city of richmond confidential partnering …€¦ · city of richmond confidential partnering...

ConfidentialCITY OF RICHMONDPARTNERING COUNTIES CORPORATE SPONSORS

ARENA MARKET VALIDATION AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY

VOLUME II OF IIIFEASIBILITY STUDY

PRESENTED BY:BARRETT SPORTS GROUP, LLC

POPULOUS SPORTS ARCHITECTSWESTON SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT

January 27, 2011

Page 0Preliminary Draft – Subject to Revision

y ,

PRELIMINARY REPORT – SUBJECT TO REVISION

Confidential


Table of ContentsI IntroductionI. Introduction

II. Market Analysis

III Market Surveys – General Public SurveyIII. Market Surveys General Public Survey

IV. Market Surveys – Corporate Base Survey

V Preliminary Facility CharacteristicsV. Preliminary Facility Characteristics

VI. Potential Arena Sites

VII Construction Cost EstimatesVII. Construction Cost Estimates

VIII. Financial Analysis

IX Economic Impact AnalysisIX. Economic Impact Analysis

X. Major Development Considerations

XI Next Steps


XI. Next Steps

Limiting Conditions and Assumptions

Confidential

I. INTRODUCTION


I. Introduction

The Consulting Team is Pleased to Present our Preliminary Findings

The Consulting Team Consists of the Following Entities

Barrett Sports Group, LLC – Feasibility/Economic Impact/Financing Populous Sports Architects – Site Selection/Architecture Program W t S t & E t t i t C t ti /C t E ti ti Weston Sports & Entertainment – Construction/Cost Estimating

Major Goals and Objectives

Evaluate Local and Regional Market Demand Site Analysis Prepare Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates l i i l ibili Evaluate Financial Feasibility Evaluate Financing Alternatives (Case Studies Included /To be Completed – Next Phase) Evaluate Economic and Fiscal Impacts


I. Introduction A l d D hi f L l d R i l M k t A (C t d E ti t d) Analyzed Demographics of Local and Regional Market Areas (Current and Estimated)

Population Households Income Income Age Unemployment Corporate Base Television/Radio MarketTelevision/Radio Market Other

Analyzed Facility Characteristics of Competitive Facilities

Analyzed Performance of Comparable Facilities

Evaluated Performance of Facilities in Comparable Markets

C d d M k S (G l/C ) Conducted Market Surveys (General/Corporate)

Prepared Preliminary Programming for Renovated Richmond Coliseum or New Arena

Evaluated Site Options


Evaluated Site Options

Prepared Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate

I. Introduction Financial Analysis Financial Analysis

Evaluated Local Economic Data Reviewed Operating Revenue and Expense Data for Comparable Facilities Developed Cash Flow Model Estimated Operating Revenues and Expenses Developed Sensitivity Matrix

E i d Fi l I A l i Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis

Reviewed Project Related Construction Cost Estimates Estimated Tenant and Arena Operating Characteristicsp g Estimated Direct Fan Spending Prepared and Configured Economic Impact Model

Major Development Considerations Major Development Considerations


Confidential

II. MARKET ANALYSIS


A. Demographic Overview


A. Demographic OverviewRichmond, VARichmond, VA

Richmond, Virginia (Richmond) isLocated in Eastern Virginia

Approximately 70 MilesSoutheast of Charlottesville, VA

Approximately 75 MilesNorthwest of Hampton, VA

Approximately 95 MilesNorthwest of Norfolk, VA

Approximately 110 Miles Southpp o a e y 0 es Souof Washington D.C.

Approximately 155 Miles Northof Raleigh NC


of Raleigh, NC

Note: Distances Above Reflect Driving Distances

A. Demographic OverviewGeneral Market Overview

City/County Borders



According to Claritas 2010, a Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) is an area consisting of aconglomeration of counties. A CBSA is further defined as a metropolitan or micropolitan CBSA.A Metropolitan CBSA consists of a geographic area with an urban core population of at least50,000. A Micropolitan CBSA consists of a geographic area with an urban core population of, p g g p p pbetween 10,000 and 49,999.



Market Demographics Also Evaluated Based on Geographic Ring Designation



Market Demographics Also Evaluated Based on Drive Time Designation


A. Demographic Overview General Market Overview – PopulationGeneral Market Overview Population

Chesterfield Hanover HenricoCity County County County CBSA 10 Miles 20 Miles 30 Miles 15 Minutes 20 Minutes 30 Minutes

Geographic Rings Drive Time

Population2015 Projection 199,490 332,847 106,574 311,969 1,302,514 572,383 986,459 1,166,578 502,842 779,652 1,054,4782010 Estimate 199,893 310,434 100,426 297,092 1,241,094 557,430 941,838 1,114,263 491,713 750,190 1,010,1072000 Census 197,790 259,903 86,320 262,300 1,096,957 525,546 836,649 991,255 468,074 682,103 904,8181990 Census 202,783 209,547 63,306 217,881 949,244 494,453 724,665 862,127 444,048 606,845 794,370, , , , , , , , , , , Growth 2010-2015 -0.20% 7.22% 6.12% 5.01% 4.95% 2.68% 4.74% 4.70% 2.26% 3.93% 4.39%Growth 2000-2010 1.06% 19.44% 16.34% 13.26% 13.14% 6.07% 12.57% 12.41% 5.05% 9.98% 11.64%Growth 1990-2000 -2.46% 24.03% 36.35% 20.39% 15.56% 6.29% 15.45% 14.98% 5.41% 12.40% 13.90%Source: Claritas 2010.Source: Claritas 2010.


A. Demographic OverviewGeneral Market Overview – Population ClustersGeneral Market Overview Population Clusters


A. Demographic OverviewGeneral Market Overview – HouseholdsGeneral Market Overview Households



Households2015 Projection 82,500 123,990 38,773 129,067 509,238 235,536 390,634 456,925 209,360 312,836 415,5552010 Estimate 83,482 114,685 36,454 122,762 484,006 229,614 372,794 435,822 205,060 301,163 397,8162000 Census 84,549 93,772 31,121 108,121 425,100 217,139 330,859 386,295 195,942 274,155 355,7861990 Census 85,224 73,554 22,628 89,138 361,794 201,058 282,736 330,303 183,138 240,921 307,722 Growth 2010-2015 -1.18% 8.11% 6.36% 5.14% 5.21% 2.58% 4.79% 4.84% 2.10% 3.88% 4.46%Growth 2000-2010 -1.26% 22.30% 17.14% 13.54% 13.86% 5.75% 12.67% 12.82% 4.65% 9.85% 11.81%Growth 1990-2000 -0.79% 27.49% 37.53% 21.30% 17.50% 8.00% 17.02% 16.95% 6.99% 13.79% 15.62%Source: Claritas 2010. Sou ce: C a tas 0 0.


A. Demographic OverviewGeneral Market Overview – Household ClustersGeneral Market Overview Household Clusters


A. Demographic OverviewGeneral Market Overview – IncomeGeneral Market Overview Income



Income2010 Est. Average HH Income $57,783 $88,253 $93,116 $79,852 $76,491 $66,676 $78,736 $77,518 $63,516 $74,177 $77,0612010 Est. Median HH Income $39,685 $72,641 $77,888 $61,774 $60,072 $51,140 $61,336 $60,771 $48,657 $57,805 $59,9622010 Est. Per Capita Income $24,823 $32,786 $34,047 $33,325 $30,253 $27,870 $31,495 $30,710 $26,918 $30,135 $30,733

HHs w/ Income $100,000 11,230 34,312 12,335 29,398 111,930 39,764 90,553 103,279 32,105 65,276 93,060Source: Claritas 2010.


A. Demographic OverviewGeneral Market Overview – Income


A. Demographic OverviewGeneral Market Overview – Corporate Basep

Rank Company Employees Rank Company Employees1 Virginia Commonwealth University Health System 7,244 26 The Home Depot Inc. 1,0002 Capital One Financial Corp. 6,828 27 Media General Inc. (incl. HQ) 9913 HCA Inc 6 679 28 Pfizer 9913 HCA Inc. 6,679 28 Pfizer 9914 Dominion Resources Inc. (incl. HQ) 5,721 29 CarMax Inc. (incl. HQ) 9875 Bon Secours Richmond Health System 5,626 30 Tyson Foods Inc. 9006 Altria Group Inc. (incl. HQ) 4,613 31 Shamin Hotels (incl. HQ) 8857 SunTrust Banks Inc. 3,815 32 Target Corp. 8648 Ukrop's Super Markets Inc. (incl. HQ) 3,331 33 J.C. Penney Co. Inc. 8449 WellPoint Inc. 3,050 34 Mondial Assistance (incl. HQ) 8009 WellPoint Inc. 3,050 34 Mondial Assistance (incl. HQ) 800

10 Bank of America Corp. 2,900 35 Comcast 78611 Wells Fargo and Co. 2,858 36 Markel Corp. (incl. HQ) 77712 Verizon Virginia Inc. 2,789 37 Estes Express Lines (incl. HQ) 75813 Food Lion LLC 2,729 38 MeadWestvaco Corp. (incl. HQ) 73014 DuPont 2,679 39 Hunton and Williams LLP (incl. HQ) 72815 United Parcel Service Inc. 2,318 40 ColonialWebb Contractors (incl. HQ) 717, ( Q)16 Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond 1,866 41 Northrop Grumman 66917 The Kroger Co. 1,737 42 Owens and Minor 65818 University of Richmond 1,380 43 Southern States 64219 Genworth Financial Inc. (incl. HQ) 1,313 44 Westminster Canterbury 61420 Southside Regional Medical Center 1,250 45 McGuireWoods LLP 60121 Honeywell International Inc. 1,249 46 YMCA of Greater Richmond 596y22 Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. 1,081 47 Alstom Power 58423 Supervalu Inc. 1,050 48 Bostwick Labs 55624 B B and T Corp. 1,034 49 Kraft Foods 55125 Lowe's Cos. Inc. 1,007 50 Walgreens 521

Source: Richmond Times-Dispatch, April 26, 2010, and Greater Richmond Partnership, Inc.


A. Demographic OverviewGeneral Market Overview – Education

Virginia Commonwealth University

A i t l 32 000 St d t Approximately 32,000 Students 211 Degree Programs Offered NCAA Division I Athletics – Colonial Athletic Association (CAA)

University of Richmond

Approximately 4,300 Students 5 Schools Offering Nearly 60 Degree Programs NCAA Division I Athletics – Atlantic 10 (A10) Conference in Most Sports

– Colonial Athletic Association (CAA) in Football and Women’s Golf

Virginia Union University

Approximately 1,500 Students


24 Undergraduate Majors, 2 Masters and 1 Doctorate Program(s) Offered NCAA Division II Athletics – Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association (CIAA)


Other

St tf d U i it Stratford University Virginia State University Randolph-Macon College Union Presbyterian Seminaryy y J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College John Tyler Community College ITT Technical Institute ECPI College of Technology



Richmond Public School System Kindergarten to 12th Grade

El S h l 28– Elementary Schools: 28– Middle Schools: 8– High Schools: 8– Alternative Schools: 3Alternative Schools: 3

Approximately 23,000 Students– Elementary School Enrollment: 12,128– Middle School Enrollment: 4,455– High School Enrollment: 5,874– Alternative School Enrollment: 537

Programs for the Gifted Include (Selected)– The International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme– The International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme


– Special Program for Academically and Creative Excellence (SPACE)– Summer Residential Governor’s School

A. Demographic OverviewGeneral Market Overview – Transportation

Highway Transportation Interstate Highways

– I-64, I-95, I-195, I-295I 64, I 95, I 195, I 295 Toll Roads (Operated by Richmond Metropolitan Authority)

– Downtown Expressway– Powhite Parkway

Air Transportation Richmond International Airport (RIC)

– More than 3.5 Million Passengers AnnuallyEi ht M j Ai li (7 D ti / 1 I t ti l)– Eight Major Airlines (7 Domestic / 1 International)

» AirTran» American Airlines» Continental Airlines» Delta» Jet Blue Airways» United» US Airways


» US Airways» Air Canada

A. Demographic OverviewGeneral Market Overview – Transportation

Railway Service (Amtrak)

Main Street Station (RVM)Main Street Station (RVM)– Northeast Regional

Staples Mill Road Station (RVR)C li i / Pi d t– Carolinian / Piedmont

– Northeast Regional– Silver Service / Palmetto

Public Transportation

GRTC Transit System (Bus)– Local CommutersLocal Commuters– Express Riders– City-to-City– VCU Students

A ti S i


– Active Seniors

B. Comparable Market Analysis


B. Comparable Market Analysis

Comprehensive Review of Demographic Characteristics of Comparable Markets

1. Median Market Area Comparison

A. CBSA Designationi. Arena/Stadium Seat Inventory

B. Geographic Ring Comparison (Appendix A)i. 10 Mile Ring Statisticsii. 20 Mile Ring Statisticsiii. 30 Mile Ring Statistics

C. Drive Time Comparison (Appendix B)i 20 Mi S i ii. 20 Minute Statisticsii. 30 Minute Statistics

High Level Minor League Hockey (e g AHL/ECHL) Demographics Characteristics Were


High Level Minor League Hockey (e.g. AHL/ECHL) Demographics Characteristics WereEvaluated but Not Included in this Report

MEDIAN MARKET COMPARISON


B. Comparable Market AnalysisMedian Market OverviewMedian Market Overview

Comparable Market Selection Based on 2010 Population

20 Markets Compared to the Richmond, VA CBSA (Richmond)

– 10 Markets Ranking Immediately Above Richmond by Population10 M k t R ki I di t l B l Ri h d b P l ti– 10 Markets Ranking Immediately Below Richmond by Population

10 Markets - Above 10 Markets - BelowCharlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC Oklahoma City, OKIndianapolis-Carmel, IN Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CTA i d k O l i i AAustin-Round Rock, TX New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LAVirginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Salt Lake City, UTNashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN Raleigh-Cary, NCProvidence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Birmingham-Hoover, ALMilwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY

Demographic Comparison Foc ses on Se eral Ke Factors that Impact Market Demand for

Jacksonville, FL Rochester, NYMemphis, TN-MS-AR Tucson, AZLouisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN Fresno, CA


Demographic Comparison Focuses on Several Key Factors that Impact Market Demand forArena Projects

B. Comparable Market AnalysisDiscussion of Terminology

Analysis Evaluates Richmond and Comparable Markets Based on Population

Ri h d Will M 1) C bl h M di M k 2) Ab h M di Richmond Will Measure as 1) Comparable to the Median Markets; or 2) Above the MedianMarkets; or 3) Below the Median Markets

Definition of “Comparable”p

– Within 1 Standard Deviation from the Median Market Average (Note: Relative Rankand Average May Still be Above/Below Median Markets)

Definition of “Above”

– More than 1 Standard Deviation Above the Median Market Average

D fi i i f “B l ” Definition of “Below”

– More than 1 Standard Deviation Below the Median Market Average

Note: Comparable/Above/Below Determination Adjusted if Richmond as a % of the Median Market


Note: Comparable/Above/Below Determination Adjusted if Richmond as a % of the Median MarketAverage is Less than 80% or Greater than 125% as a Percentage of Median Market Average

MEDIAN MARKET COMPARISON – CBSA DESIGNATION


B. Comparable Market AnalysisMedian Market ComparisonMedian Market ComparisonCBSA Designation

Population 2010 Population Rank

2015 Population Rank

Est. % Growth Rank

Richmond Represents theMidpoint of the ComparableRange Based on 2010

MarketPopulation

(000s)Rank

21Population

(000s)Rank

21Growth

2010-2015Rank

21Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 1,780.7 1 2,002.8 1 12.47% 3Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 1,748.2 2 1,844.2 3 5.49% 10Austin-Round Rock, TX 1,704.0 3 1,921.9 2 12.79% 2Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 1,670.7 4 1,704.9 5 2.05% 16Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 1,596.0 5 1,727.7 4 8.25% 6Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 1,591.9 6 1,580.4 6 -0.72% 19Milwaukee Waukesha West Allis WI 1 542 2 7 1 551 3 7 0 59% 18Range Based on 2010

Population

Richmond 2015 Populationd E ti t d % G th

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 1,542.2 7 1,551.3 7 0.59% 18Jacksonville, FL 1,372.2 8 1,498.3 8 9.19% 4Memphis, TN-MS-AR 1,298.3 9 1,333.2 9 2.69% 15Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 1,261.2 10 1,303.1 11 3.32% 13Richmond, VA 1,241.1 11 1,302.5 12 4.95% 11Oklahoma City, OK 1,228.5 12 1,288.1 13 4.85% 12Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 1,195.7 13 1,208.3 16 1.06% 17New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 1,194.2 14 1,264.4 14 5.88% 9S lt L k Cit UT 1 150 8 15 1 240 7 15 7 82% 8and Estimated % Growth are

Comparable to the MedianMarket Averages

Salt Lake City, UT 1,150.8 15 1,240.7 15 7.82% 8Raleigh-Cary, NC 1,149.2 16 1,322.5 10 15.09% 1Birmingham-Hoover, AL 1,130.1 17 1,162.0 17 2.82% 14Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 1,117.2 18 1,085.1 19 -2.87% 21Rochester, NY 1,033.5 19 1,024.6 20 -0.86% 20Tucson, AZ 1,033.0 20 1,122.8 18 8.70% 5Fresno, CA 937.9 21 1,014.0 21 8.12% 7

A (1) 1 336 8 1 410 0 5 34%Average (1) 1,336.8 1,410.0 5.34%

Source: Claritas 2010.(1) - Excludes Richmond, VA.



Households 2010 Households Rank

2015 Households Rank

Est. % Growth Rank

Richmond is Comparable tothe Median Market Averagein Terms of 2010 and 2015

MarketHouseholds

(000s)a21

Households (000s)

a21

Growth 2010-2015

a21

Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 687.8 1 775.9 1 12.80% 2Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 682.4 2 720.2 2 5.54% 10Austin-Round Rock, TX 629.6 3 706.1 3 12.15% 3Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 626.3 4 643.1 5 2.69% 16Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 624.1 5 677.2 4 8.50% 6Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 621.8 6 618.4 7 -0.55% 19Milwaukee Waukesha West Allis WI 614 7 7 622 2 6 1 23% 17in Terms of 2010 and 2015

Households

Richmond is Comparable toth M di M k t A

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 614.7 7 622.2 6 1.23% 17Jacksonville, FL 536.1 8 588.6 8 9.78% 4Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 510.5 9 530.9 9 4.00% 13Memphis, TN-MS-AR 490.0 10 506.0 12 3.26% 15Oklahoma City, OK 485.0 11 510.2 10 5.18% 12Richmond, VA 484.0 12 509.2 11 5.21% 11Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 466.4 13 471.9 15 1.17% 18Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 457.4 14 447.5 17 -2.18% 21

the Median Market Averagein Terms of Estimated %Growth

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 457.2 15 486.0 14 6.30% 9Birmingham-Hoover, AL 449.5 16 464.5 16 3.32% 14Raleigh-Cary, NC 438.4 17 503.6 13 14.86% 1Tucson, AZ 405.5 18 440.9 18 8.73% 5Rochester, NY 399.9 19 397.4 20 -0.62% 20Salt Lake City, UT 376.6 20 406.7 19 8.00% 7Fresno, CA 290.1 21 311.3 21 7.29% 8

Average (1) 512.5 541.4 5.57%




Income Ri h d A H h ld M di H h ld d P C it I I di t Ab Richmond Average Household, Median Household and Per Capita Income Indicators are Above

Median Market Averages

Richmond Households with Income of $100,000+ is Comparable to the Median Market AverageAverage Median HHs w/ Income

Market

Average Household

IncomeRank

21

Median Household

IncomeRank

21Per Capita

IncomeRank

21

HHs w/ Income $100,000+

(000s)Rank

21Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT $85,522 1 $67,127 1 $33,743 1 136.4 4Raleigh-Cary, NC $77,784 2 $61,130 2 $29,874 3 107.2 10Austin-Round Rock, TX $76,594 3 $58,887 5 $28,552 4 145.5 1Salt Lake City, UT $76,523 4 $60,773 3 $25,247 17 84.2 12Richmond, VA $76,491 5 $60,072 4 $30,253 2 111.9 9Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC $73,049 6 $55,666 8 $28,418 6 139.9 2Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC $72,274 7 $57,979 6 $27,779 10 127.8 6Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA $71,897 8 $56,206 7 $28,434 5 134.5 5Indianapolis-Carmel, IN $71,449 9 $55,163 9 $28,179 8 137.8 3Jacksonville, FL $71,023 10 $54,624 11 $27,961 9 104.1 11Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI $70,443 11 $55,101 10 $28,341 7 122.1 7Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN $69,518 12 $52,798 12 $27,418 11 116.4 8Rochester, NY $67,128 13 $52,765 13 $26,405 13 74.9 17Rochester, NY $67,128 13 $52,765 13 $26,405 13 74.9 17Birmingham-Hoover, AL $66,891 14 $48,852 14 $26,848 12 81.4 15New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA $66,077 15 $48,041 16 $25,527 15 82.2 14Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN $63,946 16 $48,731 15 $26,110 14 83.5 13Fresno, CA $63,431 17 $46,432 21 $19,947 21 47.7 21Memphis, TN-MS-AR $63,348 18 $47,247 19 $24,118 20 79.1 16Tucson, AZ $62,911 19 $46,471 20 $24,944 18 63.9 20Oklahoma City, OK $62,119 20 $47,307 17 $24,794 19 74.1 18Buffalo Niagara Falls NY $61 425 21 $47 272 18 $25 468 16 73 6 19


Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY $61,425 21 $47,272 18 $25,468 16 73.6 19

Average (1) $69,668 $53,429 $26,905 100.8



AgeMarket

Average Age

Rank 21

Median Age

Rank 21

Richmond is Comparable to theMedian Market Averages inTerms of Average Age

Market Age 21 Age 21Salt Lake City, UT 33.5 1 31.6 2Fresno, CA 33.7 2 31.0 1Austin-Round Rock, TX 34.9 3 33.8 3Raleigh-Cary, NC 35.2 4 35.1 5Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 35.9 5 35.9 8Memphis, TN-MS-AR 36.1 6 35.4 6Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 36.3 7 36.0 9Terms of Average Age

Richmond is Comparable to theMedian Market Averages inT f M di A

Oklahoma City, OK 36.6 8 35.0 4Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 36.8 9 35.7 7Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 36.9 10 36.6 10Jacksonville, FL 37.6 11 37.5 13Richmond, VA 37.8 12 37.3 11Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 37.9 13 37.9 15Birmingham-Hoover, AL 38.1 14 37.8 14Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 38.3 15 38.4 17Terms of Median Age Louisville/Jefferson County, KY IN 38.3 15 38.4 17New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 38.3 15 38.3 16Tucson, AZ 38.6 17 37.3 12Rochester, NY 39.0 18 38.6 18Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 39.2 19 38.8 19Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 39.4 20 39.5 20Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 40.2 21 40.0 21

A (1) 37 1 36 5Average (1) 37.1 36.5




UnemploymentMarket

Unemployment Rate

Rank 21

Richmond Unemployment isComparable to the Median MarketAverage

Salt Lake City, UT 2.84% 1Oklahoma City, OK 3.19% 2Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 3.56% 3Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 3.73% 4Raleigh-Cary, NC 3.73% 5Richmond, VA 3.86% 6Austin-Round Rock, TX 3.92% 7Average

Note: Unemployment Reflects thePercentage of Unemployed OverT t l W k F A il bl d

Austin Round Rock, TX 3.92% 7Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 3.96% 8Rochester, NY 3.98% 9Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 4.01% 10Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 4.06% 11Birmingham-Hoover, AL 4.09% 12Tucson, AZ 4.12% 13Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 4.31% 14Total Work Force Available and

Does Not Include PopulationCharacterized as “Not in WorkForce”

pLouisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 4.36% 15New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 4.38% 16Jacksonville, FL 4.47% 17Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 4.66% 18Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 4.83% 19Memphis, TN-MS-AR 5.88% 20Fresno, CA 6.06% 21

Average (1) 4.21%




Media Markets 2010 TV 2010 Radio

Richmond Television Homes andRadio Population are Below MedianMarket Averages

MarketHomes (000s)

Rank 21

Population (000s)

Rank 21

Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 1,147.9 1 2,008.6 1Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 1,119.8 2 1,388.8 5Raleigh-Cary, NC 1,107.8 3 1,332.1 7Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 1,019.0 4 1,254.7 9Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 1,010.6 5 1,048.3 13Salt Lake City UT 944 1 6 1 735 7 2Market Averages

Size of the Television and RadioMarkets Typically Provides anI di ti f P t ti l L l M di

Salt Lake City, UT 944.1 6 1,735.7 2Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 901.8 7 1,453.3 3Birmingham-Hoover, AL 742.1 8 891.0 19Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 709.9 9 1,329.4 8Oklahoma City, OK 694.0 10 1,105.8 11Jacksonville, FL 679.1 11 1,144.4 10Austin-Round Rock, TX 678.7 12 1,412.1 4Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 668.3 13 960.6 16Memphis TN MS AR 667 7 14 1 069 1 12Indication of Potential Local Media

Revenues (if any) for a ProfessionalFranchise

Memphis, TN-MS-AR 667.7 14 1,069.1 12New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 633.9 15 1,003.7 14Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 633.2 16 968.0 15Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 619.6 17 1,365.7 6Fresno, CA 579.2 18 751.0 21Richmond, VA 554.0 19 944.9 17Tucson, AZ 465.1 20 864.9 20Rochester, NY 392.2 21 939.7 18

Average (1) 770.7 1,201.3

Source: Nielsen 2010 and Arbitron 2010.Note: Radio population estimated by Portable People Meter (in select markets) or by Continuous Measurement.(1) - Excludes Richmond, VA.



Corporate Base

Richmond is Comparable to theMedian Market Average in Terms ofCompanies with Sales $50+ Million

Market

Companies w/ $50+mm

SalesRank

21

Companies w/ 500+

EmployeesRank

21Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 153 1 118 2Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 153 1 122 1Salt Lake City, UT 122 3 89 9Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 120 4 107 5Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 110 5 93 8Companies with Sales $50+ Million

Richmond is Comparable to theMedian Market Average in Terms of

i i h l

,Birmingham-Hoover, AL 101 6 57 20Raleigh-Cary, NC 101 6 99 6Oklahoma City, OK 94 8 71 12Jacksonville, FL 91 10 61 17Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 93 9 76 11Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 90 11 111 4Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 90 11 113 3Austin-Round Rock TX 84 13 88 10Companies with 500+ Employees Austin-Round Rock, TX 84 13 88 10Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 82 14 71 12Memphis, TN-MS-AR 78 15 70 14Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 77 16 58 18Richmond, VA 76 17 98 7Rochester, NY 71 18 69 15New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 63 19 67 16Tucson, AZ 32 20 58 18F CA 25 21 42 21Fresno, CA 25 21 42 21

Average (1) 92 82

Source: Dun and Bradstreet 2010.(1) - Excludes Richmond, VA.


B. Comparable Market AnalysisMedian Market Comparison – Arena/Stadium Seat InventoryMedian Market Comparison Arena/Stadium Seat Inventory

Consideration Given to Arenas and Stadiums with a Minimum of Approximately 5,000 Seats

Based on Review of Limited Available Public Information

Arena/Stadium Inventory Located within Richmond CBSA Market

Verizon Wireless Arena at the Stuart C. Siegel Center (Virginia Commonwealth University) The Diamond Robins Center (University of Richmond) Robins Stadium (University of Richmond) Rogers Stadium (Virginia State University) Richmond Coliseum (Existing)

Reviewed, but Did Not Include, the Following Facilities Located within Richmond CBSA Market

Richmond International Raceway City Stadium Greater Richmond Convention Center Arena Arthur Ashe Athletic Center


Sports Backers Stadium SportsQuest Arena (Planning Stage)

B. Comparable Market AnalysisMedian Market ComparisonCBSA Designation

Population per Seat Ri h d i B l th M di M k t A i T f S t I t (E i ti /E i ti & Richmond is Below the Median Market Average in Terms of Seat Inventory (Existing/Existing &

Planned) Richmond is Above the Median Market Average in Terms of Population per Seat (Existing/Existing

& Planned)Existing Inventory Existing & Planned Inventory

Market

2010 Population

(000s)Seat

InventoryRank

21Pop. per

SeatRank

21Inventory Change

Seat Inventory

Pop. per Seat

Rank 21

Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 1,596.0 246,756 1 6.5 21 0 246,756 1 6.5 21Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 1,117.2 150,203 2 7.4 20 0 150,203 2 7.4 20Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 1,780.7 148,424 3 12.0 12 0 148,424 3 12.0 11Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 1,748.2 147,303 4 11.9 13 0 147,303 4 11.9 12Austin-Round Rock, TX 1,704.0 144,852 5 11.8 14 0 144,852 5 11.8 13

Existing Inventory Existing & Planned Inventory

, , , ,Birmingham-Hoover, AL 1,130.1 127,891 6 8.8 19 0 127,891 6 8.8 19Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 1,670.7 122,136 7 13.7 8 0 122,136 8 13.7 8New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 1,194.2 118,925 8 10.0 17 3,100 122,025 9 9.8 16Salt Lake City, UT 1,150.8 107,900 9 10.7 15 0 107,900 10 10.7 14Fresno, CA 937.9 105,001 10 8.9 18 0 105,001 12 8.9 18Tucson, AZ 1,033.0 102,562 11 10.1 16 5,000 107,562 11 9.6 17Memphis, TN-MS-AR 1,298.3 96,319 12 13.5 9 0 96,319 13 13.5 9Jacksonville, FL 1,372.2 96,000 13 14.3 7 0 96,000 14 14.3 7Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 1,261.2 93,675 14 13.5 10 30,075 123,750 7 10.2 15Raleigh-Cary, NC 1,149.2 92,000 15 12.5 11 0 92,000 15 12.5 10Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 1,195.7 81,700 16 14.6 6 0 81,700 16 14.6 6Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 1,542.2 74,700 17 20.6 4 0 74,700 17 20.6 3Oklahoma City, OK 1,228.5 73,883 18 16.6 5 0 73,883 18 16.6 5Richmond, VA 1,241.1 58,716 19 21.1 3 3,615 62,331 19 19.9 4Rochester, NY 1,033.5 38,340 20 27.0 2 0 38,340 20 27.0 2Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 1,591.9 32,303 21 49.3 1 0 32,303 21 49.3 1


Average - (1) 1,336.8 110,044 14.7 111,952 14.5(1) Excludes Richmond, VA.Sources: Claritas 2010, 2010 AudArena, 2010 Sports Business Resource Guide and Fact Book, and industry research.Note: Richmond, VA, Indianapolis-Carmel, IN, Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI and Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN exclude motorsport and horse racing seat inventory.

B. Comparable Market AnalysisMedian Market Comparison – Arena/Stadium Seat Inventory

Inventory Change

Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN– Renovation and Expansion of Papa John’s Cardinal Stadium (University of Louisville)– KFC Yum! Center (Downtown Louisville Arena) (Recently Opened)

Richmond, VA,– Assumes the Existing Facility is Replaced by a New Arena– For Illustrative Purposes, Replacement Facility to Include 14,000 Seats, 25 Luxury

Suites and 650 Club Seats

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA– Renovation and Expansion of Louisiana Superdome

Tucson, AZ– Renovation and Expansion of Arizona Stadium (University of Arizona)


B. Comparable Market AnalysisMedian Market Comparison – Arena/Stadium Seat Inventory

Inventory Change – Projects Not Included in Inventory Analysis

Oklahoma City OKOklahoma City, OK– Phased Renovation and Expansion of Ford Center (Seating Bowl Improvements Already

Complete)

Birmingham-Hoover, AL– New Birmingham-Jefferson Convention Complex Stadium

Tucson AZ Tucson, AZ– New Convention Center Arena



Households w/ Income $100,000+ per Two Seats Ri h d i Ab th M di M k t A i T f Hi h I H h ld T Richmond is Above the Median Market Average in Terms of High Income Households per Two

Seats (Existing/Existing & Planned)HHs w/ Income

$100,000+ (000 )

Seat I t

Rank

HHs w/ Income

$100k+ per T S t

Rank Inventory Ch

Seat I t

Rank

HHs w/ Income

$100k+ per T S t

Rank

Existing Inventory Existing & Planned Inventory

Market (000s) Inventory 21 Two Seats 21 Change Inventory 21 Two Seats 21Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 134.5 32,303 21 8.3 1 0 32,303 21 8.3 1Rochester, NY 74.9 38,340 20 3.9 2 0 38,340 20 3.9 2Richmond, VA 111.9 58,716 19 3.8 3 3,615 62,331 19 3.6 3Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 136.4 81,700 16 3.3 4 0 81,700 16 3.3 4Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 122.1 74,700 17 3.3 5 0 74,700 17 3.3 5Raleigh-Cary, NC 107.2 92,000 15 2.3 6 0 92,000 15 2.3 6Jacksonville FL 104 1 96 000 13 2 2 7 0 96 000 14 2 2 7Jacksonville, FL 104.1 96,000 13 2.2 7 0 96,000 14 2.2 7Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 127.8 122,136 7 2.1 8 0 122,136 8 2.1 8Austin-Round Rock, TX 145.5 144,852 5 2.0 9 0 144,852 5 2.0 9Oklahoma City, OK 74.1 73,883 18 2.0 10 0 73,883 18 2.0 10Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 139.9 148,424 3 1.9 11 0 148,424 3 1.9 11Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 137.8 147,303 4 1.9 12 0 147,303 4 1.9 12Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 83.5 93,675 14 1.8 13 30,075 123,750 7 1.4 15Memphis, TN-MS-AR 79.1 96,319 12 1.6 14 0 96,319 13 1.6 13S lt L k Cit UT 84 2 107 900 9 1 6 15 0 107 900 10 1 6 14Salt Lake City, UT 84.2 107,900 9 1.6 15 0 107,900 10 1.6 14New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 82.2 118,925 8 1.4 16 3,100 122,025 9 1.3 16Birmingham-Hoover, AL 81.4 127,891 6 1.3 17 0 127,891 6 1.3 17Tucson, AZ 63.9 102,562 11 1.2 18 5,000 107,562 11 1.2 18Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 73.6 150,203 2 1.0 19 0 150,203 2 1.0 19Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 116.4 246,756 1 0.9 20 0 246,756 1 0.9 20Fresno, CA 47.7 105,001 10 0.9 21 0 105,001 12 0.9 21


Average - (1) 100.8 110,044 2.2 111,952 2.2(1) Excludes Richmond, VA.Sources: Claritas 2010, 2010 AudArena, 2010 Sports Business Resource Guide and Fact Book, and industry research.Note: Richmond, VA, Indianapolis-Carmel, IN, Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI and Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN exclude motorsport and horse racing seat inventory.


Households w/ Income $100,000+ per Two Club Seats Richmond is Below the Median Market Average in Terms of Number of Club Seats Richmond is Below the Median Market Average in Terms of Number of Club Seats

(Existing/Existing & Planned) and Above Average in Terms of High Income Households per TwoClub Seats (Existing)

HHs w/ HHs w/ HHs w/ Existing Inventory Existing & Planned Inventory

Market

Income $100,000+

(000s)Club Seat Inventory

Rank 20

Income $100k+ per Two Seats

Rank 20

Inventory Change

Club Seat Inventory

Rank 20

Income $100k+ per Two Seats

Rank 20

Tucson, AZ 63.9 270 20 473.5 1 200 470 20 272.0 2Richmond, VA 111.9 668 18 335.1 2 -18 650 18 344.4 1Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 134.5 1,200 17 224.2 3 0 1,200 17 224.2 3Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 127.8 1,252 16 204.2 4 0 1,252 16 204.2 4Fresno, CA 47.7 600 19 159.0 5 0 600 19 159.0 5Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 122.1 3,260 12 74.9 6 40 3,300 12 74.0 6Raleigh-Cary, NC 107.2 2,955 13 72.5 7 0 2,955 13 72.5 7Austin-Round Rock, TX 145.5 4,167 9 69.9 8 0 4,167 10 69.9 8Salt Lake City, UT 84.2 2,694 14 62.5 9 0 2,694 14 62.5 9Oklahoma City, OK 74.1 2,620 15 56.6 10 0 2,620 15 56.6 10Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 83.5 3,400 11 49.1 11 4,604 8,004 7 20.9 14Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 136.4 5,602 7 48.7 12 0 5,602 8 48.7 11Birmingham-Hoover, AL 81.4 3,702 10 44.0 13 0 3,702 11 44.0 12

hiMemphis, TN-MS-AR 79.1 4,758 8 33.2 14 0 4,758 9 33.2 13Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 139.9 13,864 4 20.2 15 0 13,864 4 20.2 15Jacksonville, FL 104.1 11,116 5 18.7 16 0 11,116 5 18.7 16Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 116.4 14,112 3 16.5 17 0 14,112 3 16.5 17Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 137.8 17,240 1 16.0 18 0 17,240 1 16.0 18Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 73.6 9,378 6 15.7 19 0 9,378 6 15.7 19New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 82.2 14,800 2 11.1 20 0 14,800 2 11.1 20Rochester, NY 74.9 NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA


Average - (1) 100.8 6,157 87.9 6,412 75.8(1) Excludes Richmond, VA.Sources: Claritas 2010, 2010 AudArena, 2010 Sports Business Resource Guide and Fact Book, and industry research.Note: Richmond, VA, Indianapolis-Carmel, IN, Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI and Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN exclude motorsport and horse racing seat inventory.


Companies per Luxury Suite Richmond is Below the Median Market Average in Terms of Number of Luxury Suites Richmond is Below the Median Market Average in Terms of Number of Luxury Suites

Above Average in Terms of High Sales Volume Companies per Suite Above Average in Terms of Companies with 500+ Employees per Suite

Companies Companies Companies Companies

Existing Inventory Existing and Planned Inventory

Market

Luxury Suite

InventoryRank

21

pw/ $50+mm Sales per

SuiteRank

21

pw/ 500+

Employees per Suite

Rank 21

Inventory Change

Luxury Suite

InventoryRank

21

pw/ $50+mm Sales per

SuiteRank

21

pw/ 500+

Employees per Suite

Rank 21

Birmingham-Hoover, AL 27 21 3.7 1 2.1 2 0 27 21 3.7 1 2.1 2Richmond, VA 31 19 2.5 2 3.2 1 13 44 18 1.7 3 2.2 1Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 41 18 2.3 3 1.9 4 0 41 19 2.3 2 1.9 4Oklahoma City, OK 62 16 1.5 4 1.1 8 0 62 16 1.5 4 1.1 8Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 66 15 1.4 5 1.7 5 0 66 15 1.4 5 1.7 5Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 118 10 1.3 6 1.0 9 (5) 113 12 1.4 6 1.0 9Rochester, NY 58 17 1.2 7 1.2 7 0 58 17 1.2 7 1.2 7Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 84 14 1.1 8 1.3 6 0 84 14 1.1 8 1.3 6Tucson, AZ 31 19 1.0 9 1.9 3 0 31 20 1.0 9 1.9 3Salt Lake City, UT 141 8 0.9 10 0.6 11 0 141 9 0.9 10 0.6 11Raleigh-Cary, NC 118 10 0.9 11 0.8 10 0 118 11 0.9 11 0.8 10Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 101 12 0.8 12 0.6 13 108 209 6 0.4 18 0.3 20Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 201 6 0.8 13 0.6 12 0 201 7 0.8 12 0.6 12Jacksonville, FL 130 9 0.7 14 0.5 15 0 130 10 0.7 13 0.5 14Memphis, TN-MS-AR 148 7 0.5 15 0.5 14 0 148 8 0.5 14 0.5 13Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 223 4 0.5 16 0.4 18 0 223 4 0.5 15 0.4 17Austin-Round Rock, TX 211 5 0.4 17 0.4 17 0 211 5 0.4 16 0.4 16Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 324 1 0.4 18 0.3 19 0 324 1 0.4 17 0.3 18Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 268 2 0.3 19 0.3 21 0 268 2 0.3 19 0.3 21New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 225 3 0.3 20 0.3 20 0 225 3 0.3 20 0.3 19Fresno, CA 95 13 0.3 21 0.4 16 0 95 13 0.3 21 0.4 15


Average - (1) 134 1.0 0.9 139 1.0 0.9(1) Excludes Richmond, VA.Sources: Claritas 2010, 2010 AudArena, 2010 Sports Business Resource Guide and Fact Book, and industry research.Note: Richmond, VA, Indianapolis-Carmel, IN, Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI and Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN exclude motorsport and horse racing seat inventory.

B. Comparable Market AnalysisGeneral Observations

Median Market Summary Comparison

Populationp– Richmond Market is Generally Comparable to Other Markets– Below Market Average Based on 30 Mile Ring– Estimated Growth Rate is Comparable to Other Markets

Households– Richmond Market is Comparable to Other Markets– Estimated Growth Rate is Comparable to Other Markets

Income– Richmond Market is Above Other Markets– Number of High Income Households is Generally Comparable to Other Markets

Unemployment– Unemployment Rate is Comparable to Other Markets


B. Comparable Market AnalysisGeneral Observations

Median Market Summary Comparison

C B Corporate Base– Comparable to Market Average Based on Number of Companies with $50.0 Million or

More in Sales– Comparable to Market Average Based on Number of Companies with 500 or Morep g p

Employees

Media MarketB l M k A B d TV H– Below Market Average Based on TV Homes

– Below Market Average Based on Radio Population

Seat Inventory Seat Inventory– Below Market Average in Terms of Existing Inventory of Stadium /Arena Seats

» Low Inventory of Existing Seats, Luxury Suites and Club Seats– Ratio of Population and High Income Households per Seat Above Average


– Ratio of Population and High Income Households per Suite / Club Seat Above Average– Ratio of Large Companies to Number of Suites / Club Seats Above Average

B. Comparable Market AnalysisComparable Market AnalysisComparable Market Analysis

Median Market Summary – CBSA Demographic Overview

M di M k t S CBSA D hi O i

Statistical Measure Rank 21Comparison to

Market Average2010 Population 11 Comparable2015 Population 12 Comparable

Median Market Summary - CBSA Demographic Overview

Est. % Growth 2010-2015 11 Comparable2010 Households 12 Comparable2015 Households 11 ComparableEst. % Growth 2010-2015 11 ComparableAverage Household Income 5 AboveAverage Household Income 5 AboveMedian Household Income 4 AbovePer Capita Income 2 AboveHHs w/ Income $100,000+ 9 ComparableAverage Age 12 ComparableMedian Age 11 ComparableUnemployment Rate 6 Comparable2010 TV Homes 19 Below2010 Radio Population 17 Below


Companies w/ $50+mm Sales 17 ComparableCompanies w/ 500+ Employees 7 Comparable


Median Market Summary – Arena/Stadium Inventory

Median Market Summary CBSA Demographic Overview

Statistical Measure Rank 21Comparison to

Market AverageSeat Inventory (Existing) 19 BelowSeat Inventory (Existing and Planned) 19 Below

Median Market Summary - CBSA Demographic Overview

Population per Seat (Existing) 3 AbovePopulation per Seat (Existing and Planned) 4 AboveHHs with Income $100k+ per Two Seats (Existing) 3 AboveHHs with Income $100k+ per Two Seats (Existing and Planned) 3 AboveClub Seat Inventory (Existing) 18 Belowy ( g)Club Seat Inventory (Existing and Planned) 18 BelowHHs with Income $100k+ per Two Club Seats (Existing) 2 AboveHHs with Income $100k+ per Two Club Seats (Existing and Planned) 1 AboveLuxury Suite Inventory (Existing) 19 BelowLuxury Suite Inventory (Existing and Planned) 18 BelowLuxury Suite Inventory (Existing and Planned) 18 BelowCompanies with Sales $50mm+ per Luxury Suite (Existing) 2 AboveCompanies with 500+ Employees per Luxury Suite (Existing) 1 AboveCompanies with Sales $50mm+ per Luxury Suite (Existing and Planned) 3 AboveCompanies with 500+ Employees per Luxury Suite (Existing and Planned) 1 Above



Median Market Summary – Geographic Rings Designation Overview

Statistical MeasureRank

21Comparison to

Market AverageRank

21Comparison to

Market AverageRank

21Comparison to

Market Average

10 Mile 30 Mile20 MileMedian Market Summary - Geographic Rings Designation Overview

2010 Population 18 Comparable 17 Comparable 16 Below2015 Population 17 Comparable 16 Comparable 15 BelowEst. % Growth 2010-2015 10 Comparable 12 Comparable 12 Comparable2010 Households 15 Comparable 16 Comparable 16 Comparable2015 Households 16 Comparable 17 Comparable 15 Comparable2015 Households 16 Comparable 17 Comparable 15 ComparableEst. % Growth 2010-2015 11 Comparable 12 Comparable 12 ComparableAverage Household Income 6 Comparable 3 Above 4 AboveMedian Household Income 4 Comparable 3 Above 4 AbovePer Capita Income 4 Comparable 2 Above 2 AboveHHs w/ Income $100,000+ 9 Comparable 10 Comparable 11 ComparableAverage Age 14 Comparable 13 Comparable 12 ComparableMedian Age 14 Comparable 12 Comparable 12 ComparableUnemployment Rate 9 Comparable 7 Comparable 8 Comparable



Median Market Summary – Drive Time Designation Overview

Statistical MeasureRank

21Comparison to

Market AverageRank

21Comparison to

Market Average2010 Pop lation 12 Comparable 14 Comparable

30 Minute20 MinuteMedian Market Summary - Drive Time Designation Overview

2010 Population 12 Comparable 14 Comparable2015 Population 12 Comparable 13 ComparableEst. % Growth 2010-2015 11 Comparable 12 Comparable2010 Households 11 Comparable 13 Comparable2015 Households 13 Comparable 14 ComparableEst. % Growth 2010-2015 11 Comparable 12 ComparableAverage Household Income 3 Above 3 AboveMedian Household Income 3 Above 4 AbovePer Capita Income 3 Above 3 AboveHHs w/ Income $100,000+ 6 Above 9 ComparableHHs w/ Income $100,000 6 Above 9 ComparableAverage Age 13 Comparable 13 ComparableMedian Age 14 Comparable 12 ComparableUnemployment Rate 7 Comparable 9 Comparable


C. Competitive Facilities


C. Competitive Facilities Existing and Planned Competitive Inventory of Arenas/Stadiums in the Richmond Market will Existing and Planned Competitive Inventory of Arenas/Stadiums in the Richmond Market will

Impact the Operations of the Proposed Arena

Direct Competition from Comparable Arenas, as well as, Indirect Competition from Stadiums,Amphitheatres, Performing Arts Centers (to a Lesser Degree), and Other Entertainment AlternativesMust be Considered

PatronsPatrons Tenants Advertising/Sponsorships Premium Seating Other

Venues in Surrounding Markets including Charlottesville, Hampton, and Norfolk (Among Others)Represent Additional Competitive ThreatsRepresent Additional Competitive Threats

Recent Construction Significant Seating Capacity


g g p y Premium Seating Inventory Professionally Operated

C. Competitive FacilitiesPrimary Facilities – In Market

Verizon Wireless Arena at Stuart C. Siegel Center Opened: 1998 Primary Tenant: Virginia Commonwealth UniversityPrimary Tenant: Virginia Commonwealth University

Athletics Seats: 7,500 Luxury Suites: 0 Cl b S t 0 Club Seats: 0

Robins Center Opened: 1972p Primary Tenant: University of Richmond Athletics Seats: 9,171 Luxury Suites: 0 Cl b S 0 Club Seats: 0


C. Competitive FacilitiesPrimary Facilities – Surrounding Marketsy g

John Paul Jones Arena Location: Charlottesville, VA Opened: 2006 Opened: 2006 Primary Tenant: University of Virginia Athletics Operator: SMG Capacity

– Basketball Configuration 14,858– 360 Degree Configuration 15,405– 270 Degree Configuration (End Stage) 14,075

Luxury Suites: 20 Luxury Suites: 20 Distance from Richmond, VA: 69 Miles



Scope Arena Location: Norfolk, VA Opened: 1971 Opened: 1971 Primary Tenant: Norfolk Admirals (AHL) Operator: Seven Venues Seats: 13,300 Luxury Suites: 0 Club Seats: 0 Distance from Richmond, VA: 90 Miles



Hampton Coliseum Location: Hampton, VA Opened: 1970Opened: 1970 Primary Tenant: NA Operator: City of Hampton Seats: 13,800 Luxury Suites: 0 Club Seats: 0 Distance from Richmond, VA: 75 Miles

Ted Constant Convocation Location: Norfolk, VA Opened: 2002 Primary Tenant: Old Dominion University Athletics Operator: Global Spectrum Seats: 9,400 Luxury Suites:16


Luxury Suites:16 Club Seats: 862 Distance from Richmond, VA: 90 Miles

C. Competitive FacilitiesOther Noteworthy Facilities – In-Markety

Richmond International Raceway Location: Richmond, VA Opened: 1946 Owner / Operator: Int’l Speedway Corp. Seats: 112,029 Significant Premium Seating Inventory

– Luxury Suites: 40Cl b S t 700– Club Seats: 700

– Capital One Corporate Hospitality Pavilion/Torque Club/Pit Stop Club NASCAR, Izod IndyCar and Other Events

– Hosts Two NASCAR Doubleheader Weekends Annually» NASCAR Sprint Cup Series» NASCAR Sprint Cup Series» NASCAR Nationwide Series

– Hosts One Izod IndyCar Series Race Annually

The Diamond The Diamond Opened: 1985 (2009 Renovation) Primary Tenant: Richmond Flying Squirrels (Double-A ) Seats: 9,600


Luxury Suites: 15 Club Seats: 0

C. Competitive FacilitiesSecondary Facilities – In-Market

University of Richmond Stadium (City Stadium)

Location: Richmond, VA O d 1929 Opened: 1929 Seats: 21,319

E. Claiborne Robins Stadium – University of Richmond

Location: Richmond, VA Renovated: 2010 Primary Tenant: University of Richmond Athletics Seats: 8 700 Seats: 8,700 Luxury Suites: 7 Club Seats: 0

Rogers Stadium – Virginia State University Rogers Stadium Virginia State University

Location: Petersburg, VA Opened: 1950 Primary Tenant: Virginia State University Athletics


y g y Seats: 13,500

C. Competitive FacilitiesSecondary Facilities – Surrounding Marketsy g

William & Mary Hall Opened: 1970 Seats: 11,300 Luxury Suites / Club Seats: 0 / 0 Primary Tenant: The College of William & Mary Athletics

Harbor Park Opened: 1993 Seats: 12,067 Luxury Suites / Club Seats: 24 / 0 Primary Tenant: Norfolk Tides (Triple A)


C. Competitive FacilitiesSecondary Facilities – Surrounding Markets (Continued)y g ( )

Foreman Field at S.B. Ballard Stadium Opened: 1936 Seats: 26,000 Luxury Suites / Club Seats: 26 / 390 Primary Tenant: Old Dominion University Athletics

Other Hampton University Convocation Center William J. Zable Stadium (The College of William & Mary) Armstrong Stadium (Hampton University)


C. Competitive Facilities General Observations General Observations

Competitive Facilities in Immediate Market Vicinity Provide Limited Direct Competition toProposed Arena

E t /T t– Events/Tenants– Premium Seating Leasing– Advertising/Sponsorship– Other

Facilities Located in Neighboring Communities (e.g, Charlottesville/Hampton/Norfolk)Provide Direct Competition (Significant Issue)– Events/TenantsEvents/Tenants– Advertising/Sponsorship– Other

John Paul Jones Arena Provides Most Significant Source of Competition John Paul Jones Arena Provides Most Significant Source of Competition– State-of-the-Art Facility– Large Capacity– Events/Tenants– Premium Seating Leasing (Limited)


– Premium Seating Leasing (Limited)– Advertising/Sponsorship

D. Comparable Facility Overview


D. Comparable Facility OverviewMedian Market Analysisy

Identified the Following Primary Comparable Facilities – Median Market Analysis

Markets May Include More than One Facility (e.g., Norfolk (Scope Arena), Salt Lake City(Energy Solutions Arena) Oklahoma City (Cox Convention Center Arena) etc )(Energy Solutions Arena), Oklahoma City (Cox Convention Center Arena), etc.)

Market Arena Opened Capacity Suites Club Seats Basketball Hockey OtherLouisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN KFC Yum! Center 2010 22,000 75 2,854 NCAAAustin-Round Rock, TX Cedar Park Center 2009 8,700 24 545 NBADL AHLOklahoma City, OK Ford Center 2009 R 20,817 36 2,620 NBA

Primary Tenant

Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Dunkin' Donuts Center 2008 R 14,572 20 0 NCAA AHLCharlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC Time Warner Cable Arena 2005 20,200 60 2,600 NBA AHLMemphis, TN-MS-AR FedexForum 2004 18,119 59 1,642 NBA / NCAAJacksonville, FL Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Arena 2003 16,000 28 1,116 NCAA AFLFresno, CA Save Mart Center 2003 15,585 40 0 NCAAVirginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Ted Constant Convocation Center 2002 9,400 16 862 NCAAIndianapolis-Carmel, IN Conseco Fieldhouse 1999 18,500 69 2,640 NBA / WNBAIndianapolis Carmel, IN Conseco Fieldhouse 1999 18,500 69 2,640 NBA / WNBANew Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA New Orleans Arena 1999 18,000 56 2,800 NBARaleigh-Cary, NC RBC Center 1999 19,500 66 2,000 NCAA NHLSalt Lake City, UT Maverik Center 1997 10,500 41 1,750 ECHL AFLNashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN Bridgestone Arena 1996 22,669 72 1,100 NHLBuffalo-Niagara Falls, NY HSBC Arena 1996 21,500 80 2,500 NHL NLLMilwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Bradley Center 1988 20,000 52 500 NBA / NCAA AHL AFLBirmingham Hoover AL Bartow Arena 1988 8 500 0 0 NCAABirmingham-Hoover, AL Bartow Arena 1988 8,500 0 0 NCAAHartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT XL Center 1975 16,500 46 302 NCAA AHLTucson, AZ McKale Memorial Center 1973 14,500 0 0 NCAARochester, NY Blue Cross Arena 1955 14,000 25 0 AHL NLL

Average 16,478 43 1,292Average - Excluding NBA/NHL 13,660 29 675A E l di NBA/NHL/Si 1990 13 822 35 1 018


Average - Excluding NBA/NHL/Since 1990 13,822 35 1,018Sources: Claritas 2010, 2010 Audarena, 2010 Sports Business Resource Guide and Fact Book, and industry research.Note: Capacity listed represents arenas' maximum capacity.

D. Comparable Facility OverviewMedian Market Analysisy

Premium Seating Pricing (Excluding NBA/NHL Arenas)

In-Market Arenas Premium Seating Inventory and Pricing Overview

Market Arena Opened CapacityLuxury Suites Low Price High Price

Club Seats Low Price High Price

Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN KFC Yum! Center 2010 22,000 75 $85,000 $92,000 2,854 $1,500 $1,500Austin-Round Rock, TX Cedar Park Center 2009 8,700 24 $50,000 $75,000 545 $1,500 $1,500Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Dunkin' Donuts Center 2008 R 14,572 20 $50,000 $50,000 0 NA NAFresno, CA Save Mart Center 2003 15,585 40 $45,000 $65,000 0 NA NA, , , ,Jacksonville, FL Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Arena 2003 16,000 28 NA NA 1,116 NA NAVirginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Ted Constant Convocation Center 2002 9,400 16 $22,000 $22,000 862 $3,000 $3,000Salt Lake City, UT Maverik Center 1997 10,500 41 $45,000 $65,000 1,750 $920 $920Birmingham-Hoover, AL Bartow Arena 1988 8,500 0 NA NA 0 NA NAHartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT XL Center 1975 16,500 46 $35,000 $55,000 302 NA NATucson, AZ McKale Memorial Center 1973 14,500 0 NA NA 0 NA NARochester NY Blue Cross Arena 1955 14 000 25 $40 000 $50 000 0 NA NARochester, NY Blue Cross Arena 1955 14,000 25 $40,000 $50,000 0 NA NA

Average 13,660 29 $46,500 $59,250 675 $1,730 $1,730

NA - Not Available/Not Applicable.Source: 2010 Revenues from Sports Venues and industry research.


Note: RSV statistics may differ somewhat from the actual indicators of certain facilities and have been provided for illustrative purposes only.

D. Comparable Facility OverviewMinor League Hockey Analysisg y y

Identified the Following Facilities – AHL Hockey Arenas

Team Arena YearHockey

CapacityLuxury Suites Club Seatsp y

Abbotsford Heat Abbotsford Entertainment & Sports Centre 2009 8,500 20 200Texas Stars Cedar Park Center 2009 6,800 24 545Providence Bruins Dunkin' Donuts Center 2008 R 12,993 20 0Charlotte Checkers Time Warner Cable Arena 2005 14,100 60 2,600Manitoba Moose MTS Centre 2004 15,000 46 1,500Houston Aeros Toyota Center 2003 18,500 92 2,860Toronto Marlies Ricoh Coliseum 2003 9,200 38 1,100H h B Gi C 2002 10 500 40 688Hershey Bears Giant Center 2002 10,500 40 688San Antonio Rampage AT&T Center 2002 18,500 54 NABridgeport Sound Tigers The Arena at Harbor Yard 2001 10,000 41 1,300Manchester Monarchs Verizon Wireless Arena 2001 10,019 34 600Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins Mohegan Sun Arena at Casey Plaza 1999 8,300 32 624Grand Rapids Griffins Van Andel Arena 1996 11,500 44 1,800Lake Erie Monsters Quicken Loans Arena 1994 20,562 88 2,336Albany Devils Times Union Center 1990 15,000 25 0Albany Devils Times Union Center 1990 15,000 25 0Milwaukee Admirals Bradley Center 1988 18,633 52 500Hamilton Bulldogs Copps Coliseum 1985 17,500 10 0Peoria Rivermen Peoria Civic Center Arena 1982 10,400 0 0Worcester Sharks DCU Center 1982 14,000 NA 0Rockford Ice Hogs Rockford MetroCentre 1981 8,900 11 120Chicago Wolves Allstate Arena 1980 18,000 40 0Adirondack Phantoms Glens Falls Civic Center 1979 17,380 0 0Hartford Wolf Pack XL Center 1978 15,418 46 302Portland Pirates Cumberland County Civic Center 1977 7,800 0 0Oklahoma City Barons Cox Convention Center Arena 1973 13,339 NA NABinghamton Senators Broome County Veterans Memorial Arena 1972 5,475 0 0Springfield Falcons MassMutual Center 1972 8,820 0 0Norfolk Admirals Scope Arena 1971 10,500 0 0Rochester Americans Blue Cross Arena 1955 9,337 25 0Syracuse Crunch Onondaga County War Memorial 1951 6 700 0 0


Syracuse Crunch Onondaga County War Memorial 1951 6,700 0 0

Average 12,389 30 610Average - Since 1990 12,632 44 1,154Source: 2010 Revenues from Sports Venues, 2010 Sports Business Resource Guide and Fact Book, theAHL.com and industry research.


Identified the Following Facilities – AHL Hockey Arenas (Since 1990)

T A YHockey

C itLuxury S it Cl b S tTeam Arena Year Capacity Suites Club Seats

Abbotsford Heat Abbotsford Entertainment & Sports Centre 2009 8,500 20 200Texas Stars Cedar Park Center 2009 6,800 24 545Providence Bruins Dunkin' Donuts Center 2008 R 12,993 20 0Charlotte Checkers Time Warner Cable Arena 2005 14,100 60 2,600Manitoba Moose MTS Centre 2004 15,000 46 1,500, ,Houston Aeros Toyota Center 2003 18,500 92 2,860Toronto Marlies Ricoh Coliseum 2003 9,200 38 1,100Hershey Bears Giant Center 2002 10,500 40 688San Antonio Rampage AT&T Center 2002 18,500 54 NABridgeport Sound Tigers The Arena at Harbor Yard 2001 10,000 41 1,300Manchester Monarchs Verizon Wireless Arena 2001 10,019 34 600Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins Mohegan Sun Arena at Casey Plaza 1999 8,300 32 624Grand Rapids Griffins Van Andel Arena 1996 11,500 44 1,800Lake Erie Monsters Quicken Loans Arena 1994 20,562 88 2,336Albany Devils Times Union Center 1990 15,000 25 0

Average 12,632 44 1,154Average - Excluding NBA Arenas 10,710 33 760Source: 2010 Revenues from Sports Venues, 2010 Sports Business Resource Guide and Fact Book, theAHL.com and industry research.



Premium Seating – AHL Hockey Arenas (Excluding NBA Arenas)

Team Arena OpenedLuxury Suites Low Price High Price


AHL Premium Seating Inventory and Pricing Overview

Abbotsford Heat Abbotsford Entertainment & Sports Centre 2009 20 $33,000 $47,500 200 $1,500 $1,750Texas Stars Cedar Park Center 2009 24 $50,000 $75,000 545 $1,500 $1,500Providence Bruins Dunkin' Donuts Center 2008 R 20 $50,000 $50,000 0 NA NAManitoba Moose MTS Centre 2004 46 $40,000 $60,000 1,500 $1,705 $1,705Toronto Marlies Ricoh Coliseum 2003 38 $44,000 $61,000 1,100 $2,200 $2,388Hershey Bears Giant Center 2002 40 $40,000 $55,000 688 $590 $590Bridgeport Sound Tigers The Arena at Harbor Yard 2001 41 $16,000 $35,000 1,300 $1,295 $1,295M h M h V i Wi l A 2001 34 $49 500 $49 500 600 $1 600 $1 600Manchester Monarchs Verizon Wireless Arena 2001 34 $49,500 $49,500 600 $1,600 $1,600Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins Mohegan Sun Arena at Casey Plaza 1999 32 $35,000 $37,500 624 $1,500 $2,000Grand Rapids Griffins Van Andel Arena 1996 44 $30,000 $35,000 1,800 $859 $859Albany Devils Times Union Center 1990 25 $48,000 $48,000 0 NA NAHamilton Bulldogs Copps Coliseum 1985 10 $30,000 $30,000 0 NA NAPeoria Rivermen Peoria Civic Center Arena 1982 0 NA NA 0 NA NAWorcester Sharks DCU Center (1) 1982 NA NA NA 0 NA NARockford Ice Hogs Rockford MetroCentre 1981 11 $45,000 $45,000 120 $2,000 $2,000Rockford Ice Hogs Rockford MetroCentre 1981 11 $45,000 $45,000 120 $2,000 $2,000Chicago Wolves Allstate Arena 1980 40 $37,500 $37,500 0 NA NAAdirondack Phantoms Glens Falls Civic Center 1979 0 NA NA 0 NA NAHartford Wolf Pack XL Center 1978 46 $35,000 $55,000 302 NA NAPortland Pirates Cumberland County Civic Center 1977 0 NA NA 0 NA NAOklahoma City Barons Cox Convention Center Arena 1973 NA NA NA NA NA NABinghamton Senators Broome County Veterans Memorial Arena 1972 0 NA NA 0 NA NASpringfield Falcons MassMutual Center 1972 0 NA NA 0 NA NANorfolk Admirals Scope Arena 1971 0 NA NA 0 NA NARochester Americans Blue Cross Arena 1955 25 $40,000 $50,000 0 NA NASyracuse Crunch Onondaga County War Memorial 1951 0 NA NA 0 NA NA

Average 22 $38,938 $48,188 366 $1,475 $1,569

NA - Not Available/Not Applicable.Source: 2010 Revenues from Sports Venues, 2010 Sports Business Resource Guide and Fact Book and industry research.



Note: AHL overview reflects 2010-2011 realignment. (1) - DCU Center has been excluded from suite inventory and pricing averages. DCU Center has 2 suites priced at $4,000.


Identified the Following Facilities – ECHL Hockey Arenas

Hockey Luxury Team Arena Year Capacity Suites Club SeatsToledo Walleye Lucas County Arena 2009 7,667 20 850Ontario Reign Citizens Business Bank Arena 2008 9,500 36 770Victoria Salmon Kings Save On Foods Memorial Centre 2006 7,000 0 1,000Stockton Thunder Stockton Events Center 2005 10,000 24 500G i tt Gl di t Th A t G i tt C t 2003 11 000 36 1 390Gwinnett Gladiators The Arena at Gwinnett Center 2003 11,000 36 1,390Las Vegas Wranglers Orleans Arena 2003 7,000 22 220Reading Royals Reading Sovereign Center 2001 7,200 20 850Elmira Jackals First Arena 2000 3,974 31 800Trenton Devils Sun National Bank Center 1999 8,600 32 1,150Bakersfield Condors Rabobank Arena 1998 10,200 27 1,000Bakersfield Condors Rabobank Arena 1998 10,200 27 1,000Florida Everblades Germain Arena 1998 7,000 26 0Greenville Road Warriors Bi-Lo Center 1998 7,404 30 1,000Idaho Steelheads Qwest Arena 1997 5,006 38 1,000Utah Grizzlies Maverik Center 1997 10,500 41 1,750South Carolina Stingrays North Charleston Coliseum 1993 12,000 8 0Alaska Aces Sullivan Sports Arena 1983 6,500 0 0Wheeling Nailers WesBanco Arena 1976 7,600 0 0Kalamazoo Wings Wings Stadium 1974 5,595 0 0Cincinnati Cyclones U.S. Bank Arena 1948 16,949 39 0

Average 8 458 23 646


Average 8,458 23 646Average - Since 1990 8,270 26 819Source: 2010 Revenues from Sports Venues, 2010 Sports Business Resource Guide and Fact Book, ECHL.com and industry research.


Premium Seating – ECHL Hockey Arenas

ECHL Premium Seating Inventory and Pricing Overview

Team Arena OpenedLuxury Suites Low Price High Price


Alaska Aces Sullivan Sports Arena 1983 0 NA NA 0 NA NABakersfield Condors Rabobank Arena 1998 27 $25,000 $75,000 1,000 $870 $870Cincinnati Cyclones U.S. Bank Arena 1948 39 $45,000 $60,000 0 NA NAElmira Jackals First Arena 2000 31 $8,500 $24,000 800 $532 $532Fl id E bl d G i A 1998 26 $45 000 $45 000 0 NA NAFlorida Everblades Germain Arena 1998 26 $45,000 $45,000 0 NA NAGreenville Road Warriors Bi-Lo Center 1998 30 NA NA 1,000 NA NAGwinnett Gladiators The Arena at Gwinnett Center 2003 36 $50,000 $70,000 1,390 $1,500 $1,700Idaho Steelheads Qwest Arena 1997 38 $17,000 $40,000 1,000 $805 $1,035Kalamazoo Wings Wings Stadium 1974 0 NA NA 0 NA NALas Vegas Wranglers Orleans Arena 2003 22 $75,000 $75,000 220 $1,850 $1,850Ontario Reign Citizens Business Bank Arena 2008 36 $50 000 $80 000 770 $1 150 $1 150Ontario Reign Citizens Business Bank Arena 2008 36 $50,000 $80,000 770 $1,150 $1,150Reading Royals Reading Sovereign Center 2001 20 $34,000 $34,000 850 $880 $880South Carolina Stingrays North Charleston Coliseum 1993 8 $45,000 $45,000 0 NA NAStockton Thunder Stockton Events Center 2005 24 $35,000 $35,000 500 $1,750 $1,750Toledo Walleye Lucas County Arena 2009 20 $40,000 $55,000 850 $1,360 $1,360Trenton Devils Sun National Bank Center 1999 32 $45,000 $60,000 1,150 $973 $973Utah Grizzlies Maverik Center 1997 41 $45,000 $65,000 1,750 $920 $920, , ,Victoria Salmon Kings Save On Foods Memorial Centre 2006 0 NA NA 1,000 $792 $1,042Wheeling Nailers WesBanco Arena 1976 0 NA NA 0 NA NA

Average 23 $39,964 $54,500 646 $1,115 $1,172

NA - Not Available/Not Applicable.Source: 2010 Revenues from Sports Venues, 2010 Sports Business Resource Guide and Fact Book and industry research.


p , p yNote: ECHL overview reflects 2010-2011 realignment.


E. Promoter/User Interviews


E. Promoter/User InterviewsPromoter/User Interviews

Richmond Coliseum Lacks Amenities of Newer Facilities and is a Challenging Venue for Events

Loading Dock

Rigging Rigging

Backstage Areas/Star Areas

Promoters Would Prefer More Seats in the Lower Bowl as Compared to Current Configurationp g

Richmond Market Loses Events to John Paul Jones Arena Due to Size/Condition of the RichmondColiseum

Promoters Would Prefer Richmond Market Over Charlottesville

Promoters Acknowledged there are Few Shows that Currently Need Capacity of a Large Arenag y p y g(16,000+)

Ticket Tax/Facility Fees are Potential Deterrents for Promoters/Acts – Current Rate 7.0%


New/Renovated Arena Should Attempt to Maximize 270 and 180 Degree Configurations


CAA Representatives Indicated Capacity Over 16,000+ Would Not be Desirable Prefer a Downtown Site Premium Seating is Not a Significant Issue CAA Would Consider Long-Term Agreement – Desire Office Space (At Arena or Other Site) Agreement Recently Extended through 2014

NCAA Representatives Indicated Minimum Capacity of 12,000 for Tournament Early Rounds Richmond Would Potentially be a Considered Market Significant Competition on the East Coast to Host Tournament

ACC Representatives Indicated Capacity Between 18,000 to 20,000+ Would Likely be Required Richmond Would be an Attractive Market (Nine Universities within Driving Distance) ACC Focusing on Newer Arenas – Amenities/Seating Characteristics Greensboro will Host Four of Five Next Tournaments (ACC Based in Greensboro)

Two Minor League Hockey Ownership Groups Expressed Significant Interest in New/Renovated


Two Minor League Hockey Ownership Groups Expressed Significant Interest in New/RenovatedArena (AHL/ECHL Options)


AHL Representatives Indicated Potential Interest in the Richmond Market Richmond is a Good Fit Geographically for the League Arena Size is Important – Curtain System to 7,000 Seats

ECHL Representatives Indicated Potential Interest in the Richmond Market Richmond is a Good Fit Geographically for the League Arena Size is Important – 13,000 Seats is Big Deal Structure (Rent/Revenue Sharing) is Critically Important Generally Prefer Downtown Arenas

WNBA Representatives Indicated Potential Interest in the Richmond Market (League has NotC d t d D t il R h)Conducted Detail Research) Richmond is a Top 10 TV Market for the League Corporate Support is Important Prefer Arenas with Less than 18,000 Seats – Curtain System is Important

NBA D League Representatives Indicated Potential Interest in the Richmond Market (League hasNot Conducted Detail Research) Condition of the Coliseum is Issue with Market


Prefer Arena with Approximately 6,000 Seats – Curtain System is Important Deal Structure (Rent/Revenue Sharing) is Critically Important

E. Promoter/User Interviews

College BasketballLocal Partners

Balancing the Needs of Potential Arena Tenants Is Key to Optimizing Seating Capacity

Minor League Hockey

NCAA Tournament Minimum

Public Partners• City of Richmond• Chesterfield County• Hanover County• Henrico County

Capacity: 12,000

CAA Tournament Desired Capacity: Less Than 16,000

ACC Tournament Desired Capacity:

AHL Average Attendance: 5,193AHL Home Venues of 13,000+: 13

ECHL Average Attendance: 4,563ECHL Home Venues of 13,000+: 1

Private Partners• Altria Group Inc.• Dominion Resources Inc.• Genworth Financial Inc.• MeadWestvaco ACC Tournament Desired Capacity:

20,000+ECHL Home Venues of 13,000+: 1

Concert Promoters ConventionsJehovah’s Witnesses: Maximum Audience: Typically 10,000

• MeadWestvaco

NBA Affiliates

Family Shows

Desired End Stage Configuration Capacity: 12,000-13,000+(On Occasion, Acts Generate Attendance of 15,000+)

Maximum Audience: Typically 10,000(Nature and Length of Events Require Proper Lighting and Sufficient Restrooms)

NBDL Desired Capacity: 6,000


Preference for Greater Portion of Lower Bowl Seats and Maximizing Arena Intimacy

Richmond is a Top 10 Television Market for the WNBA

F. Potential Tenant Mix


F. Potential Tenant MixMinor League Hockeyg y

North American Minor League System Consists of a Combination of Affiliated and IndependentLeagues

Two Primary NHL Affiliated Leagues

AHL (Highest Level of North American Minor League Hockey)

– Generally Each NHL Team has an Exclusive Affiliation with One AHL Club– Occasionally an NHL Team Will Not be Able to Negotiate a Satisfactory Affiliate

Agreement and is Forced to Spread its Prospects to Various Minor League Clubs

ECHL

– Presently 18 of 19 ECHL Teams Have at Least One NHL Affiliate– Several NHL Teams Share ECHL Affiliations with Another NHL Team– Presently 5 of 30 NHL Teams Do Not Have an ECHL Affiliate

Both Leagues Comprised of Players Drafted by NHL Clubs Out of Canadian Juniors, Collegiate


g p y y , gHockey or International Leagues

F. Potential Tenant MixNorth American Minor League Hockey Summaryg y y

Primary U.S. Independent Leagues – CHL/USHL

Both Leagues Comprised of Players Not Under the Control of NHL Clubs Both Leagues Comprised of Players Not Under the Control of NHL Clubs

CHL Recently Merged with IHL

AHL is the Most Stable of the Affiliated and Independent Leagues


F. Potential Tenant MixAHL Franchise Map (2010-2011)AHL Franchise Map (2010 2011)


F. Potential Tenant MixMinor League Hockey Overview – AHL Average Attendanceg y

Average Announced Attendance

Announced Figures Illustrated

Team 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-20103-Year

Average RankHershey 8,770 8,987 9,520 9,092 1Manitoba 7,807 7,769 8,086 7,887 2Chicago 7,474 7,316 7,963 7,584 3Grand Rapids 6,898 7,448 7,016 7,121 4

Average Attendance

Announced Figures IllustratedBelow are Typically Higher thanActual/Turnstile Attendance

Note: Reflects 2009-10 Teams

W-B/Scranton 7,667 6,984 6,270 6,974 5Providence 6,107 6,343 6,770 6,407 6Lake Erie 5,974 5,934 6,484 6,131 7Houston 6,280 5,982 5,770 6,011 8Manchester 6,706 5,882 5,293 5,960 9Milwaukee 5,517 5,878 6,027 5,807 10Syracuse 5 442 5 211 5 294 5 316 11Note: Reflects 2009-10 Teams

and Does Not Reflect 2010-11League Composition

Syracuse 5,442 5,211 5,294 5,316 11Rochester 6,835 4,080 4,236 5,050 12San Antonio 4,520 5,167 5,235 4,974 13Portland 4,861 4,828 4,345 4,678 14Hamilton 4,575 4,624 4,374 4,524 15Peoria 4,441 4,019 4,560 4,340 16Bridgeport 4,196 4,528 4,092 4,272 17Hartford 4,405 4,190 4,188 4,261 18Norfolk 4,241 4,109 3,855 4,068 19Toronto 4,348 3,728 4,070 4,049 20Worcester 4,344 3,902 3,672 3,973 21Rockford 3,826 3,909 3,978 3,904 22Binghamton 4,069 3,917 3,629 3,872 23Albany 3 940 3 539 3 751 3 743 24Albany 3,940 3,539 3,751 3,743 24Springfield 3,481 3,952 3,644 3,692 25Lowell 2,102 2,293 2,498 2,298 26Texas NA NA 5,355 NA NAAdirondack NA NA 4,018 NA NAAbbotsford NA NA 3,897 NA NAIowa 3,789 4,322 NA NA NA


Philadelphia 6,679 6,459 NA NA NAQuad City 3,523 3,035 NA NA NALeague 5,270 5,115 5,100 5,230Source: AHL.com.

F. Potential Tenant MixECHL Franchise Map (2010-2011)ECHL Franchise Map (2010 2011)


F. Potential Tenant MixMinor League Hockey Overview – ECHL Average Attendanceg y

Average Announced Attendance

Announced Figures Illustrated

Team 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-20103-Year

Average RankStockton 6,648 6,218 6,031 6,299 1Florida 6,033 5,633 5,463 5,710 2Charlotte 5,978 5,311 5,518 5,602 3Bakersfield 5,628 5,545 5,265 5,479 4

g

Announced Figures IllustratedBelow are Typically Higher thanActual/Turnstile Attendance

Note: Reflects 2009-10 Teams

Bakersfield 5,628 5,545 5,265 5,479 4Gwinnett 5,656 5,559 5,166 5,460 5Reading 5,430 5,005 4,943 5,126 6South Carolina 5,009 5,001 4,824 4,945 7Victoria 4,871 4,923 4,369 4,721 8Alaska 4,717 4,682 4,697 4,699 9Las Vegas 4 970 4 621 4 350 4 647 10Note: Reflects 2009-10 Teams

and Does Not Reflect 2010-11League Composition

Las Vegas 4,970 4,621 4,350 4,647 10Idaho 4,389 3,954 3,949 4,097 11Utah 3,834 3,656 4,119 3,870 12Elmira 3,525 3,332 3,661 3,506 13Cincinnati 2,523 3,104 3,887 3,171 14Trenton 3,315 2,754 2,509 2,859 15Wheeling 2 829 2 923 2 727 2 826 16Wheeling 2,829 2,923 2,727 2,826 16Johnstown 2,346 2,212 2,053 2,204 17Ontario NA 5,856 6,451 NA NAToledo NA NA 6,294 NA NAKalamazoo NA NA 3,433 NA NADayton 3,663 3,679 NA NA NAF 5 035 3 284 NA NA NAFresno 5,035 3,284 NA NA NAMississippi 3,845 3,156 NA NA NAPhoenix 3,347 3,025 NA NA NAAugusta 2,835 2,722 NA NA NAColumbia 3,056 NA NA NA NAPensacola 2,804 NA NA NA NA


Texas 2,052 NA NA NA NALeague 4,174 4,181 4,485 4,425Source: ECHL.com.

F. Potential Tenant MixArena Football

Primary U.S. Arena/Indoor Football League is the Arena Football League (AFL)

Original AFL Founded in 1987 Original AFL Founded in 1987 Continuous Play from 1987 to 2008 Founded Development League (af2) in 1999 December 2008 AFL Cancelled the 2009 Season (Financial Difficulties)

– Sought to Improve Business Model August 2009 AFL Declared Bankruptcy

– af2 Subsequently Folded in September 2009

December 2009 Arena Football One Completed the Purchase of the Assets of the Defunct AFL February 2010 Arena Football One Re-Branded Entity as the Arena Football League

– Launched Inaugural Season in April 2010» Single Entity League» Single Entity League» NFL Network Broadcast Deal (Initial One Year Term)» 2010 Average Attendance: 8,154, Excluding Season’s Last Week (Down from 12,957

in 2008)18 T f th 2011 S


» 18 Teams for the 2011 Season

F. Potential Tenant MixArena Football

Three Other Noteworthy Competitive Arena Football Leagues Indoor Football League (IFL)

– Created in 2008, Currently with 22 Teams– Formed via Merger of the Intense Football League and United Indoor FootballFormed via Merger of the Intense Football League and United Indoor Football

Southern Indoor Football League (SIFL)– Founded in 2008, Currently with 16 Teams– Merged with American Indoor Football Association East (AIFA East) in November 2009g ( )

» AIFA East and AIFA West Split Along Regional Lines to Minimize Travel Expenses

AIFA West– AIFA Originally Formed in 2006– Four Teams Remain in AIFA West

Richmond Hosts Both an SIFL Team and a IFL Team Richmond Raiders – SIFL

H G Pl d t th Ri h d C li– Home Games Played at the Richmond Coliseum– 2010 Average Home Attendance: 2,884 (For Games Disclosed)

Richmond Revolution – IFL2010 Home Games Played at the Arthur Ashe Athletic Center


– 2010 Home Games Played at the Arthur Ashe Athletic Center– Plan to Move to SportsQuest Arena– 2010 Average Home Attendance: NA

F. Potential Tenant MixArena Football League (AFL) Franchise Map (2011)Arena Football League (AFL) Franchise Map (2011)


F. Potential Tenant MixIndoor Football League (IFL) Franchise Map (2011)Indoor Football League (IFL) Franchise Map (2011)


F. Potential Tenant MixSouthern Indoor Football League (SIFL) Franchise Map (2011)Southern Indoor Football League (SIFL) Franchise Map (2011)


F. Potential Tenant MixOtherOther

CAA Basketball Tournament

NCAA Games/Tournaments

High School Tournaments

WNBA

NBA Development League NBA Development League

Indoor Lacrosse

Concerts

Family Shows

Boxing/Mixed Martial Arts

C ti /C f /T d Sh /M ti Conventions/Conferences/Trade Shows/Meetings

Religious Events

Other


Confidential

III. MARKET SURVEYS – GENERAL PUBLIC


III. Market Surveys – General Public Overview

Approximately 42,445 Web-Based Surveys Distributed – 1,516 Surveys Completed

Given the Nature of the Surveys, the Research Does Not Focus on Development of a Specific Given the Nature of the Surveys, the Research Does Not Focus on Development of a SpecificProbability Percentage or Margin of Error But Utilizes Results as a Guide and Comparative Tool

Results Included Herein are Provided for Illustrative Purposes

Note: Total Surveys Distributed Above Does Not Include Surveys Randomly Forwarded orCompleted Through Other Non-Approved Distribution Methods (If Any)


III. Market Surveys – General Public

A. Completed Surveys

B. Facility Event/Attendancey

C. Existing Sports and Entertainment Facilities

D. Renovated Coliseum/New Arena Development

E Project SupportE. Project Support

F. Miscellaneous

G. Demographics


H. General Comments

A. Completed SurveysCompleted Surveys Summary of FindingsCompleted Surveys – Summary of Findings

Approximately 79% (1,201) of Respondents Live and/or Work in the Greater Richmond Area

Of the Approximately 21% (315) of Respondents that Do Not Live and/or Work in the GreaterRichmond Area:

A i l 26% (83) Vi i Ri h d 1 2 Ti Y Approximately 26% (83) Visit Richmond 1-2 Times per Year

Approximately 22% (68) Visit Richmond 3-4 Times per Year

Approximately 52% (164) Visit Richmond 5+ Times per Year

Note: 13 Respondents were Screened out of Survey – Do Not Live/Work/Visit Richmond

Approximately 45% (680) of Respondents were Aware that a Renovation or New ArenaDevelopment was Being Studied



Completed Surveys by Respondents Residence/Place of Work

Live/Work in Greater Richmond Area

75%

100%

25%

50% 79%

21%

0%Yes No

21%



Annual Visits by Respondents that Do Not Live/Work in the Greater Richmond Area

Visits to the Greater Richmond Area

75%

100%

25%

50%

26% 22%

52%

0%1 to 2 Visits

Annually3 to 4 Visits

Annually5 or More Visits

Annually



Study Awareness

Aware Proposed Renovation or New Arena was being Studied

75%

100%

25%

50%

45% 55%

0%Yes No


B. Facility/Event AttendanceFacility/Event Attendance Summary of FindingsFacility/Event Attendance – Summary of Findings

Approximately 77% (1,173) of Respondents have Attended an Event at the Richmond Coliseumin the Past 12 Months

Respondents Generally Rated the Following Reasons Why They Did Not Attend More Events atthe Richmond Coliseum

Highest Scores– Not Interested– Condition of the Richmond Coliseum

Lowest Scores– Traffic

Other Reasons Cited– No Hockey– Economy– Quality of Acoustics


B. Facility/Event AttendanceRichmond Coliseum AttendanceRichmond Coliseum Attendance

100%

Attended an Event at Richmond Coliseum in the Past 12 Months

75%

100%

25%

50%

65%

23%

0%Yes, 1 to 2

EventsYes, 3 to 4

EventsYes, 5 or

More EventsNo

10% 3%


B. Facility/Event AttendanceRichmond Coliseum AttendanceRichmond Coliseum Attendance

Respondents Rated the Following Reasons Why They Did Not an Event at the RichmondColiseum in the Past 12 Months

Reasons Not Attending an Event at Richmond Coliseum in the Past 12 Months

21%

21%

24%

66%

P ki

Cost of Events

Condition of the Richmond Coliseum

No Interest in Event

15%

15%

15%

21%

Safety Concerns

Location of the Richmond Coliseum

Not Enough Spare Time

Parking

17%

9%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Other

Traffic


B. Facility/Event AttendanceFacility/Event Attendance Summary of FindingsFacility/Event Attendance – Summary of Findings

Respondents were Asked if They had Attended an Event(s) at other Local/Regional Facilities(Non-Stadiums) in the Past 12 Months

Highest Scores– Landmark Theatre

V i Wi l A h Si l C– Verizon Wireless Arena at the Siegel Center– John Paul Jones Arena– Verizon Center (Washington, D.C.)

Lowest Scores– Ted Constant Convocation Center– Norfolk Scope Arena– Hampton Coliseum


B. Facility/Event AttendanceOther Local/Regional Facilities AttendanceOther Local/Regional Facilities Attendance

30%

46%Verizon Wireless Arena at the

Landmark Theatre

Attended at Least One Event at the Following Facilities in the Past 12 Months

17%

25%

25%

30%

Richmond Center Stage

Verizon Center (Washington, D.C.)

John Paul Jones Arena

Siegel Center

11%

14%

15%

Norfolk Scope Arena

Robins Center

Hampton Coliseum

8%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Ted Constant Convocation Center


C. Existing Sports and Entertainment FacilitiesExisting Sports and Entertainment Facilities Summary of FindingsExisting Sports and Entertainment Facilities – Summary of Findings

Only 18% (271) of Respondents Believe that the Existing Sports and Entertainment Facilities inthe Greater Richmond Area Adequately Meet the Needs of Residents

Approximately 63% (950) of Respondents Believe that the Existing Sports andEntertainment Facilities in the Greater Richmond Area Do Not Adequately Meet the Needsof Residentsof Residents

Approximately 54% (818) of Respondents Do Not Believe that the Richmond Coliseum isAdequate to Attract Sporting Events

Approximately 60% (914) of Respondents Do Not Believe that the Richmond Coliseum isAdequate to Attract Concerts

Approximately 31% (474) of Respondents Do Not Believe that the Richmond Coliseum isAdequate to Attract Family Shows


Approximately 52% (781) of Respondents Do Not Believe that the Richmond Coliseum isAdequate to Attract Meetings/Conferences

C. Existing Sports and Entertainment FacilitiesCommunity NeedsCommunity Needs

"I believe that the existing sports and entertainment

50%

g pfacilities in the Greater Richmond Area adequately

meet the current needs of community residents."

30%

40%

50%

10%

20%

4%14% 19%

36%27%

0%Strongly

AgreeAgree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree

4%


C. Existing Sports and Entertainment FacilitiesAdequacy/Inadequacy of the Richmond Coliseum to Attract Sporting EventsAdequacy/Inadequacy of the Richmond Coliseum to Attract Sporting Events

"I believe that the Richmond Coliseum is adequate to

50%

attract sporting events (minor league hockey, minor league basketball, arena football, etc.)."

20%

30%

40%

0%

10%

20%

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

23%31%

19% 21%

6%

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree


C. Existing Sports and Entertainment FacilitiesAdequacy/Inadequacy of the Richmond Coliseum to Attract ConcertsAdequacy/Inadequacy of the Richmond Coliseum to Attract Concerts


50%

attract concerts."

20%

30%

40%

0%

10%

20%


30% 30%

15% 19%

6%

Strongly Disagree



C. Existing Sports and Entertainment FacilitiesAdequacy/Inadequacy of the Richmond Coliseum to Attract Family ShowsAdequacy/Inadequacy of the Richmond Coliseum to Attract Family Shows


50%

attract family shows (circus, etc.)."

20%

30%

40%

34%

0%

10%

20%


12%19%

27%34%

8%

Strongly Disagree



C. Existing Sports and Entertainment FacilitiesAdequacy/Inadequacy of the Richmond Coliseum to Attract Meetings/ConferencesAdequacy/Inadequacy of the Richmond Coliseum to Attract Meetings/Conferences


50%

attract meetings/conferences."

20%

30%

40%

0%

10%

20%


25% 26% 26%17%

6%

Strongly Disagree



D. Renovated Coliseum/New Arena DevelopmentRenovated Coliseum/New Arena Development Summary of FindingsRenovated Coliseum/New Arena Development – Summary of Findings

Respondents Generally Supported a Renovated Richmond Coliseum or Construction of a NewDowntown Arena Over Building a New Arena Outside of Downtown or Doing Nothing

Approximately 89% (1,346) of Respondents Believe that a Renovated Coliseum or New ArenaDevelopment Would be a Benefit to the Community

Approximately 99% (1,503) of Respondents Would Potentially Attend an Event at a RenovatedColiseum or New Arena Development

Respondents Generally Rated the Following Events as the Most Likely They Would Attend

Highest ScoresC– Concerts

– Family Shows– NCAA Tournaments


D. Renovated Coliseum/New Arena DevelopmentArena Development OptionsArena Development Options

Arena Development Options

3.53Renovate Richmond Coliseum

Numerical Ranking(1= Strongly Oppose; 5= Strongly Support)

3.38

Build New Arena Outside of

Build New Arena in Downtown Richmond

1.77

3.00

Do Not Renovate Coliseum or Build New Arena

Build New Arena Outside of Downtown Richmond

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00


D. Renovated Coliseum/New Arena DevelopmentArena Development OptionsArena Development Options

60%

Arena Development OptionsRenovate Richmond Coliseum

60%

Arena Development OptionsBuild New Arena in Downtown Richmond

30%

45%

60%

32% 28%

30%

45%

60%

0%

15%

Strongly Oppose

Moderately Oppose

Neutral Moderately Support

Strongly Support

12% 11% 16%

32% 28%

0%

15%

Strongly Oppose

Moderately Oppose


Strongly Support

14% 15% 18% 24% 29%

60%

Arena Development OptionsBuild New Arena Outside of Downtown Richmond

60%

Arena Development OptionsDo Nothing - Maintain Status Quo

15%

30%

45%

24%16% 18% 20% 22% 15%

30%

45%

59%

15% 19%


0%Strongly Oppose

Moderately Oppose


Strongly Support

0%Strongly Oppose

Moderately Oppose


Strongly Support

15%3% 3%

D. Renovated Coliseum/New Arena DevelopmentBenefit to CommunityBenefit to Community

"I believe that a renovated Richmond Coliseum or

60%

I believe that a renovated Richmond Coliseum or new arena in Richmond would be a benefit to the

community."

30%

45%

57%

0%

15%

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

32%

7% 3% 2%

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree


D. Renovated Coliseum/New Arena DevelopmentArena UtilizationArena Utilization

Potentially Attend Event at

60%

Potentially Attend Event at New Arena or Renovated Coliseum

30%

45%

68%

0%

15%

Definitely Probably Maybe Probably Definitely

25%

7% 1% 0%

Definitely Yes

Probably Yes

Maybe Probably No

Definitely No


D. Renovated Coliseum/New Arena DevelopmentArena Utilization – Types of EventsArena Utilization Types of Events

Types of Events to Potentially Attend at New Arena or

3 433.48

4.23

NCAA TournamentsFamily Shows (Disney/etc.)

Concerts

Renovated Coliseum(1= Definitely No, 5=Definitely Yes)

2 612.61

2.852.892.942.98

3.43

Hi h S h l T tMinor League Basketball

Arena FootballMeetings/ConferencesMinor League HockeyProfessional Ice ShowNCAA Tournaments

2.122.12

2.342.42

2.562.61

WrestlingIndoor Lacrosse

Indoor SoccerThrill/Dirt Show

RodeoHigh School Tournaments

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00


D. Renovated Coliseum/New Arena DevelopmentRenovated Coliseum/New Arena Development Summary of FindingsRenovated Coliseum/New Arena Development – Summary of Findings

Approximately 68% (1,031) of Respondents Indicated that a Renovation of the RichmondColiseum or the Development of a Downtown Arena Would Potentially Cause Them to SpendMore Time at Downtown Restaurants, Bars, Retailers, etc. Before and After Events

Approximately 82% (1,246) of Respondents Indicated that that a Renovation of the RichmondColiseum or the Development of a Downtown Arena Would Potentially Contribute to theColiseum or the Development of a Downtown Arena Would Potentially Contribute to theDevelopment of New Downtown Restaurants, Bars, Retailers, Hotels, etc.


D. Renovated Coliseum/New Arena DevelopmentSpend More Time DowntownSpend More Time Downtown

Spend More Time at Downtown Establishments

60%

Spend More Time at Downtown Establishments (Before/After Events)

30%

45%

0%

15%


33% 35%

17% 12%3%

Definitely Yes

Probably Yes

Maybe Probably No

Definitely No


D. Renovated Coliseum/New Arena DevelopmentDowntown DevelopmentDowntown Development

Contribute to Development of Downtown

60%

Contribute to Development of Downtown

30%

45%

41% 41%

0%

15%

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

41% 41%

13%4% 1%

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree


E. Project SupportProject Support Summary of FindingsProject Support – Summary of Findings

Approximately 86% (1,300) of Respondents Support the Ongoing Efforts to Renovate theRichmond Coliseum or Build a New Arena

Approximately 41% (88) of Respondents that Do Not Support the Ongoing Efforts Would LikelySupport the Efforts if the Economy were in a Better Condition


E. Project SupportProject SupportProject Support

60%

Support Project Efforts

30%

45%

60%

54%

0%

15%

30% 54%

32%

10%2% 1%0%

Strongly Support

Moderately Support

Neutral Moderately Oppose

Strongly Oppose


E. Project SupportProject SupportProject Support

Would Support Project Efforts if

60%

Would Support Project Efforts if Economy were in Better Condition

30%

45%

0%

15%


6%

35% 37%

16%6%

Definitely Yes

Probably Yes

Maybe Probably No

Definitely No


F. Miscellaneous Miscellaneous Summary of FindingsMiscellaneous – Summary of Findings

Approximately 36% (531) of Respondents Believe that the Richmond Market Would PotentiallySupport an NBA Franchise (38% Indicated it Would Not)

Approximately 29% (439) of Respondents Believe that the Richmond Market Would PotentiallySupport an NHL Franchise (43% Indicated it Would Not)

40%

Do you believe that the Richmond market would support an NBA or NHL franchise?

NBA

20%

30%

40%

14%

24%27%

21%

15%16%

27% 28%

18%

NHL

0%

10%

14% 15%11%


Definitely Not

Probably Not

Maybe Probably Yes

Definitely Yes

G. DemographicsDemographicsDemographics

25 or under4%

65 or over4%

Prefer Not to Indicate

1%

DemographicsAge

Some High School

0%

High School Graduate

7%Professional Degree

3%

Doctorate Degree

3%


1%Demographics

Education

26 to 4445 to 64

40%

Some College

19%

A i

Master’s Degree17%

3%

26 to 4450%

40% Associates Degree

8%Bachelor’s

Degree41%


6%

Other, please specify

10%

DemographicsOccupation

$0 to $25,0002%

$25,001 to $50,000

12%

DemographicsIncome

Managerial19% Service

4%

ProfessionalSales

Production/Tech

3%

Student2%

Retired8%

Active Military0%

$50,001 to $75,000

16%

$75,001 to

Over $100,00031%


19%


37%Clerical

5%

5%3% $100,000

20%

H. General Comments

Approximately 420 Respondents Provided Additional Comments to the Survey

Common Topics Included

Coliseum Needs to be Replaced/Renovated

H k i D i d T t Hockey is a Desired Tenant

Support for Downtown Site/Support for Suburban Site

Acoustics in the Coliseum Need to be Improved

Appreciate the Opportunity to Voice Opinion


Confidential

IV. MARKET SURVEYS – CORPORATE BASE


IV. Market Surveys – Corporate BaseOverview

Approximately 1,300+ Web-Based Surveys Distributed – 154 Surveys Completed

Chamber of Commerce (1,129)Chamber of Commerce (1,129) Venture Richmond (200+)

Summary Tables Included Herein Reflect Expressions of Interest for Respondents Surveyed –Must Consider Expression of Interest vs Actual Buying Decision, and Sample Size vs TotalUniverse to Assess (Extrapolate) Demand

Given the Nature of the Surveys, the Research Does Not Focus on Development of a SpecificP b bili P M i f E B U ili R l G id d C i T lProbability Percentage or Margin of Error But Utilizes Results as a Guide and Comparative Tool

Results Included Herein are Provided for Illustrative Purposes – Given Regional Nature ofResponses for Certain Questions, Corporate Survey Results May Understate Total Demand

Note: Total Surveys Distributed Above Does Not Include Surveys Randomly Forwarded orCompleted Through Other Non-Approved Distribution Methods (If Any)


IV. Market Surveys – Corporate Base

A. Completed Surveys

B. Project Support

C. Renovated Coliseum/New Arena Development

D. Luxury Suites

E. Loge Boxes

F. Club Seats

G N i Ri h /Ad i iG. Naming Rights/Advertising

H. Miscellaneous


A. Completed SurveysCompleted SurveysCompleted Surveys

Approximately 98% (154) of Respondents are Located or Conduct Business in the GreaterRichmond Area

Company Located or Conducts Businessin Greater Richmond Area

75%

100%

25%

50%98%

0%Yes No

2%


B. Project SupportProject Support Summary of FindingsProject Support – Summary of Findings

Approximately 91% (140) of Respondents Support the Ongoing Efforts to Renovate theRichmond Coliseum or Build a New Arena

Approximately 93% (13) of Respondents that Do Not Support the Ongoing Efforts Would LikelySupport the Efforts if the Economy were in a Better Condition



Support Efforts

100%

50%

75%

62%

0%

25%

Strongly Moderately Neutral Moderately Strongly

62%

29%

5% 3% 1%

Strongly Support

Moderately Support

Neutral Moderately Oppose

Strongly Oppose



Would Support Project Efforts if

60%

Economy were in Better Condition

30%

45%

43%

0%

15%


21%29%

7%0%

Definitely Yes

Probably Yes

Maybe Probably No

Definitely No


C. Renovated Coliseum/New Arena DevelopmentRenovated Coliseum/New Arena Development Summary of FindingsRenovated Coliseum/New Arena Development – Summary of Findings

Respondents Generally Supported Construction of a New Downtown Arena or RenovatedRichmond Coliseum Over Building a New Arena Outside of Downtown or Doing Nothing

Approximately 66% (102) of Respondents Support the Construction of a New Downtown Arena

A i l 49% (75) f R d S h R i f h Ri h d C li Approximately 49% (75) of Respondents Support the Renovation of the Richmond Coliseum

Approximately 24% (37) of Respondents Support Construction of a New Arena Outside ofDowntown

Approximately 81% (124) of Respondents Oppose Doing Nothing – Not Renovating theColiseum or Building a New Arena


C. Renovated Coliseum/New Arena DevelopmentArena Development OptionsArena Development Options

Arena Development Options

3.81Build New Arena in Downtown Richmond

Numerical Ranking(1= Strongly Oppose; 5= Strongly Support)

3.11

Build New Arena

Renovate Richmond Coliseum

Downtown Richmond

1.60

2.38

Do Not Renovate Coliseum or Build

New Arena

Outside of Downtown Richmond

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00


C. Renovated Coliseum/New Arena DevelopmentArena Development OptionsArena Development Options

80%

Arena Development OptionsRenovate Richmond Coliseum

80%

Arena Development OptionsBuild New Arena in Downtown Richmond

20%

40%

60%

32% 20%

40%

60%

40%

0%Strongly Oppose

Moderately Oppose


Strongly Support

19% 16% 16%32%

16%

0%Strongly Oppose

Moderately Oppose


Strongly Support

8% 10% 16%26%

Arena Development Options Arena Development Options

60%

80%

Arena Development OptionsBuild New Arena Outside of Downtown Richmond

60%

80%

Arena Development OptionsDo Nothing - Maintain Status Quo

20%

40%

40%

19% 17% 12% 12%

20%

40%67%

14% 14%


0%Strongly Oppose

Moderately Oppose


Strongly Support

12% 12%0%

Strongly Oppose

Moderately Oppose


Strongly Support

3% 3%

D. Luxury SuitesOverviewOverview

Typical/Traditional Amenities (Per Survey Description)

P f d ki Preferred parking Exclusive/private entrances Exclusive lounge areas Climate controlClimate control Upscale furnishings Wider, padded comfortable seats Excellent sight lines Television monitors Waiter/waitress service Upscale food and catering services C i i Concierge service Private restrooms Wet bar Telephones


Telephones Ice makers

D. Luxury SuitesLuxury Suites – Summary of Findings

Respondents were Asked if they Would Potentially be Interested in Leasing State-of-the-ArtLuxury Suites at a Renovated Richmond Coliseum or a New Arena

Respondents were Advised that Luxury Suite Included 12 Season Tickets to High Level MinorLeague Hockey (e.g. AHL/ECHL) and Rights to Purchase Tickets to Other Events

Interest in Purchasing Luxury Suites Before Pricing Interest in Purchasing Luxury Suites – Before Pricing

Approximately 47% (72) of Respondents Indicated Some Interest

Interest at Various Price Points (Interest = Definitely Yes/Probably Yes/Maybe) Interest at Various Price Points (Interest = Definitely Yes/Probably Yes/Maybe)

$50,000 – 27% (19) $35,000 – 38% (27) $25 000 60% (43) $25,000 – 60% (43)

Interest at Various Price Points (Interest = Definitely Yes/Probably Yes/Maybe)

Si ifi t I i D d t $25 000 L l I di t d b D fi it l Y /P b bl


Significant Increase in Demand at $25,000 Level as Indicated by Definitely Yes/ProbablyYes Respondents (6% to 24%)

D. Luxury SuitesLuxury Suites – Summary of Findingsy y g

Interest in Suite Sharing or Co-Op Opportunities (Price Below Lowest Level)

Approximately 93% (27) of Respondents Interested in Suite Sharingpp y ( ) p g

Commitment Term

Respondents Indicated a Preference for Shorter Commitment Terms (3 to 5 Years)

Respondents Asked to Indicate Interest Level in Luxury Suite Amenities from (1) Definitely NotImportant to (5) Definitely ImportantImportant to (5) Definitely Important

Highest Scores

Private Suite Level Restroom Premium Catering Menu

Pl S S t T bl f Fi di b C t


Please See Support Tables for Findings by Category

D. Luxury SuitesLuxury Suite Interest (Before Price) – Total (154)Luxury Suite Interest (Before Price) Total (154)

Interest in Leasing Luxury Suites

80%

(Before Pricing)

40%

60%

53%

0%

20%

Yes Maybe Depends No

6%

41%53%

Yes Maybe, Depends on Price

No


D. Luxury SuitesInterest Level at Various Price Points – Total (72)Interest Level at Various Price Points Total (72)

Interest in Leasing Luxury Suites Yes

60%

80% 74%

63%

(After Pricing) MaybeNo

40%

60%

24%21%28%

36%40%

0%

20%

$50 000 $35 000 $25 000

6%10%

21%

$50,000 $35,000 $25,000


D. Luxury SuitesInterest in Suite Sharing or Co-op Opportunities – Total (29)Interest in Suite Sharing or Co op Opportunities Total (29)

Interest in Suite-Sharing or Co-op Opportunities

80%

40%

60%

76%

0%

20%


3%14%

3% 3%

Definitely Yes

Probably Yes

Maybe Probably No

Definitely No


D. Luxury SuitesImpact of Escalation Rates on Length of Commitment TermImpact of Escalation Rates on Length of Commitment Term

Relationship between Escalation Rate

60%

80%

and Lease Term for Luxury Suites

20%

40%

37% 33%19%

0%3 Years with 7% Annual Escalation

5 Years with 5% Annual Escalation


10 Years with 2% Annual

Escalation


3% 9%19%

Escalation


D. Luxury SuitesDesired Luxury Suite AmenitiesDesired Luxury Suite Amenities

Luxury Suite Amenities

3 81

3.93

4.19

Private Restroom In Suite

Premium Catering/Menu

Private Suite Level Restroom Area

(1= Definitely Not Important; 5= Definitely Important)

3.61

3.64

3.73

3.81

S i i i S i

Access to Suites During Non-Events

Standard Suite Furniture Packages

Access to Private Restaurant/Lounge

Private Restroom In Suite

2.56

3.01

3.34

3.54

Business Center

Option to Personally Furnish Suite

Valet Parking

In-Suite Waiter-Waitress Service

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00


E. Loge BoxesLoge Boxes


4 t 6 S t 4 to 6 Seats Preferred parking Exclusive/private entrances Exclusive lounge areasExclusive lounge areas Wider, padded comfortable seats on wheels Drink rails/counters Excellent sight lines Television monitors Waiter/waitress service Upscale food and catering services C i i Concierge service Access to restricted area restrooms


E. Loge BoxesLoge Boxes – Summary of Findings

Survey Respondents were Asked if they Would Potentially be Interested in Purchasing LogeBoxes at a Renovated Richmond Coliseum or a New Arena

Respondents were Advised that Loge Box Included 4 Season Tickets to High Level MinorLeague Hockey (e.g. AHL/ECHL) and Rights to Purchase Tickets to Other Events

Interest in Purchasing Loge Box – Before Pricing

Approximately 51% (79) of Respondents Indicated Some Interest


$15 000 – 51% (40) $15,000 51% (40) $10,000 – 71% (56) $5,000 – 95% (75)


E. Loge BoxesLoge Boxes – Summary of Findingsg y g


Significant Increase in Demand at $5,000 Level as Indicated by Definitely Yes/Probably Yesg , y y yRespondents (11% to 42%)

Commitment Term




E. Loge BoxesLoge Box Interest (Before Price) – Total (154)Loge Box Interest (Before Price) Total (154)

Interest in Leasing Loge Boxes

80%

(Before Pricing)

40%

60%

47% 49%

0%

20%


4%

47% 49%


No


E. Loge BoxesInterest Level at Various Price Points – Total (79)Interest Level at Various Price Points Total (79)

Interest in Leasing Loge Boxes Yes

60%

80%

56% 53%

(After Pricing)MaybeNo

40%

60%

42%39%

56% 53%49%

29%

0%

20%

$15 000 $10 000 $5 000

11%15%

5%

$15,000 $10,000 $5,000


E. Loge BoxesImpact of Escalation Rates on Length of Commitment TermImpact of Escalation Rates on Length of Commitment Term


60%

80%

and Lease Term for Loge Boxes

20%

40%

35% 40%

16%0%





Escalation


1% 8% 16%

Escalation


F. Club SeatsClub Seats


P f d ki Preferred parking Exclusive/private entrances Exclusive lounge areas Wider, padded comfortable seats with extra legroom/cup holdersWider, padded comfortable seats with extra legroom/cup holders Excellent sight lines Upscale food services Private concessions areas Concierge service Access to restricted area restrooms


F. Club SeatsClub Seats – Summary of Findingsy g

Survey Respondents were Asked if they Would Potentially be Interested in Purchasing ClubSeats at a Renovated Richmond Coliseum or a New Arena

Respondents were Advised that the Club Seat Premium Would be in Addition to the Cost ofSeason Tickets for a High Level Minor League Team (e.g. AHL/ECHL) and Club Seat HoldersWould have First Right of Refusal to Purchase Tickets to Other Events

Interest in Club Seats (Before Pricing)

Approximately 58% (90) of Respondents Indicated Some Interest Approximately 58% (90) of Respondents Indicated Some Interest


$1,000 – 69% (62) $750 – 76% (68) $500 – 87% (78)


F. Club SeatsClub Seats – Summary of FindingsClub Seats Summary of Findings


Significant Increase in Demand at $500 Level as Indicated by Definitely Yes/Probably YesRespondents (24% to 47%)

Number of Seats Likely Purchased Number of Seats Likely Purchased

Respondents Indicated a Likely Purchase of 4.8 ($1,000) to 3.7 ($500) Club Seats

Commitment Term




F. Club SeatsClub Seats (Before Price) – Total (154)Club Seats (Before Price) Total (154)

Interest in Leasing Club Seats

80%

(Before Pricing)

40%

60%

50%

0%

20%


8%

50%42%


No


F. Club SeatsInterest Level at Various Price Points – Total (90)Interest Level at Various Price Points Total (90)

Interest in Leasing Club Seats Yes

60%

80%

(After Pricing) MaybeNo

40%

60%

24%30%

47%44% 46%40%

31%24%

0%

20%

$1 000 $750 $500

13%

$1,000 $750 $500


F. Club SeatsNumber of Club SeatsNumber of Club Seats

Number of Club Seats to Purchase

4 0

5.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

4.8 4.63.7

0.0

1.0

$1 000 $750 $500$1,000 $750 $500


F. Club SeatsImpact of Escalation Rates on Length of Commitment TermImpact of Escalation Rates on Length of Commitment Term


60%

80%

and Lease Term for Club Seats

20%

40%

45%33%

13%0%





Escalation


4% 5% 13%

Escalation


G. Naming Rights/AdvertisingOverviewOverview

Respondents Were Asked to Indicate if They Were Potentially Interested in Naming Rights to aRenovated Richmond Coliseum or a New Arena

Respondents Were Advised of Potential Benefits/Rights Associated with Naming Rights

Facility Name Facility Name Advertising Opportunities Luxury Suite Other Tickets Other

Respondents Were Advised that Local/Regional Corporations are the Typical Buyer of Namingf M C itifor Many Communities


G. Naming Rights/AdvertisingSummary of FindingsSummary of Findings

Approximately 11% (17) of Respondents Indicated an Interest in Naming Rights – Before Pricing(Interest = Yes/Maybe, Depends on Price)


$750 000 Approximately 24% (4) $750,000 – Approximately 24% (4) $500,000 – Approximately 24% (4) $250,000 – Approximately 24% (4)

Interest at Various Price Points (Interest = Definitely Yes/Probably Yes)

$750,000 – Approximately 0% (0) $ $500,000 – Approximately 6% (1) $250,000 – Approximately 6% (1)

Approximately 49% (75) of Respondents Indicated an Interest in Advertising – No Pricing Tested


pp y % ( ) p g g

G. Naming Rights/AdvertisingNaming Rights (Before Price) – Total (154)Naming Rights (Before Price) Total (154)

Interest in Purchasing Naming Rights

100%

(Before Pricing)

50%

75%

89%

0%

25%


0%11%


No


G. Naming Rights/AdvertisingInterest Level at Various Price Points – Total (17)Interest Level at Various Price Points Total (17)

Interest in Purchasing Naming Rights Yes

75%

100%

76% 76% 76%

(After Pricing)MaybeNo

50%

75%

24%

0%

25%

$750 000 $500 000 $250 000

0%6% 6%

24%18% 18%

$750,000 $500,000 $250,000


G. Naming Rights/AdvertisingInterest Level in Advertising – Total (154)Interest Level in Advertising Total (154)

Interest in Advertising/Sponsorship

60%

30%

45%

38%

0%

15%


1%9%

38%

25% 27%

Definitely Yes

Probably Yes

Maybe Probably No

Definitely No


H. Miscellaneous Miscellaneous Summary of FindingsMiscellaneous – Summary of Findings

Approximately 24% (38) of Respondents Believe that the Richmond Market Would PotentiallySupport an NBA Franchise (51% Indicated it Would Not)

Approximately 20% (30) of Respondents Believe that the Richmond Market Would PotentiallySupport an NHL Franchise (58% Indicated it Would Not)

40%40%

Do you believe that the Richmond market would support an NBA or NHL franchise?

NBA

20%

30%

40%

20%

31%

24%

18%18%

23%

17%

NBANHL

0%

10%

20%

6%3%


Definitely Not

Probably Not

Maybe Probably Yes

Definitely Yes

Confidential

V. PRELIMINARY FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS


V. Preliminary Facility CharacteristicsPreliminary Program RecommendationsPreliminary Program Recommendations

Arena Characteristics

Capacity – 360 Degree 15 000 Capacity 360 Degree 15,000

Capacity – 270 Degree (End Stage) 14,000

Luxury Suites 15 – 25 Luxury Suites 15 25

Loge Boxes 15 – 20

Club Seats 500 – 650 Club Seats 500 650

Parking (Public Sector Spaces – Revenue to Arena) 1,000


V. Preliminary Facility Characteristics

Capacity Comparison – Richmond Coliseum and Proposed Arena

Final Proposed Arena Design May Provide Opportunity to Increase Capacity Based onConfigurationsConfigurations

Richmond Proposed Net

Capacities - Based on 270 Degree Configuration (End Stage Concert)

Coliseum Arena Increase360 Degree - (1) 12,217 15,000 2,783270 Degree 10,385 14,000 3,615180 Degree 8,315 12,000 3,685Hockey 10,454 13,000 2,546Basketball 11,038 13,500 2,462

Notes: Proposed capacities are estimates - detailed analysis to be completed. Arena configuration and curtain system will be important factor on capacities (e.g., horseshoe shape, etc.)( g , p , )(1) Coliseum management indicated largest set-up has been for 12,800 seats. Capacity listed at 13,410.


V. Preliminary Facility Characteristics

Capacity Comparison – John Paul Jones Arena and Proposed Arena

Final Proposed Arena Design May Provide Opportunity to Increase Capacity Based onConfigurationsConfigurations

John Paul Proposed Percentage

Capacities - Based on 270 Degree Configuration (End Stage Concert)

Jones Arena Arena Difference Difference360 Degree 15,405 15,000 (405) -3%270 Degree 14,075 14,000 (75) -1%180 Degree 12,719 12,000 (719) -6%Hockey NA 13,000 NA NAy ,Basketball 14,858 13,500 (1,358) -10%

Notes: Proposed capacities are estimates - detailed analysis to be completed. Arena configuration and curtain system will be important factor on capacities (e.g., horseshoe shape etc )shape, etc.)


V. Preliminary Facility CharacteristicsPreliminary Arena Inventory Summaryy y y

Proposed Seating Capacity Comparable with Arenas in Evaluated Markets

Arenas in Comparable Markets – Seating Capacity

20 000

25,000

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

,500

,700

9,40

0

0,50

0

13,6

60

14,0

00

14,5

00

14,5

72

000

-15,

000

15,5

85

16,0

00

16,4

78

16,5

00

18,0

00

18,1

19

18,5

00

19,5

00

20,0

00

20,2

00

20,8

17

21,5

00

22,0

00

22,6

69

0

Bar

tow

Are

na

ar P

ark

Cen

ter

t Con

voca

tion …

Mav

erik

Cen

ter

ng N

BA

/NH

L

e C

ross

Are

na

mor

ial C

ente

r

Don

uts C

ente

r

(Pre

limin

ary)

ve M

art C

ente

r

nvill

e Vet

eran

s …

Ave

rage

XL

Cen

ter

Orle

ans A

rena

Fede

xFor

um

eco

Fiel

dhou

se

RB

C C

ente

r

Bra

dley

Cen

ter

r Cab

le A

rena

Ford

Cen

ter

HSB

C A

rena

Yum

! Cen

ter

gest

one

Are

na

8, 8, 9 1

14,0

B

Ced

a

Ted

Con

stan

t M

Ave

rage

-Ex

clud

in

Blu

e

McK

ale M

em

Dun

kin'

D

Ric

hmon

d, V

A

Sav

Jack

son

New

O

Con

se B

Tim

e War

ner

KFC

Brid

g


Sources: Claritas 2010, 2010 Audarena, 2010 Sports Business Resource Guide and Fact Book, and industry research.


Proposed Luxury Suite Inventory Comparable to the Average of Arenas in Median Markets(Excluding NBA / NHL Venues) – Based on Survey Demand

Arenas in Comparable Markets – Luxury Suites

80

203040506070

5 6 0 1 43 46 52 56 59 60 66 69 72 75 80

01020

tow

Are

na

rial C

ente

r

nvoc

atio

n …

uts C

ente

r

ark

Cen

ter

elim

inar

y)

ross

Are

na

e Vet

eran

s …

NB

A/N

HL

ord

Cen

ter

art C

ente

r

erik

Cen

ter

Ave

rage

XL

Cen

ter

ley

Cen

ter

ans A

rena

dexF

orum

able

Are

na

BC

Cen

ter

Fiel

dhou

se

one

Are

na

m! C

ente

r

BC

Are

na

0 0

16 20 24

15 -

2 5

25 28 29 3 6 40 4 4 4

Bar

t

McK

ale M

emor

Ted

Con

stan

t Con

Dun

kin'

Don

u

Ced

ar P

a

Ric

hmon

d, V

A (P

re

Blu

e C

r

Jack

sonv

ille

vera

ge -

Excl

udin

g N Fo

Save

M

Mav

e X

Bra

d

New

Orle

a

Fed

Tim

e War

ner C

a RB

Con

seco

F

Brid

gest

o

KFC

Yum

HS


Av



Proposed Club Seat Inventory Comparable to the Average of Arenas in Median Markets(Excluding NBA / NHL Venues) – Based on Survey Demand Does Not Include Loge Box Inventory Does Not Include Loge Box Inventory

Arenas in Comparable Markets – Club Seats

3,000

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

,

50 0 6 2 642

750

2,00

0

2,50

0

2,60

0

2,62

0

2,64

0

2,80

0

2,85

4

0

500

tow

Are

na

uts C

ente

r

art C

ente

r

rial C

ente

r

oss A

rena

XL

Cen

ter

ley

Cen

ter

ark

Cen

ter

elim

inar

y)

NB

A/N

HL

nvoc

atio

n …

one

Are

na

e Vet

eran

s …

Ave

rage

dexF

orum

rik C

ente

r

BC

Cen

ter

BC

Are

na

able

Are

na

ord

Cen

ter

Fiel

dhou

se

ans A

rena

m! C

ente

r

0 0 0 0 0 302

500

545

500

-65

675

862

1,10

0

1,11

6

1,29 1,

6 1,7 2

Bar

t

Dun

kin'

Don

u

Save

Ma

McK

ale M

emor

Blu

e C

ro X

Bra

dl

Ced

ar P

a

Ric

hmon

d, V

A (P

re

vera

ge -

Excl

udin

g N

Ted

Con

stan

t Con

Brid

gest

o

Jack

sonv

ille

Fed

Mav

e RB

HSB

Tim

e War

ner C

a Fo

Con

seco

F

New

Orle

a

KFC

Yum


Av


Confidential

VI. POTENTIAL ARENA SITES


VI. Potential Arena SitesSite Selection – Preliminary ScreeningSite Selection Preliminary Screening

Seven Sites Evaluated – Preliminary Screening

Site #1 Existing Coliseum Site

Site #2 City Parking Lots Site (8th-10th Streets)

Site #3 The Diamond Site

Site #4 ABC SiteSite #4 ABC Site

Site #5 City Stadium Site

Site #6 John Perel Property Site

Site #7 Mayo’s Island Site


Preliminary Site Evaluation Identified Four Preferred Sites

VII. Potential Arena SitesSite RequirementsSite Requirements

Urban Sites

Site Area– Desirable 6.0 Acres– Minimum 5.05 Acres

Suburban Sites– Desirable 65.0 Acres

Without Public TransitWithout Public Transit

Site Configuration Allows Acceptable Building Configuration and Exterior Spaces

Ability to Build/Lease Parking Spaces for Premium Customers Adjacent to Arena

Proximity to Adequate Parking and Transit within ½ Mile


Ability to Accommodate Service Functions and Television Truck Parking

VI. Potential Arena SitesPreliminary Analysis – Evaluation CategoriesPreliminary Analysis Evaluation Categories

Urban Design Factors Analyze the Site in Relation to the Framework of the Market Id tifi Ci i D i P t ti l Identifies Civic Design Potential Consider the Overall Fan Experience Adequate Site Arena and Configuration

Transportation Factors Determines the Convenience a Site Offers for Pedestrians and Automobiles Access Parking Numbers and Public Transit Connections

Site Factors Site Characteristics which Influence the Design and Overall Cost Utility Capacity and Relocation

Cost and Economical Factors Potential Acquisition, Demolition, and Relocation Costs


Timing Factors Potential Significant Delays

VI. Potential Arena SitesSite Selection – Preliminary ScreeningSite Selection Preliminary Screening


VI. Potential Arena SitesAdditional Analysis – Evaluation Categories

Urban Design Factors Adequate Site Arena and Dimension

Configuration

Economic Factors Property Availability/Relative Cost Displacement and RelocationConfiguration

Public Perception Fan Experience Visibility S f t d S it

Displacement and Relocation Compensation Development Costs Leverage Community Assets

Safety and Security

Transportation Factors Pedestrian Circulation

Promote Development and Investment Potential Positive Impact on Community

Timing Factors Vehicular Access Public Transportation Parking Quantity Parking Proximity

g Acquisition Timing Approvals Ownership Issues Zoning Parking Proximity

Site and Utility Factors Utility Infrastructure i l Q li

Zoning Restrictions

Intangibles


Environmental Quality Public Support Risk

VI. Potential Arena SitesSite Selection – Additional ScreeningSite Selection Additional Screening


VI. Potential Arena SitesSite Selection – Additional Screeningg(Weighted Average)


VI. Potential Arena SitesSite Selection – Additional Screening

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Coliseum City Lots Diamond Site ABC SiteSite Selection Additional Screening Coliseum City Lots Diamond Site ABC Site

Urban Design FactorsAdequate site area and dimension 4 2 4 4Configuration 4 1 3 3Public perception 4 4 3 3Fan experience 4 4 2 2Visibility 4 4 2 3Safety and security 4 4 2 2y y

Subtotal 24 19 16 17TransportationPedestrian circulation 3 4 2 2Vehicular access 1 2 4 4Public transportation 4 4 4 4Parking quantity 2 2 4 3Parking proximity 2 2 4 4

Subtotal 12 14 18 17Site and Utility FactorsUtility infrastructure 4 4 4 4Environmental quality 3 4 1 3

Subtotal 7 8 5 7Economic factorsProperty availability and relative costs 2 3 4 3Displacement and relocation 1 3 4 3Compensation 4 4 2 2Development Costs 1 2 4 3Leverage community assets 3 4 2 2Promote development and investment 3 4 1 2Potential positive impact on community 4 4 4 4

Subtotal 18 24 21 19Ti i F tTiming FactorsAcquisition timing 1 3 4 2Approvals 3 4 3 3Ownership issues 4 2 3 2Zoning 4 4 4 3Restrictions 4 3 4 3

Subtotal 16 16 18 13Intangibles


IntangiblesPublic Support 3 4 3 3Risk 1 2 3 3

Subtotal 4 6 6 6TOTAL POINTS 81 87 84 79

Confidential

VII. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES


VII. Preliminary Construction Cost EstimatesConcept Estimate

Preliminary Cost Estimate Prepared by Weston and Populous with Input from Hunt Construction

Preliminary Cost Estimate Provided for Illustrative Purposes Preliminary Cost Estimate Provided for Illustrative Purposes

Construction Costs of Numerous Comparable Facilities were Evaluated

E ti t Adj t d f 2012 C t ti St t L l M k t C diti Et Estimates Adjusted for 2012 Construction Start, Local Market Conditions, Etc.

Site Utilities and Environmental Issues may have Impact on Cost

Preliminary Cost Estimate Does Not Include the Following

Land Acquisition Off-Site Infrastructure Off Site Infrastructure Relocation Parking Structure (If Any) Other


VII. Preliminary Construction Cost EstimatesConcept Estimate

Arena Design and Construction $136,350,000Survey $50,000Design $10,500,000

Cost Estimate

Environmental $150,000Pre-Construction $225,000Owner Testing/Geo-Tech $1,500,000Owner FF&E $2,500,000Insurance $1,500,000Arena Construction $113,925,000Contingency $6,000,000

Arena Construction Administration $4,200,000Project Management Fee and Reimbursement $2,000,000Project Management Consultants/Contingency $500,000Legal $1,000,000Public Information $200,000Arena Authority Administrative Expense $500,000

Construction and Land Acquisition $6,623,000Site Acquisition To be DeterminedDemolition/Site Preparation $1,123,000Richmond Coliseum Demolition $3,500,000Other/Contingency $2,000,000


Total $147,173,000

VII. Preliminary Construction Cost EstimatesRenovation Alternative – Other

Richmond Coliseum Renovation Alternative was Considered and Evaluated on a Limited Basis

Richmond Coliseum Facility Structural Survey and Building Systems Analysis (Performed bySMBW Architects PC Wiss Janney Elstner Associates Inc and HCYu and Associates) OctoberSMBW Architects PC, Wiss Janney Elstner Associates, Inc., and HCYu and Associates) – October2009 Identified the Following Issues with the Coliseum

Rainwater is Entering the Building (Roof/Sidewalls) Water is Entering Below Grade Spaces though Leaks in the Plaza Pavingg p g g Cracking in the Brick Façade of the Building Indicates Instability of the Brick Façade Settlement and Movement Cracking is Evident in the Masonry and Concrete Systems Forming

the Building Enclosure Water Infiltration has Caused Rust/Deterioration within the Wall/Roof Systems of the BuildingWater Infiltration has Caused Rust/Deterioration within the Wall/Roof Systems of the Building Arena Floor Slab has Settled and Need to be Replaced Roof and Roof Substructure Past Anticipated Service Life and Need to be Replaced Roof Gutters/Drains have Rotted Out Letting Rainwater Directly into the Building Replacement of the Roof and Roof Substructure System Could Limit the Main Roof’s Load Replacement of the Roof and Roof Substructure System Could Limit the Main Roof s Load

Carrying and Rigging Capacity Coliseum’s Glazing (Windows) and Entry Doors Need Major Repairs or Replacement “Microbial Growth” (Possibly Mold) has been Seen in the Stucco Ceilings in the Concourses Colise m is C rrentl Not S itable for a Post E ent Storm Shelter b t co ld be Upgraded


Coliseum is Currently Not Suitable for a Post Event Storm Shelter, but could be Upgraded Coliseum would Never be Suitable as a Storm Shelter During a Hurricane (Few, if any, Arenas

are Suitable Because of Long-Span Roofs)

VII. Preliminary Construction Cost EstimatesRenovation Alternative – Other

Estimated Cost for Deferred Maintenance and Identified Repairs is Approximately $18.0 to $20.0Million (Not Including Remediation for Microbial Growth)

Additional Seating Capacity Required to Attract Additional Events Likely in Upper Bowl Additional Seating Capacity Required to Attract Additional Events – Likely in Upper Bowl

Promoters Would Prefer More Seats in the Lower Bowl as Compared to Current Configuration

B d G l d Obj ti Id tifi d b th Pl i G th R d d P Based on Goals and Objectives Identified by the Planning Group, the Recommended ProgramCannot Efficiently be Accommodated in a Renovated Coliseum


Confidential

VIII. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS


VIII. Financial Analysis Richmond Coliseum Opened in 1971p

Seating Capacity 13,410 (Announced)– Hockey Configuration 10,454

B k tb ll C fi ti 11 038– Basketball Configuration 11,038– 360 Degree Configuration 12,217– 270 Degree Configuration (End Stage) 10,385

Note: Coliseum Management has Indicated a Maximum Set-Up Capacity of 12,800

“Luxury” Suites 12

“Club” Seats 668

Major Tenants/Eventsj– CAA Basketball Tournament– Richmond Raiders (SIFL)– Concerts


– Family Shows– Conventions/Conferences/Meetings


Richmond Coliseum Operating Information

Unaudited2008 2009 2010

# of Events 99 112 83

Richmond Coliseum

# of Events 99 112 83Attendance 435,429 466,903 406,295

RevenuesDirect Event, Net $400,054 $255,276 $279,911Concessions $743,469 $880,239 $517,066N lt $105 647 $53 575 $30 673Novelty $105,647 $53,575 $30,673Parking $68,045 $70,696 $64,373Luxury Suites $234,807 $122,245 $69,203Advertising/Sponsorship $126,614 $121,135 $101,221Facility Fees & Rebates $470,765 $313,485 $384,651Other $56,762 $14,033 $14,471

Total Revenues $2,206,163 $1,830,684 $1,461,569

ExpensesExecutive $169,185 $223,799 $228,801Finance $272,248 $286,855 $249,847Marketing $219,087 $207,957 $164,670Operations $956,938 $784,166 $644,666Overhead $979,999 $1,007,381 $783,488Box Office $170,634 $152,117 $139,751Food & Beverage $345,822 $349,350 $298,424

Total Expenses $3,113,913 $3,011,625 $2,509,647


Net Operating Income ($907,750) ($1,180,941) ($1,048,078)

Source: Richmond Coliseum.


Richmond Coliseum Operating Information 2009 2010Events

Hockey 31 0Indoor Football 0 8Sporting Events 7 7Concerts 16 7F il Sh 27 20Family Shows 27 20Entertainment 5 15Assemblies 14 14Coventions 6 9Miscellaneous 6 3Total 112 83

T t l Att d T tilTotal Attendance - TurnstileHockey 74,360 0Indoor Football 0 20,011Sporting Events 27,792 38,771Concerts 86,280 33,693Family Shows 87,763 77,835Entertainment 34 389 69 458Entertainment 34,389 69,458Assemblies 91,800 89,574Coventions 29,825 73,127Miscellaneous 34,694 3,826Total 466,903 406,295

Average Attendance - TurnstileHockey 2 399 0Hockey 2,399 0Indoor Football 0 2,501Sporting Events 3,970 5,539Concerts 5,393 4,813Family Shows 3,250 3,892Entertainment 6,878 4,631Assemblies 6 557 6 398


Assemblies 6,557 6,398Coventions 4,971 8,125Miscellaneous 5,782 1,275

Source: Richmond Coliseum.

VIII. Financial AnalysisFinancial Analysis

Completed Analysis of Potential Financial and Operating Characteristics of a New DowntownRichmond Arena to Understand Potential Net Operating Income Generated by Proposed Facility

BSG has Made Significant Assumptions Related to the Proposed Arena’s Operating Revenues BSG has Made Significant Assumptions Related to the Proposed Arena s Operating Revenuesand Expenses

Information Obtained from Comparable Facilities and Our Database on Arena Operations

In Order to Obtain Accurate and Relevant Information, BSG Agreed to Maintain Confidentialityof Facilities

Operating Data Gathered from Over 36 Comparable Sports and Entertainment Facilities – ListN d 20 F ili i B dNarrowed to 20 Facilities Based on: Market Demographics Physical Characteristics (Age, Capacity, Premium Seating, Etc.) Tenants Climate Climate Others

Facilities Providing Information are Referred to as Arena A, B, C, etc.


Arena Reference Letters have been Randomly Adjusted to Further Protect Identity

VIII. Financial AnalysisFinancial AnalysisFinancial Analysis

Comparable Data has been Adjusted, as Appropriate, to Reflect Current Dollars

Baseline Assumptions Adjusted to Reflect Variables

Market Demographics Ph i l Ch t i ti (A C it P i S ti Et ) Physical Characteristics (Age, Capacity, Premium Seating, Etc.) Tenant/Event Mix Number of Professional and Collegiate Sports Franchises Other Entertainment AlternativesOther Entertainment Alternatives Climate Cost of Living Other


VIII. Financial AnalysisProject Description ARENA CHARACTERISTICSProject Description

Based on the Program Described in theMarket Analysis Section

Capacity - Maximum 15,000

Capacity - End Stage 14,000

Luxury Suites (Including Game Day/Reserved) 25

Loge Boxes 20

ARENA CHARACTERISTICS

Loge Boxes 20

Club Seats 500

Parking (Public Sector Spaces - Revenue to Arena) 1,000

Average Paid Total Paid EVENT MIX

Events Attendance - (1) AttendanceSporting Events

Minor League Hockey 40 4,755 190,192Collegiate (CAA/NCAA/etc.) 6 10,000 60,000Arena Football 7 4,000 28,000NBA D League 25 3,000 75,000

Concerts 12 5,667 68,000

Family Shows 24 3,979 95,500CircusSesame StreetBarney/Wiggles/Other

Other Sporting EventsThrill/Dirt Shows/WWE 3 7,500 22,500Professional Ice Skating 1 5,000 5,000

MiscellaneousConventions 4 7,500 30,000Assemblies 15 5,000 75,000


Total 137 649,192

(1) Reflects weighted average. Events and average attendance may not equal total attendance.


Proposed Arena – Revenue Assumptions


A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsEvent Mix

Potential Types of Events Include

Sporting Events (e.g., Minor League Hockey, Minor League Basketball, Arena Football, etc.)

Family Shows (e.g., Circus, Barney, etc.)

Tournaments (e.g., CAA, NCAA, etc.)

Ice Shows

Rodeo

Th ill/Di Sh /WWE Thrill/Dirt Shows/WWE

Concerts

Meetings/Banquets/ConferencesMeetings/Banquets/Conferences

Other

Number of Events per Comparable Vary Significantly Due to a Variety of Factors Including:i k i i i i


Tenant Mix; Market Competition; Age; Amenities; etc.

A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsEvent Mix

Number of Events Ranged from a Low of 97 to a High of 401. Average Number of Events wasApproximately 176

For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed the Proposed Arena would Host 137 Events(Including Conventions/Assemblies). In FY 2010, the Coliseum Hosted 83 Events – Three YearAverage, 98 Events.

Higher Activity Facilities are Often Part of Larger Complex Operating in Conjunction withConvention Center, Performing Arts Center, etc. or have Different Accounting/ReportingMethods:

401400

Number of Events

Meetings Banquets Conferences Other 150 154 154 155 158

215

272

327

176200

300

400

Other97 109 115 116 123 128 139 150 154 154 155 158

137

0

100


A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsTotal Attendance

Attendance at the Comparables Vary Significantly Due to a Variety of Factors Including: TenantMix; Market Competition; Age; Amenities; Accounting/Reporting Policies etc.

Total Attendance Ranged from a Low of Approximately 239,000 to a High of Approximately 1.0Million. Average Annual Attendance was Approximately 495,000.

We Have Assumed Total Turnstile Attendance of Approximately 559 000 and Paid Attendance of We Have Assumed Total Turnstile Attendance of Approximately 559,000 and Paid Attendance ofApproximately 574,000 (Excluding Assemblies Attendance) for the Proposed Arena (Year 1).Attendance for Selected Events is Expected to Decrease Somewhat After Year 1.

1 000Attendance (000s)

512595

650 682 684 685

1,000

495559 600

800

1,000

239323 328 347 367 381 386 411 412 418

0

200

400


A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsRental Revenues

Rental Revenues are Expected toProvide a Source of Revenue in theProposed Arena

Per Game Minimum Percentage

Sporting EventsMinor League Hockey $5,500 8.00%C ll i t (CAA/NCAA/ t ) $10 000 8 00%p

Rental Revenues are GenerallyDetermined by a Percentage of TicketSales, Flat Use Fees (Annual or One-

Collegiate (CAA/NCAA/etc.) $10,000 8.00%Arena Football $5,500 8.00%NBA D League $5,000 8.00%

Concerts $15,000 - $25,000 8.00%, (Time), or Other Methods

Rental Rates Among Comparables MayVary Significantly Depending on a

Family Shows $5,000 8.00% - 10.00%CircusSesame StreetBarney/Wiggles/Other

y g y p gNumber of Factors Including:Methodology of Calculations; Age andDesign of Facility; and Team/EventPerformance

Other Sporting EventsThrill/Dirt Shows/WWE $5,500 10.00%Professional Ice Skating $5,000 10.00%

MiscellaneousConventions $5,000 10.00%Assemblies $5,000 10.00%


A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsAverage Ticket Priceg

Ticket Prices Vary Considerably Amongthe Comparable Arenas

Average Ticket Price

Sporting EventsMinor League Hockey $15.00Collegiate (CAA/NCAA/etc ) $15 00

Factors that Impact Ticket Prices Include,Among Others: Market Demand,Entertainment Alternatives, IncomeLevels, Team Performance, etc.

Collegiate (CAA/NCAA/etc.) $15.00Arena Football $15.00NBA D League $13.00

Concerts $25.00 - $35.00, ,

Family Shows $12.00 - $20.00CircusSesame StreetB /Wi l /OthBarney/Wiggles/Other

Other Sporting EventsThrill/Dirt Shows/WWE $15.00Professional Ice Skating $25.00g $

MiscellaneousConventions $15.00Assemblies $0.00


A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsAdvertising Revenuesg

Advertising Revenues are Generally Derived from the Following Sources

Display Advertising: Signage Throughout the Concourses, Concession Stands, and OtherC A i th B ildiCommon Areas in the Building

Scoreboard Advertising: Fixed Signage, Electronic Advertising on the Scoreboard, andVideo Message Boards

Basketball Advertising: Advertising on the Basketball Standards, Basketball Floor, BallCarts, Scorers’ Table and Players Benches

Dasherboard Advertising: Signage on the Hockey Dasherboard

It is Important to Note that Direct Comparison of Advertising Revenue is Difficult

Trade and Barter Arrangements

Revenue Sharing

Gross Advertising vs Net Advertising

ll hi


Overall Sponsorship Revenues

A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsAdvertising Revenuesg

Annual Advertising Revenues for Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $5,000 toApproximately $1.5 Million. Average Annual Advertising Revenue was Approximately $550,000.

For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed Annual Arena-Only Advertising Revenues of $550,000.Prominent and Well Integrated Signage and Sponsorships Could Cause the Advertising RevenueAssumption to be Higher (Founding Partner Program Should be Considered). In FY 2010, theColiseum Reported Advertising/Sponsorship Revenue of Approximately $101,000.

$1,529$1,600

Advertising (000s)

$466 $494$565 $576 $624 $663

$751$851 $887

$962

$1,135

$550$550 $800

$1,200

$5$86 $120 $123 $135

$225 $256

$0

$400


A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsNaming Rights RevenuesNaming Rights Revenues

Many Sports Facilities have Licensed the Name of the Facility to Major Corporations orIndividual Donors

Often Difficult to Gather Complete Information Regarding Naming Rights (“Arms-LengthTransactions”)

Historically, Publicly Owned Stadiums and Arenas Named After City, County, or to Memorialize Historically, Publicly Owned Stadiums and Arenas Named After City, County, or to MemorializeSignificant Individual or Group

Selling Naming Rights of Publicly Owned Facility to an Unrelated Corporation can beConsidered a Major Political Issue (Commercialization of Sports)Considered a Major Political Issue (Commercialization of Sports)

Selling of Naming Rights Represents Significant Source of Revenue

Naming Rights Fees Typically Paid on Annual Basis, but have been Paid as Upfront ContributionNa g g s ees yp ca y a d o ua as s, bu ave bee a d as Up o Co bu oto Reduce Debt

Sale of Naming Rights Can Represent Significant Source of Contractually Obligated Income


Naming Rights Income can Potentially Offset a Portion of Costs Normally Incurred by Taxpayersto Finance Facility

A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsNaming Rights Revenues (Continued)Naming Rights Revenues (Continued)

Value of Naming Rights Transaction can Often be Misunderstood and Misrepresented

Reported in Generic Terms

Naming Rights have been Sold to a Variety of Corporations (in Additional to Individuals) in theFollowing IndustriesFollowing Industries

Financial Services Beverage Retail Computer Media Airline Airline Automobile Consumer Product Communications h


Other

A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsNaming Rights Revenues (Continued)g g ( )

Variety of Factors to Consider in Valuing and Comparing Naming Rights Deals from Purchaserand Seller Perspectives

Regional/National/International Media Exposure Market Size and Demographic Profile Number and Profile of Major Tenants Number and Type of Facility Eventsyp y Facility Attendance Facility Location/Visibility Location of Naming Rights Signage Deal Structure and Other Amenities Deal Structure and Other Amenities

Value of Naming Rights to Purchaser is a Function of Following Factors

Number of Impressions/Exposures Brand Exclusivity Public Relations/Community Image Sponsorship/Cross Promotion Opportunities


Sponsorship/Cross Promotion Opportunities Tax Deductible Expense (as applicable) Other

A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsNaming Rights Revenues (Continued) Total Value Annual Value

Arena City, State (Millions) Years (Millions) ExpiresNaming Rights Revenues (Continued)

Naming Rights Deals in Small to Mid-SizeMarkets are Illustrated to the Right

y, ( ) ( ) p

Qwest Center of Omaha Omaha, NE $14.00 15 $0.93 2018Wells Fargo Arena Des Moines, IA $11.50 20 $0.58 2025Verizon Wireless Arena Manchester, NH $11.40 15 $0.76 2016BOK Center Tulsa, OK $11.00 20 $0.55 2027Allstate Arena Rosemont, IL $10.00 10 $1.00 2011Sears Center Hoffman Estates, IL $10.00 10 $1.00 2016Sovereign Center Reading, PA $9.00 30 $0.30 2030Intrust Bank Arena Wichita, KS $8.75 25 $0.35 2034

Given Strong Level of Corporate SupportLocally, We have Assumed AnnualNaming Rights Advertising Revenues of

Dunkin' Donuts Center Providence, RI $8.30 10 $0.83 2011Alerus Center Grand Forks, ND $7.20 20 $0.36 2020Germain Arena Estero, FL $7.00 20 $0.35 2018Verizon Arena North Little Rock, AR $6.00 20 $0.30 2019MTS Centre Winnipeg, Canada $5.90 10 $0.59 2015DCU Center Worcester, Mass. $5.20 10 $0.52 2014MassMutual Center Springfield, MA $5.00 NA NA NACenturyTel Center Bossier City, LA $5.00 10 $0.50 2010Giant Center Hershey, PA $5.00 10 $0.50 2012g g g

$500,000, Plus 4.0% Annual Escalation (10Year Agreement, $6.0 Million)

It is Important to Note that Naming Rights

Ricoh Coliseum Toronto, Canada $4.80 10 $0.48 2013iWireless Center Moline, IL $4.25 10 $0.43 2017Comcast Arena Everett, WA $3.70 10 $0.37 2017Times Union Arena Albany, NY $3.50 10 $0.35 2016John Labatt Centre London, Canada $3.29 10 $0.33 2012ShoWare Center Kent, WA $3.18 10 $0.32 2019Blue Cross Arena Rochester, NY $3.00 15 $0.20 2013Santa Ana Star Center Rio Rancho, NM $2.50 5 $0.50 2011US Cellular Arena Milwaukee, WI $2.50 6 $0.42 2012 It is Important to Note that Naming Rights

Revenues May be Included as Part ofArena Financing Plan

The Dow Event Center Saginaw, MI $2.50 10 $0.25 2013Rabobank Arena Bakersfield, CA $2.50 10 $0.25 2015Wachovia Arena Wilkes-Barre, PA $2.30 10 $0.23 2010WesBanco Arena Wheeling, WV $2.30 10 $0.23 2014Verizon Wireless Center Mankato, MN $2.20 20 $0.11 2018Toyota Center Kennewick, WA $2.10 10 $0.21 2015Hershey Centre Mississauga, Canada $2.00 10 $0.20 2011US Cellular Coliseum Bloomington, IL $1.75 10 $0.18 2015General Motors Centre Oshawa, Canada $1.65 10 $0.17 2016K R k C t Ki t C d $1 65 10 $0 17 2018K-Rock Centre Kingston, Canada $1.65 10 $0.17 2018WFCU Centre Windsor, Canada $1.62 10 $0.16 2018Credit Union Centre Saskatoon, Canada $1.60 10 $0.16 2013Essar Centre Sault St. Marie, Canada $1.50 10 $0.15 2018Budweiser Events Center Loveland, CO $1.50 20 $0.08 2023Big Sandy Superstore Arena Huntington, WV $1.40 10 $0.14 2012Interior Savings Centre Kamloops, Canada $1.06 10 $0.11 2015First Arena Elmira, NY $1.00 10 $0.10 2010Save-On Foods Arena Victoria, Canada $1.00 10 $0.10 2014Gateway Arena Sioux City IA $0 75 Indefinite NA NA


Gateway Arena Sioux City, IA $0.75 Indefinite NA NAFirst Mariner Arena Baltimore, MD $0.75 10 $0.08 2012Pepsi Coliseum Indianapolis, IN $0.17 5 $0.03 2011Covellie Centre Youngstown, OH $0.12 3 $0.04 2012

Source: Sports Business Journal Resource Guide and Fact Book 2010.

A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsLuxury Suite Revenuey

Luxury Suite Prices Vary Considerably Based on Numerous Factors, Including: Age of Facility;Market; Corporate Base; Premium Seat Demand; Amenities; etc.

Annual Luxury Suite Revenue in Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $45,000 to$ $Approximately $1.6 Million. Average Annual Luxury Suite Revenue was Approximately $658,000.

Based on Corporate Surveys and Estimated Market Demand, We have Assumed Approximately$540,000 of Gross Luxury Suite Revenue (Plus Approximately $56,000 in Event Day Revenue). InFY 2010 the Coliseum Reported Luxury Suite Revenue of $69 200FY 2010, the Coliseum Reported Luxury Suite Revenue of $69,200.

Assumption Based Primarily on: Development of 25 Luxury Suites (18 Leased/3 Reserved/2Available for Game Day); Luxury Suite Gross Price of $30,000 (Includes Hockey Tickets)

$1,204$1,246

$1,546$1,563$1,593

$1,500

$2,000

Luxury Suite Revenue (000s)

$45 $50 $55 $103 $168 $224$313 $357 $360

$462$538

$943$1,069

$658$540

$0

$500

$1,000


$0

A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsLoge Box Revenueg

Loge Boxes are a Relatively New Premium Seating Concept – Limited Comparables

Based on Corporate Surveys and Estimated Market Demand, We have Assumed Approximately$$180,000 of Gross Loge Box Revenue

Assumption Based Primarily on: Development of 20 Loge Boxes (18 Leased; Loge Box Gross Priceof $10,000 (Includes Hockey Tickets))


A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsClub Seat Revenue

Club Seat Prices Vary Considerably Based on Numerous Factors, Including: Age of Facility;Market; Corporate Base; High Net-Worth Individuals; Premium Seat Demand; Amenities; etc.

Annual Club Seat Revenue in Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $10,000 tou C ub Se eve ue Co p b e c es ged o pp o e y $ 0,000 oApproximately $724,000. Average Annual Club Seat Revenue was Approximately $274,000.

Based on Market Surveys, We have Assumed Approximately $405,000 of Net Club Seat Premium

A ti B d D l t f 500 Cl b S t (450 L d) Cl b S t G P i f Assumption Based on: Development of 500 Club Seats (450 Leased); Club Seat Gross Price of$1,500 (Includes Hockey Tickets)

$800

Club Seat Revenue (000s)

$439$470

$580

$724

$405 $400

$600

$800

$10 $14 $38$74

$115

$274

$0

$200


A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsConcessions Revenue

Concessions are Anticipated to ProvideSignificant Revenue

Concessions Per Capitas

Sporting EventsMinor League Hockey $8.00

Concession Spending is Typically Higher atNewer Facilities than Older Facilities Due toIncreased Number of Points-of-Sale andImproved Locations

g yCollegiate (CAA/NCAA/etc.) $8.00Arena Football $5.00NBA D League $6.00

Concerts $5.00 - $7.50p

Based on the Anticipated Event Mix andTurnstile Attendance, We have AssumedConcessions per Capitas as Follows

C $ $

Family Shows $2.50 - $4.00CircusSesame StreetBarney/Wiggles/OtherConcessions per Capitas as Follows Barney/Wiggles/Other

Other Sporting EventsThrill/Dirt Shows/WWE $6.00Professional Ice Skating $4.00

Miscellaneous $0 - $4.00ConventionsAssemblies


A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsConcessions Revenue

Annual Concessions Revenues for Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $84,000 toApproximately $1.4 Million. Average Annual Concessions Revenue was Approximately $732,000.

For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed Annual Net Concessions of $705,000 (After RevenueSharing). In FY 2010, the Coliseum Reported Net Concessions Revenue of $517,000

Concessions (000s)

$1,074$1,097

$1,273$1,412

$1,200

$1,600

Concessions (000s)

$299 $330 $375$483 $517

$639$713 $733 $770 $784 $824 $857 $917

$ ,

$732 $705

$400

$800

$84

$299 $330

$0

$400


A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsNovelties Revenue

Novelties Revenues are Typically Retainedby Tenant or Act

Novelties Per Capitas

Sporting EventsMinor League Hockey $1.50

Facility Occasionally Receives NominalShare of Novelties Revenues

B d th A ti i t d E t Mi d

g yCollegiate (CAA/NCAA/etc.) $1.50Arena Football $1.25NBA D League $1.25

Concerts $4.00 - $6.00 Based on the Anticipated Event Mix andTurnstile Attendance, We have AssumedNovelties per Capitas as Follows

C $ $

Family Shows $0 - $6.00CircusSesame StreetBarney/Wiggles/OtherBarney/Wiggles/Other

Other Sporting Events $2.50 - $5.00Thrill/Dirt Shows/WWEProfessional Ice Skating

Miscellaneous $0.00ConventionsAssemblies


A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsNovelties RevenueNovelties Revenue

Annual Novelties Revenues for Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $20,000 toApproximately $359,000. Average Annual Novelties Revenue was Approximately $110,000.

For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed Annual Net Novelties of $59,000 (After RevenueSharing). In FY 2010, the Coliseum Reported Net Novelties Revenue of $30,700.

$359$400

$500

Novelties (000s)

$121 $133 $144$184

$232$275

$359

$110

$200

$300

$20 $21 $24 $29 $40 $40 $41 $50$76 $88 $103 $121 $110

$59

$0

$100


A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsParking Revenuesg

Facility Location will Impact the Number of Required Parking Spaces – Downtown FacilitiesTypically Require Fewer Controlled Parking Spaces

Parking Revenue in Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $13,000 to Approximately$2.6 Million. Average Parking Revenue was Approximately $469,000 ($298,000 ExcludingOutliers).

F A l ti l P W h A d A M t ill S Off Sit P ki For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed Arena Management will Secure Off-Site ParkingAgreements for Arena Events for 1,000 Public Sector Spaces. We have Assumed Approximately$249,000 of Net Parking Revenue Generated by Proposed Facility (After Revenue Sharing). In FY2010, the Coliseum Reported Net Parking Revenue of $64,400.

Parking (000s)

$2,629

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

Parking (000s)

$13 $58 $75 $150 $199 $232 $322 $336 $388 $468$753

$469$249

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500


A. Proposed Arena – Revenue AssumptionsOther Revenues

Proposed Arena will GenerateAdditional Miscellaneous Revenues,Including:

Facility % Sold by Average % toFee Service Charge Facility

Sporting Events

Convenience Charge Rebate

c ud g:

Facility Fee

Convenience Charge Rebate

Minor League Hockey $1.00 20.0% $4.00 0.0%Collegiate (CAA/NCAA/etc.) $1.00 20.0% $4.00 0.0%Arena Football $1.00 20.0% $4.00 0.0%NBA D League $1.00 20.0% $4.00 0.0%

Concerts $1.00 65.0% $7.50 30.0%

Credit Card Fees

Interest Income

Family Shows $1.00 65.0% $4.00 30.0%CircusSesame StreetBarney/Wiggles/Other

O h S i E $1 00 65 0% $4 00 30 0% Other

Other Sporting Events $1.00 65.0% $4.00 30.0%Thrill/Dirt Shows/WWEProfessional Ice Skating

MiscellaneousConventions $1.00 65.0% $4.00 30.0%Assemblies $0 00 0 0% $0 00 0 0%Assemblies $0.00 0.0% $0.00 0.0%



B. Proposed Arena – Expense Assumptions


B. Proposed Arena – Expense AssumptionsStaffing ExpenseStaffing Expense

Staffing Expenses Vary Considerably Due to Several Factors, Including: Local Wage Levels; EventMix/Schedules; Accounting Policies/Procedures; Overhead Allocations; Contract Labor Policies;and Reimbursement Polices for Game/Event Related Staffing Expenses

Staffing Expense in Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $1.0 Million toApproximately $2.5 Million. Average Staffing Expense was Approximately $1.5 Million.

For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed Approximately $1.5 Million of Staffing Expenses at theP d A (I l di B fi ) I FY 2010 h C li R d N S ffi E fProposed Arena (Including Benefits). In FY 2010, the Coliseum Reported Net Staffing Expenses of$1.1 Million.

$

Staffing (000s)

$1 184 $1 186$1,390 $1,448

$1,579 $1,682 $1,725 $1,736

$2,456

$1,501 $1,540 $1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$1,055 $1,071 $1,184 $1,186

$0

$500

$1,000


B. Proposed Arena – Expense AssumptionsUtilities ExpenseUtilities Expense

Utilities Expense Vary Considerably Due to Several Factors, Including: Event Mix/Schedules andLocal Climate, etc.

Utilities Expense in Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $598,000 to Approximately$1.5 Million. Average Utilities Expense was Approximately $976,000.

For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed Approximately $980,000 of Utilities Expense at the For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed Approximately $980,000 of Utilities Expense at theProposed Facility. In FY 2010, the Coliseum Reported Utilities Expenses of $577,000.

$2,000

Utilities (000s)

$703$890

$1,050 $1,054

$1,289 $1,322$1,425

$1,516

$976 $980 $1,000

$1,500

$598 $602 $630 $634 $703

$0

$500


B. Proposed Arena – Expense AssumptionsInsurance ExpenseInsurance Expense

Insurance Typically Reflects an Important Expense for Operations

Tenants May Share in Insurance Expenses or Facility Covered by Municipality Umbrella PolicyTenants May Share in Insurance Expenses or Facility Covered by Municipality Umbrella Policy Events of 9/11 have Caused Insurance Costs to Increase Significantly

Insurance Expense in Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $29,000 to Approximately$206,000. Average Insurance Expense was Approximately $113,000.$206,000. Average Insurance Expense was Approximately $113,000.

For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed Approximately $150,000 of Insurance Expense at theProposed Facility. In FY 2010, the Coliseum Reported Insurance Expense of $103,000.

Insurance (000s)

$122$135 $138

$163 $164

$206

$150$150

$200

$250

Insurance (000s)

$29

$60 $64$76 $85

$122 $113

$0

$50

$100


B. Proposed Arena – Expense AssumptionsRepairs and Maintenance ExpenseRepairs and Maintenance Expense

Repairs and Maintenance Expense Vary Due to a Number of Factors, Including: Age and Conditionof Facility; Accounting Policies/Procedures; etc.

Repairs and Maintenance Expense in Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $43,000 toApproximately $390,000. Average Repairs and Maintenance Expense was Approximately$186,000.

For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed Approximately $200,000 of Repairs and MaintenanceExpense at the Proposed Facility. In FY 2010, the Coliseum Reported Repairs and MaintenanceExpense of $183,000.

Repairs and Maintenance (000s)

$302 $318

$390

$300

$400

$500

Repairs and Maintenance (000s)

$43$86 $102 $106 $123

$193 $193 $194 $186 $200

$0

$100

$200


B. Proposed Arena – Expense AssumptionsManagement Fee ExpenseManagement Fee Expense

Some Facilities Hire an Outside Manager or Team Affiliate for Management of Facility

Management Fee Typically Consists of Base Fee and Incentive Fee Management Fee Typically Consists of Base Fee and Incentive Fee

Management Fee Expense in Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $75,000 toApproximately $634,000. Average Management Fee Expense was $213,000.

For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed a $250,000 Management Fee. In FY 2010, theColiseum Reported Management Fees of $71,000 – No Incentive Fees were Paid.

Management Fee (000s)

$447$500 $517

$634

$400

$600

$800

$75$115

$159 $173 $181

$311$250

$0

$200

$400


B. Proposed Arena – Expense AssumptionsOther ExpensesOther Expenses

Supplies

Equipment Rental

Promotions/Marketing

General and Administrative Expenses Photocopying Printing Office Supplies Travel Entertainment Other General and Administrative Expenses

Security Expenses


Other Operating Expenses

B. Proposed Arena – Expense AssumptionsTotal Operating ExpensesTotal Operating Expenses

Total Operating Expenses in Comparable Facilities Ranged from Approximately $1.5 Million toApproximately $6.6 Million. Average Total Operating Expenses were $3.6 Million.

For Analytical Purposes, We have Assumed Approximately $3.8 Million of Total OperatingExpenses at the Proposed Facility Based on the Proposed Size, Tenant Mix, Etc. In FY 2010, theColiseum Reported Operating Expenses of $2.5 Million, Down from $3.0 Million in Prior Years.

$6,556

$6 000

$8,000

Total Operating Expenses (000s)

$2,110$2,394 $2,445 $2,604

$2,991 $3,026 $3,028$3,543 $3,687 $3,747 $3,914 $3,944 $3,994

$4,331 $4,539 $4,656$5,217

$3,593 $3,790

$2 000

$4,000

$6,000

$1,547

$0

$2,000


Note: Total operating expenses do not include game day expenses, capital repairs expenses, capital leases, and other non-operating expenses.

B. Proposed Arena – Expense AssumptionsOther Miscellaneous Expenses

Concession Expenses

Concessions Assumed to be Managed and Subject to Cost of Goods Sold (COGS), ConcessionOperating Expenses, and Profit Margin (Collectively “Expenses”)

Total Concession Expenses Assumed to be 60.0% of Gross Concession Sales on WeightedAverage Basisg

Novelty Expenses

Novelties Assumed to be Managed by Concessionaire, Tenant, or Other Third PartyNovelties Assumed to be Managed by Concessionaire, Tenant, or Other Third Party

Novelties Assumed to be Managed and Subject to Cost of Goods Sold (COGS), OperatingExpenses, and Profit Margin (Collectively “Expenses”)

Total Novelty Expenses Assumed to be 80.0% of Gross Novelty Sales on Weighted AverageBasis

Parking Expenses


Parking Expenses

Parking Expenses Assumed to be 25.0% of Gross Parking Revenues

B. Proposed Arena – Expense AssumptionsOther Miscellaneous Expensesp

Game Day Expenses

Event Set-Up/Tear Down, Staffing, Ticket Takers, Security, Clean-Up, etc.

Significant Portion, or All, of Game Day Expense are Often Reimbursed by Event/Tenant

Property Taxes

No Property Taxes have been Assumedp y

Capital Replacement Reserve

Initial Funding and Annual Deposit Assumed To be Determined



C. Cash Flow Summary


C. Cash Flow SummaryCash Flow SummaryCash Flow Summary

Although Assumptions Appear Reasonable Based on Current and Anticipated Market Conditions,Actual Results Depend on Actions of Arena Owner, Management, Tenants, and Other FactorsB th I t l d E t l t P j t hi h F tl VBoth Internal and External to Project, which Frequently Vary

It is Important to Note that Because Events and Circumstances May Not Occur as Expected, thereMay be Significant Differences Between Actual Results and those Estimated in this Analysis, andy g ythose Differences May Be Material

As Illustrated in the Following Table, the Cash Flow Analysis Prepared Indicates Arena would beable to Generate a Positive Cash Flow from Operationsable to Generate a Positive Cash Flow from Operations

Net Cash Flow from Operations (Before Consideration of Capital Replacement Reserve) wouldbe Approximately $891,000 in Year 1

Consideration should be Given to Establishing a Capital Repair, Replacement, and ImprovementFund


Consideration should be Given to Developing Co-Promotion Account to Assist Management inAttracting Events/Shows to the Market

C. Cash Flow SummaryCash Flow Summary (Continued) ARENA SUMMARY

($ i 000 )y ( ) ($ in 000s)Year 1 2 3 4 5

Number of Events 137 137 137 137 137Annual Paid Attendance 649 649 633 617 617

OPERATING REVENUESRent

Minor League Hockey $220 $221 $220 $220 $220Collegiate Basketball (CAA/NCAA/Etc.) 67 70 68 67 69Indoor Football 39 40 42 43 45NBDL 125 130 135 141 146Thrill/Dirt Show/WWE 32 33 34 35 37Family Shows 144 149 155 161 168Concerts 230 239 249 259 269Miscellaneous Events 129 134 139 145 151Miscellaneous Events 129 134 139 145 151

Total Rental Revenue $985 $1,016 $1,043 $1,071 $1,105

Other Revenue Sources (Net)Luxury Suite Premium $456 $479 $502 $527 $553Loge Box Premium 137 144 151 158 166Club Seat Premium 405 429 455 482 511Advertising 468 484 501 518 536N i Ri ht 425 442 460 478 497Naming Rights 425 442 460 478 497Concessions 705 730 741 751 778Novelties 59 61 61 60 63Parking 249 258 267 276 286Other (Facility Fee/Rebate/Etc.) 793 793 777 761 761

Total Other Revenue Sources $3,696 $3,819 $3,913 $4,012 $4,150

TOTAL REVENUES $4,681 $4,834 $4,956 $5,084 $5,256

OPERATING EXPENSESArena Operating Expenses

Staffing $1,540 $1,594 $1,650 $1,707 $1,767General and Administrative 1,020 1,056 1,093 1,131 1,170Utilities 980 1,014 1,050 1,087 1,125Management Fee 250 259 268 277 287Non-Recoverable Event Related Expenses 0 0 0 0 0


Non Recoverable Event Related Expenses 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL EXPENSES $3,790 $3,922 $4,060 $4,202 $4,349

NET CASH FLOW $891 $912 $896 $882 $907

C. Cash Flow SummarySensitivity Analysis NET CASH ADMISSIONS TAXSensitivity Analysis

FLOW 7.0%BASE CASE $891 $650

ADJUSTED ADMISSIONS TAXASSUMPTION ADJUSTMENT NET IMPACT CASH FLOW 7.0%

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Number of Other Events Increase 10% $239 $1,130 $715Decrease (10%) ($239) $652 $585

Average Paid Attendance - (1)Increase 10% $189 $1,081 $712Decrease (10%) ($178) $713 $588( ) ( )

Premium Seating - Average PriceIncrease 10% $145 $1,036 $650Decrease (10%) ($145) $746 $650

Premium Seating - Occupancy - (2)Increase 10% $105 $997 $653Decrease (10%) ($105) $786 $647Decrease (10%) ($105) $786 $647

AdvertisingIncrease 10% $47 $938 $650Decrease (10%) ($47) $844 $650

Naming RightsIncrease 10% $43 $934 $650Decrease (10%) ($43) $849 $650

Concessions/Novelties Per CapitasIncrease 10% $76 $967 $650Decrease (10%) ($76) $815 $650

Operating ExpensesIncrease 10% ($379) $512 $650


( )Decrease (10%) $379 $1,270 $650

(1) - Reflects general seating attendance only - does not include premium seating.(2) - Increased occupancy may assume additional inventory for illustrative purposes.

C. Cash Flow SummaryNet Operating IncomeNet Operating Income

For Illustrative Purposes, Below is a Summary of Net Operating Income Statistics for ComparableFacilities

Net Operating Income # of Comparables$2,000,000+ 1$1,000,000 - $1,999,999 5$500,000 - $999,999 2, ,$0 - $499,999 3Net Operating Loss 9

Facilities in Other Markets May be able to Achieve Higher (or Lower) Net Operating Income

M k t D hi Market Demographics Physical Characteristics Anchor Tenants Entertainment Alternatives


Entertainment Alternatives Competitive Facilities Other

C. Cash Flow SummaryNet Operating IncomeNet Operating Income

For Illustrative Purposes, Below is a Summary of Net Operating Income Statistics for ComparableFacilities

$3,000 Net Operating Income (000s)

$0

($3,000)


Confidential

IX. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS


IX. Economic Impact AnalysisOverview

Construction and Operation of the Proposed Arena will Generate Economic and Fiscal Impacts inthe Greater Richmond Area

City of Richmond Chesterfield County Hanover Countyy Henrico County

Economic Impacts Typically Measured by

Direct Spending (Initial Spending) Indirect Spending (Dollars Spent through Interaction of Local Industries) Induced Spending (Dollars Spent through Household Spending Patterns) Induced Spending (Dollars Spent through Household Spending Patterns) Fiscal Impacts Employment Impacts Labor Income Impacts


p

IX. Economic Impact AnalysisOverviewOverview

Findings Included Herein Reflect Evaluation of Gross Economic and Fiscal Impacts to be Generatedby the Proposed Arena

Although Assumptions Appear Reasonable Based on Current and Anticipated Market Conditions,Actual Results Depend on Actions of Arena, Management, Tenants, and Other Factors Both Internaland External to Project, which Frequently Varyj q y y

It is Important to Note that Because Events and Circumstances May Not Occur as Expected, thereMay be Significant Differences Between Actual Results and those Estimated in this Analysis, andthose Differences May Be Materialthose Differences May Be Material


IX. Economic Impact AnalysisMethodologyMethodology

Gross Expenditure and Economic Multiplier Approach was Used to Quantify Economic Impacts

Basis of Approach is that Spending on Goods and Services Creates Demand within ParticularIndustries

Initial Spending is Referred to as “Direct” Spending and Defined as Purchases of Goods and Initial Spending is Referred to as Direct Spending and Defined as Purchases of Goods andServices Resulting from Economic Event

Exchanges or Re-Sales of Goods and Services Purchased During Preceding Periods are NotCounted

A Portion of Each “Direct” Dollar Spent is Re-Spent, Generating Additional or “Indirect”Economic Benefitsco o c e e s

Result of Process is that $1 in Direct Spending Increases Final Demand by More than $1 –“Multiplier Effect”


IX. Economic Impact AnalysisMethodology (Continued)gy ( )

Analysis Utilizes the IMPLAN Type SAM Multiplier

A t f th S i l S it d I T L k Accounts for the Social Security and Income Tax Leakage Institution Savings Commuting

“Substitution Effect” Considered

Tax Impacts were Estimated Impacts Estimated Based on Current Statutory Rates and EstimatedNew Economic Activity


IX. Economic Impact AnalysisMultiplier EffectMultiplier Effect

Introduction of New Money Into Economy Begins Cycle in Which Money is Re-Spent SeveralTimes by Different Parties

Turnover of Each $1 is Projected through Use of Economic Multiplier Applied to InitialExpenditure

Multiplier Conveys that Additional Spending into a Finite Economy will Lead to SecondaryS diSpending

Cycle Continues Until Initial $1 has Experienced Leakage Sufficient to End Its Economic Cycle

Purchases Outside Region Purchases Outside Region Taxes Paid Outside Region Individual Savings

Multiplier Illustrates a More Realistic Image of Economic System where Direct Consumption Multiplier Illustrates a More Realistic Image of Economic System where Direct ConsumptionLeads to Various Levels of Indirect Consumption

Employment Multipliers are Similar to Output Multipliers


Employment Multipliers Estimate Number of Jobs Created/Supported within Economic RegionBased on Every $1.0 Million in Direct Spending

IX. Economic Impact AnalysisEstimated Multipliers

Regional Economic Impact Model Developed by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG)

Economic Multipliers Estimate Impacts Associated with Gross Expendituresp p p

Use of Multipliers Requires Identification of Each Industry or Economic Event

MIG Combines National Averages for Industries and Production Functions with 2008 Data from the MIG Combines National Averages for Industries and Production Functions with 2008 Data from theFederal Government, Including: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics S C U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Geological Survey

MIG has Identified Approximately 440 Economic Sectors

MIG Provides Two Types of Multipliers Type I


Type I Type SAM (Utilized Herein)

IX. Economic Impact AnalysisEstimated MultipliersEstimated Multipliers

Type SAM Utilizes Social Accounting Matrix Information to Capture Inter-Institutional Transfers

Type SAM Accounts for the Following Social Security Leakage Income Tax Leakage I tit ti S i Institution Savings Commuting

Multipliers Utilized Multipliers Utilized

InputOutput

MultiplierEmployment Multiplier

Arena Construction 1.868 1.875Arena Operations 1.920 1.256

l S di 1 06 1 43Hotel Spending 1.706 1.437Restaurant and Bar Spending 1.718 1.277Food and Beverage Store Spending 1.757 1.335Gasoline Station Spending 1.604 1.380Miscellaneous Retail Store Spending 1.707 1.258


Car Rental Spending 1.874 2.082Other Transportation Spending 1.625 1.268

IX. Economic Impact AnalysisSubstitution EffectSubstitution Effect

Direct Spending Leads to Reduced Spending Within Other Sectors of Economy

Economic Event which Generates $1 of Economic Output Actually Generates Less than $1 inNew Net Spending

Magnitude Varies Significantly Depending Upon Circumstances Magnitude Varies Significantly Depending Upon Circumstances Demand Alternatives Expenditure Size Disposable Income Savings

Magnified when Demand is Relatively Fixed, Many Alternatives Available, and Expenditure isLarge


IX. Economic Impact AnalysisOther Considerations

Findings Included Herein Reflect Evaluation of Gross Economic and Fiscal Impacts – Does NotAccount for Spending Currently in Market

Proposed Arena Would Attract New Events and Generate Additional Spending

Increased Activity and Spending in Downtown

New Sports Franchises

New Events Not Currently Held in Market

Increased Number of Out-of-Town Visitors to Attend Events in the Greater Richmond Area

Increased Spending at Proposed Arena for Advertising/Premium Seating/Etc Increased Spending at Proposed Arena for Advertising/Premium Seating/Etc.

Increased Spending on Concessions/Novelties Resulting from Increased Points-of-Sale andNew Restaurant/Club Options


Potential Ancillary Development Opportunities

IX. Economic Impact AnalysisGovernment Revenue ImpactsGovernment Revenue Impacts

Estimated Based on Current Statuary Tax Rates and Estimated New Economic Activity

Regional Input/Output Model Developed Specifically for City and Counties to EstimateGovernment Revenue Impacts

Model Incorporates National Industry and Production Function Averages with 2008 Data from Model Incorporates National Industry and Production Function Averages with 2008 Data fromU.S. Department of Commerce


IX. Economic Impact AnalysisMajor Study Efforts

Prepared Preliminary Cost Estimate of the Proposed Arena to be Included in MIG Model

Site Preparation On-Site Infrastructure Requirements Demolition Hard and Soft Construction Costs Project Management Project Contingency Other

Estimated Direct Spending to be Generated by Proposed Arena within the Greater RichmondArea. Key Operating Variables Include

Attendance Average Ticket Price Parking Rates Premium Seat Pricing Advertising Revenue Per Capita Spending on Concessions


Per Capita Spending on Novelties


Conducted Fan Patron Surveys (648 Completed) at Three Local Events to Understand Out-of-Facility Spending by Non-Residents

Michael Buble (July 6, 2010) – 349 Surveys Completed Dane Cook (November 5, 2010) – 190 Surveys Completed Tony Bennett (November 5, 2010) – 109 Surveys Completed

Non-Resident Spending Behavior was Evaluated

Hotels Hotels Restaurants/Bars Gasoline Stations Grocery Stores Convenience Stores Other Retail Establishments Car Rental



Customized Input/Output Economic Model to Estimate Economic Output and EmploymentMultipliers

Estimated Tax Impacts

Sales Tax Hotel Occupancy Tax Car Rental Tax Meals Tax (Not Estimated)


IX. Economic Impact AnalysisFlow Chart

ECONOMIC/FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY – CONSTRUCTION

Labor and Material Expenditure

LEAKAGES

Outside Labor

LEAKAGES

Outside Material

Local Labor and Material Expenditure

DIRECT ECONOMIC/FISCAL IMPACTS

Economic Output

Job Creation

Outside Taxes

Respending Outside Region

Savings

LEAKAGES LEAKAGES

Municipal Revenues

MULTIPLIER EFFECT (Respending of Initial Dollars)

Labor Goods Services


TOTAL ECONOMIC/FISCAL IMPACTS - CONSTRUCTION

IX. Economic Impact AnalysisFlow Chart

ECONOMIC/FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY OPERATIONSECONOMIC/FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY – OPERATIONS

SPENDING Facility/Tenant Generated

Spending

$ Ticket Sales

Out-of-Facility Spending

$ F d/G$ Ticket Sales$ Parking $ Concessions $ Novelties $ Advertising $ Luxury Suites $ League Receipts $ Media Revenue

$ Food/Gas $ Beverages $ Convenience $ Hotel/Lodging $ Other

DIRECT ECONOMIC/FISCAL IMPACTS

Economic Output

Job Creation

Outside Purchases

Outside

Respending Outside Region

Savings

LEAKAGES LEAKAGES

Job CreationMunicipal Revenues

Outside Taxes

Savings

MULTIPLIER EFFECT (Respending of Initial Dollars)

Labor Goods Services


TOTAL ECONOMIC/FISCAL IMPACTS - OPERATIONS

IX. Economic Impact AnalysisSummary of Results – ConstructionSummary of Results Construction

Construction of the Proposed Arena will Generate Considerable Economic Impacts for theGreater Richmond Area During the Construction Period (Presented in 2012 Dollars)

Figures Reflect Gross Impacts

PROPOSED ARENA (DOWNTOWN RICHMOND)Construction

(2012 Dollars)Direct Economic Output $93,810,000Indirect Economic Output $39,050,000Induced Economic Output $38,840,000

Total Economic Output $171,700,000

F ll Ti E i l E l 1 114

N 60% f L b /M i l E di S d i h L l M k B d L l

Full-Time Equivalent Employment 1,114Labor Income $60,370,000


Note: 60% of Labor/Materials Expenditures Sourced in the Local Market Based on LocalConstruction Industry Input

IX. Economic Impact AnalysisSummary of Results – Construction

Construction of the Proposed Arena will Generate Fiscal Impacts for the Greater Richmond AreaDuring the Construction Period (Presented in 2012 Dollars)

Figures Reflect Gross ImpactsPROPOSED ARENA (DOWNTOWN RICHMOND)

Construction(2012 Dollars)( )

Hotel Occupancy Tax RevenueHotel Sales Revenue $19,887Hotel Tax Rate 8.00%Hotel Occupancy Tax Revenue $1,591

Car Rental Tax RevenueCar Rental Revenue $113,478Car Rental Rate 4.00%Car Rental Tax Revenue $4,539

Sales Tax Revenues $1,376,000State Sales Tax Rate 4.0%State Sales Tax Revenue $1,100,723Local Sales Tax Rate 1.0%Local Sales Tax Revenue $275 181


Note: 60% of Labor/Materials Expenditures Sourced in the Local Market Based on LocalConstruction Industry Input

Local Sales Tax Revenue $275,181

IX. Economic Impact AnalysisSummary of Results – OperationsSummary of Results Operations

On-Going Operations of the Proposed Arena will Generate Considerable Economic Impacts forthe Greater Richmond Area on an Annual Basis (Presented in 2014 Dollars)

Annual Arena Operations Non-Resident Spending

PROPOSED ARENA (DOWNTOWN RICHMOND)Annual Operations

(2014 Dollars)Direct Economic Output $25,990,000Indirect Economic Output $12,050,000Induced Economic Output $9,790,000

Total Economic Output $47,830,000

Full-Time Equivalent Employment 894Labor Income $15,300,000


IX. Economic Impact AnalysisSummary of Results – OperationsSummary of Results Operations

On-Going Operations of the Proposed Arena will Generate Fiscal Impacts for the GreaterRichmond Area on an Annual Basis (Presented in 2014 Dollars)

PROPOSED ARENA (DOWNTOWN RICHMOND)Annual Operations

(2014 Dollars)Hotel Occupancy Tax Revenue

Hotel Sales Revenue $1,793,353Hotel Tax Rate 8.00%Hotel Occupancy Tax Revenue $143,468

C R l T RCar Rental Tax RevenueCar Rental Revenue $52,147Car Rental Rate 4.00%Car Rental Tax Revenue $2,086

Sales Tax Revenues $826,000State Sales Tax Rate 4.0%State Sales Tax Revenue $660,433Local Sales Tax Rate 1.0%


Local Sales Tax Revenue $165,108

IX. Economic Impact AnalysisOther Economic Benefits

Proposed Downtown Arena Generates Other Significant Impacts for the Greater Richmond Areathat are Less Explicit and More Difficult to Quantify

Catalyst for Redevelopment

Catalyst for Economic Development

National (and Potentially International) Exposure

Community Pride and Identity

Prestige Associated with Facility/Teams/Events

Improved Quality of Life/Additional Entertainment Alternatives

Team/Facility Contributions and Donations to Local Charities/Causes

New Marketing/Advertising Opportunities for Local (and National) Businesses


Other

Confidential

X. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS


X. Major Development ConsiderationsOpportunities

New Downtown Arena Appears to be a Viable Project in Terms of Market and Financial Feasibility Operating Surplus as Compared to Current Deficit

Corporate Community and General Public Surveys Indicate Potential Support Corporate Community and General Public Surveys Indicate Potential Support

Quality of Life Benefits Potential to Attract Regional and National Events – Regional Events Center/Draw Potential to Add Entertainment Alternatives to Market

Potential Catalyst for Redevelopment/Revitalization Opportunity for Mixed-Use Destination Oriented Development

P t ti l S ith Oth Ri h d F iliti P t ti l O ti d Fi i l B fit Potential Synergy with Other Richmond Facilities – Potential Operating and Financial Benefits

Limited Competition in the Immediate Market Professional Sports (Collegiate Sports Present Competition) No State-of-the-Art Public Assembly Facilities No State of the Art Public Assembly Facilities

Region Appears to be a “Good-Fit” for Sports Events/Concerts/Family Shows/Conferences/Etc.

Promoters/Users Prefer Richmond Market


Significant Economic Impact Associated with Construction and Ongoing Operations

X. Major Development ConsiderationsChallenges

Potential Corporate Support – Historical Premium Seating Advertising/Sponsorshipg p p

Regional Competition John Paul Jones Arena

SportsQuest Development – Potential Arena $250 Million, 250 Acre Mixed Use Sports Complex in Chesterfield County, VA West Campus to Include Indoor Arena – Approximately 6,500 Seats (Target 2012)West Campus to Include Indoor Arena Approximately 6,500 Seats (Target 2012) Public/Private Partnership

Anchor Tenant Commitment Minor League Hockey WNBA/NBA D League

Project Costs/Funding – Significant Issue


Project Costs/Funding Significant Issue Public/Private Investment Public Sector Participation (Feasibility to be Determined)

X. Major Development ConsiderationsOther Considerations

Larger Arena Consideration (18,000+ Seats)

Limited Additional Events (ACC Tournament – Frequency Issue)( q y ) Impact on Anchor Tenants (Event Related Expenses)

Market Limitations for Major League Consideration (e.g. NBA/NHL)

Corporate Base Media Market

Television– Television– Radio


Confidential

XI. NEXT STEPS


XI. Next Steps

Evaluate Financing Alternatives and Prepare Definitive Sources/Uses of Funds

Coliseum Study Group to Review Draft Report Coliseum Study Group to Review Draft Report

Consulting Team to Finalize Report

Develop Strategy to Generate Consensus/Support for Project

Retain Project Advisor to Guide Planning Process

Evaluate Viability of Mixed-Use Destination Oriented Development

Develop Private Sector Outreach Plan Develop Private Sector Outreach Plan

Attract Potential “Anchor” Tenants and Local Ownership Group(s) (AHL/ECHL/NBA DLeague/WNBA/Etc.)


Confidential

LIMITING CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS


Limiting Conditions and AssumptionsThis analysis is subject to our contractual terms, as well as the following limiting conditions and assumptions:

The analysis has been prepared for internal decision making purposes of the Client only and shall not be used for any otherpurposes without the prior written permission of Barrett Sports Group, LLC.

The analysis includes findings and recommendations; however, all decisions in connection with the implementation of suchfindings and recommendations shall be Client’s responsibility.

Ownership and management of the arena are assumed to be in competent and responsible hands Ownership and Ownership and management of the arena are assumed to be in competent and responsible hands. Ownership andmanagement can materially impact the findings of this analysis.

Any estimates of historical or future prices, revenues, rents, expenses, occupancy, net operating income, mortgage debtservice, capital outlays, cash flows, inflation, capitalization rates, yield rates or interest rates are intended solely foranalytical purposes and are not to be construed as predictions of the analysts. They represent only the judgment of theauthors based on information provided by operators and owners active in the market place, and their accuracy is in no way

dguaranteed. Our work has been based in part on review and analysis of information provided by unrelated sources which are believed

accurate, but cannot be assured to be accurate. No audit or other verification has been completed. Current and anticipated market conditions are influenced by a large number of external factors. We have not knowingly

withheld any pertinent facts, but we do not guarantee that we have knowledge of all factors which might influence theoperating potential of the facility. Due to rapid changes in the external factors, the actual results may vary significantlyoperating potential of the facility. Due to rapid changes in the external factors, the actual results may vary significantlyfrom estimates presented in this report.

The analysts reserve the right to make such adjustments to the analyses, opinions, and conclusions set forth in this report asmay be required by consideration of additional data or more reliable data which may become available.

The analysis is intended to be read and used as a whole and not in parts. Separation of any section or page from the mainbody of the report is expressly forbidden and invalidates the analysis.

Possession of the analysis does not carry with it the right of publication. It shall be used for its intended purpose only and bythe parties to whom it is addressed. Other parties should not rely on the findings of this report for any purpose and shouldperform their own due diligence.

Our performance of the tasks completed does not constitute an opinion of value or appraisal, or a projection of financialperformance or audit of the facility in accordance with generally accepted audit standards. Estimates of value (ranges) havebeen prepared to illustrate current and possible future market conditions.


been prepared to illustrate current and possible future market conditions. The analysis shall not be used in any matters pertaining to any financing, or real estate or other securities offering,

registration, or exemption with any state or with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. No liability is assumed for matters which are legal or environmental in nature.

city of richmond confidential partnering …€¦ · city of richmond confidential partnering...

Documents