Community Corner
"Reinventing Playland Park for the 21st Century"
===========================================Citizens Committee ReportFeasibility Evaluation of Proposals
“Reinventing Playland Park for the 21st Century”
September 22, 2011 - James F. Chisholm, Chairman
Find out what's happening in Ryewith free, real-time updates from Patch.
===========================================
SUSTAINABLE PLAYLAND
Find out what's happening in Ryewith free, real-time updates from Patch.
GENERAL
The Committee suggests that should the County decide to pursue an alternative model to operate Playland, it should consider this proposal for further review. The Committee notes a conservancy model similar to Central Park and/or the High Line in New York City, have been extremely successful. Committee members did note, however, that such conservancy models encountered difficult beginnings and took time to attain success. However, the Committee was not able to clearly understand how the money flows through to the County, and in particular how costs going forward would be addressed (i.e. continuing debt service). It was also not clear what the governance structure of this not- for-profit corporation would be.
The proposal appears to be a management agreement. It proposes to develop a community-oriented vision including an outdoor “great lawn,” athletic fields, redeveloped ice casino, new field house, continuing amusement park and beach, additional water activities and restaurant.
The Committee believes this proposal has an interesting vision with potential, but is weak on demonstrated experience necessary to carry out such a proposal.
The Committee notes that the proposal is largely from members of the local community, which would be helpful in advancing the proposal, but concern is raised that local interests should not dictate the planning of a county facility.
This is a different model than the existing or traditional amusement parks proposed by others and must be reviewed carefully for its economics. The Committee notes the significant legal and policy constraints within which this proposal must operate. The Committee feels that this proposal deserves to be reviewed in further detail.
ECONOMICS
NOTE: Sustainable Playland requested that section(s) of their proposal detailing certain financial information be marked as “Proprietary and Confidential” and accordingly was not provided to the Committee for review. Based on this, the Committee feels that it did not have sufficient information to evaluate the “Economics” of this proposal and advises the County Executive that our comments should be viewed with that understanding. The Committee asks the County Executive and his team to undertake an extensive review of the financial terms and conditions presented by the proposer.
17 | P a g e
Specific economic comments and concerns the Committee advises the County to review:
The Committee does not clearly understand the economic benefit to the County or how this model addresses the perceived need to drive revenue.
There are no details available from which to evaluate financial viability, making assumptions difficult. Financial viability will also be dictated by the level of funding that the group can raise and the results of any future operation. The proposal indicates that the team and its principals can raise the money, but there is no indication of a fundraising plan.
The proposal offers open space, ball fields and hiking trails that are environmentally attractive but would provide a low economic return when compared to new state-of-the- art amusement rides. The Committee notes that probable expenses are likely to be less, but cannot estimate the exact reduction. In addition, the less intensive use model might impact overall profitability of the park. Accordingly, this balance of expense versus revenue must be carefully evaluated.
The Committee also notes that the proposed not-for-profit based structure is to attract philanthropic grants and low-cost financing, citing models like the Central Park Conservancy and the Friends of High Line. The Committee notes that this may be difficult in these trying economic times and both took years to achieve their current level of financial and operational success.
ENVIRONMENT
The Committee feels this proposal takes into consideration the concerns of county residents and the community by providing for open space and access and is non-intrusive regarding construction or environmental impact.
The addition of a “great lawn,” sports fields, bike paths, fitness trails, playgrounds, sailing and kayaking seem to complement and improve the environment and are consistent with parkland use. Implementation of such a proposal would appear to be less intrusive and might be accomplished more quickly.
ENTERTAINMENT
The Committee suggests that the County consider that a reduced amusement park may reduce the number of visitors. This proposal maintains key elements of the existing park, but adds components that may draw people for different kinds of activities.
The Committee suggests that it may be better to focus on some of the components rather than all of the options presented by this proposal.
EXPERIENCE
The Committee notes that the individuals identified by the proposer have strong design,
18 | P a g e
development, construction and financing experience. For example, they have designated an operator who runs Splash Down and Rocking Horse Ranch. However, there is concern that the proposer has insufficient experience and relies upon third- party consultants and operators.
It is noted that the prime participants include experienced professionals which add credibility. However, their commitment is unclear. The County should evaluate these roles carefully.
EXPECTATIONS
The Committee notes that potentially having the support of the community and neighborhood for a proposal would be significant. Should this model be pursued, the open space and access will contribute to the environmental enhancement of the park. The relationships of the team members in the local community and their investment potentially enhance the proposal’s credibility and feasibility.
The Committee is concerned that this model requires substantial fundraising, which could be a major challenge in today’s economic environment and presents the possibility that it will take a substantial amount of time to raise the necessary funds.
The Committee further reiterates that it has not seen any relevant aspects of the financial and organizational structure and suggests the County carefully evaluate how it proposes to operate Playland on a day-to-day basis.