation to Work
Total
Drove Alone - Car, Truck, or Van
Carpooled - Car, Truck, or Van
Public Transportation
Walked
Other Means
Worked at Home
2000 Workers 16+ by Travel Time to Work
Total
Did not Work at Home
Less than 5 minutes
5 to 9 minutes
10 to 19 minutes
20 to 24 minutes
25 to 34 minutes
35 to 44 minutes
45 to 59 minutes
60 to 89 minutes
90 or more minutes
Worked at Home
Average Travel Time to Work (in min)
2000 Households by Vehicles Available
Total
None
1
2
3
4
5+
Average Number of Vehicles Available
January 23, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 6 of 8
Market Profile
Drive Time Analysis
Hummelstown, PA
2000 Households by Type
Total
Family Households
Married-couple Family
With Related Children
Other Family (No Spouse)
Nonfamily Households
Householder Living Alone
Householder Not Living Alone
Households with Related Children
Households with Persons 65+
2000 Households by Size
Total
1 Person Household
2 Person Household
3 Person Household
4 Person Household
5 Person Household
6 Person Household
7 + Person Household
2000 Households by Year Householder Moved In
Total
Moved in 1999 to March 2000
Moved in 1995 to 1998
Moved in 1969 or Earlier
Median Year Householder Moved In
2000 Housing Units by Units in Structure
Total
1, Detached
1, Attached
2
3 or 4
5 to 9
10 to 19
20 +
Mobile Home
Other
2000 Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Total
1999 to March 2000
1995 to 1998
1990 to 1994
1980 to 1989
1970 to 1979
1969 or Earlier
Median Year Structure Built
Latitude: 40.26268
Longitude: -76.7076
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
26,446
65.7%
52.3%
22.6%
13.4%
8.7%
34.3%
29.0%
5.2%
147,951
64.6%
49.7%
21.3%
14.8%
9.9%
35.4%
29.9%
5.5%
219,797
66.8%
52.8%
22.9%
14.0%
9.3%
33.2%
27.9%
5.3%
31.3%
24.8%
31.2%
24.7%
32.2%
24.3%
26,447
29.0%
35.3%
15.9%
12.8%
5.1%
1.4%
0.5%
147,951
29.9%
34.7%
15.6%
12.6%
4.9%
1.6%
0.7%
219,795
27.9%
35.1%
16.0%
13.3%
5.2%
1.7%
0.8%
26,487
19.4%
26.1%
16.4%
15.9%
9.4%
13.0%
1994
147,897
17.7%
26.6%
16.6%
15.8%
10.6%
12.6%
1993
219,777
16.9%
26.2%
16.7%
16.8%
10.9%
12.5%
1993
28,091
51.8%
15.4%
2.9%
6.0%
7.6%
6.0%
7.2%
3.1%
0.1%
157,987
51.3%
19.3%
4.1%
6.0%
5.8%
4.6%
5.7%
3.2%
0.0%
233,531
54.2%
17.9%
4.1%
5.5%
5.1%
3.9%
4.8%
4.4%
0.0%
28,090
2.7%
7.0%
7.2%
13.9%
20.7%
48.6%
1971
157,986
1.6%
5.4%
6.7%
12.1%
16.4%
57.8%
1964
233,528
1.6%
5.5%
7.2%
13.2%
16.5%
56.0%
1965
January 23, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 7 of 8
Market Profile
Drive Time Analysis
Hummelstown, PA
Latitude: 40.26268
Longitude: -76.7076
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
1.
Rustbelt Retirees
2.
Cozy and Comfortable
3. Enterprising Professionals

Rustbelt Retirees
Old and Newcomers
Green Acres
Rustbelt Retirees
$49,973,323
$1,784.22
75
$6,520,438
$232.80
106
$37,899,934
$1,353.16
111
$97,053,446
$3,465.14
107
$132,150,750
$4,718.24
105
$96,220,718
$3,435.41
107
$112,059,623
$4,000.92
107
$53,523,349
$1,910.97
93
$50,220,082
$1,793.03
103
$704,560,658
$25,155.25
101
$471,272,032
$16,826.04
107
$36,878,489
$1,316.69
106
$56,482,661
$2,016.63
107
$267,435,323
$1,682.82
70
$34,686,869
$218.27
99
$204,872,018
$1,289.14
106
$519,059,067
$3,266.14
101
$711,502,231
$4,477.08
100
$515,113,848
$3,241.32
101
$606,594,942
$3,816.96
102
$285,353,295
$1,795.57
87
$269,067,392
$1,693.09
97
$3,772,508,264
$23,738.24
95
$2,516,623,930
$15,835.68
100
$198,097,082
$1,246.51
100
$300,954,352
$1,893.73
100
$399,935,107
$1,664.92
70
$52,077,229
$216.80
99
$306,539,887
$1,276.12
105
$782,940,312
$3,259.37
101
$1,068,551,110
$4,448.36
99
$772,194,871
$3,214.63
100
$916,935,855
$3,817.19
102
$429,775,877
$1,789.15
87
$409,758,982
$1,705.82
98
$5,695,101,953
$23,708.62
95
$3,749,728,045
$15,610.06
99
$297,275,487
$1,237.55
100
$451,588,083
$1,879.95
99
$27,948,588
$997.86
106
$149,617,513
$941.46
100
$225,169,013
$937.38
99
Top 3 Tapestry Segments
2010 Consumer Spending

Apparel & Services: Total $
Average Spent
Spending Potential Index
Computers & Accessories: Total $
Average Spent
Education: Total $
Average Spent
Entertainment/Recreation: Total $
Average Spent
Food at Home: Total $
Average Spent
Food Away from Home: Total $
Average Spent
Health Care: Total $
Average Spent
HH Furnishings & Equipment: Total $
Average Spent
Investments: Total $
Average Spent
Retail Goods: Total $
Average Spent
Shelter: Total $
Average Spent
TV/Video/Audio:Total $
Average Spent
Travel: Total $
Average Spent
Vehicle Maintenance & Repairs: Total $
Average Spent
Data Note: Consumer spending shows the amount spent on a variety of goods and services by households that reside in the area. Expenditures are shown by broad
budget categories that are not mutually exclusive. Consumer spending does not equal business revenue. Total and Average Amount Spent Per Household represent annual
figures. The Spending Potential Index represents the amount spent in the area relative to a national average of 100.
Source: Consumer Spending data are derived from the 2006 and 2007 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Esri.
January 23, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 8 of 8
Market Profile
USTC
1426 Marshallton Thorndale Rd, Downingtown, PA, 19335
Population Summary
2000 Group Quarters
Household Summary
2000 Households
2010 Households
2015 Households
2000 Families
2010 Families
2015 Families
2000 Housing Units
2010 Housing Units
2015 Housing Units
2000
2010
2015
Median Home Value
2000
2010
2015
Per Capita Income
2000
2010
2015
Median Age
2000
2010
2015
Latitude: 39.98363
Longitude: -75.73997
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
45,082
1,569
53,874
218,054
8,001
252,279
489,118
19,059
547,582
57,509
1.31%
266,766
1.12%
570,746
0.83%
16,501
2.64
20,176
2.58
21,688
2.57
1.46%
11,711
3.14
13,900
3.10
14,799
3.10
1.26%
79,809
2.63
93,376
2.60
99,162
2.60
1.21%
56,217
3.14
64,267
3.12
67,761
3.12
1.06%
181,902
2.58
205,203
2.57
214,536
2.56
0.89%
126,556
3.11
139,684
3.11
144,972
3.11
0.75%
17,291
67.2%
28.3%
4.5%
21,299
66.4%
28.4%
5.3%
23,218
65.8%
27.6%
6.6%
82,804
71.2%
25.2%
3.6%
97,578
70.4%
25.3%
4.3%
104,865
69.8%
24.8%
5.4%
189,709
71.0%
24.9%
4.1%
215,596
70.1%
25.1%
4.8%
227,727
69.5%
24.7%
5.8%
$55,917
$77,551
$88,294
$63,607
$84,795
$100,072
$64,149
$85,204
$100,774
$135,078
$240,042
$323,143
$169,064
$297,926
$384,348
$180,513
$320,286
$399,572
$24,781
$33,375
$37,637
$29,605
$39,227
$43,674
$32,796
$41,887
$46,689
35.6
38.3
38.5
35.8
38.2
38.4
37.0
39.5
39.9
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 1 of 8
Market Profile
USTC
<$15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000+
<$15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000+
<$15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000+
Total
<$50,000
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $299,999
$300,000 - $499,999
$500,000 - $999,999
$1,000,000 +
Average Home Value
Total
With Cash Rent
No Cash Rent
Median Rent
Average Rent
Latitude: 39.98363
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
16,518
10.7%
7.9%
9.4%
16.0%
22.8%
16.5%
11.5%
3.2%
2.0%
$65,836
79,877
7.7%
7.1%
9.0%
14.1%
21.2%
15.6%
15.6%
5.1%
4.7%
$79,900
182,259
7.8%
7.4%
8.9%
13.5%
20.3%
14.6%
15.3%
5.7%
6.5%
$86,583
20,178
6.9%
6.2%
5.6%
11.4%
17.3%
19.0%
23.3%
5.7%
4.6%
$89,146
93,378
5.2%
5.4%
5.1%
10.7%
15.7%
17.0%
24.1%
8.6%
8.3%
$105,311
205,202
5.1%
5.4%
5.2%
10.5%
16.0%
16.1%
23.0%
8.5%
10.2%
$110,599
21,690
5.3%
4.5%
4.1%
7.7%
17.7%
17.5%
30.1%
7.6%
5.6%
$99,942
99,165
4.0%
3.9%
3.5%
7.3%
15.9%
15.3%
29.8%
10.8%
9.5%
$116,818
214,536
3.9%
3.9%
3.6%
7.1%
16.3%
14.5%
28.5%
10.6%
11.6%
$122,937
11,695
4.5%
22.2%
34.9%
22.8%
11.2%
3.6%
0.7%
0.1%
$150,034
59,089
3.9%
11.8%
24.7%
23.0%
23.7%
10.4%
2.2%
0.3%
$197,904
134,693
3.0%
11.2%
22.3%
20.9%
23.4%
13.6%
4.5%
1.0%
$227,043
4,822
94.8%
5.2%
$605
$598
20,478
96.2%
3.8%
$686
$708
46,275
95.9%
4.1%
$690
$736
paying no cash.
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 2 of 8
Market Profile
USTC
Total
0-4
5-9
10 - 14
15 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 - 84
85 +
18 +
Total
0-4
5-9
10 - 14
15 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 - 84
85 +
18 +
Total
0-4
5-9
10 - 14
15 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 - 84
85 +
18 +
Males
Females
Males
Females
Males
Females
Latitude: 39.98363
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
45,082
7.0%
7.8%
8.2%
12.4%
13.7%
17.8%
14.5%
7.7%
5.6%
4.2%
1.2%
71.8%
218,056
6.8%
7.5%
7.6%
13.4%
13.4%
17.6%
14.6%
8.4%
5.7%
3.9%
1.2%
73.8%
489,118
6.6%
7.2%
7.2%
12.6%
13.1%
17.0%
14.6%
9.1%
6.7%
4.4%
1.4%
74.7%
53,876
6.7%
6.9%
7.3%
13.6%
11.1%
14.2%
16.7%
12.0%
6.0%
3.8%
1.7%
73.7%
252,277
6.5%
6.8%
7.2%
14.5%
10.7%
14.3%
16.4%
11.8%
6.3%
3.9%
1.7%
74.8%
547,581
6.3%
6.5%
7.1%
13.8%
10.5%
14.0%
16.1%
12.2%
6.9%
4.6%
2.1%
75.6%
57,510
6.5%
6.9%
7.4%
13.0%
12.1%
12.7%
15.3%
13.2%
7.7%
3.6%
1.6%
74.1%
266,765
6.3%
6.8%
7.3%
14.3%
11.3%
12.7%
15.4%
12.6%
7.7%
3.8%
1.7%
75.0%
570,744
6.1%
6.6%
7.0%
13.6%
11.2%
12.4%
15.3%
13.0%
8.4%
4.3%
2.1%
75.9%
49.4%
50.6%
48.7%
51.3%
49.0%
51.0%
49.3%
50.7%
48.8%
51.2%
49.1%
50.9%
49.2%
50.8%
48.8%
51.2%
49.1%
50.9%
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 3 of 8
Market Profile
USTC
Total
White Alone
Black Alone
Two or More Races
Hispanic Origin
Diversity Index
Total
White Alone
Black Alone
Two or More Races
Hispanic Origin
Diversity Index
Total
White Alone
Black Alone
Two or More Races
Hispanic Origin
Diversity Index
Total
Enrolled in College
Total
Less Than 9th Grade
Associate Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Latitude: 39.98363
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
45,083
77.7%
17.3%
0.2%
1.6%
1.4%
1.8%
3.7%
41.2
218,055
86.9%
8.6%
0.1%
2.2%
1.0%
1.2%
2.9%
28.0
489,117
87.6%
7.3%
0.1%
2.7%
1.1%
1.1%
3.1%
27.3
53,873
75.1%
17.0%
0.3%
3.4%
1.9%
2.3%
5.0%
46.3
252,279
83.5%
9.1%
0.2%
4.3%
1.4%
1.6%
4.0%
34.8
547,581
83.7%
8.3%
0.2%
4.7%
1.6%
1.5%
4.6%
35.3
57,509
74.0%
17.0%
0.3%
4.0%
2.1%
2.6%
5.7%
48.4
266,766
82.2%
9.4%
0.2%
5.0%
1.5%
1.8%
4.6%
37.4
570,747
82.0%
8.8%
0.2%
5.5%
1.8%
1.7%
5.4%
38.6
43,553
2.1%
1.4%
14.3%
7.1%
2.9%
0.9%
71.3%
209,564
2.4%
1.4%
12.9%
6.0%
5.7%
1.5%
70.0%
470,702
2.3%
1.4%
12.2%
5.8%
4.9%
1.7%
71.7%
35,286
2.8%
5.9%
31.7%
17.7%
6.7%
22.8%
12.5%
163,912
2.2%
4.4%
24.9%
15.3%
6.1%
29.8%
17.3%
363,280
2.6%
4.6%
23.8%
14.3%
5.9%
29.3%
19.4%
race/ethnic groups.
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 4 of 8
Market Profile
USTC
Total
Never Married
Married
Widowed
Divorced
Total
In Labor Force
Civilian Employed
Civilian Unemployed
In Armed Forces
Not In Labor Force
Civilian Employed
Civilian Unemployed
Civilian Employed
Civilian Unemployed
Total
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
Total
Agriculture/Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Information
Services
Latitude: 39.98363
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
42,617
31.2%
200,510
29.9%
438,820
28.9%
54.6%
57.1%
57.7%
5.2%
9.0%
5.0%
7.9%
5.4%
8.0%
34,112
69.4%
66.5%
2.8%
0.1%
30.6%
167,583
70.4%
67.9%
2.5%
0.0%
29.6%
380,274
68.1%
65.6%
2.5%
0.0%
31.9%
91.7%
8.3%
92.4%
7.6%
92.2%
7.8%
93.1%
6.9%
93.7%
6.3%
93.5%
6.5%
17,405
8.0%
5.0%
0.2%
2.9%
6.4%
3.9%
0.2%
2.3%
19.8%
15.6%
0.5%
3.8%
65.7%
37.3%
1.6%
26.8%
86,937
7.9%
4.9%
0.1%
2.9%
6.1%
3.4%
0.1%
2.6%
18.1%
13.4%
0.3%
4.4%
67.9%
39.0%
1.7%
27.2%
196,598
7.7%
4.7%
0.1%
2.9%
6.0%
3.2%
0.1%
2.7%
17.1%
12.6%
0.3%
4.2%
69.2%
37.8%
1.7%
29.7%
26,027
0.6%
5.3%
10.5%
3.6%
12.6%
4.5%
2.0%
8.6%
49.0%
3.3%
124,463
0.7%
5.1%
9.7%
3.9%
11.8%
4.0%
2.2%
9.8%
49.8%
3.0%
264,671
1.2%
5.1%
9.1%
3.7%
11.2%
3.6%
2.3%
10.7%
50.2%
2.9%
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 5 of 8
Market Profile
USTC
Latitude: 39.98363
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
26,028
68.3%
16.2%
24.7%
11.0%
16.4%
14.5%
17.2%
0.2%
3.9%
3.5%
4.6%
5.0%
124,463
73.8%
19.6%
28.0%
12.0%
14.1%
12.3%
14.0%
0.2%
3.5%
2.8%
3.6%
3.9%
264,670
74.9%
20.7%
28.5%
12.2%
13.5%
11.8%
13.4%
0.4%
3.5%
2.7%
3.2%
3.6%
22,444
80.3%
11.5%
2.9%
2.2%
0.6%
2.5%
112,153
81.1%
8.7%
2.6%
2.7%
0.6%
4.3%
245,748
79.8%
8.5%
3.4%
2.9%
0.8%
4.7%
22,445
97.5%
1.7%
8.5%
27.5%
16.5%
18.5%
7.5%
9.1%
6.4%
1.8%
2.5%
26.9
112,153
95.7%
2.3%
9.5%
27.5%
14.0%
18.1%
7.4%
8.8%
5.9%
2.1%
4.3%
26.6
245,749
95.4%
2.7%
9.6%
27.4%
13.8%
18.3%
7.5%
8.7%
5.5%
2.0%
4.7%
26.2
16,546
9.0%
30.9%
43.8%
12.7%
2.7%
0.9%
1.7
79,849
5.5%
29.5%
46.6%
14.0%
3.2%
1.1%
1.8
181,865
6.2%
30.4%
45.8%
13.4%
3.0%
1.1%
1.8

Total
White Collar
Professional
Sales
Services
Blue Collar
Production
Total
Walked
Other Means
Worked at Home
Total
Less than 5 minutes
5 to 9 minutes
10 to 19 minutes
20 to 24 minutes
25 to 34 minutes
35 to 44 minutes
45 to 59 minutes
60 to 89 minutes
90 or more minutes
Worked at Home
Total
None
1
2
3
4
5+
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 6 of 8
Market Profile
USTC
Total
Family Households
Total
1 Person Household
2 Person Household
3 Person Household
4 Person Household
5 Person Household
6 Person Household
Total
Total
1, Detached
1, Attached
2
3 or 4
5 to 9
10 to 19
20 +
Mobile Home
Other
Total
1999 to March 2000
1995 to 1998
1990 to 1994
1980 to 1989
1970 to 1979
1969 or Earlier
Latitude: 39.98363
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
16,500
71.0%
53.5%
27.8%
17.5%
11.5%
29.0%
23.6%
5.4%
79,809
70.4%
58.2%
29.5%
12.3%
7.6%
29.6%
23.0%
6.6%
181,901
69.6%
58.0%
27.9%
11.6%
6.7%
30.4%
24.4%
6.0%
39.3%
21.1%
37.0%
19.9%
34.6%
22.8%
16,501
23.6%
30.8%
18.0%
16.6%
7.4%
2.5%
1.1%
79,809
23.0%
32.6%
17.1%
16.7%
7.3%
2.3%
1.0%
181,902
24.4%
33.5%
16.4%
15.4%
6.9%
2.2%
1.1%
16,546
15.4%
27.0%
17.2%
19.3%
11.0%
10.2%
1993
79,848
16.9%
28.4%
17.5%
18.7%
9.6%
8.8%
1994
181,862
16.4%
27.8%
16.5%
18.7%
10.1%
10.6%
1993
17,373
51.0%
23.2%
3.0%
3.9%
4.6%
5.6%
6.1%
2.6%
0.0%
82,875
56.7%
19.3%
2.1%
3.4%
4.6%
4.8%
5.9%
3.1%
0.0%
189,740
57.5%
18.8%
2.5%
3.7%
3.8%
4.2%
7.2%
2.3%
0.0%
17,375
1.7%
4.2%
5.8%
17.7%
23.0%
47.6%
1971
82,874
2.6%
8.2%
8.6%
20.0%
19.3%
41.3%
1975
189,739
2.4%
7.1%
7.2%
17.4%
17.3%
48.6%
1971
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 7 of 8
Market Profile
USTC
Latitude: 39.98363
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
Main Street, USA

Sophisticated Squires
Exurbanites
Suburban Splendor
In Style
Suburban Splendor
In Style
Connoisseurs
$43,633,324
$2,162.65
90
$5,687,912
$281.92
128
$33,517,116
$1,661.25
136
$84,730,641
$4,199.60
130
$112,867,324
$5,594.17
125
$83,039,577
$4,115.79
128
$92,278,265
$4,573.69
123
$47,147,018
$2,336.80
113
$43,718,109
$2,166.85
125
$605,945,659
$30,033.18
121
$421,218,936
$20,877.36
132
$31,449,584
$1,558.77
126
$51,045,106
$2,530.01
134
$237,917,393
$2,547.95
106
$31,391,014
$336.18
153
$186,046,967
$1,992.45
163
$465,365,567
$4,983.78
155
$606,994,372
$6,500.54
145
$450,977,839
$4,829.70
150
$499,621,370
$5,350.64
144
$260,172,564
$2,786.29
135
$248,493,898
$2,661.22
153
$3,315,064,554
$35,502.31
143
$2,294,194,578
$24,569.42
156
$170,147,482
$1,822.18
147
$282,957,068
$3,030.30
160
$547,696,817
$2,669.05
111
$71,945,330
$350.61
159
$425,118,561
$2,071.70
170
$1,075,960,148
$5,243.39
163
$1,396,944,094
$6,807.62
152
$1,032,621,089
$5,032.19
156
$1,160,564,701
$5,655.69
152
$602,013,823
$2,933.75
142
$609,642,422
$2,970.92
171
$7,636,253,932
$37,213.17
150
$5,323,562,945
$25,942.91
164
$390,080,132
$1,900.95
153
$662,599,223
$3,228.99
171
$24,083,095
$1,193.66
127
$131,393,620
$1,407.15
149
$302,745,869
$1,475.35
157
1.
2.
3.
Average Spent
Average Spent
Education: Total $
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Shelter: Total $
Average Spent
Average Spent
Travel: Total $
Average Spent
Average Spent
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 8 of 8
Market Profile
CBRC
2900 Richard Downing Ave, Council Bluffs, IA, 51501
Population Summary
2000 Group Quarters
Household Summary
2000 Households
2010 Households
2015 Households
2000 Families
2010 Families
2015 Families
2000 Housing Units
2010 Housing Units
2015 Housing Units
2000
2010
2015
Median Home Value
2000
2010
2015
Per Capita Income
2000
2010
2015
Median Age
2000
2010
2015
Latitude: 41.22598
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
94,045
4,815
96,595
494,808
12,894
513,193
654,036
15,195
725,430
97,085
0.10%
524,426
0.43%
757,456
0.87%
36,062
2.47
37,562
2.43
37,998
2.42
0.23%
21,428
3.17
21,507
3.14
21,387
3.14
-0.11%
195,489
2.47
207,234
2.41
213,015
2.40
0.55%
122,653
3.10
126,861
3.06
129,355
3.05
0.39%
252,428
2.53
284,198
2.50
297,865
2.49
0.94%
165,910
3.12
185,034
3.09
193,267
3.09
0.87%
38,971
51.9%
40.6%
7.5%
42,163
49.0%
40.1%
10.9%
43,546
47.6%
39.6%
12.7%
206,293
57.2%
37.6%
5.2%
225,118
54.8%
37.2%
7.9%
234,525
54.0%
36.8%
9.2%
265,697
61.4%
33.6%
5.0%
307,265
60.2%
32.3%
7.5%
326,087
59.8%
31.6%
8.7%
$31,611
$42,921
$50,575
$39,622
$52,317
$60,744
$44,162
$59,213
$67,002
$66,870
$82,381
$92,579
$89,545
$104,331
$118,787
$98,715
$121,328
$138,514
$15,421
$20,341
$23,232
$20,303
$25,713
$29,308
$22,077
$27,882
$31,565
32.2
33.8
34.3
33.4
34.7
35.1
33.4
34.8
35.0
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 1 of 8
Market Profile
CBRC
<$15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000+
<$15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000+
<$15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000+
Total
<$50,000
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $299,999
$300,000 - $499,999
$500,000 - $999,999
$1,000,000 +
Average Home Value
Total
With Cash Rent
No Cash Rent
Median Rent
Average Rent
Latitude: 41.22598
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
36,058
21.0%
17.7%
16.7%
18.3%
16.6%
6.0%
2.6%
0.4%
0.6%
$39,264
195,957
14.4%
14.3%
15.2%
18.1%
20.4%
9.2%
5.6%
1.3%
1.4%
$50,665
252,960
12.3%
12.8%
13.7%
17.5%
21.6%
11.0%
7.4%
1.8%
2.0%
$56,482
37,563
15.3%
12.5%
12.6%
18.9%
20.5%
12.4%
6.0%
1.0%
0.9%
$50,680
207,233
10.0%
9.4%
10.4%
17.8%
22.2%
16.4%
9.9%
2.1%
1.8%
$62,837
284,198
8.3%
8.1%
9.1%
16.2%
22.4%
17.7%
12.5%
2.9%
2.7%
$70,492
37,996
14.2%
10.1%
10.2%
14.7%
24.2%
14.5%
9.4%
1.5%
1.2%
$57,538
213,013
8.9%
7.2%
8.1%
12.6%
25.6%
17.5%
15.1%
2.9%
2.2%
$71,223
297,864
7.3%
6.1%
6.9%
11.2%
24.9%
18.3%
18.2%
3.9%
3.3%
$79,543
20,240
26.2%
59.9%
9.8%
2.3%
1.0%
0.5%
0.1%
0.2%
$74,941
118,000
14.4%
47.5%
23.9%
8.0%
4.1%
1.6%
0.4%
0.1%
$104,604
163,163
11.8%
39.6%
28.4%
10.3%
6.6%
2.4%
0.7%
0.2%
$119,235
15,758
97.3%
2.7%
$402
$406
77,338
95.8%
4.2%
$467
$482
88,883
96.2%
3.8%
$480
$499
paying no cash.
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 2 of 8
Market Profile
CBRC
Total
0-4
5-9
10 - 14
15 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 - 84
85 +
18 +
Total
0-4
5-9
10 - 14
15 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 - 84
85 +
18 +
Total
0-4
5-9
10 - 14
15 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 - 84
85 +
18 +
Males
Females
Males
Females
Males
Females
Latitude: 41.22598
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
94,045
7.6%
7.1%
6.7%
16.9%
15.9%
15.3%
11.4%
7.3%
6.2%
4.3%
1.4%
74.5%
494,811
7.3%
7.3%
7.2%
15.2%
15.4%
15.6%
12.5%
7.8%
6.2%
4.1%
1.5%
73.9%
654,037
7.5%
7.6%
7.5%
14.6%
15.2%
16.2%
13.1%
7.7%
5.7%
3.6%
1.3%
72.9%
96,595
7.6%
6.9%
6.2%
15.8%
15.3%
13.4%
13.3%
10.0%
5.8%
4.0%
1.8%
75.6%
513,192
7.3%
6.8%
6.5%
14.6%
15.2%
13.1%
13.6%
10.6%
6.1%
4.2%
1.9%
75.4%
725,432
7.5%
7.2%
7.0%
13.9%
14.6%
13.7%
14.2%
10.7%
5.8%
3.7%
1.6%
74.1%
97,088
7.4%
6.8%
6.5%
15.5%
14.8%
13.1%
12.0%
11.2%
7.1%
3.8%
1.8%
75.8%
524,425
7.2%
6.8%
6.7%
14.0%
15.2%
13.0%
12.3%
11.4%
7.5%
4.1%
2.0%
75.6%
757,455
7.5%
7.2%
7.2%
13.5%
14.7%
13.4%
12.9%
11.3%
7.1%
3.6%
1.6%
74.1%
50.3%
49.7%
48.9%
51.1%
49.0%
51.0%
50.5%
49.5%
49.0%
51.0%
49.0%
51.0%
50.5%
49.5%
49.0%
51.0%
49.0%
51.0%
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 3 of 8
Market Profile
CBRC
Total
White Alone
Black Alone
Two or More Races
Hispanic Origin
Diversity Index
Total
White Alone
Black Alone
Two or More Races
Hispanic Origin
Diversity Index
Total
White Alone
Black Alone
Two or More Races
Hispanic Origin
Diversity Index
Total
Enrolled in College
Total
Less Than 9th Grade
Associate Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Latitude: 41.22598
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
94,045
82.2%
4.2%
1.0%
1.2%
9.2%
2.2%
15.8%
50.3
494,808
80.8%
11.2%
0.6%
1.7%
3.7%
2.0%
7.3%
42.4
654,037
84.1%
9.0%
0.6%
1.7%
2.9%
1.8%
5.9%
36.4
96,596
74.5%
5.0%
1.3%
1.6%
14.7%
2.9%
24.7%
64.9
513,193
75.7%
12.1%
0.9%
2.4%
6.2%
2.7%
12.4%
53.9
725,430
80.2%
9.5%
0.7%
2.5%
4.8%
2.3%
9.9%
46.4
97,085
72.7%
5.1%
1.3%
1.7%
16.1%
3.1%
27.7%
68.1
524,425
74.7%
12.0%
0.9%
2.7%
6.8%
2.9%
14.2%
56.7
757,456
79.3%
9.3%
0.8%
2.8%
5.3%
2.5%
11.4%
49.1
89,444
1.5%
1.5%
11.7%
5.8%
5.9%
1.1%
72.5%
473,505
1.8%
1.5%
12.4%
6.0%
6.1%
1.5%
70.8%
624,979
2.0%
1.6%
12.9%
6.2%
5.7%
1.5%
70.1%
61,312
9.2%
12.1%
36.2%
21.1%
6.6%
10.3%
4.4%
332,467
4.2%
7.2%
28.7%
23.8%
7.8%
18.6%
9.8%
466,558
3.4%
6.0%
26.5%
23.4%
8.1%
21.8%
10.8%
race/ethnic groups.
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 4 of 8
Market Profile
CBRC
Total
Never Married
Married
Widowed
Divorced
Total
In Labor Force
Civilian Employed
Civilian Unemployed
In Armed Forces
Not In Labor Force
Civilian Employed
Civilian Unemployed
Civilian Employed
Civilian Unemployed
Total
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
Total
Agriculture/Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Information
Services
Latitude: 41.22598
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
76,617
34.6%
407,278
32.8%
567,599
30.7%
43.4%
48.2%
52.3%
6.6%
15.5%
6.0%
13.0%
5.3%
11.8%
72,589
65.0%
61.0%
3.7%
0.3%
35.0%
380,470
69.5%
64.9%
3.0%
1.6%
30.5%
496,562
71.4%
67.4%
2.7%
1.3%
28.6%
91.1%
8.9%
92.7%
7.3%
93.6%
6.4%
92.0%
8.0%
93.6%
6.4%
94.5%
5.5%
35,960
8.0%
4.8%
0.4%
2.8%
6.5%
4.0%
0.4%
2.1%
15.3%
11.7%
0.4%
3.2%
70.2%
35.9%
1.9%
32.4%
196,927
8.0%
5.4%
0.3%
2.2%
6.5%
4.3%
0.3%
2.0%
16.1%
12.7%
0.5%
3.0%
69.4%
39.1%
1.7%
28.6%
256,543
8.5%
5.9%
0.3%
2.4%
6.9%
4.5%
0.2%
2.1%
17.4%
13.7%
0.4%
3.3%
67.1%
39.3%
1.5%
26.3%
43,002
0.6%
6.8%
12.6%
3.8%
11.7%
6.1%
1.7%
8.2%
46.1%
2.5%
238,625
0.4%
5.6%
9.1%
3.3%
12.3%
5.3%
2.2%
10.5%
48.1%
3.3%
348,083
0.4%
5.4%
8.7%
3.4%
12.3%
5.4%
2.2%
11.1%
47.8%
3.1%
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 5 of 8
Market Profile
CBRC
Latitude: 41.22598
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
43,001
49.9%
8.8%
14.4%
10.5%
16.1%
21.5%
28.6%
0.4%
6.0%
4.0%
9.7%
8.6%
238,624
62.4%
12.4%
21.6%
11.3%
17.0%
16.7%
20.9%
0.3%
4.5%
3.5%
6.6%
6.1%
348,085
65.6%
14.4%
23.0%
11.8%
16.5%
15.5%
18.9%
0.2%
4.1%
3.2%
6.0%
5.4%
43,560
73.9%
16.1%
1.9%
5.0%
1.2%
1.9%
249,246
81.3%
11.5%
1.6%
2.3%
0.8%
2.6%
336,359
82.9%
10.6%
1.3%
1.9%
0.7%
2.8%
43,560
98.1%
3.6%
13.4%
45.0%
16.5%
14.0%
1.2%
1.6%
1.6%
1.2%
1.9%
18.1
249,246
97.4%
2.7%
12.4%
43.1%
20.3%
13.8%
1.4%
1.5%
1.3%
1.0%
2.6%
18.2
336,358
97.2%
2.7%
11.9%
40.6%
20.4%
15.8%
1.9%
1.7%
1.3%
1.0%
2.8%
18.8
36,030
14.0%
39.2%
33.3%
9.4%
2.9%
1.2%
1.5
195,570
9.2%
37.5%
38.3%
10.9%
3.0%
1.1%
1.7
252,441
7.8%
34.4%
41.1%
12.2%
3.3%
1.3%
1.7

Total
White Collar
Professional
Sales
Services
Blue Collar
Production
Total
Walked
Other Means
Worked at Home
Total
Less than 5 minutes
5 to 9 minutes
10 to 19 minutes
20 to 24 minutes
25 to 34 minutes
35 to 44 minutes
45 to 59 minutes
60 to 89 minutes
90 or more minutes
Worked at Home
Total
None
1
2
3
4
5+
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 6 of 8
Market Profile
CBRC
Total
Family Households
Total
1 Person Household
2 Person Household
3 Person Household
4 Person Household
5 Person Household
6 Person Household
Total
Total
1, Detached
1, Attached
2
3 or 4
5 to 9
10 to 19
20 +
Mobile Home
Other
Total
1999 to March 2000
1995 to 1998
1990 to 1994
1980 to 1989
1970 to 1979
1969 or Earlier
Latitude: 41.22598
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
36,061
59.4%
39.5%
19.4%
19.9%
13.5%
40.6%
33.3%
7.3%
195,490
62.7%
45.6%
21.8%
17.1%
11.6%
37.3%
30.2%
7.0%
252,427
65.7%
50.1%
25.0%
15.6%
10.6%
34.3%
27.7%
6.6%
32.9%
22.6%
33.4%
20.9%
35.6%
19.2%
36,062
33.3%
29.2%
15.1%
11.4%
6.0%
2.6%
2.3%
195,489
30.2%
31.7%
15.6%
12.6%
6.1%
2.3%
1.4%
252,428
27.7%
32.0%
16.1%
14.0%
6.6%
2.3%
1.3%
36,031
23.6%
28.4%
14.2%
13.0%
8.6%
12.2%
1995
195,570
22.5%
28.1%
14.6%
14.0%
10.1%
10.8%
1995
252,440
22.1%
29.3%
15.6%
14.4%
9.5%
9.1%
1995
38,937
61.5%
2.2%
5.2%
4.0%
5.4%
4.2%
14.3%
3.1%
0.0%
206,306
64.6%
3.7%
2.7%
3.0%
6.2%
7.7%
10.5%
1.6%
0.0%
265,734
66.9%
3.6%
2.2%
2.6%
5.3%
7.6%
9.6%
2.2%
0.0%
38,936
1.5%
3.3%
1.7%
4.5%
8.7%
80.3%
1947
206,308
1.3%
3.9%
3.6%
8.9%
17.8%
64.4%
1962
265,735
2.5%
6.8%
6.1%
11.6%
19.3%
53.6%
1968
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 7 of 8
Market Profile
CBRC
Latitude: 41.22598
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
1.
2.
3.
Average Spent
Average Spent
Education: Total $
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Shelter: Total $
Average Spent
Average Spent
Travel: Total $
Average Spent
Average Spent
Rustbelt Traditions
Home Town
Great Expectations
Rustbelt Traditions
Rustbelt Traditions
Young and Restless
Young and Restless
Milk and Cookies Up and Coming Families
$47,041,401
$1,252.37
52
$6,141,124
$163.49
74
$36,090,324
$960.82
79
$88,831,710
$2,364.93
73
$127,943,659
$3,406.19
76
$90,969,624
$2,421.85
75
$106,652,113
$2,839.36
76
$48,409,781
$1,288.80
63
$43,712,706
$1,163.75
67
$658,569,142
$17,532.83
71
$426,349,669
$11,350.54
72
$35,504,104
$945.21
76
$48,305,850
$1,286.03
68
$319,992,570
$1,544.11
64
$41,934,648
$202.35
92
$241,744,839
$1,166.53
96
$608,353,856
$2,935.59
91
$851,095,265
$4,106.93
92
$618,580,345
$2,984.94
93
$701,283,596
$3,384.02
91
$334,463,526
$1,613.94
78
$293,931,072
$1,418.36
82
$4,466,237,027
$21,551.68
87
$2,956,750,837
$14,267.70
90
$237,984,644
$1,148.39
92
$341,528,253
$1,648.03
87
$489,544,385
$1,722.55
72
$64,467,367
$226.84
103
$370,074,588
$1,302.17
107
$939,581,948
$3,306.09
103
$1,287,011,808
$4,528.58
101
$943,365,547
$3,319.40
103
$1,058,079,138
$3,723.04
100
$519,390,626
$1,827.57
89
$456,953,056
$1,607.87
92
$6,850,247,771
$24,103.81
97
$4,572,055,938
$16,087.59
102
$361,091,274
$1,270.56
102
$536,024,315
$1,886.10
100
$26,032,829
$693.06
74
$177,533,233
$856.68
91
$271,638,573
$955.81
101
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 8 of 8
Market Profile
Progin Park
512 Old Union Tpke, Lancaster, MA, 01523
Population Summary
2000 Group Quarters
Household Summary
2000 Households
2010 Households
2015 Households
2000 Families
2010 Families
2015 Families
2000 Housing Units
2010 Housing Units
2015 Housing Units
2000
2010
2015
Median Home Value
2000
2010
2015
Per Capita Income
2000
2010
2015
Median Age
2000
2010
2015
Latitude: 42.51745
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
47,839
3,110
49,711
216,425
9,373
226,284
790,039
29,981
823,152
49,610
-0.04%
228,187
0.17%
833,210
0.24%
18,250
2.45
18,782
2.43
18,751
2.43
-0.03%
11,799
3.04
11,978
3.03
11,892
3.03
-0.14%
80,910
2.56
84,395
2.56
85,133
2.56
0.17%
55,704
3.10
57,677
3.09
58,012
3.10
0.12%
294,245
2.58
306,452
2.58
310,324
2.58
0.25%
199,036
3.15
205,378
3.15
207,254
3.15
0.18%
19,296
52.0%
42.7%
5.2%
20,222
51.1%
41.7%
7.1%
20,448
50.1%
41.6%
8.3%
84,681
63.8%
31.8%
4.5%
90,372
62.1%
31.3%
6.6%
92,080
61.5%
30.9%
7.5%
306,377
60.2%
35.9%
3.9%
326,081
58.6%
35.4%
6.0%
332,628
58.3%
35.0%
6.7%
$43,435
$58,004
$66,354
$52,856
$69,731
$83,109
$51,323
$68,552
$80,222
$133,134
$207,435
$240,500
$165,439
$265,759
$310,209
$168,819
$266,895
$310,458
$21,026
$27,232
$31,820
$26,349
$35,632
$42,056
$25,668
$34,613
$40,454
36.3
37.3
36.8
37.0
39.2
39.2
36.0
38.0
38.0
February 02, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 1 of 8
Market Profile
Progin Park
<$15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000+
<$15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000+
<$15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000+
Total
<$50,000
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $299,999
$300,000 - $499,999
$500,000 - $999,999
$1,000,000 +
Average Home Value
Total
With Cash Rent
No Cash Rent
Median Rent
Average Rent
Latitude: 42.51745
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
18,362
16.0%
12.8%
12.2%
15.8%
20.4%
11.6%
8.0%
1.9%
1.2%
$53,649
80,939
12.7%
9.7%
10.1%
14.7%
19.5%
13.3%
12.1%
4.2%
3.9%
$69,696
294,633
14.0%
10.0%
10.2%
14.4%
19.5%
12.7%
11.8%
3.8%
3.6%
$67,811
18,783
9.8%
9.9%
9.3%
12.9%
23.0%
13.8%
14.9%
4.1%
2.3%
$69,331
84,393
7.6%
7.4%
7.1%
10.8%
20.6%
13.9%
18.3%
6.8%
7.4%
$94,276
306,449
9.0%
7.8%
7.2%
10.7%
19.5%
14.0%
18.2%
6.6%
7.0%
$91,581
18,750
8.2%
7.7%
7.2%
9.6%
23.8%
13.0%
21.1%
6.0%
3.4%
$81,089
85,132
6.1%
5.5%
5.4%
7.5%
20.7%
12.5%
22.9%
9.3%
10.2%
$111,320
310,322
7.4%
5.9%
5.5%
7.5%
20.3%
12.9%
22.0%
9.0%
9.5%
$107,056
9,982
2.1%
21.9%
41.0%
19.3%
10.4%
4.2%
0.9%
0.2%
$153,948
54,002
1.8%
14.3%
27.3%
18.8%
18.7%
15.4%
3.4%
0.3%
$211,403
184,460
1.6%
12.9%
26.7%
20.5%
19.8%
13.7%
4.0%
0.7%
$217,191
8,320
97.2%
2.8%
$516
$495
26,744
96.2%
3.8%
$520
$527
109,527
96.3%
3.7%
$538
$558
paying no cash.
February 02, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 2 of 8
Market Profile
Progin Park
Total
0-4
5-9
10 - 14
15 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 - 84
85 +
18 +
Total
0-4
5-9
10 - 14
15 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 - 84
85 +
18 +
Total
0-4
5-9
10 - 14
15 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 - 84
85 +
18 +
Males
Females
Males
Females
Males
Females
Latitude: 42.51745
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
47,841
6.6%
7.1%
6.7%
11.6%
15.8%
17.8%
13.0%
8.0%
6.6%
5.1%
1.8%
76.0%
216,424
6.7%
7.6%
7.5%
11.3%
13.2%
18.5%
14.5%
8.4%
6.1%
4.5%
1.6%
74.1%
790,039
6.9%
7.5%
7.3%
12.6%
13.9%
17.5%
13.7%
8.3%
6.2%
4.5%
1.6%
74.3%
49,713
6.4%
6.4%
6.1%
14.3%
13.6%
14.7%
14.9%
10.6%
6.0%
4.6%
2.3%
77.4%
226,286
6.4%
6.7%
6.9%
13.6%
11.0%
14.0%
16.7%
11.9%
6.4%
4.2%
2.1%
75.7%
823,155
6.6%
6.7%
6.8%
14.4%
11.5%
13.9%
15.8%
11.4%
6.3%
4.3%
2.2%
75.6%
49,612
6.3%
6.4%
6.2%
13.9%
14.9%
13.2%
13.8%
11.6%
7.4%
4.2%
2.3%
77.8%
228,185
6.2%
6.6%
6.9%
13.2%
12.3%
12.2%
15.3%
13.0%
8.2%
4.0%
2.1%
76.3%
833,207
6.5%
6.7%
6.8%
14.0%
12.7%
12.0%
14.7%
12.5%
7.9%
4.1%
2.1%
76.2%
50.5%
49.5%
49.8%
50.2%
49.2%
50.8%
51.0%
49.0%
49.9%
50.1%
49.4%
50.6%
51.2%
48.8%
50.0%
50.0%
49.4%
50.6%
February 02, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 3 of 8
Market Profile
Progin Park
Total
White Alone
Black Alone
Two or More Races
Hispanic Origin
Diversity Index
Total
White Alone
Black Alone
Two or More Races
Hispanic Origin
Diversity Index
Total
White Alone
Black Alone
Two or More Races
Hispanic Origin
Diversity Index
Total
Enrolled in College
Total
Less Than 9th Grade
Associate Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Latitude: 42.51745
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
47,840
84.4%
5.3%
0.2%
2.7%
5.0%
2.3%
12.5%
44.0
216,424
88.9%
3.0%
0.2%
3.0%
3.1%
1.9%
7.2%
31.4
790,039
85.4%
3.2%
0.2%
5.4%
3.6%
2.2%
7.9%
37.3
49,712
77.8%
7.4%
0.3%
4.2%
7.3%
3.0%
18.0%
56.8
226,286
84.1%
4.2%
0.2%
4.6%
4.4%
2.5%
10.4%
42.2
823,153
80.3%
4.2%
0.3%
7.7%
4.7%
2.8%
10.6%
47.2
49,610
74.2%
8.6%
0.3%
4.9%
8.5%
3.5%
20.8%
62.5
228,188
81.3%
4.9%
0.2%
5.5%
5.2%
2.9%
12.1%
47.6
833,209
77.3%
4.8%
0.3%
9.0%
5.3%
3.2%
12.0%
52.0
45,925
1.7%
1.5%
11.6%
6.3%
3.7%
1.1%
74.0%
207,896
2.2%
1.6%
12.9%
6.2%
3.8%
1.3%
72.0%
758,145
2.2%
1.5%
12.7%
5.8%
5.2%
1.4%
71.1%
33,207
5.8%
8.7%
34.3%
17.1%
8.2%
15.9%
10.0%
150,388
3.9%
5.9%
27.5%
15.6%
8.2%
22.1%
16.8%
538,619
4.7%
6.6%
27.5%
15.1%
7.7%
21.8%
16.6%
race/ethnic groups.
February 02, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 4 of 8
Market Profile
Progin Park
Total
Never Married
Married
Widowed
Divorced
Total
In Labor Force
Civilian Employed
Civilian Unemployed
In Armed Forces
Not In Labor Force
Civilian Employed
Civilian Unemployed
Civilian Employed
Civilian Unemployed
Total
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
Total
Agriculture/Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Information
Services
Latitude: 42.51745
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
40,304
30.1%
181,061
27.2%
657,214
30.5%
51.2%
56.6%
53.8%
6.0%
12.7%
5.6%
10.5%
5.9%
9.9%
37,565
61.5%
58.6%
2.7%
0.2%
38.5%
166,311
66.7%
63.9%
2.8%
0.1%
33.3%
608,359
66.3%
63.2%
2.9%
0.2%
33.7%
88.7%
11.3%
90.1%
9.9%
90.2%
9.8%
91.7%
8.3%
92.8%
7.2%
92.8%
7.2%
18,633
7.7%
5.4%
0.2%
2.2%
6.1%
3.3%
0.1%
2.8%
16.6%
11.6%
0.3%
4.7%
69.5%
35.9%
1.8%
31.8%
84,520
8.0%
5.1%
0.2%
2.7%
6.3%
3.6%
0.1%
2.5%
18.8%
14.0%
0.4%
4.4%
66.9%
36.3%
1.7%
29.0%
313,319
8.4%
5.2%
0.3%
2.9%
6.2%
3.6%
0.2%
2.4%
17.6%
13.0%
0.4%
4.2%
67.8%
35.8%
1.7%
30.4%
20,156
0.4%
5.1%
18.7%
3.3%
11.4%
3.0%
2.9%
4.5%
45.4%
5.3%
102,536
0.5%
4.8%
15.2%
3.3%
11.0%
2.8%
3.2%
5.5%
49.3%
4.5%
373,839
0.3%
4.8%
13.6%
3.3%
10.8%
3.2%
3.3%
5.9%
50.4%
4.3%
February 02, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 5 of 8
Market Profile
Progin Park
Latitude: 42.51745
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
20,159
60.1%
12.5%
23.7%
10.0%
13.9%
17.8%
22.1%
0.2%
4.5%
3.8%
8.7%
4.9%
102,536
68.6%
16.3%
29.9%
10.3%
12.1%
14.8%
16.6%
0.1%
4.0%
2.7%
6.0%
3.8%
373,836
67.4%
15.7%
29.3%
9.9%
12.5%
15.8%
16.8%
0.1%
4.0%
2.7%
6.0%
4.0%
21,593
82.8%
9.4%
1.8%
2.1%
1.4%
2.5%
104,388
82.9%
8.5%
2.0%
2.2%
0.9%
3.5%
378,581
80.8%
9.6%
2.6%
3.1%
0.9%
3.0%
21,593
97.5%
3.5%
13.7%
30.9%
10.7%
16.0%
6.1%
8.1%
5.3%
3.2%
2.5%
25.6
104,389
96.5%
3.1%
11.6%
26.4%
11.9%
17.4%
8.0%
8.9%
6.7%
2.5%
3.5%
27.0
378,580
97.0%
2.9%
10.6%
29.6%
13.0%
17.7%
7.0%
8.1%
6.0%
2.2%
3.0%
25.8
18,309
9.6%
40.6%
37.7%
9.2%
2.4%
0.6%
1.6
80,887
7.9%
33.8%
42.6%
11.7%
2.8%
1.2%
1.7
294,399
10.2%
35.1%
40.5%
10.6%
2.6%
1.0%
1.6

Total
White Collar
Professional
Sales
Services
Blue Collar
Production
Total
Walked
Other Means
Worked at Home
Total
Less than 5 minutes
5 to 9 minutes
10 to 19 minutes
20 to 24 minutes
25 to 34 minutes
35 to 44 minutes
45 to 59 minutes
60 to 89 minutes
90 or more minutes
Worked at Home
Total
None
1
2
3
4
5+
February 02, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 6 of 8
Market Profile
Progin Park
Total
Family Households
Total
1 Person Household
2 Person Household
3 Person Household
4 Person Household
5 Person Household
6 Person Household
Total
Total
1, Detached
1, Attached
2
3 or 4
5 to 9
10 to 19
20 +
Mobile Home
Other
Total
1999 to March 2000
1995 to 1998
1990 to 1994
1980 to 1989
1970 to 1979
1969 or Earlier
Latitude: 42.51745
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
18,251
64.6%
47.6%
22.4%
17.0%
11.4%
35.3%
29.2%
6.2%
80,910
68.8%
54.5%
27.3%
14.4%
9.1%
31.2%
25.5%
5.6%
294,247
67.6%
52.0%
26.1%
15.7%
9.8%
32.4%
26.2%
6.2%
33.8%
24.8%
36.4%
22.8%
35.9%
23.1%
18,250
29.2%
32.0%
16.4%
14.0%
5.8%
1.8%
0.8%
80,910
25.5%
31.9%
16.8%
16.2%
6.7%
2.0%
0.9%
294,245
26.2%
30.9%
16.9%
15.7%
6.8%
2.3%
1.2%
18,310
18.1%
30.6%
15.1%
15.1%
8.7%
12.4%
1995
80,886
15.6%
27.8%
15.9%
16.7%
10.8%
13.2%
1993
294,399
16.5%
28.8%
15.7%
15.6%
10.1%
13.2%
1994
19,364
43.9%
4.7%
12.6%
13.2%
9.0%
5.1%
10.0%
1.5%
0.0%
84,655
57.7%
4.0%
10.2%
10.7%
5.9%
4.0%
6.1%
1.3%
0.0%
306,519
53.4%
4.5%
9.7%
12.2%
6.0%
5.0%
8.3%
0.9%
0.0%
19,366
1.0%
3.6%
5.0%
13.2%
12.2%
65.0%
1957
84,656
1.0%
4.6%
5.0%
12.3%
14.2%
62.9%
1959
306,520
1.0%
3.8%
4.6%
12.3%
13.2%
65.2%
1958
February 02, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 7 of 8
Market Profile
Progin Park
Latitude: 42.51745
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
Main Street, USA

Old and Newcomers
Main Street, USA

Suburban Splendor
Main Street, USA

Suburban Splendor
Pleasant-Ville
$32,139,546
$1,711.16
71
$4,193,265
$223.26
101
$23,927,392
$1,273.93
104
$60,977,443
$3,246.54
101
$83,898,014
$4,466.86
100
$60,750,655
$3,234.46
100
$66,387,618
$3,534.58
95
$33,914,202
$1,805.65
88
$31,842,977
$1,695.37
97
$437,136,945
$23,273.87
94
$311,787,270
$16,600.05
105
$22,969,060
$1,222.91
98
$36,704,737
$1,954.22
103
$193,465,057
$2,292.39
96
$25,241,297
$299.09
136
$148,704,638
$1,762.02
144
$375,361,488
$4,447.70
138
$497,210,718
$5,891.50
132
$364,005,106
$4,313.13
134
$404,852,789
$4,797.14
129
$209,895,786
$2,487.08
121
$208,191,211
$2,466.88
142
$2,668,133,359
$31,614.99
127
$1,889,675,926
$22,390.96
142
$137,325,501
$1,627.18
131
$231,066,842
$2,737.94
145
$691,499,800
$2,256.47
94
$89,319,446
$291.46
132
$525,147,093
$1,713.64
140
$1,315,440,977
$4,292.49
133
$1,779,307,007
$5,806.16
130
$1,295,928,733
$4,228.82
131
$1,415,976,656
$4,620.55
124
$735,292,948
$2,399.38
117
$724,153,211
$2,363.03
136
$9,384,689,094
$30,623.70
123
$6,735,301,246
$21,978.34
139
$488,531,900
$1,594.16
128
$806,318,140
$2,631.14
139
$17,438,454
$928.45
98
$105,826,452
$1,253.95
133
$373,126,535
$1,217.57
129
1.
2.
3.
Average Spent
Average Spent
Education: Total $
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Shelter: Total $
Average Spent
Average Spent
Travel: Total $
Average Spent
Average Spent
February 02, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 8 of 8
Market Profile
RMSC
600 Independence Dr, Rocky Mount, NC, 27804
Population Summary
2000 Group Quarters
Household Summary
2000 Households
2010 Households
2015 Households
2000 Families
2010 Families
2015 Families
2000 Housing Units
2010 Housing Units
2015 Housing Units
2000
2010
2015
Median Home Value
2000
2010
2015
Per Capita Income
2000
2010
2015
Median Age
2000
2010
2015
Latitude: 35.9657
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
55,713
1,411
56,393
99,624
3,061
102,585
177,501
4,662
184,904
56,298
-0.03%
103,262
0.13%
187,215
0.25%
21,345
2.54
22,064
2.49
22,182
2.47
0.11%
14,563
3.10
14,693
3.07
14,647
3.05
-0.06%
37,712
2.56
39,606
2.51
40,108
2.49
0.25%
26,663
3.07
27,391
3.03
27,542
3.02
0.11%
67,580
2.56
71,935
2.50
73,263
2.49
0.37%
47,617
3.07
49,601
3.03
50,170
3.02
0.23%
24,219
48.3%
40.0%
11.7%
26,832
45.6%
36.6%
17.8%
27,587
44.4%
36.0%
19.6%
42,691
55.4%
33.0%
11.5%
47,585
52.8%
30.4%
16.8%
49,079
51.9%
29.8%
18.3%
75,520
56.7%
32.8%
10.5%
85,009
54.3%
30.3%
15.4%
88,004
53.6%
29.7%
16.8%
$32,502
$41,884
$49,836
$34,688
$44,163
$51,583
$34,282
$42,968
$50,265
$82,724
$99,835
$110,677
$82,150
$98,429
$109,772
$79,590
$102,374
$117,203
$17,406
$21,250
$23,745
$17,590
$21,559
$24,013
$17,389
$21,214
$23,632
35.4
37.5
37.9
36.3
38.8
39.5
36.3
39.0
39.9
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 1 of 8
Market Profile
RMSC
<$15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000+
<$15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000+
<$15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000+
Total
<$50,000
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $299,999
$300,000 - $499,999
$500,000 - $999,999
$1,000,000 +
Average Home Value
Total
With Cash Rent
No Cash Rent
Median Rent
Average Rent
Latitude: 35.9657
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
21,345
23.8%
15.5%
13.8%
16.3%
16.2%
6.9%
4.8%
1.2%
1.4%
$44,712
37,656
21.9%
14.9%
13.6%
16.4%
18.1%
7.7%
4.9%
1.3%
1.3%
$45,505
67,476
22.7%
14.7%
13.3%
17.0%
17.6%
7.4%
4.5%
1.3%
1.3%
$44,972
22,063
18.3%
12.3%
11.1%
16.4%
19.8%
11.8%
7.3%
1.3%
1.7%
$53,580
39,604
16.6%
11.9%
10.6%
16.6%
21.1%
12.8%
7.3%
1.6%
1.6%
$54,658
71,933
17.4%
12.1%
10.9%
16.6%
21.0%
11.9%
7.0%
1.5%
1.6%
$53,615
22,182
16.8%
10.4%
9.1%
13.8%
23.5%
12.9%
9.7%
1.8%
2.1%
$59,472
40,110
15.0%
10.0%
8.7%
14.1%
24.6%
13.8%
9.7%
2.1%
1.9%
$60,491
73,262
15.8%
10.2%
8.9%
14.8%
24.1%
12.9%
9.4%
1.9%
2.0%
$59,364
11,702
22.3%
44.3%
18.5%
6.9%
4.3%
2.8%
0.8%
0.2%
$103,441
23,607
23.8%
41.9%
19.2%
7.9%
4.3%
2.2%
0.5%
0.1%
$99,767
42,804
24.6%
42.5%
17.9%
8.0%
4.3%
1.9%
0.6%
0.2%
$98,136
9,575
95.6%
4.4%
$333
$347
13,981
92.7%
7.3%
$333
$355
24,484
92.1%
7.9%
$319
$335
paying no cash.
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 2 of 8
Market Profile
RMSC
Total
0-4
5-9
10 - 14
15 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 - 84
85 +
18 +
Total
0-4
5-9
10 - 14
15 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 - 84
85 +
18 +
Total
0-4
5-9
10 - 14
15 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 - 84
85 +
18 +
Males
Females
Males
Females
Males
Females
Latitude: 35.9657
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
55,715
6.9%
8.2%
7.9%
13.3%
13.1%
15.4%
13.7%
8.2%
6.8%
4.9%
1.5%
72.7%
99,626
6.6%
7.7%
7.6%
12.8%
13.3%
16.0%
14.4%
8.8%
6.9%
4.5%
1.4%
73.8%
177,504
6.7%
7.6%
7.4%
13.1%
13.2%
15.9%
14.4%
9.0%
6.9%
4.5%
1.3%
74.0%
56,392
6.8%
6.9%
7.0%
14.3%
11.8%
13.0%
14.4%
12.1%
6.8%
4.8%
2.1%
74.9%
102,585
6.4%
6.6%
6.8%
13.2%
12.0%
13.5%
15.0%
12.8%
7.2%
4.7%
2.0%
76.0%
184,906
6.4%
6.7%
6.8%
12.9%
11.9%
13.3%
15.1%
13.1%
7.4%
4.5%
1.9%
75.9%
56,296
6.7%
6.9%
7.1%
13.7%
12.1%
12.5%
13.0%
12.7%
8.7%
4.6%
2.1%
75.4%
103,260
6.2%
6.5%
6.9%
12.7%
12.0%
12.9%
13.6%
13.4%
9.2%
4.6%
2.1%
76.6%
187,216
6.2%
6.5%
6.9%
12.7%
11.6%
12.7%
13.7%
13.8%
9.3%
4.5%
1.9%
76.5%
45.8%
54.2%
46.9%
53.1%
47.4%
52.6%
46.1%
53.9%
47.2%
52.8%
47.8%
52.2%
46.1%
53.9%
47.2%
52.8%
48.0%
52.0%
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 3 of 8
Market Profile
RMSC
Total
White Alone
Black Alone
Two or More Races
Hispanic Origin
Diversity Index
Total
White Alone
Black Alone
Two or More Races
Hispanic Origin
Diversity Index
Total
White Alone
Black Alone
Two or More Races
Hispanic Origin
Diversity Index
Total
Enrolled in College
Total
Less Than 9th Grade
Associate Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Latitude: 35.9657
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
55,713
40.9%
56.2%
0.3%
0.7%
0.9%
1.0%
1.8%
53.5
99,623
51.4%
45.6%
0.3%
0.5%
1.2%
0.9%
2.1%
54.7
177,500
52.0%
44.3%
0.3%
0.5%
2.0%
0.9%
3.6%
56.6
56,394
39.6%
56.1%
0.4%
1.1%
1.5%
1.4%
3.0%
55.6
102,585
49.6%
46.1%
0.4%
0.8%
1.9%
1.3%
3.5%
57.3
184,903
50.4%
44.0%
0.4%
0.7%
3.2%
1.2%
5.8%
60.1
56,299
38.7%
56.3%
0.4%
1.3%
1.7%
1.6%
3.5%
56.5
103,263
48.6%
46.4%
0.4%
1.0%
2.2%
1.5%
4.2%
58.5
187,215
49.6%
44.1%
0.4%
0.8%
3.7%
1.4%
6.8%
61.6
53,440
2.3%
1.8%
13.6%
6.3%
4.3%
0.6%
71.2%
95,695
2.0%
1.7%
13.1%
6.3%
4.2%
0.5%
72.4%
170,175
1.7%
1.6%
12.8%
6.3%
4.1%
0.4%
73.0%
36,667
7.4%
12.2%
32.2%
18.0%
7.5%
15.2%
7.5%
68,811
7.4%
11.7%
34.2%
18.3%
8.0%
13.9%
6.5%
124,280
8.1%
12.4%
34.1%
18.3%
7.7%
13.5%
5.9%
race/ethnic groups.
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 4 of 8
Market Profile
RMSC
Total
Never Married
Married
Widowed
Divorced
Total
In Labor Force
Civilian Employed
Civilian Unemployed
In Armed Forces
Not In Labor Force
Civilian Employed
Civilian Unemployed
Civilian Employed
Civilian Unemployed
Total
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
Unemployed
Not in Labor Force
Total
Agriculture/Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Information
Services
Latitude: 35.9657
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
44,737
31.6%
82,325
28.7%
148,154
28.9%
49.1%
53.1%
53.1%
8.0%
11.3%
7.8%
10.5%
7.7%
10.4%
42,153
60.2%
54.2%
5.9%
0.2%
39.8%
76,388
60.6%
55.9%
4.6%
0.1%
39.4%
136,376
61.2%
56.5%
4.6%
0.1%
38.8%
83.8%
16.2%
85.5%
14.5%
86.0%
14.0%
87.0%
13.0%
88.4%
11.6%
88.8%
11.2%
23,606
6.8%
4.0%
0.7%
2.0%
5.8%
3.2%
0.5%
2.1%
18.4%
12.7%
1.2%
4.5%
69.0%
28.8%
3.7%
36.5%
41,658
6.8%
4.3%
0.5%
2.0%
5.8%
3.3%
0.4%
2.1%
18.6%
13.3%
0.9%
4.3%
68.8%
29.9%
2.9%
36.0%
73,334
6.8%
4.2%
0.5%
2.1%
5.9%
3.3%
0.3%
2.2%
18.6%
13.3%
0.9%
4.3%
68.8%
30.0%
3.1%
35.6%
23,074
0.6%
5.6%
13.7%
3.9%
11.3%
3.8%
2.2%
6.0%
47.4%
5.4%
43,409
1.2%
7.3%
13.4%
4.0%
12.1%
3.8%
2.6%
5.7%
44.2%
5.7%
79,584
1.8%
7.7%
14.7%
3.9%
11.5%
3.8%
2.2%
5.8%
43.3%
5.3%
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 5 of 8
Market Profile
RMSC
Latitude: 35.9657
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
23,075
57.8%
12.9%
20.3%
11.2%
13.4%
18.3%
24.0%
0.4%
4.6%
3.6%
9.1%
6.3%
43,411
57.6%
12.4%
19.7%
11.9%
13.6%
16.6%
25.8%
0.6%
5.6%
4.3%
8.9%
6.3%
79,582
54.6%
11.8%
19.0%
11.0%
12.8%
17.2%
28.2%
0.9%
6.0%
4.6%
9.6%
7.0%
22,459
78.9%
15.3%
1.2%
1.4%
1.1%
2.1%
41,893
81.2%
14.1%
0.8%
1.1%
1.0%
1.8%
75,515
80.2%
14.6%
1.0%
1.3%
1.1%
1.9%
22,457
97.9%
2.5%
14.1%
48.2%
12.8%
11.3%
2.2%
2.3%
2.5%
2.1%
2.1%
19.5
41,893
98.2%
2.8%
12.8%
44.9%
14.5%
13.5%
2.3%
2.6%
2.5%
2.1%
1.8%
20.2
75,515
98.2%
2.9%
13.4%
41.7%
14.0%
15.0%
2.6%
3.4%
2.9%
2.2%
1.9%
21.0
21,331
14.4%
36.4%
34.5%
11.6%
2.4%
0.7%
1.5
37,699
11.8%
34.0%
35.9%
13.8%
3.3%
1.1%
1.7
67,549
12.3%
33.1%
35.2%
14.5%
3.6%
1.3%
1.7

Total
White Collar
Professional
Sales
Services
Blue Collar
Production
Total
Walked
Other Means
Worked at Home
Total
Less than 5 minutes
5 to 9 minutes
10 to 19 minutes
20 to 24 minutes
25 to 34 minutes
35 to 44 minutes
45 to 59 minutes
60 to 89 minutes
90 or more minutes
Worked at Home
Total
None
1
2
3
4
5+
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 6 of 8
Market Profile
RMSC
Total
Family Households
Total
1 Person Household
2 Person Household
3 Person Household
4 Person Household
5 Person Household
6 Person Household
Total
Total
1, Detached
1, Attached
2
3 or 4
5 to 9
10 to 19
20 +
Mobile Home
Other
Total
1999 to March 2000
1995 to 1998
1990 to 1994
1980 to 1989
1970 to 1979
1969 or Earlier
Latitude: 35.9657
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
21,343
68.2%
43.1%
19.7%
25.2%
17.4%
31.8%
27.5%
4.2%
37,713
70.7%
48.5%
22.2%
22.2%
15.0%
29.3%
25.5%
3.8%
67,579
70.5%
48.6%
22.4%
21.9%
14.5%
29.5%
25.6%
3.9%
37.0%
24.7%
37.2%
24.1%
36.9%
24.2%
21,345
27.5%
31.3%
17.8%
13.1%
6.3%
2.4%
1.6%
37,712
25.5%
32.5%
18.6%
13.7%
6.1%
2.1%
1.4%
67,580
25.6%
32.4%
18.5%
13.8%
6.0%
2.2%
1.5%
21,332
20.2%
31.6%
15.7%
14.6%
8.0%
9.8%
1995
37,699
19.2%
29.3%
16.1%
15.5%
9.7%
10.2%
1995
67,550
18.7%
28.8%
16.1%
15.5%
10.6%
10.4%
1994
24,240
66.5%
3.0%
7.3%
5.3%
6.5%
1.6%
2.1%
7.4%
0.4%
42,762
65.7%
2.3%
5.2%
4.4%
4.6%
1.2%
1.8%
14.1%
0.8%
75,469
64.6%
2.2%
5.7%
4.2%
3.8%
1.0%
1.7%
16.2%
0.5%
24,241
2.0%
6.8%
7.2%
16.9%
20.3%
46.8%
1972
42,764
4.4%
8.4%
8.4%
17.9%
20.1%
40.8%
1975
75,468
4.4%
8.8%
8.8%
17.2%
19.9%
41.0%
1975
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 7 of 8
Market Profile
RMSC
Latitude: 35.9657
0 - 10 minutes
0 - 20 minutes
0 - 30 minutes
Metro City Edge

Modest Income Homes
Prosperous Empty
Metro City Edge

Rural Bypasses
Midland Crowd
Rural Bypasses
Southern Satellites
Midland Crowd
$28,828,220
$1,306.58
55
$3,687,919
$167.15
76
$20,974,535
$950.63
78
$55,384,873
$2,510.21
78
$78,279,617
$3,547.87
79
$56,126,273
$2,543.81
79
$65,547,672
$2,970.82
80
$30,218,343
$1,369.59
67
$25,451,086
$1,153.52
66
$409,465,182
$18,558.18
75
$263,590,165
$11,946.69
76
$21,803,785
$988.21
80
$30,437,687
$1,379.53
73
$51,878,714
$1,309.88
55
$6,687,135
$168.84
77
$37,120,486
$937.25
77
$102,923,489
$2,598.70
81
$143,544,351
$3,624.32
81
$101,824,211
$2,570.94
80
$124,406,862
$3,141.12
84
$55,795,433
$1,408.77
68
$49,920,753
$1,260.44
72
$763,645,545
$19,281.13
78
$468,004,112
$11,816.54
75
$39,788,712
$1,004.62
81
$55,570,807
$1,403.10
74
$91,936,499
$1,278.06
53
$11,821,562
$164.34
75
$63,983,005
$889.46
73
$184,652,878
$2,566.95
80
$258,336,207
$3,591.26
80
$181,313,704
$2,520.53
78
$226,841,688
$3,153.44
85
$99,584,514
$1,384.37
67
$90,227,915
$1,254.30
72
$1,378,142,181
$19,158.24
77
$816,749,304
$11,354.04
72
$71,304,786
$991.24
80
$97,593,702
$1,356.70
72
$16,267,677
$737.30
78
$29,982,955
$757.03
80
$53,804,239
$747.96
79
1.
2.
3.
Average Spent
Average Spent
Education: Total $
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Average Spent
Shelter: Total $
Average Spent
Average Spent
Travel: Total $
Average Spent
Average Spent
February 01, 2012

2012 Esri

Try it Now!
Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT C PRIMARY RESEARCH

Focus Group Sheet Aggregation
Rectangular Field Preferences
Baseball Stakeholder #4
Field Hockey Stakeholder #1 Field Hockey Stakeholder #2
Football Stakeholder #1
1. What month of year would

your child/sport use synthetic
fields
All year
November to July
March to November
July to November
July to November
2. What month of year would

your child/sport use natural
grass fields
Six months
N/A
Would not use
N/A
3. What day is most desirable

for practice and competition
N/A
M - F (Practice) & Sa/Su

(Competition)

(Competition)
Tu - Su (Practice) & Sa/Su

(Competition)
4. What hours are most

desirable
N/A
5. How many hours per week is

needed for practice or
competition
Lacrosse Stakeholder #1
August to November
September to November,
February to July
February to May
Would not use
All year
July To November
Would not use
March to July, September to

November
Would not use
Would not use
May to October
M - R (Practice) & Sa/Su

(Competition)

(Competition)
M - Sa
N/A
M - F (Practice)
M- F (Practice) & Sa/Su

(Competition)
Weekday night & Sa/Su all day Weekday night & Sa/Su all day Weekday night & Sa/Su PM
N/A
Weekday night & Sa/Su all day Weekday night
N/A
N/A
N/A
Practice - 15/Competition - 30
Practice - 4/Competition - 6 to
8
Practice -10/Competition varies
Practice - 4 to 10/Competition
N/A
5 hrs.
6. Rental Rates for Synthetic

Grass
Competition - $100/Practice
$150
Competition - $350 to
$400/Practice - $75 to $100
Competition - $250 to $400

per team/Practice $50 to $75
$150/Practice - $45 to $50
N/A
Do not currently pay rental

field prices

field prices
Will not pay for outdoor fields
7. Rental Rates for Natural

Grass
Competition - $100/Practice
$150
N/A
N/A
$200/Practice $75 to $100
Would not pay
N/A

field prices

field prices
Will not pay for outdoor fields
8. Championship Field
Amenities
Synthetic surface, bleacher

seating for 500, lights,
concession stands, and
scoreboard

seating, press box, lights, and seating, press box , lights,
scoreboard
restrooms, and scoreboards
Synthetic surface, four lines,

bleacher seating with 1500
minimum, all amenities

and chair back seating, all
amenities
Football lining, bleacher

seats, lights, concession
stands, locker room,
scoreboard

seating for 200, lights,
concession stands, and
scoreboard

seating, press box, lights,
concessions, scoreboard,
locker rooms
Bleacher seating, lights,

concessions, and scoreboard
Synthetic surface, bleacher,

chair, and premium seating,
all amenities
9. Rental Rate Structure
Rent Forward
Rent Forward
N/A
Rent Forward
N/A
N/A
Rent Forward
Anchor
N/A
Monthly Rental
10. Acceptable Price points
N/A
N/A
Three-Day Skill: $150, FiveDay Skill $350 to $500, Clinic

$125, League $600 to $900
Three-Day Skill: $250, FiveDay Skill: $350, Clinic $400
Three-Day Skill: $50, FiveDay Skill $50 to $100, Clinic

N/A
$100 to $300, League $1500 to
$3000
N/A
Three-Day Skill: $250, FiveDay Skill: $450, Clinic: $100,

League $1500
N/A
Three-Day Skill: $350-$400,

Five-Day Skill: $600-$700,
Clinic: $40/hr.
11. Field Availability
N/A
There are plenty of schools

that have turf and they are
willing to make them available
when not used
School teams do not have

difficulty accessing fields but
club teams do. There should
be plenty of interest.
Rent with school districts of

City parks
Hard to find available space if

N/A
you do not have your own field
Grass fields are readily

accessible to Hershey and
other residents in Eastern
portion of county
N/A
N/A
Turf fields are limited and

grass fields are available but
poor
12. Additional Comment
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Need lighted fields with

scoreboards. Access to
N/A
drinking water near each field
Synthetic not readily available

N/A
for indoor or outdoor
N/A
N/A

Diamond Field Preferences
1. What month of year would your

child/sport use the following
March - November
March - November
Synthetic - March to Dec / Natural grass - April

Synthetic - March to Dec / Natural grass - 6 mo.
to Nov
2. What day is most desirable for practice

and competition
M- F (Practice)/ Sa - Su (Competition)
3. What hours are most desirable
M - F 5:30 to 8:30 PM/Sa - Su 9 Am to 6 PM
M - F 5:30 to 8:30 PM/Sa - Su all day
M - F 9 AM to 8 PM/Sa - Su all day
M - F 9 AM to 8 PM/Sa - Su all day
4. How many hours per week is needed for

practice or competition
Practice - 6/ Competition - 6/ 3 Hr. basis
Practice - 3/ Competition - 5/2 Hr. basis
Practice - 4/ Competition - 4/3 Hr. basis
3 Hr. basis
5. Diamond Type Surfaces
Synthetic
Grass infield
Natural and synthetic surfaces
Synthetic
6. Diamond Types Needed
Baseball and softball of all dimensions (Little

League through College)
Baseball (Little League and College)
Baseball College
Baseball College
7. What is needed more: Baseball or

Softball?
Baseball and softball of all dimensions (Little

League through College)
Diamond time is available but rarely at desired

time. Much greater need is on baseball.
Baseball College
Baseball College

Basketball Stakeholder #1
Indoor Volleyball/Basketball Court

Is this type of facility needed or desired?
Desired
Needed
N/A
Needed
Desired number of Courts
N/A
Is Seating Required?
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
Seasons you would use this court?
N/A
W/S/Su/F
N/A
W/S/Su/F
Times you would use this court?
N/A
Night
N/A
Afternoon/Night
Needed
Needed
Needed
N/A
N/A
N/A
Indoor Synthetic Turf
Yes
Yes
No
N/A
W/S/F
W/S/F
W/S/Su/F
N/A
Early AM/AM/Afternoon/Night Night
Early AM/AM/Afternoon/Night N/A
Desired
Desired
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
W/S/Su/F
N/A
N/A
N/A
Night
N/A
N/A
Not Needed
Not Needed
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Batting cages, baseball

infield, cardio area, strength
training, game room
Tennis courts, basketball

courts, batting cages, multipurpose room, racquetball
Tennis courts, basketball

courts, batting cages, multipurpose room, racquetball
Basketball courts, tennis

courts, cardio areas, strength
training, batting cages
MAC Court
Wrestling
Indoor Fieldhouse Components
Top Five Components Desired

Field Hockey Stakeholder #2

N/A
N/A
Not Needed
N/A
Desired
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
W/F
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Night
N/A
N/A
N/A
Needed
N/A
Needed/Desired
Needed
Needed
N/A
Yes
No
No
Yes
W/S/F
W/F
W/S/Su/F
Afternoon/Night
AM/Night
Early AM/Am/Afternoon
Early AM/AM/Afternoon/Night Early AM/AM/Afternoon/Night
Needed
N/A
Not Needed
N/A
Desired
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
W/S/F
W/F
N/A
N/A
N/A
Am/Afternoon/Night
Am/Afternoon/Night
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Not Needed
N/A
Desired
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S/Su
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Early AM/Night
N/A
N/A
N/A
Game room, 200-m track, batting

cages, strength training area,
racquetball courts
Multi-purpose rooms,
basketball courts,
natatorium, tennis courts,
200-m track
N/A
N/A
Synthetic surface, basketball

courts, climbing wall, cardio
areas, strength training area
MAC Court
Wrestling

Rugby Stakeholder #2
Soccer Stakeholder #1

Desired
Desired
Needed & Desired
Needed
N/A
N/A
No
No
Yes
N/A
W/S/F
W/S
N/A
Night
Afternoon/Night
Afternoon
Desired
Not Needed
Needed
Needed
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
W/F
W/S/F
W/S
Afternoon/Night
Afternoon/Night
Early AM/AM/Afternoon/Night AM
Desired
Desired
Not Needed
Needed
N/A
N/A
N/A
No
N/A
Yes
N/A
W/F
N/A
W/S
N/A
N/A
N/A
Am
MAC Court
Wrestling
Not Needed
Not Needed
Not Needed
Desired
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
AM
MAC rooms (1,2,3), climbing

wall, 200-m track
Basketball courts, multipurpose room, strength

training area, cardio areas,
climbing wall
Basketball courts, batting

cages, gymnastics primarily
for cheerleading
200-m track, strength

training area, batting cages,
basketball courts, cardio
areas - additional sports

Soccer Parent #1
Volleyball Stakeholder #1

N/A
Desired
N/A
Needed & Desired
N/A
5+
No
N/A
Yes
No
Winter
Early AM/AM/
Afternoon/Night
N/A
N/A
All Seasons
N/A
N/A
AM/Afternoon/Night
N/A
Needed
Needed
N/A
2 to 4
N/A

Yes
yes
Yes
N/A
Winter, Spring, Fall
Winter
N/A
N/A
AM/Afternoon/Night
Night
N/A
N/A
Desired
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
Winter
N/A
N/A
N/A
AM/Afternoon/Night
N/A
N/A
N/A
Not Needed
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200-m track, basketball

courts, tennis courts, cardio
areas, batting cages
Racquetball Courts, cardio

areas, basketball courts,
tennis courts, strength
training areas
200-m track, basketball

courts, batting cages, cardio
areas, racquetball
N/A
MAC Court
Wrestling

On-Site Amenity Preferences
Basketball Stakeholder #1
Field Hockey Stakeholder #2
Playground Area
Playground Area
Playground Area
Walking Trail
Family Pavilion
Playground Area
Playground Area
Picnic Area
Picnic Area
Sand Volleyball Courts
Family Pavilion
Outdoor Basketball Courts
Picnic Areas
Family Pavilion
Family Pavilion
Family Pavilion/BBQ pit
Outdoor Basketball
Playground Area
Walking Trail
Walking Trail
Picnic Areas
2. Desired Clubhouse Style
Rotunda
Rotunda
Two-Story Clubhouse
N/A
Two-Story Clubhouse
Two-Story Clubhouse
Two-Story Clubhouse
3. Would you use banquet/meeting space?
No need - provided through

school districts
Yes, we have two banquets per

year for 500 to 1,000
No need
We would not use the facility but Yes, we need banquet space for
N/A
other groups would.
350 people
Possibly depending on location
Concessions, parking,
Synthetic ice rink, walking trails,
N/A
lavatories, lights, and security is amphitheater, fishing pond,
desired
restaurant
N/A
1. Please list top three additional desired

spaces
N/A
Submitting a proposal for usage More courts are needed

Soccer Parent #1
Playground Area
Playground Area
Running trail
Playground Area
Picnic Area
Family Pavilion
Picnic Area
Family Pavilion
Family Pavilion
Family Pavilion
N/A
Family Pavilion
Playground Area
Playground Area
Picnic Areas
Picnic Areas
Sand Volleyball Courts
N/A
Playground Area
Picnic Area
Walking Trail
Two-Story Clubhouse
Two-Story Clubhouse
Rotunda
Rotunda
Two-Story
Rotunda
Two-Story Clubhouse
Yes, we are interested
Yes, most facilities currently

utilized are hotels
Yes, we currently use the Giant

Center
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes, most facilities currently

utilized are hotels
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Please list top three additional desired

spaces
2. Desired Clubhouse Style

Interviewee List
# Name
Company/Organization
Email
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
HRG, Inc.
Triple Crown Sports
Mid State Alliance - Member
Lower Paxton Friendship Center
Dauphin County Parks and Recreation
Advanced Hoops.com
Mid State Alliance - Basketball
Explosive Sports Performance
Mid State Alliance - Baseball
Mid-State Mavericks (Traveling baseball)
Dauphin County
Harrisburg-Hershey Regional Visitors Bureau
Mid State Alliance - Rugby
ABBCO Real Properties
Rocky Mount Sports complex
Harrisburg City Islanders
Hampton Roads Soccer Council
Local Baseball Organizer
Lower Dauphin Field Hockey
Mid State Alliance - Lacrosse/Field Hockey/Foot
Mid State Alliance - Member
Mid State Alliance - Baseball
Overland Park Soccer Complex
Maryland Soccerplex
CASA Director of Coaching
Council Bluffs Recreation Complex
Dauphin County
Mid State Alliance - Soccer/Chair
akenworthy@hrg-inc.com
Andrew Kenworthy
Adam DiCarlo
Andy Hansen
Bob Weidner
Brian Luetchford
Carl Dickson
Charlie Fortney
Charlie Johnson
Dave Brixius
Dave Kindig
Gavin Osteen
George Connor
Gregg Cook
Gregory Ball
Jim Nardo
Joel Dunn
Eric Pettis
Karen Knott
Ken Kremer
Linda Kreiser
Mark Dean
Mark Shade
Mel Kelley Jr.
Mike LaPlante
Representative
Rick Chinapoo
Rick House
Skip Memmi
Steve Mizak
andy@triplecrownsports.com
rhw@ba-inc.com
bluetchford@lowerpaxton-pa.gov
cdickson@dauphinc.org
suzchas@aol.com
davebrixius@hotmail.com
davekindig@aol.com
osteen23@msn.com
Gconnor@dauphinc.org
gregg@hersheyharrisburg.org
gregorykball@gmail.com
jnardo@abbcorealpropps.com
joel.dunn@rockymountnc.gov
john@cityislanders.com
hrscoffice@aol.com
Kremerk3@verizon.net
dam9llk8@comcast.net
madean@pa.gov
markshade86@gmail.com
melkelleydesignbuild@comcast.net
rmiller@bvsoccer.org
-
rhouse@councilbluffs-ia.gov
amemmi@dauphinc.org
smizak2@yahoo.com
Phone Number
Type
(717) 564-1121
(814) 323-4541
(717) 497-1762
(717) 657-2762
(717) 599-5188
(717) 657-2620
(717) 576-7060
(717) 571-1262
(717) 507-6810
(717) 319-4800
(717) 231-2990
(717) 329-4846
(717) 554-9844
(717) 441-4626
(717) 903-7639
(717) 580-2138
(717) 648-2473
(301) 528-1480
(717) 329-9073
(717) 623-4617
SAV/Ongoing
Phone
Email
Phone
Email
Phone
Phone
Email
Phone
Email
Phone
SAV/Ongoing
Phone
Questionnaire
Email
Phone
Phone
Phone
Phone
Phone
Phone
SAV/Ongoing
Phone
Phone
Email
Phone
Phone
SAV/Ongoing
SAV/Ongoing
Completed? Contact Date Date Completed
1/9/2012
1/2/2012
6/1/2012
1/11/2012
1/17/2012
1/13/2012
2/8/2012
1/11/2012
1/17/2012
1/11/2012
1/12/2012
1/9/2012
1/12/2012
1/11/2012
1/12/2012
3/29/2012
1/18/2012
1/13/2012
1/13/2012
1/19/2012
1/11/2012
1/9/2012
1/11/2012
1/19/2012
1/19/2012
1/9/2012
No Response
6/1/2012
1/18/2012
No Response
1/20/2012
2/8/2012
No Response
1/25/2012
No Response
1/20/2012
1/9/2012
1/20/2012
1/27/2012
No Response
1/31/2012
1/9/2012
1/9/2012
2/1/2012
1/9/2012
1/9/2012
1/25/2012
1/18/2012
1/18/2012
1/25/2012
1/19/2012
1/9/2012
1/19/2012
2/1/2012
No Response

Focus Group Participants
# Name
Company/Organization
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CASA Soccer
Hershey Soccer Club
Lower Dauphin Baseball Association
Nine Baseball
Lower Dauphin Volleyball
Lower Dauphin Lacrosse Club
Mid-State Mavericks (Traveling baseball)
Rugby/PAL Organization
Field Hockey (general)
Harrisburg Rugby Football Club
CFA Football League
Hershey Youth Lacrosse Club
Lower Dauphin Field Hockey
Mid State Alliance - Lacrosse/Field Hockey/Football
Yocum Baseball
LDC United
Hummelstown FFO Bulldogs Football
Susquehanna Soccer Cclub
CPYSL
PA Premier AAU Basketball
Lower Dauphin Soccer Association
Harrisburg Rugby Football Club
Andrew Johnson
Anthony Potter
Bill Diskerud
Brent Ronan
David MacHammer
Don Beaver
Gavin Osteen
Ian Baker
Jeff Cook
Jen Kastelic
Jennifer Bustamante
Joe Cribari
Joe Foran
John Dornberger
Linda Kreiser
Mark Dean
Mark Yocum
Michael Epler
Michael Souders
Paul Predmore
Phil Frederick
Steve Day
Tami Roth
Wade Edis
EXHIBIT D SGMA DATA
The Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association
Sports, Fitness & Recreational Activities

Topline Participation Report
2011
2011, SGMA Participation Topline Report
10 PARTICIPATION DATA
Throughout the report significant changes have been highlighted in orange. Note: The population from 2000 to 2009
increased by 9% - so sports that have increased 9% have shown no significant change since the year 2000.
AerobicActivities
Definition
2000
2007
2008
2009
2010
1year
change
10year
change
Aerobics (High impact)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
11,790
11,287
5,004
2,156
4,127
6,283
12,272
5,765
2,299
4,208
6,507
13,269
5,935
2,658
4,676
7,334
15,864
7,462
3,215
5,186
8,401
19.6%
25.7%
21.0%
10.9%
14.5%
34.6%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
21,384
22,397
9,341
4,523
8,533
13,056
24,168
11,021
5,064
8,083
13,147
25,685
11,034
5,313
9,338
14,651
27,177
12,415
6,013
8,748
14,761
5.8%
12.5%
13.2%
6.3%
0.8%
27.1%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
10,867
8,528
4,454
1,647
2,427
4,074
10,318
6,021
1,891
2,406
4,297
10,784
5,475
2,340
2,969
5,309
11,283
6,203
2,291
2,790
5,081
4.6%
13.3%
2.1%
6.0%
4.3%
3.8%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
9,303
9,757
5,993
1,789
1,975
3,764
9,267
5,794
1,809
1,664
3,473
8,662
5,027
1,853
1,782
3,635
9,231
5,663
1,681
1,887
3,568
6.6%
12.7%
9.3%
5.9%
1.8%
0.8%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
8,765
4,812
2,987
905
920
1,825
4,997
3,273
771
953
1,724
6,002
3,571
1,266
1,165
2,431
6,571
4,469
1,037
1,065
2,102
9.5%
25.1%
18.1%
8.6%
13.5%
25.0%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
6,541
3,696
1,857
688
1,151
1,839
3,490
1,981
548
961
1,508
3,097
1,512
569
1,016
1,585
3,084
1,753
533
798
1,331
0.4%
15.9%
6.3%
21.5%
16.0%
52.9%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
7,371
23,586
10,972
4,968
7,646
12,614
25,284
11,728
5,464
8,092
13,556
26,521
12,085
5,349
9,087
14,436
28,117
13,363
5,872
8,882
14,754
6.0%
10.6%
9.8%
2.3%
2.2%
281.5%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
16,065
22,294
9,661
4,560
8,073
12,633
21,893
9,504
4,620
7,769
12,388
22,045
9,740
4,423
7,882
12,305
22,960
11,115
4,603
7,241
11,844
4.2%
14.1%
4.1%
8.1%
3.7%
42.9%
Aerobics (Low impact)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Aerobics (Step)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Aquatic Exercise
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Cardio Kickboxing
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Cross-Country Ski Machine
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Elliptical Motion Trainer
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Other Exercise to Music
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Allparticipationfiguresarein000sfortheUSpopulationages6andover
2011 SGMA Research
Page 15
AerobicActivities(cont.)
Definition
2000
2007
2008
2009
2010
1year
change
10year
change
Running/Jogging
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
31,398
41,064
16,824
8,237
16,003
24,240
41,130
17,728
8,428
14,974
23,402
43,892
18,333
9,113
16,446
25,559
49,408
21,744
9,326
18,338
27,664
12.6%
18.6%
2.3%
11.5%
8.2%
57.4%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
15,282
13,521
7,107
2,651
3,763
6,414
14,204
8,017
2,702
3,485
6,188
13,101
7,004
2,581
3,516
6,097
13,436
7,462
2,516
3,457
5,973
2.6%
6.5%
2.5%
1.7%
2.0%
12.1%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
8,810
10,818
5,261
2,331
3,226
5,557
11,389
6,020
2,090
3,279
5,369
11,208
5,550
2,230
3,428
5,658
11,709
6,146
2,426
3,137
5,563
4.5%
10.7%
8.8%
8.5%
1.7%
32.9%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
4,709
6,314
3,371
1,221
1,722
2,943
6,693
3,868
1,078
1,747
2,825
6,831
3,820
1,316
1,695
3,011
8,876
5,251
1,555
2,070
3,625
29.9%
37.5%
18.2%
22.1%
20.4%
88.5%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
27,159
24,531
11,581
5,210
7,740
12,950
25,304
12,653
4,738
7,913
12,651
24,528
11,795
5,097
7,636
12,733
24,627
12,571
4,588
7,468
12,056
0.4%
6.6%
10.0%
2.2%
5.3%
9.3%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
16,144
18,368
11,131
3,946
3,291
7,237
19,041
11,741
4,322
2,978
7,300
17,443
11,024
3,471
2,948
6,419
17,145
10,620
3,343
3,000
6,343
1.7%
3.7%
3.7%
1.8%
1.2%
6.2%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
37,287
50,073
20,891
10,728
18,454
29,182
49,371
21,262
10,353
17,756
28,109
51,418
21,060
10,571
19,787
30,358
53,131
22,732
10,940
19,458
30,398
3.3%
7.9%
3.5%
1.7%
0.1%
42.5%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
90,982
108,740
31,903
20,045
56,792
76,837
111,668
35,293
20,164
56,211
76,375
110,095
33,746
19,898
56,451
76,349
114,068
35,329
20,190
58,549
78,739
3.6%
4.7%
1.5%
3.7%
3.1%
25.4%
Stair Climbing Machine
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Stationary Cycling (Recumbent)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Stationary Cycling (Group)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Stationary Cycling (Upright)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Swimming (Fitness/Competition)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Treadmill
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Walking for Fitness
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
2011 SGMA Research
Page 16
ConditioningActivities
Definition
2000
2007
2008
2009
2010
1year
change
10year
change
Abdominal Machine/Device
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
21,354
20,426
7,625
4,319
8,482
12,801
19,917
7,939
4,224
7,754
11,978
19,465
6,957
4,364
8,144
12,508
18,491
7,809
3,697
6,986
10,683
5.0%
12.2%
15.3%
14.2%
14.6%
13.4%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
7,758
8,629
2,041
1,787
4,801
6,588
9,147
3,037
2,021
4,080
6,101
9,106
3,226
1,826
4,054
5,880
9,088
3,138
1,927
4,023
5,950
0.2%
2.7%
5.5%
0.8%
1.2%
17.1%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
1,556
9,192
5,085
1,920
2,187
4,107
8,886
5,348
1,516
2,022
3,539
8,653
4,805
1,839
2,009
3,848
8,154
4,920
1,505
1,729
3,234
5.8%
2.4%
18.2%
13.9%
16.0%
424.2%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
9,407
8,782
4,451
1,609
2,722
4,331
9,021
4,776
1,850
2,395
4,245
9,174
4,725
1,806
2,643
4,449
9,763
5,320
1,579
2,864
4,443
6.4%
12.6%
12.6%
8.4%
0.1%
3.8%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
24,613
36,181
7,863
5,906
22,412
28,318
36,288
8,669
6,106
21,513
27,619
36,310
8,784
6,105
21,421
27,526
35,129
8,371
5,831
20,927
26,758
3.3%
4.7%
4.5%
2.3%
2.8%
42.7%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
3,424
1,827
520
1,077
1,597
3,205
1,843
489
873
1,362
3,180
1,794
578
808
1,386
0.8%
2.7%
18.2%
7.4%
1.8%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
17,758
10,736
2,808
4,214
7,022
20,109
11,549
3,786
4,774
8,560
21,886
12,541
3,817
5,528
9,345
8.8%
8.6%
0.8%
15.8%
9.2%
Calisthenics
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Pilates Training
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Rowing Machine
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Stretching
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Tai Chi
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Yoga
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
2011 SGMA Research
Page 17
StrengthActivities
Definition
2000
2007
2008
2009
2010
1year
change
10year
change
Free Weights (Barbells)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
24,800
25,499
8,181
4,950
12,368
17,318
26,142
8,727
5,402
12,013
17,415
27,048
8,329
5,470
13,249
18,719
27,339
9,814
5,266
12,259
17,525
1.1%
17.8%
3.7%
7.5%
6.4%
10.2%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
27,470
32,371
10,797
6,594
14,980
21,574
34,391
11,814
6,997
15,580
22,577
35,744
11,452
7,666
16,626
24,292
37,388
13,504
7,992
15,892
23,884
4.6%
17.9%
4.3%
4.4%
1.7%
36.1%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
33,784
43,821
15,635
8,819
19,367
28,186
42,997
16,070
8,884
18,043
26,927
45,934
15,563
9,562
20,809
30,371
45,922
17,228
9,655
19,039
28,694
0.0%
10.7%
1.0%
8.5%
5.5%
35.9%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
20,626
25,823
9,577
5,313
10,933
16,246
24,514
9,604
4,907
10,003
14,910
24,762
9,615
4,843
10,304
15,147
24,581
9,658
4,660
10,263
14,923
0.7%
0.4%
3.8%
0.4%
1.5%
19.2%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
32,144
39,290
14,555
8,012
16,723
24,735
38,397
14,929
8,063
15,405
23,469
39,752
13,892
8,382
17,478
25,860
38,618
15,076
7,800
15,742
23,542
2.9%
8.5%
6.9%
9.9%
9.0%
20.1%
Free Weights (Dumbells)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Free Weights (Hand Weights)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Home Gym Exercise
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Weight/Resistance Machines
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
2011 SGMA Research
Page 18
IndividualSports
Definition
2000
2007
2008
2009
2010
1year
change
10year
change
Adventure Racing
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
1time
29times
10+times
2+times
698
257
215
226
441
920
185
471
264
735
1,089
501
429
159
588
1,339
367
486
326
812
23.0%
26.7%
13.3%
105.0%
38.1%
Archery
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
125times
2651times
52+times
26+times
6,285
5,950
4,839
687
424
1,111
6,409
5,300
548
561
1,109
6,326
5,371
534
421
955
6,319
5,402
540
377
917
0.1%
0.6%
1.1%
10.5%
4.0%
0.5%
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
46,336
51,089
30,795
6,824
13,470
20,294
49,018
31,840
5,823
11,355
17,178
43,005
27,303
5,574
10,128
15,702
39,385
25,817
4,861
8,707
13,568
8.4%
5.4%
12.8%
14.0%
13.6%
15.0%
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
51,938
60,184
44,762
5,225
10,197
15,422
58,650
45,167
4,458
9,025
13,482
57,293
43,997
4,394
8,902
13,296
55,877
43,467
4,290
8,119
12,409
2.5%
1.2%
2.4%
8.8%
6.7%
7.6%
Billiards/Pool
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Bowling
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Boxing for Fitness
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
4,788
2,495
605
1,688
2,293
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
855
598
104
153
257
Boxing for Competition *
Darts
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
24,709
16,106
2,951
5,652
8,603
23,451
15,584
2,817
5,050
7,866
20,022
13,281
2,286
4,455
6,741
18,118
12,053
2,033
4,031
6,064
9.5%
9.2%
11.1%
9.5%
10.0%
29,528
28,571
27,103
26,122
3.6%
12,098
8,330
1,029
2,739
3,768
10,816
7,384
971
2,461
3,432
9,755
6,883
763
2,109
2,872
9,809
6,971
828
2,010
2,838
0.6%
1.3%
8.5%
4.7%
1.2%
11,430
9,514
770
1,146
1,916
10,999
9,598
556
845
1,401
10,929
9,361
668
900
1,568
12,024
10,273
679
1,072
1,751
10.0%
9.7%
1.6%
19.1%
11.7%
Golf (9/18 Hole Course)
Totalparticipation
1+times
28,844
9.4%
Horseback Riding
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
Ice Skating
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
11,835
* Boxing category was split into 2 to now cover: Boxing for fitness and Boxing for competition, so comparisons with the previous
boxing category cannot be made.
2011 SGMA Research
Page 19
1.6%
IndividualSports(cont.)
Martial Arts
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Definition
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
2000
6,161
2007
6,865
1,366
691
4,808
5,499
2008
6,770
1,495
622
4,653
5,276
2009
6,516
1,374
560
4,582
5,142
2010
5,488
1,473
466
3,549
4,015
1year
change
10year
change
15.8%
7.2%
16.8%
22.5%
21.9%
10.9%
Mixed Martial Arts for Competition
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
910
528
124
258
382
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
1,745
577
219
949
1,168
Mixed Martial Arts for Fitness
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Roller Skating (2x2 wheels)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
7,746
8,921
7,004
675
1,242
1,917
7,855
6,291
456
1,108
1,564
8,147
6,357
546
1,244
1,790
8,126
6,220
576
1,330
1,906
0.3%
2.2%
5.5%
6.9%
6.5%
4.9%
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
21,912
10,814
6,094
1,365
3,355
4,720
9,608
5,909
1,228
2,471
3,699
8,276
5,234
1,090
1,952
3,042
7,980
5,280
1,119
1,581
2,700
3.6%
0.9%
2.7%
19.0%
11.2%
63.6%
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
9,968
6,782
2,971
927
2,884
4,460
6,394
2,168
1,017
3,216
4,233
5,064
1,676
684
2,704
3,388
4,861
1,755
776
2,330
3,106
4.0%
4.7%
13.5%
13.8%
8.3%
51.2%
1+times
125times
2651times
52+times
26+times
9,859
8,429
4,589
1,491
2,349
3,840
7,807
4,074
1,444
2,289
3,733
7,352
3,937
1,130
2,285
3,415
6,808
3,727
1,188
1,892
3,080
7.4%
5.3%
5.1%
17.2%
9.8%
30.9%
1+times
4,167
4,216
4,857
4,833
5,136
6.3%
23.3%
1+times
1time
29times
10+times
2+times
483
121
219
143
362
602
288
197
117
314
666
219
286
161
447
929
192
435
259
694
39.5%
12.3%
52.3%
60.7%
55.3%
1+times
1time
29times
10+times
2+times
798
248
375
175
550
1,087
352
497
238
736
1,208
396
519
293
812
1,978
595
668
529
1,197
63.7%
50.2%
28.7%
80.5%
47.4%
Roller Skating (Inline wheels)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Scooter Riding (Non-motorized)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Skateboarding
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Trail Running
Totalparticipation
Triathlon (Non-Traditional/Off Road)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Triathlon (Traditional/Road)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
* Martial Arts category was split into 3 to now cover Martial Arts, MMA for fitness and MMA for competition so this will have
impacted the total numbers for the pure Martial Arts category.
2011 SGMA Research
Page 20
RacquetSports
Definition
2000
2007
2008
2009
2010
1year
change
10year
change
Badminton
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
8,769
7,057
4,785
910
1,362
2,272
7,239
5,089
905
1,245
2,150
7,699
5,156
1,094
1,449
2,543
7,590
4,789
983
1,818
2,801
1.4%
7.1%
10.1%
25.5%
10.1%
830
1,177
1,503
27.7%
4,229
2,292
544
1,393
1,937
4,993
2,914
649
1,430
2,079
4,575
2,699
638
1,238
1,876
4,630
2,809
594
1,228
1,822
1.2%
4.1%
6.9%
0.8%
2.9%
612
323
66
223
289
706
456
98
152
250
885
567
140
178
318
1,177
811
74
292
366
33.0%
43.0%
47.1%
64.2%
15.2%
13.4%
Cardio Tennis
Totalparticipation
1+times
Racquetball
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
4,475
3.5%
Squash
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
Table Tennis
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
12,712
15,955
10,865
1,787
3,303
5,090
17,201
12,196
1,892
3,113
5,005
19,301
13,351
2,008
3,942
5,950
19,446
13,139
2,167
4,140
6,307
0.8%
1.6%
7.9%
5.0%
6.0%
53.0%
1+times
12,974
16,940
18,558
18,534
18,903
2.0%
45.7%
Tennis
Totalparticipation
2011 SGMA Research
Page 21
TeamSports
Definition
2000
2007
2008
2009
2010
1year
change
10year
change
Baseball
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
15,848
16,058
4,493
2,780
8,785
11,565
15,020
4,854
2,422
7,744
10,166
13,837
4,424
2,352
7,061
9,413
14,558
4,856
2,318
7,385
9,703
5.2%
9.8%
1.4%
4.6%
3.1%
8.1%
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
26,215
25,961
7,956
4,279
13,726
18,005
26,254
8,582
3,997
13,675
17,672
24,007
7,558
3,961
12,488
16,449
26,304
8,629
4,029
13,646
17,675
9.6%
14.2%
1.7%
9.3%
7.5%
0.3%
1+times
125times
2651times
52+times
26+times
2,634
3,279
1,144
649
1,485
2,135
3,104
1,357
724
1,023
1,746
3,036
1,260
650
1,126
1,776
3,232
1,664
581
987
1,568
6.5%
32.1%
10.6%
12.3%
11.7%
22.7%
1,127
550
62
515
577
1,118
570
165
383
548
1,066
415
171
480
651
1,298
662
254
383
637
21.8%
59.5%
48.5%
20.2%
2.2%
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
7,310
4,001
1,169
2,140
3,309
6,553
3,551
1,304
1,698
3,002
6,767
3,695
1,226
1,846
3,072
3.3%
4.1%
6.0%
8.7%
2.3%
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
10,493
6,199
1,562
2,732
4,294
8,959
5,100
1,401
2,458
3,859
8,367
4,947
1,052
2,367
3,419
6.6%
3.0%
24.9%
3.7%
11.4%
Basketball
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Cheerleading
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Field Hockey
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
Football (Flag)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Football (Touch)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Football (Tackle)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
125times
2651times
52+times
26+times
8,229
7,939
3,700
1,578
2,661
4,239
7,692
3,470
1,740
2,482
4,221
6,794
3,112
1,205
2,477
3,682
6,905
3,008
1,251
2,646
3,897
1.6%
3.3%
3.8%
6.8%
5.8%
16.1%
1+times
149times
5099times
100+times
50+times
4,876
4,066
2,262
822
982
1,804
3,883
2,379
804
700
1,504
4,021
2,542
766
713
1,479
4,815
2,926
910
978
1,888
19.7%
15.1%
18.8%
37.2%
27.7%
1.2%
Gymnastics
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
2011 SGMA Research
Page 22
TeamSports(cont.)
Definition
2000
2007
2008
2009
2010
1year
change
10year
change
Ice Hockey
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
2,432
1,840
558
254
1,028
1,282
1,902
889
213
800
1,014
2,134
946
307
881
1,188
2,145
1,066
227
853
1,080
0.5%
12.7%
26.1%
3.2%
9.1%
11.8%
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
518
1,058
349
127
582
709
1,127
562
183
382
565
1,197
523
102
572
674
1,648
751
198
699
897
37.7%
43.6%
94.1%
22.2%
33.1%
218.1%
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
3,615
5,476
3,195
735
1,546
2,281
4,857
2,929
785
1,143
1,929
4,552
2,842
800
910
1,710
3,655
2,635
363
657
1,020
19.7%
7.3%
54.6%
27.8%
40.4%
1.1%
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
3,888
1,681
950
187
544
731
1,456
968
109
379
488
1,397
836
178
383
561
1,350
1,015
42
293
335
3.4%
21.4%
76.4%
23.5%
40.3%
65.3%
617
301
71
245
316
690
401
50
239
289
750
440
102
208
310
1,130
757
81
292
373
50.7%
72.0%
20.6%
40.4%
20.3%
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
4,237
1,866
805
1,566
2,371
4,737
2,099
847
1,791
2,638
4,913
2,002
1,046
1,865
2,911
4,927
2,309
825
1,793
2,618
0.3%
15.3%
21.1%
3.9%
10.1%
1+times
125times
2651times
52+times
26+times
13,708
7,342
3,536
2,830
6,366
14,223
7,742
3,647
2,834
6,481
13,691
7,347
3,376
2,968
6,344
14,075
7,488
3,544
3,043
6,587
2.8%
1.9%
5.0%
2.5%
3.8%
2,345
1,013
570
762
1,332
2,316
1,096
528
692
1,220
2,636
1,236
581
819
1,400
2,389
1,397
463
530
993
9.4%
13.0%
20.3%
35.3%
29.1%
Lacrosse
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Paintball
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Roller Hockey
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Rugby
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
Soccer (Indoor)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Soccer (Outdoor)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Softball (Fast Pitch)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
125times
2651times
52+times
26+times
2,693
11.3%
2011 SGMA Research
Page 23
TeamSports(cont.)
Definition
2000
2007
2008
2009
2010
1year
change
10year
change
Softball (Slow-Pitch)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
13,577
9,485
3,415
2,121
3,949
6,070
9,835
3,929
2,104
3,802
5,906
8,525
3,388
1,898
3,239
5,137
8,429
3,597
1,799
3,033
4,832
1.1%
6.2%
5.2%
6.4%
5.9%
1+times
125times
2651times
52+times
26+times
4,691
1,977
1,152
1,562
2,714
4,516
2,204
1,045
1,267
2,312
4,443
2,145
1,049
1,249
2,298
4,322
1,869
1,011
1,442
2,453
2.7%
12.9%
3.6%
15.5%
6.7%
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
4,038
2,720
470
848
1,318
4,879
3,520
464
895
1,359
4,392
3,119
444
829
1,273
4,749
3,230
615
903
1,518
8.1%
3.6%
38.5%
8.9%
19.2%
3,878
2,439
625
814
1,330
4,171
3,091
430
651
1,080
4,476
3,215
549
712
1,261
5,028
3,529
617
883
1,500
12.3%
9.8%
12.4%
24.0%
19.0%
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
6,986
2,930
1,182
2,874
4,056
8,190
3,491
1,206
3,493
4,699
7,283
3,297
1,115
2,871
3,986
7,346
3,224
1,129
2,994
4,123
0.9%
2.2%
1.3%
4.3%
3.4%
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
4,940
3,280
771
889
1,660
5,086
3,840
407
839
1,246
4,853
3,558
586
709
1,295
4,574
3,160
443
971
1,414
5.7%
11.2%
24.4%
37.0%
9.2%
3,313
1,736
596
981
1,458
3,358
1,877
656
825
1,481
2,982
1,756
457
769
1,226
2,089
967
481
641
1,122
29.9%
44.9%
5.3%
16.6%
8.5%
37.9%
Track and Field
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Ultimate Frisbee
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Volleyball (Beach)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
5,248
4.2%
Volleyball (Court)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Volleyball (Grass)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Wrestling
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
125times
2651times
52+times
26+times
3,743
44.2%
2011 SGMA Research
Page 24
OutdoorSports
Definition
2000
2007
2008
2009
2010
1year
change
10year
change
Backpacking Overnight - More Than 1/4 Mile From Vehicle/Home
Totalparticipation
1+times
6,637
7,867
7,647
8,349
9.2%
1,887
750
169
968
1,137
1,904
761
294
849
1,143
1,811
724
143
944
1,087
2,369
1,006
185
1,179
1,364
30.8%
39.0%
29.4%
24.9%
25.5%
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
6,892
3,051
1,003
2,838
3,841
7,592
3,491
1,274
2,827
4,101
7,142
3,296
1,015
2,831
3,846
7,161
3,476
1,141
2,422
3,563
0.3%
5.5%
12.4%
14.4%
7.4%
1+times
125times
2651times
52+times
26+times
38,940
17,789
8,669
12,482
21,151
38,114
18,164
8,456
11,494
19,950
40,140
18,906
8,991
12,243
21,234
39,320
19,025
8,716
11,505
20,221
2.0%
0.6%
3.1%
6.0%
4.8%
13,476
14,399
13,294
13,339
0.3%
16,168
7,942
3,032
5,194
8,226
16,517
8,019
3,476
5,022
8,498
17,436
8,782
3,356
5,298
8,654
15,865
8,146
2,875
4,845
7,720
9.0%
7.2%
14.3%
8.6%
10.8%
1+times
31,375
33,686
34,338
30,996
9.7%
1+times
4,514
4,769
4,313
4,770
10.6%
2,062
2,288
1,835
2,198
19.8%
Bicycling - BMX
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
3,213
26.3%
Bicycling (Mountain/Non-Paved Surface)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Bicycling (Road/paved surface)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Birdwatching More Than 1/4 Mile From Home/Vehicle
Totalparticipation
1+times
Camping (Recreational vehicle)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
17,893
11.3%
Camping Within 1/4 Mile of Vehicle/Home
Totalparticipation
Climbing (Sport/Indoor/Boulder)
Totalparticipation
Climbing (Traditional/Ice/Mountaineering)
Totalparticipation
1+times
Fishing (Fly)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
6,717
5,756
2,923
975
1,858
2,833
5,941
3,113
1,167
1,661
2,828
5,568
3,084
969
1,515
2,484
5,478
2,960
953
1,565
2,518
1.6%
4.0%
1.7%
3.3%
1.4%
18.4%
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
43,696
43,859
20,145
8,262
15,452
23,714
40,331
18,916
7,387
14,028
21,415
40,961
20,082
7,454
13,425
20,879
38,860
19,071
7,246
12,543
19,789
5.1%
5.0%
2.8%
6.6%
5.2%
11.1%
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
14,739
14,437
8,460
2,169
3,808
5,977
13,804
8,415
2,050
3,339
5,389
12,303
7,316
1,741
3,246
4,987
11,809
6,959
1,953
2,896
4,849
4.0%
4.9%
12.2%
10.8%
2.8%
19.9%
Fishing (Freshwater-Other)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Fishing (Saltwater)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
2011 SGMA Research
Page 25
OutdoorSports(cont.)
Definition
2000
2007
2008
2009
2010
1year
change
10year
change
Hiking (Day)
Totalparticipation
1+times
30,051
29,965
32,511
32,572
32,496
0.2%
8.1%
4,633
3,818
1,718
596
1,504
2,100
3,722
1,742
655
1,325
1,980
4,226
2,133
784
1,309
2,093
3,908
1,810
929
1,169
2,098
7.5%
15.1%
18.5%
10.7%
0.2%
15.6%
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
2,595
1,572
449
574
1,023
2,873
1,776
495
602
1,097
2,276
1,451
306
519
825
2,709
1,710
499
500
999
19.0%
17.8%
63.1%
3.7%
21.1%
1+times
112times
1324times
25+times
13+times
10,635
6,960
1,742
1,933
3,675
10,344
6,958
1,848
1,538
3,385
11,114
8,056
1,712
1,346
3,058
10,150
7,296
1,544
1,309
2,853
8.7%
9.4%
9.8%
2.7%
6.7%
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
8,545
4,171
1,797
2,577
4,374
8,731
4,473
1,835
2,423
4,258
8,490
4,767
1,635
2,088
3,723
8,062
4,210
1,788
2,064
3,852
5.0%
11.7%
9.4%
1.1%
3.5%
Hunting (Bow)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
Hunting (Handgun)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Hunting (Rifle)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Hunting (Shotgun)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Shooting (Sport Clays)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
4,437
4,115
2,596
525
994
1,519
4,282
2,773
652
857
1,509
4,182
2,674
546
962
1,508
4,399
2,941
728
731
1,459
5.2%
10.0%
33.3%
24.0%
3.2%
0.9%
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
3,416
3,376
2,051
462
863
1,325
3,669
2,212
611
846
1,457
3,368
2,171
421
776
1,197
3,610
2,414
501
695
1,196
7.2%
11.2%
19.0%
10.4%
0.1%
5.7%
11,736
6,222
2,090
3,424
5,514
13,365
7,305
2,342
3,718
6,060
12,473
7,253
1,886
3,334
5,220
12,497
7,437
1,924
3,136
5,060
0.2%
2.5%
2.0%
5.9%
3.1%
12,436
6,743
2,097
3,596
5,693
13,102
7,399
2,057
3,646
5,704
12,730
7,530
1,854
3,346
5,200
12,544
7,678
1,952
2,914
4,866
1.5%
2.0%
5.3%
12.9%
6.4%
22,974
24,113
21,291
21,025
1.2%
Shooting (Trap/Skeet)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Target Shooting (Handgun)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
Target Shooting (Rifle)
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
10,022
25.2%
Wildlife Viewing More Than 1/4 Mile From Home/Vehicle
Totalparticipation
1+times
2011 SGMA Research
Page 26
WinterSports
Definition
2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010

season
season
season
season
1year
change
3year
change
Skiing (Alpine/Downhill)
Totalparticipation
1+times
10,362
10,346
10,919
11,504
5.4%
11.0%
1+times
3,530
3,848
4,157
4,530
9.0%
28.3%
1+times
2,817
2,711
2,950
3,647
23.6%
29.5%
1+times
6,841
7,159
7,421
8,196
10.4%
19.8%
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
4,811
2,814
799
1,198
1,997
4,660
2,917
541
1,202
1,743
4,798
2,995
861
942
1,803
5,116
3,177
709
1,230
1,939
6.6%
6.1%
17.7%
30.6%
7.5%
6.3%
12.9%
11.2%
2.7%
2.9%
1+times
2,400
2,922
3,431
3,823
11.4%
59.3%
1+times
1,173
1,435
1,482
1,821
22.9%
55.2%
Skiing (Cross-country)
Totalparticipation
Skiing (Freestyle)
Totalparticipation
Snowboarding
Totalparticipation
Snowmobiling
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Snowshoeing
Totalparticipation
Telemarking (Downhill)
Totalparticipation
2011 SGMA Research
Page 27
WaterSports
Definition
2000
2007
2008
2009
2010
1year
change
10year
change
Boardsailing/Windsurfing
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
1,739
1,118
796
121
201
322
1,307
969
122
216
339
1,128
864
112
152
264
1,617
1,027
320
271
591
43.4%
18.9%
185.7%
78.3%
123.9%
7.0%
10,880
9,797
9,935
10,058
10,553
4.9%
3.0%
9,475
8,055
4,919
1,217
1,919
2,727
7,815
5,135
1,037
1,643
2,680
7,724
5,140
1,116
1,468
2,584
7,753
5,265
1,078
1,409
2,487
0.4%
2.4%
3.4%
4.0%
3.8%
18.2%
1+times
5,070
6,240
6,212
6,465
4.1%
1+times
1,485
1,780
1,771
2,144
21.1%
1+times
1,207
1,242
1,369
1,842
34.6%
Canoeing
Totalparticipation
1+times
Jet Skiing
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
Kayaking (Recreational)
Totalparticipation
Kayaking (Sea/Touring)
Totalparticipation
Kayaking (White Water)
Totalparticipation
Rafting
Totalparticipation
1+times
5,259
4,340
4,651
4,318
4,460
3.3%
15.2%
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
4,405
3,786
2,264
696
826
1,421
4,226
2,640
633
953
1,586
4,342
2,733
666
943
1,609
3,869
2,475
555
839
1,394
10.9%
9.4%
16.7%
11.0%
13.4%
12.2%
Sailing
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
2011 SGMA Research
Page 28
WaterSports(cont.)
Definition
2000
2007
2008
2009
2010
1year
change
10year
change
Scuba Diving
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
4,305
2,965
1,947
445
573
1,018
3,216
2,183
542
491
1,033
2,723
1,847
386
490
876
3,153
2,180
489
485
974
15.8%
18.0%
26.7%
1.0%
11.2%
26.8%
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
10,302
9,294
7,168
1,142
984
1,919
10,296
7,968
1,232
1,096
2,328
9,358
7,464
1,106
788
1,894
9,305
7,194
1,201
911
2,112
0.6%
3.6%
8.6%
15.6%
11.5%
9.7%
Snorkeling
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Stand-Up Paddling
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
1,050
819
121
109
230
Surfing
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
2,191
2,206
1,256
402
548
950
2,607
1,559
263
785
1,048
2,403
1,298
398
707
1,105
2,767
1,548
482
737
1,219
15.1%
19.3%
21.1%
4.2%
10.3%
26.3%
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
4,558
3,521
2,405
451
665
1,116
3,544
2,413
537
594
1,131
3,577
2,423
530
624
1,154
3,645
2,500
569
577
1,146
1.9%
3.2%
7.4%
7.5%
0.7%
20.0%
1+times
17times
814times
15+times
8+times
8,765
5,918
3,811
805
1,302
2,107
5,593
3,781
845
967
1,812
4,862
3,308
756
798
1,554
4,836
3,248
838
749
1,587
0.5%
1.8%
10.8%
6.1%
2.1%
44.8%
Wakeboarding
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
Water Skiing
Totalparticipation
Casual
Regular
Frequent
CORE
2011 SGMA Research
Page 29
EXHIBIT E SITE ANALYSIS &

EVALUATION

Site Evaluations
Scoring
Site A
Site B
Site C
Location
18
28
28
Transportation Accessibility
Impediments to Development
Land Cost
Site Considerations
23
22
27
Totals (Out of 85):
50
60
69
Note: Each category is ranked 1 to 5, 5 being the most desirable

Site Evaluations
Site A
Site B
Site C
1. Location
Zip Code
17112 - Ranked 5/24
17111 - Ranked 2/24
17057 - Ranked 11/24
Facility Image
Near Route 443 in West Hanover Township. Light

residential farmland to east and south. Primary access
from the east will route patrons past Hollywood Casino.
Route 441 provides direct access to I-283. Light

residential to the south, farm land to the north.
Just south of PA - 283. Between industrial park and

light residential to south and west. Room for additional
development.
Proximity to Retail & Restaurant
Secluded. Nearly 14 miles to concentrations of retail

establishments.
Approximately 3 miles to large concentrations of retail

and restaurants. Ideally situated.
Further south than Oberlin and Longview. Six miles to

Harrisburg mall and large concentrations of retail
Proximity to Nearest Hotel
Four hotels are 6 miles away in Grantville. Large

concentration of hotel rooms is at least 12 miles from
the site.
Proximity to Support Sites
North of Central Dauphin High School. Piketon Valley

Rd provides connectivity.
Less than 2 miles to critical mass of hotels along I-283

corridor and Eisenhower Blvd. No less than 10
properties within a 5 mile radius.
Proximate to Hollywood Park, which contains four
amateur softball diamonds, two tennis courts, and open
green space.
Potential For Economic Leakage out of

the County
High. Patrons may be likely to stay in hotels in Lebanon

County. "Stay to play" model may be necessary to retain
economic activity in the County.
Low. Teams would likely stay at hotels proximate to

site.
Low. Teams would likely stay at hotels proximate to

site.
Potential for Adjacent Development
Limited. Surrounding neighborhood is zoned

agricultural/commercial.
Limited. Site would not allow for development due to

limited acreage. Surrounded primarily by farmland.
High. Strong visibility, access, and Acreage can be

parceled off into separate developments. Potential
exists for a mixed-use development.
Proximity to Interstate
Over five miles
2 miles
Less than 1 mile
Proximity to Airport
24 miles
7 miles
4 miles
Approximately 4 miles to hotels on Eisenhower Blvd.

Similar access as Oberlin & Longview site
Just south on Oberlin Road is the Middletown Area High
School which has several rectangle fields.
2. Transportation Accessibility

Site Evaluations
Site A
Site B
Site C
3. Impediments to Development
Nearby residential areas may present opposition to
lights and increased traffic. Utility issues need to be
vetted.
Utility poles bisect property. Would need to re-located.

Nearby residential areas may present opposition to
lights and increased traffic.
Land was re-zoned as commercial highway. Prior

developer proposals included big box retail and received
minimal opposition.
Approximately $3,500,000
Approximately $2,750,000
Between $4 and $5 million for 70 acres
Approximate Acreage
63 - can be assembled into 70 to 75 acres
69
110 to 125 - varies
Zoning and Regulatory Issues
Parcel - 68/005/002. Zoned as flexible rural agriculture.

Commercial use is ok per W Hanover Township.
Parcels - 36/004/006 & 36/004/002. Farmland

unimproved. Lower Swatara zoning stipulates land can
be used for recreational purposes.
Parcels - 36/011/012 & 36/011/006. Farmland with

buildings. Lower Swatara zoning stipulates land can be
used for recreational purposes
Utilities
Site includes all utilities minus sewer.
Contains electricity power, irrigation, water, cable,

gas/propane. No known capacity issues.
Water, gas, sewer, data, and electric are available but

would need to be connected to the site. There are no
known capacity issues.
Topography
Land contains some rolling hills. Site work would be

required.
Sloped land. Site work would be required. Site

dimensions may impact configuration.
Sloped, hilly land. With each parcel land provides room

for various configurations.
Floodplain
Not in FEMA 100-year floodplain
On-Site Improvements
Two-story, 672 SF farmhouse. Built in 1860 and valued

at $75,700
None known
Two-story, 625 SF farmhouse. Built in 1918 and valued

at $85,000
Potential Challenges
4. Land Cost
Land Acquisition Cost
5. Site Considerations
EXHIBIT F FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

Financial Analysis
Scenario: Moderate
Summary Page
Revenues (2016)
Concession Income
$
$
$
278,400
46,700
40,700
Membership Income
Programming Income
Tenant Income
Total Revenues
$
$
$
$
77,200
27,400
470,000
Expenses (2016)
Personnel
Non-Personnel
Utilities
General & Admin
Insurance
Field Maintenance
Total Expenditures
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
201,300
327,500
48,300
26,300
17,500
5,800
206,200
528,800
Net Operating Income

($58,800)
$0
($59,000)
Budget (2012)
Hard Costs
Soft Costs
Project Costs
Program
Year Opened
Clubhouse (SF)
Fixed Seating
Berm Seating
Gravel Parking Spaces
$
$
$
11,190,000
2,120,000
12,974,000
2016
7,560
1,500
500
900
Competition Spaces
Total Rectangles
Synthetic Rectangles
Natural Grass Rectangles
Number Lighted
8
4
4
4
Total Diamonds
Championship Diamond
Natural Grass Diamond
Number Lighted
5
1
4
5

Financial Analysis
Pro Forma
Scenario: Moderate

4
5
2016
2017
2018
7
2019
8
2020
9
2021
10
2022
11
2023
12
2024
13
2025
Revenues (2016)
Concession Income
Membership Income
Programming Income
Tenant Income
Total Revenues
$278,400
$46,700
$40,700
$77,200
$27,400
$0
$470,000
$328,000
$55,100
$46,100
$91,000
$32,200
$0
$552,000
$381,300
$64,000
$51,500
$105,700
$37,400
$0
$640,000
$417,300
$70,100
$54,300
$115,800
$41,000
$0
$699,000
$434,200
$72,900
$54,300
$120,400
$42,700
$0
$725,000
$451,400
$75,800
$59,700
$125,300
$44,400
$0
$757,000
$469,500
$78,800
$59,700
$130,300
$46,100
$0
$784,000
$488,200
$82,000
$59,700
$135,500
$48,000
$0
$813,000
$507,800
$85,200
$59,700
$140,900
$49,900
$0
$844,000
$528,100
$88,600
$59,700
$146,500
$51,900
$0
$875,000
Expenses (2016)
Personnel
Utilities
General & Admin
Insurance
Advertising
Field Maintenance
Total Expenditures
$201,300
$48,300
$26,300
$17,500
$23,400
$5,800
$206,200
$529,000
$209,300
$56,900
$27,400
$18,200
$24,300
$6,100
$243,000
$585,000
$217,700
$66,100
$28,500
$19,000
$25,300
$6,300
$282,500
$645,000
$226,400
$72,400
$29,600
$19,700
$26,300
$6,600
$309,200
$690,000
$235,500
$75,300
$30,800
$20,500
$27,400
$6,800
$321,600
$718,000
$244,900
$78,300
$32,000
$21,300
$28,500
$7,100
$334,500
$747,000
$254,700
$81,400
$33,300
$22,200
$29,600
$7,400
$347,900
$777,000
$264,900
$84,700
$34,600
$23,100
$30,800
$7,700
$361,800
$808,000
$275,500
$88,100
$36,000
$24,000
$32,000
$8,000
$376,200
$840,000
$286,500
$91,600
$37,500
$25,000
$33,300
$8,300
$391,300
$874,000
$0
$0
$0
$6,750
$5,250
$7,500
$5,250
$3,750
$3,000
$750
$2,000
$2,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$1,000
$0

($59,000)
($33,000)
($5,000)

Scenario: Moderate

Financial Analysis
Preliminary Budget
2012 Dollars
2015 Dollars
10%
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
0.97
10,854,000
12,571,000
2,120,000
2,450,000
Total Project Cost
12,974,000
15,021,000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Land Acquisition
Clubhouse
Fieldhouse
Spectator Seating
Artificial Turf Fields
Natural Grass Fields
Natural Grass Diamonds
Field Lights
Additional Equpiment (Shed, Pavilion)
Parking
Site Work/General Conditions/Utilities
Construction Contingency
[1] RS Means Square Foot Costs 33rd Annual Edition 2011

[2] Utilizing Harrisburg' .97 location factor applied to hard costs of construction.
$
1,058,000 $
$
225,000 $
2,800,000 $
800,000 $
1,500,000 $
900,000 $
180,000 $
1,350,000 $
1,500,000 $
881,000 $
1,225,000
260,000
3,241,000
926,000
1,737,000
1,042,000
208,000
1,563,000
1,737,000
1,020,000
5%

Financial Analysis
Scenario: Moderate
Revenues
4
2016
2017
9
2021
100%
$ 113,100
$
54,200
$
26,200
$
11,900
$ 129,600
$
75,800
10
2022
100%
$ 117,600
$
56,400
$
27,300
$
12,400
$ 134,900
$
78,800
11
2023
100%
$ 122,300
$
58,700
$
28,300
$
12,900
$ 140,200
$
82,000
12
2024
100%
$ 127,200
$
61,000
$
29,500
$
13,400
$ 145,900
$
85,200
13
2025
100%
$ 132,300
$
63,500
$
30,700
$
13,900
$ 151,800
$
88,600
$
$
$
$
$
$
Advertising
100%
40,700 $
100%
46,100 $
100%
51,500 $
100%
54,300 $
100%
54,300 $
100%
59,700 $
100%
59,700 $
100%
59,700 $
100%
59,700 $
100%
59,700
Membership Revenue
Memberships
Membership Income
$
$
75%
77,175 $
77,200 $
85%
91,035 $
91,000 $
95%
105,735 $
105,700 $
100%
115,800 $
115,800 $
100%
120,400 $
120,400 $
100%
125,300 $
125,300 $
100%
130,300 $
130,300 $
100%
135,500 $
135,500 $
100%
140,900 $
140,900 $
100%
146,500
146,500
Programming
Programming Income
Less Expense
Programming Income
$
$
$
75%
145,900 $
109,400 $
27,400 $
85%
151,700 $
113,800 $
32,200 $
95%
157,800 $
118,400 $
37,400 $
100%
164,100 $
123,100 $
41,000 $
100%
170,700 $
128,000 $
42,700 $
100%
177,500 $
133,100 $
44,400 $
100%
184,600 $
138,500 $
46,100 $
100%
192,000 $
144,000 $
48,000 $
100%
199,600 $
149,700 $
49,900 $
100%
207,600
155,700
51,900
Minor League Revenue

Tenant Income
Tenant Income
$
$
$470,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
85%
96,700
46,400
22,400
10,200
110,900
55,100
8
2020
100%
$ 108,700
$
52,200
$
25,200
$
11,500
$ 124,700
$
72,900
Concession Revenue
Baseball Tournaments
General Play/Practice
Programming
Less Cost of Goods Sold
Concession Income
Total Income
75%
92,900
44,600
21,500
9,800
106,500
46,700
7
2019
95%
100%
100,500 $ 104,600
48,200 $
50,200
23,300 $
24,200
10,600 $
11,000
115,200 $ 119,900
64,000 $
70,100
2018
$552,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$640,000
$
$
$699,000
$
$
$725,000
$
$
$757,000
$
$
$784,000
$
$
$813,000
$
$
$844,000
$
$
$875,000

Financial Analysis
Scenario: Moderate
Rectangle Programming
Leagues
Soccer - Toddler
Soccer - Adult
Lacrosse - Youth
Field Hockey - Youth
Teams
Cost per Team
Revenue
Participants
Spectators
16
16
16
12
$150
$250
$250
$250
$2,400
$4,000
$4,000
$3,000
288
288
288
216
576
576
576
432
$13,400.00
1080
2160
Totals
Skill Camps
Participants
Spectators
Cost per Participant
Revenue
Soccer - Youth
Soccer - Academy
Lacrosse - Youth
Field Hockey - Youth
100
100
100
75
33
33
33
25
$100
$100
$100
$100
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$7,500
Totals
375
124
Teams
Cost per Team
Revenue
Participants
Spectators
36
12
24
24
$300
$300
$300
$300
$10,800
$3,600
$7,200
$7,200
504
168
336
336
1008
336
672
672
$28,800.00
1344
2688
$37,500
Diamond Programming
Leagues
Baseball - Little League
Baseball - Adult
Softball - Fast Pitch
Softball - Slow Pitch
Totals
Skill Camps
Participants
Spectators
Cost per Participant
Revenue
Baseball - Academy
Baseball - Youth
Softball - High School
150
150
150
50
50
50
$100
$100
$100
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
Totals
450
150
$45,000

Financial Analysis
Scenario: Moderate
Fixed Revenue Projections

Five Year Terms
75
Advertising/Sponsorship
2016
2017
2018
2020
2019
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Price
Probability
75%
85%
95%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Naming Rights
$ 125,000
10%
12,500 $
12,500 $
12,500 $
12,500 $
12,500 $
13,750 $
13,750 $
13,750 $
13,750 $
13,750
Clubhouse
$ 25,000
50%
12,500 $
12,500 $
12,500 $
12,500 $
12,500 $
13,750 $
13,750 $
13,750 $
13,750 $
13,750
Field Complex
$ 25,000
50%
12,500 $
12,500 $
12,500 $
12,500 $
12,500 $
13,750 $
13,750 $
13,750 $
13,750 $
13,750
Diamond Complex
$ 25,000
50%
12,500 $
12,500 $
12,500 $
12,500 $
12,500 $
13,750 $
13,750 $
13,750 $
13,750 $
13,750
Scoreboards
$ 13,000
25%
3,250 $
3,250 $
3,250 $
3,250 $
3,250 $
3,575 $
3,575 $
3,575 $
3,575 $
3,575
Pavilion
$ 10,000
10%
1,000 $
1,000 $
1,000 $
1,000 $
1,000 $
1,100 $
1,100 $
1,100 $
1,100 $
Total Advertising/Sponsorshp Income
40,700
46,100
51,500
54,300
54,300
59,700
59,700
59,700
59,700
100%
1,100
59,700

Financial Analysis
Scenario: Moderate
Operational Expenses (2015)

4
2016
Facility Expenses
Personnel
Utilities
General & Admin
Insurance
Advertising
$
$
$
$
$
Field Maintenance
Total Expenditures
201,300
75%
48,300
26,300
17,500
23,400
5,800
75%
206,200
$529,000
2017
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
209,300
85%
56,900
27,400
18,200
24,300
6,100
85%
243,000
$585,000
2018
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
217,700
95%
66,100
28,500
19,000
25,300
6,300
95%
282,500
$645,000
2019
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
226,400
100%
72,400
29,600
19,700
26,300
6,600
100%
309,200
$690,000
2020
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
235,500
100%
75,300
30,800
20,500
27,400
6,800
100%
321,600
$718,000
10
2021
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
244,900
100%
78,300
32,000
21,300
28,500
7,100
100%
334,500
$747,000
11
2022
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
254,700
100%
81,400
33,300
22,200
29,600
7,400
100%
347,900
$777,000
12
2023
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
264,900
100%
84,700
34,600
23,100
30,800
7,700
100%
361,800
$808,000
13
2024
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
275,500
100%
88,100
36,000
24,000
32,000
8,000
100%
376,200
$840,000
2025
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
286,500
100%
91,600
37,500
25,000
33,300
8,300
100%
391,300
$874,000

Financial Analysis
Scenario: Moderate
Personnel
Position
Salary (2012)
Compensation
Benefits
Total
Full-Time Positions
General Manager
Superintendent
Recreation Supervisor
$50,000.00
$30,000.00
$42,500.00
$50,000.00
$30,000.00
$42,500.00
$11,000.00
$6,600.00
$9,350.00
$61,000.00
$36,600.00
$51,850.00
Part-Time Positions
P/T Admin Assistant
[1] Grounds Staff
[2] Concessions Staff
[3] Janitorial/Security
$12,012.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10,000.00
$600.60
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$12,612.60
$0.00
$0.00
$10,000.00
Total Staffing Costs

[1] Included in field mantenance costs
[2] Included in concession COGS
[3] Contract for janitorial/security services
$172,060.00

Financial Analysis
Scenario: Moderate
Staffing Plan
FTE Hours Per Year
Total Hours Per Year
Avg Vacation/Personal Time
Monday - Friday
General Manager
Superintendent
3
8:00 AM
1
1
-
4
9:00 AM
1
1
-
P/T Admin Assistant

[1] Grounds Staff
1
2
-
1
2
-
1
2
-
1
2
-
Total
General Manager
Superintendent
3
8:00 AM
1
1
-
4
9:00 AM
1
1
-
P/T Admin Assistant

[1] Grounds Staff
1
1
-
1
1
-
1
1
-
1
1
-
Total
General Manager
Superintendent
3
8:00 AM
1
1
-
4
9:00 AM
1
1
-
P/T Admin Assistant

[1] Grounds Staff
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Total
8
1:00 PM
1
1
-
9
2:00 PM
1
1
-
10
3:00 PM
1
1
-
11
4:00 PM
1
1
1
12
5:00 PM
1
13
6:00 PM
1
14
7:00 PM
1
15
8:00 PM
1
16
9:00 PM
-
17
10:00 PM
-
Weekday
Hours
40
40
20
Seasonal Usage Factor

1
1
1
Adj Hours
40
40
20
20
40
0
0
0.75
0.5
1
1
15
20
160
8
1:00 PM
1
-
9
2:00 PM
1
1
10
3:00 PM
1
1
11
4:00 PM
1
1
12
5:00 PM
1
13
6:00 PM
1
14
7:00 PM
1
15
8:00 PM
1
16
9:00 PM
1
17
10:00 PM
1
Saturday
Hours
4
8
8

1
1
1
Adj Hours
4
8
8
1
2
-
1
2
-
1
2
-
1
2
-
1
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
8
16
0
0
0.75
0.5
1
1
6
8
0
0
44
8
1:00 PM
-
9
2:00 PM
1
10
3:00 PM
1
11
4:00 PM
1
12
5:00 PM
1
13
6:00 PM
1
14
7:00 PM
1
15
8:00 PM
1
16
9:00 PM
1
17
10:00 PM
1
Sunday
Hours
4
4
8

1
1
1
Adj Hours
4
4
8
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
0
16
0
0
0.75
0.5
1
1
0
8
0
0
32
5
6
7
10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
Saturday
Sunday
5
6
7
10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM
1
1
1
1
1
-
5
6
7
10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM
1
1
1
1
-

Multi Use Sports Complex Planning Study

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Multi Use Sports Complex Planning Study

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

M U LT I - U S E S P O R T S C O M P L E X P L A N N I N G S T U D Y R E P O R T P R E P A R E D F O R

Brailsford & Dunlavey, Inc. 2012

5.0..Demand & Tournament Analysis

E..Site Analysis & Evaluation

6.0..Site Analysis & Evaluation

DAUPHIN COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY