Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Sports Complex
Operating Model Options
June 28, 2016 Orange County Great Park
Sports Park (175 acre addition)
new and existing inventory
• 12 baseball and softball fields
• 25 soccer fields
• 5 sand volleyball courts
• 25 tennis courts
• 4 basketball courts
• Children’s play area
• Timeline extension and
Championship Row
3
Board Considerations - Next Steps
1) Provide direction concerning preferred operating model
for the Orange County Great Park Sports Complex.
4
Background and Scope
5
~ Destination Irvine
~ Cal South
~ Ryan Lemmon Foundation
~ NCAA
~ FC Golden State
~ AVP Volleyball
~ Irvine Youth Flag Football
~ UC Irvine Athletics
~ So. Cal Amateur Baseball
~ Western Regional Little League
~ Triple Crown Sports
~ Premier Girls Fastpitch
~ USA Premier Baseball
~ California Volleyball Assoc.
~ AYSO Soccer
~ U.S. Tennis Association
~ USA Baseball
~ OC Lacrosse Association
~ AAU Beach Volleyball
~ SoCal AAU Baseball
~ So Cal ASA
~ California Baseball Academy
~ National Club Baseball
~ OC Blues Soccer Club
~ Irvine Pony Baseball
~ Pateadores
~ Irvine School District
~ Coast Soccer League
~ Irvine Strikers
~ USA Field Hockey
~ Irvine Adult Sports
~ WAKA Social Sports – Kickball
~ Champions Cup
~ VolleyOC
~ Concordia Volleyball
~ Five Point Communities
Local, regional and national organizations
Sports Community and Stakeholder Engagement
6
Local stakeholders appreciate the quality of the facilities planned, the synergies offered in terms of the
quantity of fields in a single location and would like to have some assured allocation of field hours.
Local stakeholders generally recognize the need for an individualized operating structure, operating
policies and rates to maintain quality standards and keep it financially sustainable.
Based on the levels of quality and service offered, some stakeholders believe that the current pricing
structure at GPSC is lower than what they experience at other regional facilities, especially with respect to
soccer, but some youth groups still question their ability to afford and fees.
Adult sports representatives understand the primary focus on youth sports, but would like to have some
dedicated/scheduled use of GPSC fields, allowing them to provide consistent programing and are
willing/able to afford field rental rates.
The project has generated strong interest from a variety of regional and national tournament/event
sponsors given its convenient access and location proximate to a variety of attractions and destinations.
Common themes and observations
Sports Community and Stakeholder Engagement
7
~ Bitsy Grant Tennis Center, Atlanta, GA.
~ Grand Park, Westfield, IN.
~ City of Cary Sports Venues, Cary, N.C.
~ SilverLakes, Norco, CA.
~ Etown Sports Park, Elizabethtown, KY.
~ Sportscore 2, Rockford, Illinois
~ National Soccer Center, Lancaster, CA.
~ Fountain Valley Sports Park, Fountain Valley, CA.
~ SB Soccer Complex, San Bernardino, CA.
~ SoCal Sports Complex, Oceanside, CA.
Comparing other projects to the Great Park
~ Aurora Sports Park, Aurora CO.
~ U.S. Cellular Park, Medford, OR.
~ WRAL Soccer Park, Raleigh, N.C.
~ Darling Tennis Center, Las Vegas, NV.
~ Reach 11, Scottsdale, AZ.
~ LakePoint, Emerson GA.
~ Golden Eagle, Sparks NV.
~ Lake Forest Sports Park, Lake Forest, CA.
~ Reffkin Tennis Center, Tucson, AZ.
~ Maryland Soccerplex, Germantown, MD.
Regional and National Best Practices
8
A significant number of mega-sports complex projects are either being planned or constructed nationally.
Virtually all of the projects now operating and those being planned, are part of focused economic
development driven strategies.
In most instances the projects are focused on driving tourism related income and discount the real cost of
providing sports related facilities and services.
In most cases, the overriding objective is to create an operating model that orchestrates the level/type of
play, with the long-term viability of the field assets, in a sustainable manner that balances cost recovery
and economic development goals.
Smaller projects with limited if any non-field related infrastructure and projects that have successful
sponsorship programs are getting close to full cost recovery, but most sports complex projects are
recovering between 50 and 75 percent of their annual operating costs.
Aside from those municipalities who have entered into long-term land lease agreements, municipal self-
operation of sports complex projects using a variety of functional and service outsourcing is common.
Common themes and observations
Regional and National Best Practices
9
Base Operating Model
10
Tournament/Local Access Operating Model
11
Outsourced Operating Model
12
Comparison of Operating Models General Assumptions:
• Phasing: Sports complex is complete and operational.
• Utilization/Capacity: Fields and courts are operated at maximum capacity.
Policy
Areas Base Model Tournament/Local Play Model Outsourced Model
Allocation of
User Groups
Local Access Priority Balanced Local Access/Tournament
• 75 Tournaments
Targeted Regional/National Play
• 145 Tournaments
Staffing and
Contracting
Strategy
Managed by City Managed by City
with outsourcing opportunities
Managed by Contract
Revenue
Sources
One Fee Structure:
• Tiered Fee Structure
(nonprofit, for profit, private)
• One Fee - All Activities
(tournament and non-
tournament)
Other Revenue Opportunities:
• Naming Rights/Sponsorship
• Concessions/Retail
Two Fee Structure:
• Tournaments – Market Rate
• Tiered Non-Tournament Fees
(nonprofit, for profit, private)
• Non-Local Play – Market Rate
Other Revenue Opportunities:
• Naming Rights/Sponsorship
• Concessions/Retail
• Parking
Fee Structure:
• Tournament
• Non-Tournament
Other Revenue Opportunities:
• Naming Rights/Sponsorship
• Concessions/Retail
• Special Events/Admissions
• Parking
13
Comparing Operating Models Tournament/ Local
Access Model Base Model Outsourced Model
Direct Sports Field Revenue
Soccer $1,655,877 $3,855,430 $1,031,426
Baseball/Softball $934,035 $1,024,786 $1,236,538
Tennis $1,792,668 $1,792,668 $1,792,668
Volleyball $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Total Direct Sports Field Revenue $4,397,580 $6,687,884 $4,075,632
Other Revenue Opportunities
Naming Rights/Sponsorships $525,000 $525,000 $300,000
Concessions/Retail $92,488 $92,488 $503,590
Soccer Catering/Special Events $0 $0 $350k in lease
Baseball/Softball Admissions $0 $0 $195,480
Parking $0 $1,324,800 $1,324,800
Total Other Revenue Opportunities $692,488 $2,017,288 $2,323,870
Expenses
Salaries and Benefits $1,958,068 $1,958,068 $489,517
Maintenance/Utilities $3,570,899 $3,570,899 $1,706,413
Program Contract $1,147,308 $1,147,308 $1,147,308
Baseball/Softball Management Fee $0 $0 $502,827
General and Admin $101,801 $174,103 $174,103
Parking $0 $100,000 $200,000
Reserves $500,000 $500,000 $500,000
Total Expenses $7,278,076 $7,450,378 $4,720,168
Net Income (Direct Sports Field Revenues) ($2,880,496) ($762,494) ($644,536)
Cost Recovery (Direct Revenue Only) 60% 90%
Net Income (All Revenue Options Assumed) ($2,188,008) $1,254,794 $1,679,334
Cost Recovery (All Revenue Opportunities) 70% 117%
Net Income (Options Minus Parking) ($2,188,008) ($43,510) $354,534
14
Sports Park
Operations
• Site Management
• Relationship Management
• Reservations/Allocations
• Sales and Marketing
• Event Support
• Field Prep
• Sponsorships
• Concessions/Retail
• Vending
Sports Park
Maintenance
• Contract Management
• Facility Maintenance
• Landscape Maintenance
• Graffiti Abatement
• Custodial
• Rehabilitation
Operational Approach Staffing mix by function
Description
City Full-Time 4.1
Mix of City and
contract staffing 14.3
Additional staffing mix: Full-time, part-time, and contract
Functions White: City managed
Yellow: Contract opportunities
15
Operating Model Considerations
Today’s practice and future realities
Centralized accountability
Managing assets
Maintaining control
Managing outsourcing
Streamlined reporting
Scalable to future park developments
Local Use
Revenue Options
Cost Recovery
Regional National
Use
16
Board Considerations - Next Steps
1) Provide direction concerning preferred operating model
for the Orange County Great Park Sports Complex.
