Five Flags Civic Center Commission Referendum RecommendationCity of Dubuque
City Council Meeting
ITEM TITLE
SUMMARY:
SUGGESTED
DISPOSITION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Copyrighted
May 2, 2022
Action Items # 02.
Five Flags Civic Center Commission Referendum Recommendation
Five Flags Civic Center Commission recommending that a bond
referendum date be set for March 2023 for an amount not to exceed
$89,700,000 for the Five Flags reconstruction project.
Suggested Disposition: Receive and File; Council
Civic Center Commission Letter dated 4-26-22
Type
Supporting Documentation
Updated Analysis of Capital and Operating Costs for an Supporting Documentation
Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center
Five Flags Impact to Average Homeowner 4-14-2022
Supporting Documentation
Five Flags Impact to Industrial
Supporting Documentation
Five Flags Impact to Commercial
Supporting Documentation
Five Flags Debt Schedule 4-14-2022
Supporting Documentation
22-1-11 City Attorney Crenna Brumwell Memo
Staff Memo
Regarding 2022 and 2023 election dates
Input from Dubuque Main Street
Public Input loaded 4-26-22
Supporting Documentation
Supporting Documentation
THE CF
Dubuque
DUtB E
Ali•AAeeiCa Cif
MN�
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
2017*2019
April 26, 2022
Dear Mayor Brad Cavanagh and Members of the Dubuque City Council,
This letter is written on behalf of the Five Flags Civic Center Commission (FFCCC) to
express our continued support for the Five Flags reconstruction project. It is our opinion
that a bond referendum date should be set for March 2023 for an amount not to exceed
$89.7M. Furthermore, we request that the March date be considered, and that the city
authorize ASM Global, city administration and the private sector to explore other funding
opportunities outside of tax bonding with examples being but not limited to, federal or
state grants, naming rights, etc.
As a commission, we unanimously voted on this stance given the new information from
CSL and Johnson Consulting. We feel the March 2023 date will allow adequate time for
us to educate local constituents on the project and allow time to fundraise and help
offset some of the cost, offering some relief to the taxpayers.
Recall that our last letter to the Council recommended keeping the Five Flags project on
the city's priority list. We want to thank you for doing that and for your continued support
as we gathered new and up to date information. Since January, we have welcomed new
faces to the council, have received a peer review of the original CSL study from
Johnson Consulting, and have received updated cost -analysis numbers from CSL. For
these reasons, we are asking that this project continue to be treated with priority.
As a commission, we feel Five Flags has accomplished many successes in the past 12-
18 months and we would like to applaud the past and current staff who helped make
that happen. In addition, we have set some initiatives for 2022-23 that we would like
council to also review and consider as a part of your upcoming goal setting process.
As always thank you all for your time. The FFCCC remains at your disposal for any
questions or information.
With Best Regards,
The Five Flags Civic Center Commission
Tyler Daugherty — Chairperson
Rod Bakke — Vice Chairperson
Brenda Christner
McKenzie Blau
Bryce Parks
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF
CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
FOR AN EXPANDED/IMPROVED
FIVE FLAGS CIVIC CENTER
In Dubuque, Iowa
BetschAssociates
April 14, 2022
ca S. L
DRAFT COPY
April 14, 2022
Ms. Marie L. Ware
Leisure Services Manager
City of Dubuque Leisure Services Department
2200 Bunker Hill Road
Dubuque, Iowa 52001
Dear Ms. Ware:
Conventions, Sports & Leisure International (CSL) and BetschAssociates have completed an updated
analysis of key estimated capital cost and operating estimates developed as part of the Phases 2 and 2A
Planning work in 2018/2019 associated with an expanded/improved Five Flags Civic Center (FFCC).
The information concerning within this document and related supporting documents presents a summary
of our work and is intended to assist the City and other related project stakeholders with the information
necessary to make informed decisions regarding a potential major FFCC renovation/improvement project.
The information presented in this report are based on estimates, assumptions and other information
developed from industry research, data provided by the City and other local project stakeholders, outreach
with existing and potential facility users, discussions with industry participants, and analysis of
competitive/comparable facilities and communities. The sources of information, the methods employed,
and the basis of significant estimates and assumptions are stated in this report. Some assumptions
inevitably will not materialize and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Therefore, actual
results achieved will vary from those described and the variations may be material.
The findings presented herein are based on analysis of present and near -term conditions in the Dubuque
area as well as existing interest levels by the potential base of users for an enhanced FFCC product. Any
significant future changes in the characteristics of the local community, such as growth in population,
corporate inventory, competitive inventory and visitor amenities/attractions, could materially impact the key
market conclusions developed as a part of this study. As in all studies of this type, the estimated results
are based on competent and efficient management of the FFCC and assume that no significant changes
in the event markets or assumed immediate and local area market conditions will occur beyond those set
forth in this report. Furthermore, all information provided to us by others was not audited or verified and
was assumed to be correct.
This report has been prepared for the internal use of the City and should not be relied upon by any other
party. The report has been structured to provide the City with a foundation of research and analysis to
provide decision makers with the information necessary to advance planning on a potential FFCC project
and should not be used for any other purpose.
We sincerely appreciate the assistance and cooperation we have been provided in the compilation of this
report and would be pleased to be of further assistance in the interpretation and application of our findings.
Very truly yours,
CSL International
Conventions, Sports & Leisure International
520 Nicollet Mall • Suite 520 • Minneapolis, MN 55402 • Telephone 612.294.2000 • Facsimile 612.294.2045
DRAFT COPY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Summary of Previous FFCC Planning
3. Updated Capital Cost Estimates
4. Updated Operating Projections
11
13
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center
Table of Contents
0 BetschAssociates ��
DRAFT COPY
1. Introduction
The purpose of this summary report is to outline key findings associated with an updated analysis of
estimated construction costs and operating projections developed as part of the Phases 2 and 2A Planning
completed in 2018/2019 for an expanded/improved Five Flags Civic Center (FFCC).
Given the unprecedented impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and the duration since the
development of the previous projections, the City elected to commission this updated analysis in order to
appropriately plan for an anticipated public referendum for the project later in 2022. At the City's direction,
the focus of this update involves Scenario 4 Hybrid, as previously outlined in the Phase 2A Planning effort.
To avoid redundancy, the information contained within this report is intended to complement and build off
of the work and information provided in the Phase 2A Planning work, as well as previous evaluation and
planning efforts (including Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 2A).
2. Summary of Previous FFCC Planning
An extensive amount of study, evaluation and planning work has been completed since 2017 concerning
FFCC and its future in Dubuque. Past FFCC Study and Planning information and documents can be found
on the City's website at: www.cityofdubugue.org/fiveflagsstudy.
A summary of key timing milestones and primary conclusions reached under the previous work efforts is
presented below.
PHASE 1 STUDY (2017/2018)
1. In 2017, following a competitive bid process, the team of CSL, BetschAssociates and FEH Design was
hired by the City to conduct an Assessment and Study Regarding the Future of the FFCC (Phase 1
Study). The purpose of the Phase 1 Study was to assess the FFCC's current physical state and
programmatic orientation, and study market demand, supportable program, financial, economic,
naming rights/sponsorship and feasible development scenarios relating to the future of the FFCC.
2. In the decades since the last major investment in the FFCC, significant changes have occurred within
the event facility industry nationwide. At the same time, additional new event, sports and entertainment
facilities have been developed elsewhere in Dubuque and in the region.
3. Market support was determined to exist for both improved Arena and Theater facility products.
a) The FFCC has long -served as an important community asset for Dubuque and its residents.
b) Local quality of life and economic activity would be negatively impacted without a venue serving
these roles.
c) The FFCC Theater is an historic asset that should be protected.
d) The FFCC's current location is ideal for an entertainment/sports/arts complex.
e) The FFCC Arena has exceeded its practical life.
f) The FFCC Arena physical product and functionality are below industry standards.
g) Significant upgrades to the FFCC Arena product are needed to better compete for and serve
spectator and entertainment event segments.
h) Investment in FFCC enhancements or redevelopment would be expected to drive new activity
and positive impacts.
i) The highest -and -best -use of the FFCC asset (building and land) is a multipurpose
civic/entertainment/arts complex.
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center BetschAssociates
Page 1 of 20 US L
DRAFT COPY
4. The Phase 1 Study identified the following as market supportable for the FFCC Project:
a) Arena:
i. State -of -the -industry, spectator arena.
ii. Seating capacity of between 6,000 and 8,000.
iii. Some flexible seating to retain access to flat floor space.
iv. Premium seating and other hospitality areas.
v. Enhance patron experience — ingress/egress, WiFi, food & beverage, ADA, etc.
vi. Upgraded back -of -house, load-in/out and other support facilities.
b) Theater:
i. Retention of historic Theater.
ii. Refurbish seating and make 2nd Balcony seating functional..
iii. Modest expansion of Bijou Black Box Theater.
iv. Address capital improvement project items.
v. Enhance patron experience — lobby, WiFi, food and beverage options, etc.
vi. Upgraded back -of -house facilities.
5. Four facility scenarios were identified for further high-level analysis for comparison purposes, including
preliminary site configuration and layout drawings:
• Scenario 1: Effectively represents a minimum, status quo scenario, recognizing that a certain
level of expenditures will be required in the near term and in the foreseeable future on deferred
maintenance and future capital repair/replacement items to keep the FFCC safe and
operational by current standards.
• Scenario 2: Involves a limited FFCC renovation (no expansion of facility footprint).
• Scenario 3: Represents a renovated complex with an expanded Arena.
• Scenario 4: Involves a demolition of the existing FFCC Arena, improvements to FFCC Theater,
and the development of a new, state -of -the -industry Arena via a northward expansion of the
FFCC's footprint.
6. Order -of -magnitude estimates were generated associated capital costs, financial operating
implications, and economic impacts for the four scenarios.
7. A detailed written report was developed for the Phase 1 Study and presented to the City in the spring
of 2018. CSL presented findings to City Council in May 2018. A revised report was delivered to the
City in June 2018. The City Council formally accepted the report in July 2018.
PHASE 2 PLANNING (Late 2018)
1. After discussion among City leadership and project stakeholders, in November 2018, the City
contracted with the CSL and BetschAssociates team to study FFCC Scenario 4 (as conceptualized in
the Phase 1 Study) in greater detail. Specifically, the effort was designed to complete additional work
necessary to better define project costs, site impacts, physical product characteristics, cost/benefit, and
funding issues related to the preferred development scenario.
2. Over the course of the four -week engagement, including a multi -day site visit, outreach and
collaboration with a variety of local stakeholders/participants and national industry professionals,
refined layout, design, programming, and construction cost estimates were developed by
BetschAssociates.
3. The Scenario 4 design included total seating capacity of 6,398 for a hypothetical end -stage concert
event and 6,000 for a hypothetical floor event (i.e., no portable floor seats). The seating count included
six (6) private suites, two (2) party suites, 32 loge boxes, 360 club seats, and general admission seats
(through fixed, telescopic and floor seats).
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center BetschAssociates
Page 2 of 20 US L
DRAFT COPY
4. Based on industry standards and a review of parking supply in downtown Dubuque, it was not believed
that the development of additional parking structures or lots would be necessary for a Scenario 4 FFCC.
Conversely, downtown Dubuque's volume, availability and pricing of parking supply nearby the FFCC
is considered a product strength relative to other comparable venues located throughout the region and
country.
5. Key performance and cost estimates relative to Scenario 4 included the following (with approximate
dollar figures presented in terms of 2018 dollars and operating estimates representing a stabilized year
of operation):
• Number of Events = 233
• Event Days = 335
• Utilization Days = 540
• Attendee Days = 410,000
• Operating Revenues = $1.9 million
• Operating Expenses = $2.2 million
• Net Operating Deficit = ($300,000)
• Total Project Costs = $84.8 million
6. The analysis suggested that planning for a Scenario 4 FFCC project funding structure could have a
reasonable target of 80 percent provided by City of Dubuque sources and 20 percent provided by
private sector or other sources.
7. A written report was developed and presented to the City on December 12, 2018. CSL presented
findings to City Council on December 17, 2018 and the City Council accepted the report.
PHASE 2A PLANNING (Late 2019)
1. Phase 2A Planning focuses on the evaluation of two alternative concepts/scenarios expected to involve
a lower construction cost than the concept investigated under the previous planning effort (Phase 2
Planning). Specifically, the services performed included the evaluation of two alternatives (Scenario 3
and Scenario 4 Hybrid), development of programming and layout, along with estimation of development
and operating costs, economic impacts, and funding issues. The work builds on the assessment and
findings reached in the Phase 1 Study and the Phase 2 Planning for the an Expanded FFCC.
2. Scenario 3 represents a renovated FFCC with an expanded FFCC Arena. This Scenario keeps the
wall between the promenade and the current FFCC Arena, removes the roof and raises the roof as well
as expanding the arena across 5th Street. The FFCC Arena would remain in its current east/west
configuration and be a U-shape arena.
3. Scenario 4 Hybrid was conceptualized as a lower cost alternate to Scenario 4, involving the demolition
of the existing FFCC Arena, improvements to FFCC Theater, and the development of a new, state -of -
the -industry Arena via a northward expansion of the FFCC's footprint. Scenario 4 Hybrid is similar to
Scenario 4, with a noteworthy difference being the utilization of a U-shaped seating bowl, along with
other strategic adjustments aimed at cost reduction.
4. After careful review of Scenario 3, a number of concerns and limitations were identified that would
hinder Scenario 3 as a viable concept for major investment to create an appropriate, long-term solution
for the FFCC. While no single issue seems to constitute a "fatal flaw", the cumulative effect of all of
these conditions will result in a large expenditure for construction of a new building that will be only
marginally larger in seating capacity and still have many of the same operational issues and limitations
of the existing FFCC. These operational inefficiencies will also result in higher operating cost for the life
of the project than necessary for a new building.
5. Since the revenue driver for the FFCC is, and will be expected to continue to be, concerts, the proposed
solution for Scenario 4 Hybrid was to provide a horseshoe arrangement for the fixed seating with a
stage at the south end of the arena and eliminate the fixed seating behind the stage. This arrangement
preserves the proposed building's seating capacity for concerts at approximately 6,468 and still
provides 5,001 seats for arena floor events.
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center BetschAssociates
Page 3 of 20 US L
DRAFT COPY
8. Key performance and cost estimates relative to Scenario 4 Hybrid included the following (with
approximate dollar figures presented in terms of 2019 dollars and operating estimates representing a
stabilized year of operation):
• Number of Events = 227
• Event Days = 328
• Utilization Days = 532
• Attendee Days = 390,400
• Operating Revenues = $1.8 million
• Operating Expenses = $2.1 million
• Net Operating Deficit = ($346,000)
• Total Project Costs = $75.1 million
6. Conceptual renderings developed by BetschAssociates for an expanded/improved FFCC under
Scenario 4 Hybrid are shown below. Layouts by elevation are shown on the subsequent pages.
;eov
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center BetschAssociates
Page 4 of 20 0 US L
DRAFT COPY
w
Qm
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center BetschAssociates r ��
Page 5 of 20 ♦✓�
DRAFT COPY
0
i
s
3
C
O
�O
O fwC
'tY LL -- r rc
Jo o o -- - '� m �o
rco m 6Wrc o
g
OZ
W
UV)
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center
Page 6 of 20
7 BetschAssociates
✓�
DRAFT COPY
Oa
OZ
W wco
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS C.-S,
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center BetschAssociates
Page 7 of 20 0
DRAFT COPY
W
Za
J 0
Cn
� a
U
Z W
00
W m
ui =
I.L V
W
a Z
aw
=)N
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center BetschAssociates r ��
Page 8 of 20 ♦✓�
DRAFT COPY
7w
�a
6o
in
�N
ZQ
QU
H
Jw
am
zm
w=
Lu
UZ
MQ w
W N
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center
Page 9 of 20
BetschAssociates C ��
DRAFT COPY
FIVE
INTER
ENA
BUILDING SECTION ALONG FIVE FLAGS CENTER 3/32"=1'0" B-019 011 5 15 30
SCENARIO 4 HYBRID BETSCHASSOCIATES r II
21'8"
SPOTLIGHT PLATFORMS
NO CATWALK EXCEPT FOR _ STAIRS AND BRIDGES
SERVICE PLATFORM FOR TO UPPER SEATING
SCOREBOARD HOIST
DRYWALL HALO AROUND 1'6"
PERIMETER
UPPER SEATING BOWL
55' TO BOTTOM OF STEEL
SUITEfCLU6 \ 10'0"
CONCOURSE
BUILDING LOWER SEATING BOWL 6'0"
CENTER LINE _
12'0"
TELESCOPIC RISERS 2'0"
r/ I ARENA LEVEL MAIN STREET
1 42'6" 1147" 4'6" 20'9" 21'3" I 24'0"_
1 -y
EXISTING SIDEWALK
01 5 15
BUILDING SECTION AT MAIN STREET 3132"=1'0" 85-19 LF ---1
SCENARIO 4 HYBRID BETSCHASSOCIATES
50
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center
Page 10 of 20
0 BetschAssociates SL
C✓
DRAFT COPY
3. Updated Capital Cost Estimates
The purpose of this section is to present a summary of findings related to an updated analysis of estimated
capital costs (i.e., construction costs). A cost analysis was performed and an updated construction budget
was created by BetschAssociates, with assistance by a number of industry experts and local contractors.
A summary of the Scenario 4 Hybrid's seating levels and square footage is presented in the exhibit below.
Summary of Key Programmatic Assumptions - Scenario 4 Hybrid
Seating Counts by Type
End -stage
Concert
(seats)
Floor
Events
(seats)
Loge Boxes (32)
64
64
Club Seats (1 section)
324
324
Suites (6)
72
72
Party Suites (2)
24
24
Telescopic Seating Behind Stage
0
464
Fixed Seats Behind Stage (Upper)
0
0
Telescopic Front of Stage (Lower)
952
982
Fixed Seats Front of Stage (Lower)
1,618
1,618
Fixed Seats Front of Stage (Upper)
1,393
1,393
Floor Seats
1,961
0
ADA Seating with Companions
60
60
Totals
6,468
5,001
Fixed Seating Count (seats)
Fixed Seats (general)
3,011
Fixed Seats (premium)
484
Telescopic Seats (max)
1,446
Tota 1
4,941
Area By Level (SF)
Arena Level
94,213
Concourse
58,541
Upper Level
13,158
Total GSF
165,912
New
Renovated
Construction
Areas
Component
(SF)
(SF)
Arena:
Arena Level
94,213
0
Concourse Level
58,541
0
Upper Seating Level
13,158
0
Subtotal
165,912
0
Theater:
Basement
Street Level
First Balcony
Second Balcony
Third Balcony
Subtotal
Theater Support Areas:
Basement
Street Level
Concourse Level
Subtotal
993
0
0
0
2,400
3,393
3,503
10,767
11,574
25,844
Total Conditioned Building:
165,912
29,237
Non -Conditioned Areas:
Canopies
360
0
Catwalks
2,704
150
Exterior Ramps
0
0
Overhangs/Arcades
965
0
Subtotal
4,029
150
Total Gross Building Area:
169,941
29,387
Commencing in early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted nearly all global industries. In
particular, live events, tourism/hospitality, and construction services industries have been significantly
negatively affected, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic. Due to continuing major supply chain
disruptions and high demand levels, costs for steel, lumber and other construction materials have risen
significantly since pre -pandemic periods. Prices remain highly -volatile, making project cost estimation for
an ultimate project where the construction services would be bid out more than a year into the future more
challenging than usual. Many industry participants believe that supply, demand and prices will continue a
protracted path towards normalization over the next few years. With respect to the FFCC, these industry
effects result in materially -higher construction cost estimates for a Scenario 4 Hybrid project than estimated
just over two years ago.
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center
Page 11 of 20
0 BetschAssociates SL
C✓
DRAFT COPY
In consultation with Mortenson Construction on recent cost trends and a review of current unit prices in the
Dubuque market with Conlon Construction Company, BetschAssociates updated all of the costs from the
previous estimate (completed in August 2019), while maintaining all of the quantities from the Scenario 4
Hybrid concept.
The exhibit below presents a summary of total hard and soft construction costs associated with Scenario 4
Hybrid broken down by primary type (with comparison with the previous overall 2019 estimate). The farthest
cost column on the left represents the 2019 estimate for Scenario 4 Hybrid reflecting the former assumed
project schedule. Due to 2020 Council action to delay advanced planning on the project in light of the
pandemic, the project schedule (timeline) has been adjusted under the Updated Analysis. The updated
Scenario 4 Hybrid estimates on the right portion of the exhibit consider the new project schedule plus
changes to materials and labor costs and new assumptions relative to cost escalation over the out time
prior to ultimate construction bidding.
Summary of Estimated Project Costs for an Expanded/Improved FFCC (Scenario 4 Hybrid) -
Updated for Current Cost Conditions & New Project Schedule (with Comparison to Previous Estimates)
2A
PLANNING
UPDATEDPHASE
(2019)
NEW SCHEDULE & NEW COST CONDITIONS
Totals
Totals Arena Theatre Support
I. CONSTRUCTION COST
$57,134,922
$70,442,445
$63,825,659 $3,347,922 $3,268,864
A. Sitework
$3,006,425
$3,751,515
$3,709,341 $0 $42,174
B. New Construction
$45,183,428
$54,307,849
$54,142,357 $0 $165,492
C. Renovation
$3,633,205
$5,834,010
$40,057 $3,036,664 $2,757,290
D. Design/Bid Contingency
$2,591,153
$3,194,669
$2,894,588 $151,833 $148,248
E. Subtotal of Items A.-D.
$54,414,211
$67,088,043
$60,786,342 $3,188,498 $3,113,204
F. Construction Contingency
$2,720,711
$3,354,402
$3,039,317 $159,425 $155,660
III. CONSTRUCTN RELATED COST
$5,244,054
$6,172,535
$5,635,775 $533,610 $3,150
A. Public Art
$0
$0
$0 $0 $0
B. Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment
$4,507,337
$5,343,404
$4,832,204 $508,200 $3,000
C. SAC, WAC, Storm Water Fees
$0
$0
$0 $0 $0
D. Site Survey, Soil Bor'gs,Haz Mat'I
$157,000
$172,700
$172,700 $0 $0
E. Construction Testing
$125,000
$137,500
$137,500 $0 $0
F. Theatre Structural Study
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000 $0 $0
G. IT Consulting
$65,000
$71,500
$71,500 $0 $0
H. Commissioning/Test Balance
$75,000
$82,500
$82,500 $0 $0
I. Special Inspections and Other
$60,000
$66,000
$66,000 $0 $0
J. Contingency
$249,717
$293,930
$268,370 $25,410 $150
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
$6,470,118
$8,512,987
$7,740,685 $401,476 $370,825
A. Acquisition/Administration
$440,000
$484,000
$484,000 $0 $0
B. Design Fees
$3,428,095
$4,402,653
$3,989,104 $209,245 $204,304
C. Project Management
$275,000
$302,500
$275,000 $27,500 $0
D. Expenses
$0
$0
$0 $0 $0
E. Financing
$2,285,397
$3,272,165
$2,968,381 $164,731 $139,053
F. Contingency
$41,626
$51,669
$24,200 $0 $27,469
V. ESCALATION
$6,234,964
$4,610,046
$4,176,459 $234,357 $199,230
VI. TOTAL PROJECT COST
$75,084,057
$89,738,013
$81,378,578 $4,517,366 $3,842,069
Notes:
The Phase 2A Planning construction estimates were prepared in 2019 and reflect pre -pandemic cost conditions. The former
project timeline assumed a voter referendum occurring in Spring 2020, design completion by Spring 2021, construction bidding
in early September 2021, and the mid -point of construction occurring in June 2022. The new project timeline assumes a voter
referendum occurring in September 2022, design completion by the beginning of 2024, construction bidding by mid-2024, and
the mid -point of constructing occurring in April 2025. New cost conditions for the Updated Estimates consider continuing
disruption effects induced by the COVID-19 nandemic and inflation expectations throuah 2025.
Source: BetschAssociates, 2022.
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center BetschAssociates
Page 12 of 20 0 US L
DRAFT COPY
As shown in the exhibit on the previous page, the updated analysis indicates that total project costs (i.e.,
hard and soft construction costs) for a Scenario 4 Hybrid project have increased from $75.1 million to $89.7
million. The original 2019 construction estimates reflect pre -pandemic cost conditions. The original project
schedule (as contemplated under 2019 Phase 2A Planning) assumed a voter referendum occurring in
Spring 2020, design completion by Spring 2021, construction bidding in early September 2021, and the
mid -point of construction occurring in June 2022. The new project schedule assumes a voter referendum
occurring in September 2022, design completion by the beginning of 2024, construction bidding by mid-
2024, and the mid -point of constructing occurring in April 2025. New cost conditions for the Updated
Estimates consider continuing disruption effects induced by the COVID-19 pandemic and construction
inflation expectations through 2025.
The largest increase in component project cost since the preparation of the last estimate pertains to
structural steel, whose cost has risen almost 50 percent from last year. At the same time, costs for roofing,
glass and glazing, doors and hardware, finishes, equipment, furnishings, and elevators have all increased
approximately 20 percent. The costs for the HVAC, plumbing, and electrical trades have also increased
approximately 20 percent from the last estimate. In addition, an approximate 10 percent increase in cost
for site work has been included, while concrete, masonry, and contractor's markups have been retained at
the same level as the previous estimate.
While there have been dramatic increases in costs that can be attributed to current supply chain issues and
market supply/demand issues, it is believed that there will be some market correction for these costs over
the next one to two years. However, these costs are not expected to return to their original pre -pandemic
levels; rather, it is expected that costs will stabilize at a level commensurate with the normally -expected
escalation over the same time period.
As mentioned in the 2019 Phase 2A Planning analysis document, it is also important to recognize that
construction costs have historically risen at a higher rate than standard cost of living based inflation. For
instance, in recent pre -pandemic periods, industry construction professionals typically assumed +/- 4.0
percent annual increase in construction costs (as compared to approximately 3.0 percent in typical pre -
pandemic annual cost of living inflation). Over the past two years, future year escalation assumptions have
varied significantly by industry participant, locality/region, and for type of project.
4. Updated Operating Projections
The purpose of this section is to present a summary of updated operating projections for an expanded /
improved FFCC, relative to those generated in 2019 under the Phase 2A Planning work. Consideration
was given to the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic and its current and anticipated future effects on event
levels and mix, site selection, attendance levels, event spectator experience and safety, and attendee event
and facility preferences. Additionally, recent FFCC event and financial operating data was collected and
reviewed to assist in the understanding of FFCC performance trends since the Phase 2A Planning exercise.
COVID-19 and Relevant Industry Trends
Since early 2020, the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the event, entertainment, retail,
hospitality and tourism industries cannot be understated. Cancellations and postponements of nearly all
live events and gatherings through the end of 2020 and early 2021 occurred. Even now, the industry is still
experiencing lingering turbulence. These conditions, however, will not be permanent. The timeline for full
industry recovery is still somewhat uncertain; however, much of the industry has recovered. In fact, the
FFCC re -opened after shutdown and has shown a quicker pattern of recovery than many similar facilities
in other markets throughout the country.
From the perspective of an expanded/improved FFCC, it is important to consider how the proposed product
will be positioned following this highly unusual period. Careful planning during this period could lead to
significant and cost-effective product development over the next economic recovery and growth cycle and
beyond. Near -term planning, marketing and sales efforts associated with the FFCC should be able to
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS C.-S,
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center BetschAssociates
Page 13 of 20 0
DRAFT COPY
capitalize on this unique timing. Subsequent operational planning will certainly take into account the
evolving needs and best practices facing such facilities in a post-COVID environment (including emphasis
on flex spaces, attendee/participant social distancing, PPE and other health/safety policies, amenities and
operating practices).
The updated analysis findings presented herein are believed to be relevant with respect to a post -pandemic
recovery period. The anticipated timeline of an expended/improved FFCC project (should a public
referendum be held and is successful) would most likely represent construction completion and
commencement of operations in late 2025 or later. Indications suggest that the industry will almost certainly
be in a post-COVID environment by that time, with a significant portion of event activity functioning
consistent with the pre-COVID environment and a portion of activity continuing to grow or evolve.
Throughout the event industry, the pandemic has led facility owners and managers to re -think and evolve
the delivery of safe experiences to guests and working environments for employees. Key areas/issues
pertaining to facility health, facility operations, and guest experience that have seen significant emphasis
since the outset of the pandemic include, but are not limited to:
• Social distance planning and operational layout.
• Creation or expansion of outdoor event/function spaces.
• Expansion of larger or more open indoor spaces.
• Facility cleaning and hygiene process.
• PPE equipment evaluation, sourcing and protocols.
• Testing, masking and training protocols.
• Safety products and solutions.
• Cash less/contactless ticketing, food & beverage and merchandise.
• Packaging and delivery handling.
• Improved technology -based amenities, communication systems, guest messaging, etc.
Additionally, many event facility trends that were prevalent or emerging in recent pre -pandemic years
remain relevant in a post -pandemic world, as the top -to -bottom guest experience is being reconsidered and
re-evaluated. As an example, seating trends throughout arenas across the country indicate an increase in
the variety of products and experiences. This includes an increase in the variety of premium products and
experiences. The increased diversification of general and premium seating opportunities has helped
segment current and future ticket buyers to reach a broader array of potential patrons. Key trends among
arena -specific premium seating include unique small -group premium spaces such as loge boxes, ledge
tables, and theater boxes located close to event level. These small -group spaces, as well as enhanced
premium social areas with all-inclusive "unique" experiences, have helped segment today's premium
seating market to reach a broader array of potential patrons and present options to offer the marketplace a
unique product mix. An expanded/improved FFCC will include a variety of these seating options and price
points. Seating concepts considered for many new arena projects throughout the country include, but are
not limited to the following:
Individual seating:
o General admission seats.
o Standing room -only.
o Membership clubs.
o Club seats.
o Ledge seats.
Small group seating:
o Ledge tables
o Loge boxes.
o Theater boxes.
Larger group seating:
o Party suites.
o Traditional suites.
o Bunker suites.
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center BetschAssociates
Page 14 of 20 0 US L
DRAFT COPY
Updated FFCC Utilization & Attendance Projections
Based on the analysis completed for this updated planning effort, the exhibit below presents a summary of
the estimated annual event levels, event days, and utilization days (move -in days, event days, and move -
out days) by event type for an expanded/improved FFCC under a Scenario 4 Hybrid model during a
stabilized year of operation (assumed third full year). Estimates associated with the current FFCC and
those developed in 2019 as part of the Phase 2A Planning exercise are also provided for comparison.
Estimated Annual FFCC Event and Utilization Levels by Scenario
(stabilized year of operation)
CURRENT
FFCC
(1)
Number of Events
Community/Religious
4
8
8
Concerts
13
20
22
Convention/Tradeshow
2
6
5
Family/Ice Shows
5
12
10
Meetings/Banquets
8
50
50
Non -Tenant Performance
6
20
18
Public/Consumer Show
2
5
4
Sporting Events
31
55
55
Tenant Performance
16
26
26
Other
16
25
22
Total
103
227
220
Event Days
Community/Religious
4
8
8
Concerts
14
22
24
Convention/Tradeshow
3
9
8
Family/Ice Shows
6
14
12
Meetings/Banquets
8
50
50
Non -Tenant Performance
14
47
42
Public/Consumer Show
3
8
6
Sporting Events
38
67
67
Tenant Performance
59
96
96
Other
21
33
29
Total
170
353
341
Utilization Days
Community/Religious
6
12
12
Concerts
15
23
25
Convention/Tradeshow
6
18
15
Family/Ice Shows
7
17
14
Meetings/Banquets
12
75
75
Non -Tenant Performance
16
53
48
Public/Consumer Show
5
13
10
Sporting Events
47
83
83
Tenant Performance
124
202
202
Other
23
36
32
Total
261
532
516
(1) Represents Scenario 1 (Status Quo) from 2017 Phase 1 Study.
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center BetschAssociates
Page 15 of 20 0 US L
DRAFT COPY
The exhibit below presents is a summary of the estimated attendee days by event type for the current FFCC
and for Scenario 4 Hybrid during a stabilized year. A portion of the total attendee base represents non -
local attendees (i.e., attendees that do not reside in Dubuque) and a modest portion of these non -local
attendees represent visitors that require overnight lodging. As such, estimates relative to non -local
attendee days and hotel room nights have also been presented.
Estimated Annual FFCC Attendance & Room Nights by Scenario
(stabilized year of operation)
CURRENT
SCENARIO
SCENARIO
FIVE FLAGS
4 HYBRID
4 HYBRID
(1)
ORIGINAL
UPDATED
Total Attendee Days
Community/Religious
7,126
18,400
18,200
Concerts
11,006
56,000
62,785
Convention/Tradeshow
3,225
13,500
10,500
Family/Ice Shows
7,608
24,480
21,000
Meetings/Banquets
1,699
12,500
12,500
Non -Tenant Performance
8,463
31,500
28,770
Public/Consumer Show
5,081
13,500
11,100
Sporting Events
48,387
84,274
87,645
Tenant Performance
58,469
119,844
110,256
Other
4,548
16,406
12,994
Total
155,612
390,404
375,750
Non -Local Attendee Days
Community/Religious
713
1,840
1,820
Concerts
3,302
16,800
18,835
Convention/Tradeshow
1,613
6,750
5,250
Family/Ice Shows
2,282
7,344
6,300
Meetings/Banquets
425
3,125
3,125
Non -Tenant Performance
1,269
4,725
4,316
Public/Consumer Show
1,524
4,050
3,330
Sporting Events
9,677
16,855
17,529
Tenant Performance
11,694
23,969
22,051
Other
1,364
4,922
3,898
Total
33,863
90,379
86,454
Hotel Room Nights
Community/Religious
143
368
364
Concerts
495
2,520
2,825
Convention/Tradeshow
538
2,250
1,750
Family/Ice Shows
152
490
420
Meetings/Banquets
85
625
625
Non -Tenant Performance
190
709
647
Public/Consumer Show
61
162
133
Sporting Events
645
1,124
1,169
Tenant Performance
1,754
3,595
3,308
Other
364
1,313
1,040
Total
4,427
13,155
12,281
(1) Represents Scenario 1 (Status Quo) from Phase 1 Study.
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center BetschAssociates
Page 16 of 20 0 US L
DRAFT COPY
Financial Operations
The exhibit below presents a summary of the estimated financial operating results for the current FFCC
and for Scenario 4 Hybrid during a stabilized year of operation. These figures only represent the annual
operations of the FFCC and do not include construction debt service payments, capital repair/replacement
reserve funding obligations, or other non -operating expenses.
Estimated Annual FFCC Financial Operating Results by Scenario
(stabilized year of operation, presented in 2019 dollars)
CURRENT
FIVE FLAGS
CIVIC CTR. (1)
Operating Revenues
Facility Rent
$245,000
$818,935
$949,964
Food & Beverage
130,000
456,222
500,932
Advertising/Sponsorships (4)
20,000
220,626
237,173
Premium Seating
0
166,823
175,331
Contract Service & Other
15,000
90,022
95,423
Total Operating Revenue
$410,000
$1,752,628
$1,958,823
Operating Expenses
Salaries & Benefits
$780,000
$1,204,377
$1,264,596
Contract Labor
35,000
69,068
78,046
Utilities
180,000
261,803
278,821
Repair& Maintenance
30,000
71,267
75,187
General & Administrative
75,000
142,751
145,606
Supplies
20,000
67,294
71,332
Insurance
46,000
72,112
76,439
Other
100,000
209,955
221,293
Total Operating Expenses
$1,266,000
$2,098,628
$2,211,320
Net Operating Profit/Deficit
($856,000)
($346,001)
($252,497)
(1) Represents Scenario 1 (Status Quo) from 2017 Phase 1 Study.
(2) Original projections developed under Phase 2A analysis. Presented in 2022 dollars.
(3) Adjusted figures to reflect industry trends and anticipated pandemic impacts. Presented in 2022 dollars.
(4) Does not include naming rights revenue.
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center BetschAssociates
Page 17 of 20 0 US L
DRAFT COPY
Economic Impacts
An updated economic impact analysis was also conducted for the FFCC. The following chart outlines key
economic impact concepts and metrics.
Economic Impact Analysis Concepts and Metrics
1. Direct Spending
Materials
Labor
2. Indirect & Induced Spending
3. Output (direct + indirect + induced spending)
4. Employment (full & part-time jobs)
5. Earnings (personal income)
6. Tax Revenue
• Sales & use taxes
1. Direct Spending
Room & Space Rentals
Food & Beverage
Retail & Merchandise
Entertainment
Sponsorship & Advertising
Contract & Other Services
2. Indirect & Induced Spending
3. Output (direct + indirect + induced spending)
4. Employment (full & part-time jobs)
5. Earnings (personal income)
6. Tax Revenue
Sales & use taxes
Excise, gaming & other taxes
Direct Spending
Lodging
Restaurants/Bars
Retail
Entertainment/Gaming
Transit
Services/Other
Indirect & Induced Spending
Output (direct + indirect + induced spending)
Employment (full & part-time jobs)
Earnings (personal income)
Tax Revenue
Lodging taxes
Sales & use taxes
Car rental & transit taxes
Excise, gaming & other taxes
For purposes of this analysis, results of the economic impact analyses are measured in terms of the
following categories:
Total output represents the total direct, indirect and induced spending effects generated by the
project. This calculation measures the total dollar change in output that occurs in the local economy
for each dollar of output delivered to final demand.
Personal earnings represent the wages and salaries earned by employees of businesses
associated with or impacted by the project. In other words, the multiplier measures the total dollar
change in earnings of households employed by the affected industries for each additional dollar of
output delivered to final demand.
Employment represents the number of full- and part-time jobs. The employment multiplier
measures the total change in the number of jobs in the local economy for each additional $1.0
million of output delivered to final demand.
The initial spending of new dollars into an economy begins a series in which the dollars are cycled through
the economy. The re -spending of the dollars is estimated by using the economic multipliers discussed
above and applying them to the amount of direct, or initial, spending. The multiplier illustrates that spending
in a defined economy will lead to additional spending until that dollar has completed its cycle through
leakage. Leakage represents the portion of a dollar spent in areas outside the designated economy.
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center BetschAssociates r ��
Page 18 of 20 ♦✓,
DRAFT COPY
This analysis only considers "net new" economic impact. This impact is derived solely by visitors attending
or participating in FFCC events that do not reside in Dubuque. For conservative purposes, our approach
to economic impact estimation does not consider any spending by facility attendees/participants if they
reside in Dubuque. It has been assumed that any spending by these local residents would represent
"displaced" spending, that would have otherwise been spent locally on other products and services.
The existing FFCC annually generates economic impact in Dubuque associated the attraction of visitors to
the city, and their spending in it, that would have not otherwise traveled to Dubuque if it were not for the
event they chose to attend at the FFCC. Further, the construction and the subsequent operations of the
FFCC Project will generate significant new economic impact in Dubuque particularly when considering
aggregate impacts over time. The following exhibit depicts the cumulative net new economic impacts
estimated to be generated by the FFCC under Scenario 4 Hybrid during the startup period and over a
cumulative period of years, with a comparison to the current FFCC and the original projections in 2019 for
Scenario 4 Hybrid.
Summary of Estimated One-time & Annual Economic Impacts
(presented in 2019 dollars)
CURRENT SCENARIO
SCENARIO
FIVE FLAGS 4 HYBRIDHYBRID
CIVIC CTR. (�� •'
'
Construction Impacts (one time)
Direct Spending
$33,787,826
$40,382,106
Indirect/Induced Spending
23,199,335
27,727,087
Total Output
$56,987,161
$68,109,193
Personal Income (earnings)
$19,190,556
$22,935,926
Employment (full & part-time jobs)
405
484
Operating Impacts (annual)
Direct Spending
$2,362,947
$6,076,488
$6,447,441
Indirect/Induced Spending
886,930
2,277,300
2,421,210
Total Output
$3,249,877
$8,353,789
$8,868,651
Personal Income (earnings)
$969,882
$2,406,047
$2,550,523
Employment (full & part-time jobs)
48
119
127
(1) Represents Scenario 1 (Status Quo) from 2017 Phase 1 Study.
(2) Original projections developed under Phase 2A analysis. Presented in 2022 dollars.
(3) Adjusted figures to reflect industry trends and anticipated pandemic impacts. Presented in 2022 dollars.
In addition to the more quantifiable benefits, some anticipated benefits related to the construction and
operations of the proposed expanded/improved FFCC project cannot be quantitatively measured. Beyond
the economic activity and jobs indirectly provided, these types of non -quantifiable impacts of a project of
this nature and scope can serve to elevate Dubuque's profile and brand as a visitor destination and as a
quality place to live, work, learn and play.
In fact, these qualitative benefits tend to be a critical factor in the consideration of public and private
investment in projects of this nature, particularly those involving existing venues with a long history of
service in the local community. These include issues pertaining to quality of life (through attracting
entertainment events that would not otherwise travel to the area and hosting civic and private events),
ancillary economic development facilitation, employment opportunities, community pride and other issues.
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center BetschAssociates
Page 19 of 20 0 US L
DRAFT COPY
Potential non -quantifiable benefits could include:
• Potential Transformative and Iconic Effects — Elevating the quality, profile, and exposure to
national, regional and local audiences of a key local event facility can have important transformative
and residual impacts on the Dubuque community and destination, in terms of quality of life,
community prestige, perception by visitors and non -locals, and other such effects.
• Quality of Life for Residents — New/enhanced event and public assembly facilities provide
diversified activities for local residents and families, which can make Dubuque a more attractive
and enjoyable place to reside. Quality public assembly facilities can contribute to enhancing
community pride, self-image, exposure and reputation. All these items can assist in retaining and
attracting an educated workforce, particularly younger adults who often desire quality
entertainment, cultural, leisure and recreational amenities.
• New Visitation — New visitors will be attracted to the area because of an event in the
expanded/improved arena and performing arts facility products. These attendees, in turn, may
elect to return to the area later with their families, etc. for a vacation after visiting the area for the
first time.
• Spin -Off Development— Private sector investment can be induced in the areas surrounding event
facilities, such as arenas and performing arts centers, spurred by increased volume of visitors to
the event facility, representing additions to the local tax base. Enhanced economic growth and
ancillary private sector development near the FFCC could be more likely should the City elect to
invest in a major FFCC improvement project.
• Anchor for Revitalization — Key event facility project development can often times anchor larger
downtown or community -wide master development plans and new development activities.
• Other Benefits — Increased synergy with the other local event, entertainment and hospitality
facilities can lead to increased tourism activity in communities. Likewise, the proposed FFCC
investment would be expected to enhance affordable entertainment, cultural, educational and
leisure alternatives for families in Dubuque.
UPDATED ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL & OPERATING COSTS
for an Expanded/Improved Five Flags Civic Center BetschAssociates
Page 20 of 20 0 US L
ESTIMATED City of Dubuque Five Flags Debt Options
Levy Impact
Valuation Growth Estimate 1.00%
Median Home Value $159,503
FY23 Residential Rollback 54.130%
Est. Median Home Value (Taxable) $86,339
A B B C
D E
Taxable
Valuation
Net
Debt Service
Associated
Levy
Ava. Annual Impact to Homeowner
Before Homestead After Homestead
3,046,509,799
0.00000
0.00
0.00
1,161,334,450
0.00000
0.00
0.00
3,192,947,795
7,573,170
2.37184
204.78
193.28
3,224,877,272
7,571,954
2.34798
202.72
191.34
3,257,126,045
7,574,159
2.32541
200.77
189.50
3,289,697,306
7,576,143
2.30299
198.84
187.67
3,322,594,279
7,571,741
2.27886
196.76
185.70
3,355,820,221
7,572,603
2.25656
194.83
183.89
3,389,378,424
7,571,603
2.23392
192.88
182.04
3,423,272,208
7,575,816
2.21303
191.07
180.34
3,457,504,930
7,573,954
2.19058
189.13
178.51
3,492,079,979
7,576,474
2.16962
187.32
176.80
3,527,000,779
7,571,577
2.14675
185.35
174.94
3,562,270,787
7,573,279
2.12597
183.55
173.24
3,597,893,495
7,575,329
2.10549
181.79
171.57
3,633,872,430
7,571,675
2.08364
179.90
169.79
3,670,211,154
7,572,624
2.06327
178.14
168.13
3,706,913,266
7,574,553
2.04336
176.42
166.51
3,743,982,398
7,572,429
2.02256
174.63
164.82
3,781,422,222
7,575,722
2.00341
172.97
163.26
3,819,236,444
7,573,425
1.98297
171.21
161.59
Notes:
(1) All estimated levies are related to the proposed Five Flags Civic Center only; no other debt or city levies are included.
(2) Actual growth in taxable valuation and rollback will alter results.
Exhibit B
Prepared by Independent Public Advisors, LLC Page 1 of 1 Date:4/14/2022; Time: 4:13 PM
ESTIMATED City of Dubuque Five Flags Debt Options
Levy Impact
Valuation Growth Estimate
Median Industrial Value
FY23 Industrial Rollback
Est. Median Industrial Value (Taxable)
A B B
Taxable Net Subsidy
Valuation Debt Service Reduction
3,046,509,799
3,161,334,450 -
3,192,947,795 7,573,170 (603,503)
3,224,877,272 7,571,954 (603,503)
3,257,126,045 7,574,159 (603,503)
3,289,697,306 7,576,143 (603,503)
3,322,594,279 7,571,741 (603,503)
3,355,820,221 7,572,603 (603,503)
3,389,378,424 7,571,603 (603,503)
3,423,272,208 7,575,816 (603,503)
3,457,504,930 7,573,954 (603,503)
3,492,079,979 7,576,474 (603,503)
3,527,000,779 7,571,577 (603,503)
3,562,270,787 7,573,279 (603,503)
3,597,893,495 7,575,329 (603,503)
3,633,872,430 7,571,675 (603,503)
3,670,211,154 7,572,624 (603,503)
3,706,913,266 7,574,553 (603,503)
3,743,982,398 7,572,429 (603,503)
3,781,422,222 7,575,722 (603,503)
3,819,236,444 7,573,425 (603,503)
1.00%
$599,500
90.000
$539,550
C D
Associated
Annual Impact
Levy
to Industrial
0.00000
0.00
0.00000
0.00
2.18283
1,177.75
2.16084
1,165.88
2.14012
1,154.70
2.11954
1,143.60
2.09723
1,131.56
2.07672
1,120.49
2.05586
1,109.24
2.03674
1,098.92
2.01604
1,087.75
1.99680
1,077.37
1.97564
1,065.96
1.95655
1,055.66
1.93775
1,045.51
1.91756
1,034.62
1.89883
1,024.52
1.88055
1,014.65
1.86137
1,004.30
1.84381
994.83
1.82495
984.65
Notes:
(1) All estimated levies are related to the proposed Five Flags Civic Center only; no other debt or city levies are included.
(2) Actual growth in taxable valuation and rollback will alter results.
Exhibit C
Prepared by Independent Public Advisors, LLC Page 1 of 1 Date:4/27/2022; Time: 5:03 PM
ESTIMATED City of Dubuque Five Flags Debt Options
Levy Impact
Valuation Growth Estimate
Median Commercial Value
FY23 Commercial Rollback
Est. Median Commercial Value (Taxable)
A B B
Taxable Net Subsidy
Valuation Debt Service Reduction
3,046,509,799
3,161,334,450 -
3,192,947,795 7,573,170 (603,503)
3,224,877,272 7,571,954 (603,503)
3,257,126,045 7,574,159 (603,503)
3,289,697,306 7,576,143 (603,503)
3,322,594,279 7,571,741 (603,503)
3,355,820,221 7,572,603 (603,503)
3,389,378,424 7,571,603 (603,503)
3,423,272,208 7,575,816 (603,503)
3,457,504,930 7,573,954 (603,503)
3,492,079,979 7,576,474 (603,503)
3,527,000,779 7,571,577 (603,503)
3,562,270,787 7,573,279 (603,503)
3,597,893,495 7,575,329 (603,503)
3,633,872,430 7,571,675 (603,503)
3,670,211,154 7,572,624 (603,503)
3,706,913,266 7,574,553 (603,503)
3,743,982,398 7,572,429 (603,503)
3,781,422,222 7,575,722 (603,503)
3,819,236,444 7,573,425 (603,503)
1.00%
$432,475
90.000
$389,228
C D
Associated
Annual Impact
Levy
to Commercial
0.00000
0.00
0.00000
0.00
2.18283
849.62
2.16084
841.06
2.14012
833.00
2.11954
824.98
2.09723
816.30
2.07672
808.32
2.05586
800.20
2.03674
792.75
2.01604
784.70
1.99680
777.21
1.97564
768.97
1.95655
761.54
1.93775
754.23
1.91756
746.37
1.89883
739.08
1.88055
731.96
1.86137
724.50
1.84381
717.66
1.82495
710.32
Notes:
(1) All estimated levies are related to the proposed Five Flags Civic Center only; no other debt or city levies are included.
(2) Actual growth in taxable valuation and rollback will alter results.
Exhibit C
Prepared by Independent Public Advisors, LLC Page 1 of 1 Date:4/27/2022; Time: 5:03 PM
ESTIMATED City of Dubuque Five Flags Debt Options Exhibit A
Bond Schedule
A B C D
)ject Costs: 89,700,00
uance Costs: 4,355,00
r: 94,055,00
Principal Total Less TIF Net
�.
-
3,216,128
(3,216,128) -
�.
3,285,000
7,573,170
- 7,573,170
�.
3,405,000
7,571,954
- 7,571,954
�.
3,540,000
7,574,159
- 7,574,159
�.
3,685,000
7,576,143
- 7,576,143
�.
3,835,000
7,571,741
- 7,571,741
�.
4,000,000
7,572,603
- 7,572,603
1.
1
4,175,000
7,571,603
- 7,571,603
1.
4,365,000
7,575,816
- 7,575,816
1.
4,560,000
7,573,954
- 7,573,954
1.
1
4,770,000
7,576,474
- 7,576,474
1.
1
4,985,000
7,571,577
- 7,571,577
1.
1
5,220,000
7,573,279
- 7,573,279
1.
5,470,000
7,575,329
- 7,575,329
1.
5,730,000
7,571,675
- 7,571,675
1.
1
6,010,000
7,572,624
- 7,572,624
1.
1
6,295,000
7,574,553
- 7,574,553
1.
1
6,590,000
7,572,429
- 7,572,429
1.
1
6,905,000
7,575,722
- 7,575,722
1.
1
7,230,000
7,573,425
7,573,425
Totals
94,055,000
147,114,356
(3,216,128) 143,898,228
otes:
(1)
Borrowing
rates assume taxable AA scale
as of 04/12/22 plus 1% for r
Variations
in actual credit and market conditions will cause results to
(2)
Issuance costs are estimated, and includes capitalization of FY23 inter
Prepared by Independent Public Advisors, LLC Page 1 of 1 Date:4/14/2022; Time: 4:12 PM
Dubuque
THE C
DUj!B9kFE
M-Ameriq City
II
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
12.2013
2007.2020120 2019
CRENNA M. BRUMWELL, ES
CITY ATTORNEY
TO: MAYOR BRAD CAVANAGH & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: JANUARY 11, 2022
RE: FIVE FLAGS POSSIBLE REFERENDUM DATES IN 2022 AND 2023
The City Council tabled the discussion on a referendum related to Five Flags on July 6,
2020, via resolution 200-20 until January 18, 2022. The matter will appear on your
agenda on January 18, 2022, per that directive. The City Council has a work session
scheduled on January 24, 2022, to receive an update on Five Flags.
I am providing this information in advance for City Council review in the event it is useful
for January 18t" and 24tn
A number of Iowa Code sections are attached to this memo. Most importantly, I want you
to be aware of the possible referendum dates in 2022 and 2023. They are:
2022
March 1, 2022
September 13, 2022
2023
March 7, 2023
September 12, 2023
November 7, 2023
This date is not an option as the 46 day notice deadline to the
County will have already passed by January 18, 2022
I have confirmed these dates with City Clerk Adrienne Breitfelder and Jenny Hillary,
Deputy Commissioner of Elections. Thank you.
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DUBUQUE, IOWA
SUITE 330, HARBOR VIEW PLACE, 300 MAIN STREET DUBUQUE, IA 52001-6944
TELEPHONE (563) 589-4381 / FAx (563) 583-1040 / EMAIL cbrumwel@cityofdubuque.org
cc: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
Adrienne N. Breitfelder, City Clerk
Marie Ware, Leisure Services Manager
IOWA CODE
39.1 General election.
The general election shall be held throughout the state on the first Tuesday after the
first Monday in November of each even -numbered year.
39.2 Special elections.
1. a. All special elections which are authorized or required by law, unless the applicable
law otherwise requires, shall be held on Tuesday. A special election shall not be held on
the first, second, third, and fourth Tuesdays preceding and following the primary and the
general elections.
b. A special election shall not be held in conjunction with the primary election. A special
election shall not be held in conjunction with a regularly scheduled or special city primary
or city runoff election.
2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 1, a special election may be held on the
same day as a regularly scheduled election if the two elections are not in conflict within
the meaning of section 47.6, subsection 2. A special election may be held on the same
day as a regularly scheduled election with which it does so conflict if the commissioner
who is responsible for conducting the elections concludes that to do so will cause no
undue difficulties, except that a special election for a city, school district, or merged area
shall not be scheduled to coincide with the general election.
3. a. When voting is to occur on the same day in any one precinct for two or more
elections, they shall be considered one election for purposes of administration including
but not limited to publishing notice of the election, preparation of the precinct election
register and completion of tally sheets after the polling place has closed.
b. If a special election to fill a vacancy is held in conjunction with a regularly scheduled
election, the filing deadlines for the special election shall coincide with the filing deadlines
for the regularly scheduled election. An election to fill a vacancy in a city office cannot be
held in conjunction with a general election if the city election procedures provide for a
primary election.
4. Unless otherwise provided by law, special elections on public measures are
limited to the following dates:
a. For a county, in an odd -numbered year, the first Tuesday in March, the second
Tuesday in September, or the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. For a
county, in an even -numbered year, the first Tuesday in March or the second Tuesday in
September.
b. For a city, in an odd -numbered year, the first Tuesday in March, the second
Tuesday in September, or the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. For
a city, in an even -numbered year, the first Tuesday in March or the second Tuesday
in September.
c. For a school district or merged area, in the odd -numbered year, the first Tuesday in
March, the second Tuesday in September, or the first Tuesday after the first Monday in
November. For a school district or merged area, in the even -numbered year, the first
Tuesday in March, or the second Tuesday in September.
3
39.3 Definitions.
The definitions established by this section shall apply wherever the terms so defined
appear in this chapter and in chapters 39A, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48A through 53, and 68A
unless the context in which any such term is used clearly requires otherwise.
1. "Absentee ballot" means any ballot authorized by chapter 53.
2. "City" means a municipal corporation not including a county, township, school
district, or any special purpose district or authority. When used in relation to land
area, "city" includes only the land area within the city limits.
3. "City election" means any election held in a city for nomination or election of the
officers thereof including a city primary or runoff election.
4. "Commissioner" means the county commissioner of elections as defined in section
47.2.
5. "Election" means a general election, primary election, city election, school election
or special election.
6. "Eligible elector" means a person who possesses all of the qualifications necessary
to entitle the person to be registered to vote, whether or not the person is in fact
so registered.
7. "General election" means the biennial election for national or state officers,
members of Congress and of the general assembly, county and township officers,
and for the choice of other officers or the decision of questions as provided by law.
8. "Infamous crime" means a felony as defined in section 701.7, or an offense
classified as a felony under federal law.
9. "Primary election" means that election by the members of various political parties
for the purpose of placing in nomination candidates for public office held as
required by chapter 43.
10. "Public measure" means any question authorized or required by law to be
submitted to the voters at an election.
11. "Registered voter" means a person who is registered to vote pursuant to chapter
48A.
12. "Registrar" means the state registrar of voters designated by section 47.7.
13. "Registration commission" means the state voter registration commission
established by section 47.8.
14. "School election" means that election held pursuant to section 277.1.
15. "Special election" means anv other election held for any Duraose authorized or
required by law.
16. "State commissioner" means the state commissioner of elections as defined in
section 47.1.
17. "Written" and "in writing" may include any mode of representing words or letters
in general use. A signature, when required by law, must be made by the writing or
markings of the person whose signature is required. If a person is unable due to a
physical disability to make a written signature or mark, that person may substitute
either of the following in lieu of a signature required by law:
a. The name of the person with a disability written by another upon the request
and in the presence of the person with a disability.
12
b. A rubber stamp reproduction of the name or facsimile of the actual signature
of the person with a disability when adopted by that person for all purposes
requiring a signature and then only when affixed by that person or another
upon the request and in the presence of the person with a disability.
47.6 Election dates — conflicts — public measures.
1. a. (1) The governing body of a political subdivision which has authorized a
special election to which section 39.2, subsections 1, 2, and 3, are applicable shall
by written notice inform the commissioner who will be responsible for conducting
the election of the proposed date of the special election.
(a) If a public measure will appear on the ballot at the special election, the
governing body shall submit the complete text of the public measure to the
commissioner with the notice of the proposed date of the special election.
(b) If the proposed date of the special election coincides with the date of a regularly
scheduled election or previously scheduled special election, the notice shall be
given no later than 5:00 p.m. on the last day on which nomination papers may be
filed with the commissioner for the regularly scheduled election or previously
scheduled special election, but in no case shall notice be less than thirty-two days
before the election. Otherwise, the notice shall be given at least forty-six days
in advance of the date of the proposed special election.
(2) Upon receiving the notice, the commissioner shall promptly give written
approval of the proposed date unless it appears that the special election, if held on
that date, would conflict with a regular election or with another special election
previously scheduled for that date.
b. A public measure shall not be withdrawn from the ballot at any election if the
public measure was placed on the ballot by a petition, or if the election is a special
election called specifically for the purpose of deciding one or more public measures
for a single political subdivision. However, a public measure which was submitted
to the county commissioner of elections by the governing body of a political
subdivision may be withdrawn by the governing body which submitted the public
measure if the public measure was to be placed on the ballot of a regularly
scheduled election. The notice of withdrawal must be made by resolution of the
governing body and must be filed with the commissioner no later than the last day
upon which a candidate may withdraw from the ballot.
2. For the purpose of this section, a conflict between two elections exists only
when one of the elections would require use of precinct boundaries which differ
from those to be used for the other election, or when some but not all of the
registered voters of any precinct would be entitled to vote in one of the elections
and all of the registered voters of the same precinct would be entitled to vote in the
other election. Nothing in this subsection shall deny a commissioner discretionary
authority to approve holding a special election on the same date as another
election, even though the two elections may be defined as being in conflict, if the
commissioner concludes that to do so will cause no undue difficulties.
5
3. a. A city council, county board of supervisors, school district board of directors,
or merged area board of directors that has authorized a public measure to be
submitted to the voters at a special election held pursuant to section 39.2,
subsection 4, shall file the full text of the public measure with the commissioner no
later than 5:00 p.m. on the forty-sixth day before the election.
b. If there are vacancies in county offices to be filled at the special election,
candidates shall file their nomination papers with the commissioner not later than
5:00 p.m. on the forty-sixth day before the election.
c. If there are vacancies in city offices to be filled at the special election, candidates
shall file their nomination papers with the city clerk not later than 5:00 p.m. on the
forty-seventh day before the election. The city clerk shall deliver the nomination
papers to the commissioner not later than 5:00 p.m. on the forty-sixth day before
the election. Candidates for city offices in cities in which a primary election may be
necessary shall file their nomination papers with the city clerk not later than 5:00
p.m. on the fifty-fourth day before the election. The city clerk shall deliver the
nomination papers to the commissioner not later than 5:00 p.m. on the fifty-third
day before the election.
i 0 6 9 MAIN STREET • DUBUQUE • IOWA • S z 0 0 i- 4 7 2 4
[ 5 6 3 1 5 8 8- 4 4 0 0 •[ 5 6 3 1 5 8 8- o 6 4 5- FAX • W W W. D U B 0 0 0 EMAINSTR E E T. O R G
March 23, 2022
Dear Mayor Cavanagh and Members of the City Council,
In October of last year, on behalf of 30+ private businesses, organizations, and
individuals, Dubuque Main Street engaged Johnson Consulting to conduct an
independent and objective "peer review" of CSL's work regarding the future of Five
Flags. In addition to an assessment of CSL's analysis and recommendations, this
supplemental study included further analysis of some of the financial implications of a
Five Flags project including economic impacts and potential funding sources. That
privately funded study was submitted to you all in advance of your January work
session, although we think it's important to call your attention to it once again as you
conduct your budget hearing on Five Flags.
Dubuque Main Street and members of the coalition that funded the study are not
advocating for a particular solution at this time, but are invested in working together to
build continued economic and cultural vibrancy in Dubuque, and are eager to partner
with the City of Dubuque to support continued exploration and planning around the
reimagination of Five Flags.
We believe the key findings of this assessment warrant further objective investigation
and robust dialogue regarding capital investment opportunities that will have significant
impact on the future vibrancy and economic health of the Dubuque community.
The analysis revealed that despite a lack of capital investment, or improved facilities,
Five Flags management has established and maintained a regional draw of visitors from
a 250-mile radius as far east as Chicago, west to Des Moines and north to Minneapolis.
This brings dollars from outside Iowa into Dubuque and has had a significant impact on
hotels, restaurants, and retail establishments — contributing to the vitality of the
community. These impacts have the potential to be doubled or tripled with increased
patrons to a reinvigorated theater and arena.
Further, while the 2018 and 2019 studies prepared by CSL have provided important
direction and guidance, Johnson Consulting suggests that the CSL economic impacts
were understated, and current more detailed estimates add supplemental spending
from local residents that would leak to other markets if improvements to the Five Flags
Civic Center are not made.
We believe that continued investigation into return on investment into Five Flags must
be prioritized. Currently, $6 million is allocated in the City's budget for repairs/band-aids
to the facility. In our opinion, the direct and indirect costs of maintaining the status quo
heavily outweigh actively working toward a plan to reimagine and invest in our city's
A MAIN STREET IOWA AFFILIATE
i 0 6 9 MAIN STREET • DUBUQUE • IOWA • S z 0 0 i- 4 7 2 4
[ 5 6 3 1 5 8 8- 4 4 0 0 •[ 5 6 3 1 5 8 8- 0 6 4 5- FAX • W W W. D U B 0 0 0 EMAINSTR E E T. O R G
downtown. It will be critical to explore a long-term view and budget for the next 20-30
years as we move forward in planning phases.
Johnson Consulting estimated that through facility enhancements in one key scenario,
Five Flags is estimated to generate in year 5:
- $21.21VI in total annual spending
- $3.71VI in increased annual earnings,
- Support 141 FTE jobs annually
This is almost 3-times the impact of the CSL studies and more accurately reflects the
impact of both local and non -local visitation to the center. The fiscal impact is projected
at approximately:
- $1.1 M in tax revenues from sales,
- $1.31VI in tax revenues in year 5
food, beverage, and hotel taxes in year 1
While significant funding challenges exist, there is enthusiastic support from the private
sector who are willing to participate in resource development and targeted community
education. We understand that minimizing the burden on taxpayers is key, and that
exploration around fundraising from a broad range of sources is necessary. These
include grants, Historic Tax Credits, sponsorships/naming rights, federal programs,
dedicated local funding, and a portion of existing or new tax sources.
As always, corporate and philanthropic groups will respond best to a high -quality project
that means a great deal to the community.
We ask that you consider the questions below and request an opportunity to further
discuss with you and key City staff.
Does a project to expand and upgrade Five Flags Civic Center, as described in the
Johnson Consulting study, require a referendum? Why or why not?
If so...
• What are the steps needed to take place to make a referendum happen?
• Who needs to take these steps?
• What specifically would the referendum be asking voters to vote on?
• When would the referendum occur?
• What are the implications should the referendum fail?
If not, what are the required next steps to continue exploration and facilitate an ultimate
decision on the City of Dubuque's support of the expansion and upgrade of Five Flags
Civic Center?
We appreciate your consideration of our collective feedback and thank you for your
dedication to continuing to build a vibrant future for Dubuque. For your reference,
A MAIN STREET IOWA AFFILIATE
i 0 6 9 MAIN STREET • D U B U Q U E• I O W A• 5 a 0 0 i- 4 7 2 4
[ 5 6 3 15 8 8- 4 4 0 0 •[ 5 63 15 8 8- o 6 4 5 -FAX • W W W. D U B 0 0 0 E M A IN S T RE ET . OR G
included below is a list of the companies/organizations/individuals who contributed
funding for the Johnson Consulting study.
Sincerely,
Dan LoBianco
Executive Director
Dubuque Main Street Ltd
Bard Materials
Bob Woodward
Bodine Electric Co
Conlon Construction Co
Crescent Electric Supply Co
Diamond Jo Casino Dubuque
Dubuque Bank & Trust
Dubuque Initiatives, Inc
Dupaco Community Credit Union
Fischer Companies
Flexsteel
Geisler Brothers Co
Giese Sheet Metal Co
Gronen Companies
Hartig Drug
Honkamp Krueger & Co, P.C.
Hotel Julien Dubuque
Kendall Hunt Publishing Co
McCoy Group, Inc
Medical Associates
MedOne Pharmacy Benefit Solutions
MidWestOne Bank
Michael Klauer
Molo Companies
Mozena Realty Group
PepsiCo/Verena Street Coffee Co
Portzen Construction, Inc
Runde Auto Group
Steele Capital Management, Inc
Theisen's Home -Farm -Auto
A MAIN STREET IOWA AFFILIATE
10
DRAFT EXECIJTIVE SUMMAR`
Five FIag�Civic Center,'..Peer Review IEconomic Impact StUdy
'0M0-
Dubuque, IAA ���
JOHNSON
_; co
ING
Euca ry
Executive Summary
Johnson Consulting was retained by Dubuque Main Street on behalf of a group of over 30 private businesses, organizations and individuals to provide an objective,
independent assessment of the economic and fiscal impact of the Five Flags Civic Center in downtown Dubuque, IA. The intent of this study is to substantiate demand for
improved facilities at the Civic Center and quantify the associated impact to the community and region. Key observations and recommendations are summarized as follows:
A. The Five Flags Civic Center has served millions of visitors to Dubuque's downtown core over the past several decades. Imagine if you will, the venue being absent from
the local marketplace and reflect on what this would mean to area hotels, restaurants and retail establishments - downtown Dubuque would be much less vital and
attractive than it is today. Turn the tables on this vision and imagine attracting double to triple the patrons currently served at an enhanced arena and theater.
B. Arenas and theaters are major investments for communities — they are capital intensive and complex to operate. The Five Flags Civic Center is well located and has a
major influence on the quality of life of residents of the Dubuque community, but it is a poor product. The arena itself is a euphemism, as it is not a true "arena" as defined
by today's standards.
C. Despite a lack of capital investment, the Five Flags Civic Center has established and maintained a significant regional draw, consistently attracting visitors from a 250-mile
radius that extends east to Chicago, IL, west to Des Moines, IA and north to Minneapolis, MN. This is extraordinary and since multiple states are involved, dollars from
ticket sales come from adjacent states and are effectively being imported into Iowa and Dubuque.
D. Johnson Consulting's independent analysis finds that the 2018 and 2019 studies prepared by CSL have provided good direction and guidance to the community and that
the levels of demand, as projected, are achievable. `Scenario 4 Hybrid' makes the most sense for the community as it achieves an appropriate and realistic balance
between capacity, revenue potential and capital investment.
E. We do believe, however, that the economic impact estimates prepared by CSL were understated. Our more detailed estimates add supplemental spending from local
residents that would leak to other markets if improvements to the Five Flags Civic Center are not made.
F. Pursuant to Scenario 4 Hybrid, upon stabilization (Year 5), visitors to Five Flags Civic Center are estimated to generate $21.2M in total spending and $3.7M million in
increased earnings, and support 141 FTE jobs annually. Overall, this is almost 3-times the impact estimated in the 2018 and 2019 studies by CSL and more accurately
reflects the impact of both local and non -local visitation to the Civic Center. The fiscal impact of the Five Flags Civic Center is projected to total close to $1.1 M in tax
revenues from sales, food and beverage and hotel taxes in Year 1, and stabilizing at $1.3M in tax revenues in Year 5.
2 ' JOHNSUi,
�, CONSULTV
Executive Summary
G. The theater at the Five Flags Civic Center is a treasured asset, and its preservation should be linked to arena
funding. In this manner, both assets can be renewed and enhanced. Linking the two amenities, as they have been
in the past, will ensure that multiple audiences and patrons have the Center's best interests at heart. Operating
economies will also be attained and naming rights and a ticket surcharge should be implemented at a minimum
to support operations.
H. The funding required for improvements to the Five Flags Civic Center should be as broad as possible with funding
from the State, County, City and adjacent communities. In the absence of a detailed capital stack analysis, it is
apparent that the most logical sources of funding are State and local grants and investment, including Historic
Tax Credits, sponsorships/ naming rights (this can be used to back bonds as well as support operations),
Federal programs, some dedicated funding (line item in County and City budgets), and a portion of existing
or new tax sources. Minimizing the burden on taxpayers is understood to be a key priority and can be achieved
with thoughtful strategies.
I. Local corporate and philanthropic groups will respond best to a high -quality project that means a lot to Dubuque. It
is clear to us that downtown is important to both local residents and businesses. To the extent the arena can be
used to enhance the theater and downtown, it will have the greatest resonance with business and social leaders in
the community.
Operating
Income (Deficit)
Naming Rights Deal
Adjusted Operating
Income (Deficit)
Operating
Income (Deficit)
Surcharge/ Fee
(per Ticket)
Ticket Sales*
Adjusted Operating
Income (Deficit)
Naming Rights Deal
Model A
($346K) ($346K)
$50K $100K N
0
N
($296K) ($246K)
U
Ticket Surcharge
Model A
Model B
($346K)
($346K)
$2.00
$4.00
172K
172K N
0
N
($2K)
U
$342K =
U
" Excludes events that are likely to be non -
ticketed (Community/ Religious, Meetings/
Banquets, Other)
3 ' JOHNSON
+, CONSULTING
10
DRAFT`'.
Five FIaas�Civic Center,.•
Peer Review &Economic
Impact St- dy
Dubuque,lA
JOHNSON
_; co
T ING
IA
uary
sification
06
.110 Ai
•
-
0
P
S tlol ec 10
ntrod ucti n .
'-JOHNSON
�; CONSILLTING
Introduction
Transmittal Letter
Re: DRAFT Five Flags Civic Center — Peer Review & Economic Impact Analysis
Dear Mr. Lobianco and Interested Dubuque Stakeholders:
C.H. Johnson Consulting, Inc. (Johnson Consulting) is pleased to submit this report to you regarding the Five Flags Civic Center in Dubuque, IA. Pursuant to our engagement,
this report provides an objective peer review of the `Assessment and Study Regarding the Future of the Five Flags Civic Center' conducted in 2018 by CSL and updated in
2019, provides an independent assessment of future demand, estimates the economic and fiscal impact generated by the venue, and presents funding strategies to achieve
the desired outcomes and ensure ongoing success. Johnson Consulting is a third party consultant that works impartially and independently to provide objective observations
and recommendations to our clients.
Johnson Consulting has no responsibility to update this report for events and circumstances occurring after the date of this report. As the ongoing impacts of the global
COVID-19 pandemic impact are still uncertain, our report outlines our assumptions based on experience from previous economic disruptions, but the actual impact will not be
known for the foreseeable future. The findings presented herein reflect analyses of primary and secondary sources of information. Johnson Consulting used sources deemed
to be reliable but cannot guarantee their accuracy. Moreover, some of the estimates and analyses presented in this study are based on trends and assumptions, which can
result in differences between projected results and actual results. Because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, those differences may be material.
This report is intended for the Clients' internal use and cannot be used for project underwriting purposes without Johnson Consulting's written consent.
We have enjoyed serving you on this engagement and look forward to providing you with continuing service.
Sincerely,
C.H. Johnson Consulting, Inc
4 JOHNSUFa
�, CONSULTING
Introduction
Introduction & Methodology
Johnson Consulting was retained by Dubuque Main Street on behalf of a group of over 30 private businesses, organizations and individuals to
provide an independent, third -party assessment of the economic and fiscal impact of the Five Flags Civic Center in downtown Dubuque, IA.
The intent of this study is to substantiate demand for improved facilities at the Civic Center and quantify the associated impact to the
community and region.
The 2018 `Assessment and Study Regarding the Future of the Five Flags Civic Center' conducted by CSL culminated in 4 alternative scenarios
for the Civic Center, ranging from status quo operations to the replacement of the arena and significant improvements to the theater. CSL's
updated 2019 report further contemplated Scenario 3 (theater renovation and arena expansion) and Scenario 4 (theater renovation and new
arena construction) and concluded that Scenario 3 would be ineffective at increasing seating capacity and improving operational efficiency and
Scenario 4 was cost prohibitive. As such, the 2019 study recommended `Scenario 4 Hybrid' which included a horseshoe arrangement for
seating in order to maintain capacity for concerts, along with other recommendations purposefully intended to reduce the overall project cost.
This preferred scenario is the focus of this economic and fiscal impact analysis, and we agree this is a reasonable project for the community.
Arenas are major investments for communities, as are theaters. They are capital intensive and are complex to operate. A good arena in a good
market, such as Dubuque, is worth the investment because communities of certain sizes need them to serve their residents and businesses.
The Five Flags Civic Center is well located and has a major influence on the quality of life of residents of the community, but it is a poor
product. To the extent possible, this Civic Center should become an anchor in the community that drives residential, retail and hospitality uses.
Not only will this result in a better and move vibrant community asset, but it may also help in the funding approach for the needed capital
improvements.
Johnson Consulting has developed and executed a comprehensive methodology to provide a peer review of prior analyses conducted in
relation to the Civic Center, verify demand potential, and provide an independent economic and fiscal impact analysis and funding strategy
discussion, as highlighted in the graphic to the right. Our observations, analyses, and conclusions are presented throughout the balance of this
report.
Funding Strategy
I
Introduction
Five Flags Civic Center
Located in downtown Dubuque, the Five Flags Civic Center is primarily
comprised of a 4,000-seat arena and 711-seat theater. The arena itself
is a euphemism, as it is not a true "arena" as defined by today's market.
The current arena, which opened in 1979 to support the restored historic
theater, is really an aged expo hall with bleacher and floor seating. In
2005, the Civic Center underwent a $2M upgrade, however a general
lack of investment in capital improvements has hindered the ability of
the Center, which is owned by the City of Dubuque and managed by
ASM Global (formerly SMG), to maintain and grow its competitive ;i
position in the regional marketplace.
J
Facility
Arena
Seating Capacity (Max.)
Floor Area (SF)
Theater
Seating Capacity
Other Event Space
Black Box/ Bijou Theater
Meeting Rooms
Source: FFCC
' JOHNSUN
6 • "+, CONSULTING
Capacity (Persons)/
Size (SF)
4,000
24,500
711
1,700
1,950
1,UVVtfl L1=YC1
5th Sireat
41h Streel
m
V)
t_
ec-t*ion
Peer Review of Feasibility Stud
y-
IT- 4p
JOHNSON
L.UADMLI Hit)
Peer Review of Feasibility Study
Summary
The 2018 Assessment and Study Regarding the Future of the Five Flags Civic Center prepared by CSL is, in our opinion, a thorough analysis that establishes the challenges
faced by the outdated, ageing facility, despite competent and creative management, and identifies the market opportunity for an improved venue. The study outlines the
rationale for the highest and best use recommendations and presents various conclusions. Johnson Consulting's independent assessment of the accuracy of these findings,
recommendations and justifications is presented below.
Assessment of Overall Recommendations
Rationale for Highest & Best Use Recommendations to Maintain FFCC*
1 Market demand exists for a multipurpose entertainment/spectator arena in Dubuque.
CHJC Comments
Current venue is not an "arena" by standard industry definitions. A new product will redefine
what residents know as an arena.
2 There are important efficiencies involved with the co -location and co -management of the Theater and the Arena at Same principle applies to the Grand River Center.
the current FFCC site.
3
The FFCC's current location in the core of downtown central business district is the ideal location in Dubuque for
such a facility. Agree.
Under a scenario where the FFCC Arena is demolished and no replacement facility is developed elsewhere in the The theater would still work independently, but the efficiencies would not be maximized, nor
4 community, the Dubuque market would lose many, if not the majority, of the events hosted at the FFCC, and the would the synergies be exploited. There is also cross -subsidization that comes from the
associated economic activity generated in the downtown and throughout the community by their attendees. complex as a whole, which would be missed.
5 In cities larger than Dubuque, property values and demand for developable land parcels located in downtown
central business district cores are often significantly higher than that presently exist in Dubuque's downtown.
* Source: June 2018 FFCC study by CSL, Page 59
Johnson Consulting
Dubuque has excellent "bones" as a downtown. However, the ecosystem is fragile and more
demand generators are needed to increase the energy needed to keep CBDs vitalized.
8 ` JOHNSUN
+, CONSULTING
Peer Review of Feasibility Study
Assessment of Conclusions
Conclusions to Market Analysis**
CHJC Comments
1
Market support exists for both Arena and Theater components.
Agree.
2
Local quality of life and economic activity would be negatively impacted without a venue serving these roles.
The inverse is true as well - continuing investment is needed to keep momentum and this
project is on the list of key initiatives, as it should be.
The theater needs capital investment and the arena provides a vehicle to enhance the
3
The FFCC Theater is an historic asset that should be protected.
theater by opening up and providing shared lobby and other spaces that are insufficiently
provided today.
4
The FFCC's current location is ideal for an entertainment/sports/arts complex.
Perhaps other locations in downtown would work, but this site has evolved around this
function and other site areas would have to emerge to provide the same setting.
Significant upgrades to the FFCC Arena product are needed to better compete for and serve spectator and
This comment is understated - the current product is abysmal and its role has been reduced
5
entertainment event segments.
due to the Grand River Center. A large, seated venue, like a traditional arena as proposed is
appropriate. It is a different product than exists at the Civic Center today.
6
The FFCC Arena has exceeded its practical life.
Agree.
7
The FFCC Arena physical product and functionality is industry substandard.
Agree.
8
Investment in FFCC enhancements or redevelopment would be expected to drive new activity and positive impacts.
The current arena venue is not competitive nor can it attract most of the types of events that
use a traditional arena.
The highest -and -best -use of the FFCC asset (building and land) is a multipurpose civic/entertainment/arts
This is a directional project; Market demand exists and a new arena seems consistent with
9
complex.
other messaging from Dubuque - great reputation for making good decisions and building
hiah-aualitv amenities in its areater downtown and waterfront core.
** Source: June 2018 FFCC study by CSL, Page 60
Johnson Consulting
�JOHNSON
9 '' +, CONSULTING
Demand Verification
Peer Review of Recommended Scenarios
.. .. .
UpdateRegarding
Capital
Scenario
Description
Program
Budget
CSL Analysis (Stabilized Year)
CHJC Comments
Status Quo
Highest operating deficit ($856K); Minimal
Limited opportunity to attract additional events will inhibit revenue growth;
# 1
(minimum deferred
Arena Max. Capacity: 4,000
$4.7 M
investment to keep Civic Center safe and
Competitive position of Center will continue to erode despite efforts of
maintenance and capex)
Theater Max. Capacity: 711
operational based on current standards; Lowest
Management; Agree that Scenario #1 should not be a contemplated option for
economic impact ($3.3M) and job creation (49).
the future of the Civic Center.
Limited Renovation
Arena Max. Capacity: 4,000
Slightly lower operating deficit than Scenario 1
The relative cost/ benefit of this option suggests that Scenario #2 should not be
# 2
(no expansion to footprint)
Theater Max. Capacity: 711
$18.6 M
($811 K); Slightly improved economic impact
a contemplated option for the future of the Civic Center, particularly given the
4.2M and job creation 63
minimal impact on the operating deficit.
Arena Max. Capacity: 4,788
Somewhat improved operating deficit *);
Agree that functional issues limit the ability of Scenario 3, as proposed, to create
# 3
Renovation with Expanded
5 Private Suites
$67.6 M
t $7.2M)
Significantly improved economic impact
c($7.
operational efficiencies that would allow the Civic Center to accommodate more,
Arena
Theater Max. Capacity: 711
and job creation (106).
larger events and yield higher revenues. As such, Scenario #3 should not be a
contemplated option for the future of the Civic Center.
Renovation with Fully
Arena Max. Capacity: 6,398
Lowest operating deficit ($314K); Greatest
Scenario #4 is the best option for the Civic Center from a physical design
# 4
Redeveloped Arena
12 Private Suites
$82.8 M
economic impact ($8.8M) and job creation (130).
standpoint, however the need to address concerns regarding cost led to creative
Theater Max. Capacity: 711
solutions, as described in Scenario 4 Hybrid.
Arena Max. Capacity: 6,468
p Y�
Significantly improved operating deficit 346K ;
g Y� p p 9 ( )
Agree that Scenario 4 Hybrid may yield a slightly higher operating deficit than
# 4
Renovation with Fully
12 Private Suites
$75.1 M
Significantly higher economic impact ($8.4M) and
Scenario #4, however the reduced capital budget is a reasonable trade-off;
Hybrid
Redeveloped Arena
Theater Max. Capacity: 711
job creation (124).
Mechanisms that may reduce the deficit further include creative funding
strategies, ticket fees, and others as described in this report.
Source: June 2018 FFCC study by CSL, 2019
FFCC study update by CSL, Johnson Consulting
i o ' JOHNSON
+, CONSULTING
lw
Section _3'
Demand Verification
�JOHNSON
�; CONSILLTING
Demand Verification
Prior Demand Projections
The 2019 updated study prepared by CSL projected that under Scenario 4 Hybrid an improved
Five Flags Civic Center would attract, in a stabilized year, 227 events, totaling 329 event days
and 532 utilization days, which include move -in/ move -out days. These events were projected to
attract 286,540
This represented a significant improvement over 2017 reported demand, which totaled 103
events, 170 event days and 93,3344 attendees, reflecting the proposed improvements to the
Five Flags Civic Center. Johnson Consulting reviewed demand data for 2018 thru 2021, which
was consistent with historic data (excluding the impact of the ongoing pandemic).
Overall, the projections prepared by CSL are generally in line with competitive and comparable
venues and consistent with our expectations for the venue based upon the proposed
improvements. An arena in a good market of this size should achieve over 200 events and serve
between 200,000 to 300,000 people annually. Having said that, it is our opinion that the CSL
report understated 2 key factors:
1. The destination appeal of Dubuque.
2. The super -regional effect that Management of the Five Flags Civic Center has already been
able to cultivate without improved facilities. This is reflected in the proportion of out-of-town
visitors to the venue (i.e. visitors who do not reside in the Dubuque area).
Event Type
Community/ Religious
Concerts
Convention/ Trade Show
Family/ Ice Shows
Meetings/ Banquets
Non -Tenant Performance
Public/ Consumer Show
Sporting Events
Tenant Performance
Other
Total
Total 2017 (Actual)
Events
Event
(#)
Days (#)
8
8
20
22
6
9
12
14
50
50
20
47
5
8
55
26
25
227
103
Source: 2018 and 2019 FFCC study by CSL
67
96
8
329
170
Utilization
Days (#)
12
23
18
17
75
53
13
83
202
36
532
261
Attendance
(Persons)
18,400
50,909
9,000
20,983
12,500
13,404
8,438
69,180
32,458
51,269
286,540
93,344
These 2 factors, while only having a nominal impact on total events and attendance levels, have important implications for the economic and fiscal impact of the Five Flags
Civic Center as they directly correlate to the number of overnight stays that result from events and activities occurring at the venue.
12 Ae,iiw COLT' `r
Demand Verification
Existing Demand Base
The Five Flags Civic Center has a significant
regional draw. Based upon the data provided by
Management of the Civic Center, approximately
42 percent of all ticket sales come from outside
a 60-mile radius of the venue and 47 percent of
tickets for large, major events (that can be
accommodated in the arena) are purchased
from outside of a 60-mile radius. This is
extraordinary and since multiple states are
involved many of these dollars from ticket sales
come from adjacent states and are effectively
being imported into Iowa and Dubuque.
The map to the right shows ticket sales by zip
code for all events over the lifetime of the data
source, as maintained by Management. As
shown, the Five Flags Civic Center consistently
attracts visitors from within an even larger, 250-
mile radius that extends east to Chicago, IL,
west to Des Moines, IA and north to
Minneapolis, MN. The map also highlights an
impressive national draw, particularly given the
current capacity limits of the venue.
13 �ONHNSON
:41
T's
ftv ik
Sectio�g4
is & Fiscal Impact Analvs'rk
IT
JOHNSON
CONSILLTING
Economic & Fiscal Impact Analysis
Definitions
Operations of the Civic Center generate ongoing, annual economic and fiscal impacts to the local and regional economies. Under each alternative scenario, initial transactions
occurring within the venue `ripple out' and generate indirect spending, induced spending, increased earnings, and employment, as well as various tax revenues for the local
economy
Economic impact is defined as incremental new spending in an economy that is the direct result of certain activities, facilities, or events. The levels of impacts are described as
follows:
• Direct Spending is an expression of the spending that occurs as a direct result of the events and activities that occur in the subject facility. For example, an event
attendee's expenditures on hotel rooms, shopping, and meals are direct spending.
• Indirect Spending consists of re -spending of the initial or direct expenditures, or, the supply of goods and services resulting from the initial direct spending in the subject
facility. For example, a hotel guest's direct expenditure on a restaurant meal causes the restaurant to purchase food and other items from suppliers. The portion of these
restaurant purchases that are within the local, regional, or state economies is counted as an indirect spending.
• Induced Spending represent changes in local consumption due to the personal spending by employees whose incomes are affected by direct and indirect spending. For
example, a waiter at the restaurant may have more personal income as a result of the hotel guest's visit. The amount of the increased income the waiter spends in the local
economy is called an induced spending.
• Total Spending is the sum of direct spending, indirect spending, and induced spending.
• Increased Earnings measures increased employee and worker compensation related to the project being analyzed. This figure represents increased payroll expenditures,
including benefits paid to workers locally. It also expresses how the employees of local businesses share in the increased outputs.
• Employment measures the number of jobs supported in the study area related to the spending generated as a result of the events occurring in the multi -purpose center.
Employment impact is stated in a number of full-time equivalent jobs.
15 CONSULTING
Economic & Fiscal Impact Analysis
Definitions
Indirect spending, induced spending, increased earnings, and employment are
estimated using a set of multiplier rates that are applied to the amount of direct
spending. These figures are derived from an IMPLAN input-output model
specifically purchased from IMPLAN Group, LLC. IMPLAN is a nationally
recognized model commonly used to estimate economic impacts. An input-output
model analyzes the commodities and income that normally flow through various
sectors of the economy.
Impact Multiplier Base
Indirect Spending 0.289 of direct spending
Induced Spending 0.210 of direct spending
Increased Earnings 0.260 of direct spending
Increased Employment 10.000 per $1 million of direct spending
Source: IMPLAN, Johnson Consulting
Fiscal impact analysis measures the estimated tax revenues resulting
from direct spending on certain activities, facilities, or events. For this
analysis, fiscal impact estimates focus on major categories of tax
revenues that are directly affected by a visitor's activity —general
sales and use tax, food and beverage tax, and hotel/ motel tax.
SUBJECT
FACWTY
avERNIG HT
ATTEN[IF E5
DAY -TRIP
ATTENDEFS
nW NJICHT
Rate
State Sales Tax
6.00%
Local Option Sales Tax
1.00%
State Excise Lodging Tax
5.00%
Local Lodging Tax
7.00%
Source: Johnson Consulting
IMPLAN
[MULTIPLIER RATES]
0P
ECONOMIC
IMPACT
FISCAL
IMPACT
EFFECTIVE TAX T� REVENUES
RATE5
16 CONSULTING
Economic & Fiscal Impact Analysis
Methodology
It is noted that the 2018 study prepared by CSL included a high-level assessment of the economic and fiscal impact of the Five Flags Civic Center that did not account for
local demand. While this "net new" calculation is important, it understates the benefit of improvements to the local community. As such, the following analysis contemplates
both local and non -local visitation to an improved venue consistent with Scenario 4 Hybrid.
Visitation
Visitation to the Five Flags Civic Center is measured in terms of person -days (whereby 1 person attending a 3-
day event is counted as 3 person -days) and including event attendees as well as other visitors to the venue,
such as performers, production team staff, etc. As shown, pursuant with Scenario 4 Hybrid, total visitation will
equate to 408,932 person -days in a stabilized year of operation, assumed to be Year 5 of operation of the
improved venue. Of these, 390,404 person -days (95.5 percent) are projected to be from attendees/ patrons, and
the balance (18,528 person -days or 4.5 percent) are projected to be from non -attendees/ patrons, such as
performers, production staff, exhibitors and other visitors to the venue.
As it relates to person -days generated by attendees/ patrons, Johnson Consulting agrees with the projections
included in the 2019 study prepared by CSL for Scenario 4 Hybrid. Utilizing these projections provides a
standard basis of information as improvements to the Five Flags Civic Center are further contemplated. It is
however noted that the CSL study did not include any non -attendee visitor projections, and although this figure is
relatively small in comparison to attendee/ patron person -days, excluding it effectively understated total visitation
to an improved Five Flags Civic Center.S
Attendee
Additional
Total Person
Event Type
Days
Days*
Days
Community/ Religious
18,400
120
18,520
Concerts
56,000
920
56,920
Convention/ Trade Show
13,500
2,205
15,705
Family/ Ice Shows
24,480
680
25,160
Meetings/ Banquets
12,500
375
12,875
Non -Tenant Performance
31,500
2,120
33,620
Public/ Consumer Show
13,500
1,593
15,093
Sporting Events
84,274
2,075
86,349
Tenant Performance
119,844
8,080
127,924
Other
16,406
360
16,766
Total
390,404
18,528
408,932
15-Year Total
5,856,060
277,913
6,133,973
2019 Projections (CSL)
390,404
0
390,404
15-Year Total
5,856,060
0
5,856,060
17 �ONHNSON
* Performers, Production Staff, Exhibitors and Other Visitors
Source: 2019 FFCC study by CSL, Johnson Consulting
Economic & Fiscal Impact Analysis
Local Visitors
Local residents will account for 217,611 person -days in a stabilized tear of
operation (Year 5). This includes event attendees/ patrons and others such as
performers, production team staff, exhibitors, and others.
Out -of -Town/ Non -Local Visitors
Person -days generated by visitors from out-of-town will equate to 191,320
person -days in a stabilized year of operation (Year 5). Similarly to local
visitors, this includes event attendees/ patrons and other visitors such as
performers, production team staff, exhibitors, and others.
Room Night Generation
Out-of-town visitors will generate an estimated demand for 25,542 room
nights in a stabilized year of operation (Year 5).
It is noted that the 2019 study prepared by CSL placed an emphasis on local
visitation to the Five Flags Civic Center and, in our opinion, understated the
regional draw of Dubuque and current efforts of Management of the venue to
create a regional effect. This is reflected in increased non -local visitation and
associated room night generation in Johnson Consulting's independent
projections, pursuant to Scenario 4 Hybrid.
Local
Event Type
%
#
Community/ Religious
80%
14,816
Concerts
20%
11,384
Convention/ Trade Show
30%
4,712
Family/ Ice Shows
20%
5,032
Meetings/ Banquets
80%
10,300
Non -Tenant Performance
20%
6,724
Public/ Consumer Show 40% 6,037
Sporting Events 20% 17,270
Tenant Performance 100% 127,924
Other 80% 13,413
Total 217,611
2019 Projections (CSL) 300,024
Non -Local**
Room
%
#
Nights
20%
3,704
748
80%
45,536
7,088
70%
10,994
3,922
80%
20,128
1,579
20%
2,575
538
80%
26,896
4,629
60%
9,056
802
80%
69,079
5,326
0%
0
0
20%
3,353
911
191,320
25,542
13,156
90,380
* Includes Attendees/Patrons and Other Visitors (Performers, Production Staff, Exhibitors and Other Visitors, etc.)
*' Visitors who do not reside in the Dubuque metro area
Source: 2019 FFCC study by CSL, Johnson Consulting
$ ` JOHNSUN
+, CONSULTING
Economic & Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Impact
Reflecting the calculations, assumptions and multipliers
described above, visitors to the improved Five Flags Civic
Center, per Scenario 4 Hybrid, are projected to generate
$16.4M in total spending and $2.9M in increased
earnings, and supports a minimum of 100 full-time
equivalent (FTE) jobs annually in Year 1, which is
assumed to be the first full year of operation of the event
venue. Upon stabilization (Year 5), visitors to Five Flags
Civic Center are estimated to generate $21.2M in total
spending and $3.7M million in increased earnings, and
support 141 FTE jobs annually.
Beyond the venue itself, there will be direct spending on
lodging, food and incidentals and car rental at local
businesses, as quantified in the table to the right. These
establishments will report increased earnings which will
support business expansion and employment growth,
among other positive impacts.
The fiscal impact of the Five Flags Civic Center is
projected to total close to $1.1 M in tax revenues from
sales, food and beverage and hotel taxes in Year 1, and
stabilizing at $1.3M in tax revenues in Year 5.
Rate/Assumption Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Activity Volume
1
Attendance
200,338
221,888
243,439
264,990
286,540
286,540
286,540
286,540
286,540
286,540
Person -Days
2
Attendees
273,008
302,357
331,706
361,055
390,404
390,404
390,404
390,404
390,404
390,404
3
Exhibitors and Other Visitors
13,940
15,087
16,234
17,381
18,528
18,528
18,528
18,528
18,528
18,528
4
Total
286,948
317,444
347,940
378,436
408,932
408,932
408,932
408,932
408,932
408,932
5
Room Nights
26,062
25,932
25,802
25,672
25,542
25,542
25,542
25,542
25,542
25,542
Sales Volume ($000)
6
Spending at Event Venue
$1,081
$1,249
$1,417
$1,585
$1,753
$1,983
$2,033
$2,083
$2,135
$2,189
Additional Spending
Average Spending
7
On Lodging
$96.00
(a)
$2,502
$2,552
$2,602
$2,654
$2,452
$2,774
$2,844
$2,915
$2,988
$3,062
On Food and Incidentals
8
by Attendees
$20.00
(b)
$5,460
$6,198
$6,970
$7,776
$7,808
$8,834
$9,055
$9,281
$9,513
$9,751
9
by Exhibitors and Other Visitors
$50.00
(c)
697
773
853
936
926
1,048
1,074
1,101
1,129
1,157
10
On Car Rental
$46.86
(d)
1,221
1,246
1,270
1,295
1,197
1,354
1,388
1,423
1,458
1,495
11
Subtotal Additional Spending
$9,880
$10,769
$11,695
$12,662
$12,383
$14,011
$14,361
$14,720
$15,088
$15,465
12
Total
$10,962
$12,018
$13,112
$14,246
$14,136
$15,994
$16,393
$16,803
$17,223
$17,654
Economic Impact ($000)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
13
Direct Spending
Multipliers
$10,962
$12,018
$13,112
$14,246
$14,136
$15,994
$16,393
$16,803
$17,223
$17,654
14
Indirect Spending
0.289
3,168
3,474
3,790
4,118
4,086
4,623
4,739
4,857
4,978
5,103
15
Induced Spending
0.210
2,307
2,529
2,759
2,998
2,975
3,366
3,450
3,536
3,624
3,715
16
Total Spending
$16,437
$18,021
$19,662
$21,362
$21,197
$23,982
$24,582
$25,196
$25,826
$26,472
17
Increased Earnings
0.260
$2,853
$3,128
$3,413
$3,708
$3,679
$4,163
$4,267
$4,374
$4,483
$4,595
18
Increased Employment
10.000
110
117
125
132
141
141
141
141
141
141
Fiscal Impact ($000)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Tax Revenues
Tax Rate
19
State Sales Tax
6.00%
$658
$721
$787
$855
$848
$960
$984
$1,008
$1,033
$1,059
20
Local Option Sales Tax
1.00%
110
120
131
142
141
160
164
168
172
177
21
State Excise Lodging Tax
5.00%
125
128
130
133
123
139
142
146
149
153
22
Local Lodging Tax
7.00%
175
179
182
186
172
194
199
204
209
214
23
Total Tax Revenues
$1,068
$1,147
$1,230
$1,316
$1,284
$1,452
$1,489
$1,526
$1,564
$1,603
Notes:
a) From GSA Per Diem, Standard Rate for Iowa.
b) Assuming an average spend of $20 on meals and incidentals ON TOP OF what they may have spent already at the venue.
c) Assuming an average spend of $50 on meals and incidentals (or $30 higher than that of an attendee's) ON TOP OF what they may have spent already at the venue.
d) Derived from Corporate Travel Index for Des Moines, IA per Business Travel News. Only applied to overnight visitors who stay in hotels (represented approx. by number of roomnights)
e) Assuming that room revenues are sales -taxed at 6 percent as well.
Source: Johnson Consulting
19 ~JOHNSUP,
, CONSULTING
Economic & Fiscal Impact Analysis
Comparison of Economic Impact of Scenario 4 Hybrid (Stabilized Year)
As noted above, it is our opinion that the CSL report understated 2 key factors:
1. The destination appeal of Dubuque.
2. The super -regional effect that Management of the Five Flags Civic Center has already been able to cultivate without improved facilities. This is reflected in the proportion
of out-of-town visitors to the venue (i.e. visitors who do not reside in the Dubuque area).
The graphic below highlights the variance in the estimated economic impact of an improved venue, consistent with Scenario 4 Hybrid, when local and non -attendee visitation
is accounted for, in a stabilized year of operation, highlighting an impact that is almost 3-fold.
"Net New"
(Non -Local) ONLY
Direct Spending
WOM
Indirect/ Induced
$2.3M
Spending
TOTAL Spending
$8,4M
Increased Earnings
$2.7M
o
r
O
N
Employment
124
Stabilized Year
f
Additional Impacts
A. Spending by Local
Residents
B. Visitation &
spending by non -
attendee/ patron
visitors (production
staff, performers,
etc.)
C. Regional draw of
Dubuque and
improved Civic
Center
Direct Spending
Indirect/ Induced
Spending
TOTAL Spending
Increased Earnings
Employment
TOTAL Impact
$14.1M
$7.1 M
$21.2M
$3.7M N
U
141 (FTE)
r r
Stabilized Year
20 ` JOHNSON
~, CONSULTING
ec tolp.,
nin +Stra e =
I via JLA , �--
Funding Strategy
Introduction
In North America, multi -purpose event center, arena and theater improvements and expansions, as well as new construction, are typically financed with public debt, which
is repaid over a 20- to 30-year period. This is because, non -tenant arenas may break even operationally, but never cover debt service. Grants and benefactor support is
also commonplace. Sources of funds used to repay the debt are usually tax revenues and are often those generated from activities or businesses that are most likely to
use, or otherwise benefit from, the facility. Hotel room occupancy taxes, special taxes on retail and restaurants, sales taxes, car rental fees, parking taxes, airport access
fees, and adjacent real estate taxes and profits are most often the revenue sources used to repay debt service. These tax sources are frequently used to finance the
ongoing operating, capital improvements and marketing needs of the facility.
Funding strategies are local, but they must be developed within the guardrails set up by state enabling legislation. Creativity, maximizing revenue, philanthropy and
corporate support, as well as legislative changes to make things work in your market particularly, are the key ingredients for arena and theater funding. In today's market,
people are looking for experiences. Arenas and theaters create opportunities for experiences. Accessing various types of partners not only opens up avenues for funding,
but adds interesting and creative collateral to development projects that can also serve to animate the area around the venue.
Financing Mechanisms
There are three typical financing tools used to fund public assembly facilities:
1. PAY -As -you -GO FINANCING: Projects that are relatively small or that are financed in municipalities with rapidly growing tax bases are sometimes paid for directly out of
appropriated funds each year. However, most facilities are financed with long-term debt so that payment of capital costs corresponds to the period over which the
facility is used, and its economic benefits are realized.
2. GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FINANCING: Long-term bonding using the general obligation of the City, County and/ or State, Port Authorities, and College institutions, etc.
either directly as part of a capital outlay program or as guaranteed debt of an authority that would provide strong credit and relatively low borrowing costs for the project.
General obligation bonding is typically reserved for projects perceived to benefit the population as a whole, such as educational, environmental, economic development,
transportation, or correctional facilities.
22 CONHNSOrr
Funding Strategy
3. REVENUE BOND FINANCING: Revenue bonds are another source of finance that can be used to build, own, and operate utilities, airports, transportation systems, and public
purpose facilities that have no power to tax. They derive their revenues from user fees and other sources, and must finance general and capital expenditures out of these
receipts and whatever amount they are permitted to borrow, which can be tailored to fit the specific requirements of the involved local and state governments.
Taxing Mechanisms
1. SALES TAXES: Sales tax provides strong credit structures because they are relatively predictable and tend to track with inflation and economic growth. A general sales tax
increase, or expansion of the base, can provide a strong incremental revenue stream. However, these taxes are often difficult to implement because they primarily tax
local residents and require referendum and/ or State legislative approval. There are examples of municipalities using a general sales tax, over a fixed period, to finance
major capital projects. The quick -pay method enables municipalities to generate the necessary revenue over a short period of time. There is a local option sales tax in
Iowa and that has been enacted in Dubuque. Some growth or increment could be considered once law regulations are reviewed.
2. HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX: Hotel taxes have the major advantage of primarily taxing out-of-town visitors, rather than local residents. A number of facilities throughout the
U.S. have had their debt service paid fully, or in part, by dedicated hotel tax revenues. The maximum allowable hotel tax rate in Iowa is at 7 percent and Dubuque is
already at that level.
3. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF): TIFs are based on the incremental tax value of ancillary economic development projects that are triggered by a major new facility. The tax
base of a defined TIF district is frozen and any increases in the future tax base are used to repay TIF bonds. The Civic Center is located within a TIF but it is understood
that funds have not been granted to entertainment uses previously. This may be, in part, because such property tax TIFs are not powerful enough to fund projects of this
scale, unless it is a very large district - all of downtown perhaps. A special zone with increased sales, hotel and meals taxes could be used on an increment or new
revenue basis.
4. MEALS TAXES: Meals taxes have been used throughout the U.S. to support the costs of developing, and renovating, public assembly facilities and to fund related
infrastructure, such as parking decks. This is a natural extension of the concept of lodging taxes, as the second highest spend occurs on food service. Meals taxes are
directed towards beneficiaries of the project and to some extent, non-residents. Meals taxes can also generate substantial revenue to support operations of a facility.
Meals taxes are not legally authorized in the State of Iowa.
23 ! CONHNSON
Funding Strategy
5. DEVELOPMENT FEES/ LAND LEASE INCOME: Fees for the right to develop projects near a public assembly facility can assist in funding. These so-called linkage fees have
been imposed in locations where land adjacent to a public assembly facility is at a premium, typically on hotels, parking decks, retail stores, residential, and other uses that
can benefit from their proximity to the facility. Such fees generally do not produce significant revenue and are typically not a creditworthy source for debt financing because
of their speculative nature.
6. OTHER SOURCES: Other common sources of partial funding include general fund support, car rental taxes, taxi airport access fees, and parking taxes.
Case Study Examples
By way of example, funding strategies used to develop two prominent regional arena facilities are summarized as follows:
■ Wells Fargo Arena — Des Moines, IA: The approximately 17,000-seat arena, which opened in 2005 at a total cost of $91.7M, was funded entirely using public sources.
When combined with construction of Hy-Vee Hall and renovations to the Veterans Memorial Auditorium, the $217M Iowa Events Center project was the largest publicly -
funded building project in the State's history. The majority of project funding was from $153M in general obligation bonds issued by Polk County, of which $19.5M was
backed by naming rights and other private contributions, $7.5M from the City of Des Moines, $1.3M from the City of West Des Moines, $2.5M combined from the 12 other
municipalities in Polk County, and the balance from general Polk County funds. Other revenue sources included a $53.3M grant from the Vision Iowa program and $10AM
from sales tax reimbursements and utilities rebates.
■ Xtream Arena — Coralville, IA: The 5,100-seat arena, which opened in September 2020 at an estimated cost of $50M, anchoring a broader $190M development, was
funded by several sources including $12M from the Iowa Economic Development Authority, $4.8M in new market tax credits, and $200,000 from the Johnson County Board
of Supervisors and the University of Iowa. ArenaCo., which is the non-profit corporation established to build, own and operate the Arena, set a pre -development target of
$13M in naming rights deals and $3M in philanthropic contributions. The model used for this project, which integrates University use, health performance and multiple other
uses, was apropos for the Coralville market at the time. While the college scene and real estate markets are different in Dubuque, similar mixed use development principles
are encouraged to help vitalize the area anchored by the Five Flags Civic Center. Further, the funding strategy used for the Xtream Arena illustrates the value of utilizing a
combination of investments by partners - University, City, County and the private sector.
24 CONHNSOrr
Funding Strategy
The Five Flags Civic Center is an important anchor of Dubuque's downtown core and should be treated as such. Other destinations have recognized the intrinsic value of
arenas, theaters and similar public assembly facilities as drivers of economic, cultural and entertainment activities by defining districts around the venues and establishing or
enacting dedicated funding sources to support capital improvements and ongoing operations. Nationally, several examples are summarized as follows:
■ Nashville Convention Center — Nashville, TN: Exemplifies how districts can be formed to fund projects. The logic is that for certain taxes, a boundary is formed, and an
"increment" of taxes is collected. The Downtown Nashville Tourism Development Zone (TDZ) is defined as a 1,700-acre (26.5-square mile) zone created by the State of
Tennessee that uses TIF to leverage funds for municipal improvement projects at the State and City level. The TIF mechanism is very powerful as it is based upon
increment sales taxes rather than the more typical property taxes. Taxes collected from the TDZ strengthen the cultural destinations of the City and help spur private
development.
The Tennessee Code Annotated § 7-88-103 (2008) was enacted to assist in the increase of tourism and economic development in the State through a tax -based financing
mechanism. The financing can be used to pay for government backed bonds that can be used to fund the cost of construction of a tourism related project. The debt service
or payment required to repay the bonds is covered, in a portion, through the incremental taxes that are generated from the visitors/tourists visiting the District. An increase
in tourism in the TDZ from the convention center has increased the demand for hotels, retail, entertainment, and other businesses to cater to visitors/tourists. Since creation
of the TDZ, room tax collections have exceeded $20 million over prior years because creation of this zone has stimulated a boom in hotel construction in the TDZ.
The incremental taxes are calculated based on a comparison of the growth rate of sales and uses taxes in Davidson County to that of the TDZ. For example, if in one fiscal
year the Davidson County's sales and use taxes grew at 3 percent and the TDZ taxes grew at 8 percent, the difference or increment of 5 percent would be quantified and
allocated to cover a portion of the debt service payments for the convention center. Hotels developed next to the convention center have a separate right to keep sales and
room tax for their development, like with the TIF law in the Virgin Islands.
25 ' CONHNSON
Funding Strategy
■ Oklahoma MAPS Program: An alternative approach to Vision Iowa is creating funding districts that rely on local option sales taxes, limited to certain investments that the
voters agree upon. MAPS (Metropolitan Area Projects Plan) is a multi -year, municipal capital improvement program, consisting of a number of projects, originally conceived
in the 1990s in Oklahoma City. A MAPS program features several interrelated and defined capital projects, funded by a temporary sales tax (allowing projects to be paid for
in cash, without incurring debt), administered by a separate dedicated city staff funded by the sales tax, and supervised by a volunteer citizens oversight committee.
In some ways, a MAPS program is similar to a Local Option Sales Tax. However, taxes collected by a MAPS program do not go to a city's general fund, but are instead
deposited into a trust dedicated to the specific projects identified in the taxes' enabling ordinance. Additionally, MAPS programs are only indirectly controlled by a city's
elected governance body; a citizens oversight committee provides direct oversight, which is also established by the enabling ordinance.
Since the late 1990s, there have been 3 MAPS programs in Oklahoma, totaling close to $2.01B. The most recent program (MAPS 3) totaled $777 million generated from a
one -cent sales tax initiative that began in April 2010 and ended in December 2017. Through a series of public meetings, 8 projects were eventually selected to be included
in MAPS 3:
- New Downtown Convention Center,
- New Downtown Public Park — 70 acres, including festival areas,
- New Modern Streetcar/ Transit system and an inter -modal transit hub,
- New Senior Health and Wellness Centers; multiple structures in various parts of the city designed to encourage healthy lifestyles and serve as a gathering place for
active seniors,
- Improvements to the Oklahoma River including a whitewater training facility and various upgrades to the world -class rowing racecourse,
- Improvements to the Oklahoma State Fair Grounds including replacing public event buildings,
- Expansion of Trails system that interconnects the city's major parks for walking and biking, and
- Expansion of neighborhood sidewalks to create a more walkable community.
26 CONSUL Nc
Funding Strategy
■ Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority (MPEA) District: The purpose of this example is to
illustrate how geographical boundaries can be established for certain taxes. The Metropolitan Pier
and Exposition Authority (MPEA) is a municipal corporation created by the Illinois General Assembly.
Its Board of Directors is appointed by the Governor of Illinois and the Mayor of Chicago. MPEA owns
McCormick Place, the largest convention center in North America, and seeks to promote and
operate conventions, fairs and expositions in the Chicago area, in an effort to strengthen the local
economy. Historic Navy Pier, the top -visited leisure and tourist destination in the Midwest is also
owned by the MPEA, along with the Hyatt Regency McCormick Place, which is a Four Diamond
AAA -rated hotel located on the McCormick Place campus.
Type
Restaurant: Food, alcoholic
beverages, and soft drinks
consumed on or off premises
Hotel rooms
Tax
1 % applied to retailers whose
principal source of gross
receipts is from sale of those
categories for immediate
consumption.
Total restaurant taxis 11.5%.
2.5% applies to all hotel
rooms, excludes permanent
residents
Rental cars 6% collected on gross recipts
for cars rented outside Illinois,
used in Cook County, and
titled or registered by Illinois.
Total car rental tax is 12%.
The MPEA's operating budget is supported by revenue from its operations (primarily from Hyatt Airport Departure: Ground $2 per taxi; $1 per passenger
Regency Hotel McCormick Place, Navy Pier parking, rent and services income and food and transportation service in bus or van; or flat fee of $9/
$18/ $27 per bus or van
beverage income). MPEA's capital budget depends on the issuance of revenue bonds secured by depending on size.
taxes (bed, car rental, restaurant and taxi) to pay existing bonds and new debt. The legislation Surplus funds generated from Applies after $5 million
supporting MPEA has a regional framework and is tied to sectors in the travel, hospitality, and Sports Authority Hotel Tax
tourism base of the economy. A summary of supporting taxes is shown in the table to the right. source: Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority
Observations
Geography
Central business area, O'Hare
Airport, and Midway Airport
City of Chicago
Cook County
O'Hare Airport and Midway
Airport
City of Chicago
It is not uncommon for arenas, theaters and similar public assembly facilities to incur an operating deficit. This is true of even the largest, most successful venues, nationally.
Funding strategies are needed to support operations in a fiscally responsible way in order to minimize required subsidies and when capital improvements are required,
oftentimes separate funding sources are needed to be sought. The best strategy varies from location to location and is also influenced by the type of facility involved. The
above case studies demonstrate the value of a diversified group of public and private partners — cities, counties, states, educational institutions and private investors. They
also demonstrate the value of district programs that have been established in other states to support these types of venues. Further exploration of their applicability in Iowa is
warranted.
27 CONHNSON
Funding Strategy
Funding Recommendations
As noted above, and particularly in smaller markets like Dubuque, it is common for arenas to not earn sufficient revenue to fund their
capital costs. Before funding of capital improvements is even contemplated, it is crucially important to be sure that all that can be
done operationally, is being taken into account to minimize any operating deficirs. Although a significant capital outlay will be required,
the outcome of Scenario 4 Hybrid will be a reduction of the Five Flags Civic Center's operating deficit by approximately $510,000.
Categories of direct revenue that can be earned by a venue but that are often
underutilized include:
1. NAMING RIGHTS: Local corporations seek identity and name recognition.
National corporations seek the same. For markets of this size, naming rights
can approach a valuation of $500,000 to $1,000,000 per year but are often
much lower — in the range of $50,000 to $100,000 per year. It just depends on
the local corporation and if they view this as philanthropic or a hard business
deal. Any naming rights deal would reduce the operating deficit and may also
be used to back bonds, depending on the size of the deal.
Naming Rights Deal
Model A Model B
Operating $346K $346K
Income (Deficit) ($346K) ()
Naming Rights Deal $50K $100K
N
0
Adjusted Operating ($296K) ($246K) 7
Income (Deficit) _
U
2. TICKET SURCHARGE/ FEE: This is not a tax, but a fee added onto the face value of a ticket. There are several markets in Iowa
that impose these fees and they typically range between $2.00 and $4.00 per ticket-
- Coralville Center for the Performing Arts: A $2 per ticket facility fee supports the box office and other operations.
- Des Moines Performing Arts (operates Des Moines Civic Center, Stoner Theater, Temple Theater, and Cowles Commons):
All tickets, regardless of purchase location, include a restoration fee retained by Des Moines Performing Arts for general
maintenance and upkeep of its venues.
Operating
Income (Deficit)
Scenario #1
($856K)
(Status Quo)
Capital Investment
$75.1 M
ay
Scenario #4 Hybrid
($346K)
0
o
r
0
N
Improvement to
$ 51 0 K
N
Operating Deficit
U
Operating
Income (Deficit)
Surcharge/ Fee
(per Ticket)
Ticket Sales*
Adjusted Operating
Income (Deficit)
Ticket Surcharge
Model A
Model B
($346K)
($346K)
$2.00
$4.00
172K
172K
o
($2K)
$342K
U
U
" Excludes events that are likely to be non -
ticketed (Community/ Religious, Meetings/
Banquets, Other)
Ticket fees can be captured and dedicated to operations, capital funding or for other purposes. A ticket fee of $4.00 would result in a significant operating profit for the Five
Flags Civic Center, under Scenario 4 Hybrid, of $342,000, with all others factors being held constant.
28 ` JOHNSUP.
+, CONSULTING
Funding Strategy
If a naming rights deal was combined with a ticket fee at the Five Flags Civic Center the result would be a
net operating income, pursuant to Scenario 4 Hybrid, ranging from $47,800 per annum, assuming a
$50,000 naming rights deal and a $2.00 ticket fee, to $441,600 per annum, assuming a $100,000 naming
rights deal and a $4.00 ticket fee.
3. HISTORIC TAX CREDITS: Due to the presence of the historic theater at the Five Flags Civic Center it may
be able to leverage State and federal government special tax credit programs where investors buy
federal and state credits to save historic buildings. In 2020, the State of Iowa awarded $20AM to 10
projects via the Historic Tax Credits project.
Model A Model B
Operating Income (Deficit) - Stabilized Year (CSL) ($346,001) ($346,001)
Naming Rights Deal $50,000 $100,000
Revenue from Ticket Surcharge $343,828 $687,656
Adjusted Operating Income (Deficit) $47,827 $441,655
Source: 2018/2019 Studies by CSL, Johnson Consulting
4. FEDERAL INVESTMENT: Due to the ongoing pandemic, the public and governments have seen the value of having large venues in markets to serve as emergency
hospitals, emergency command centers and for other purposes. The federal government has provided funding to many buildings around the country and more such
investment is expected, especially as infrastructure bill dollars are released.
5. HOTEL SURCHARGES: ASM Global has created a relationship with two hotels, which provide rebates for events that generate room nights. This is great for operational
revenue sources, although is not bondable.
Summary
At the Five Flags Civic Center in Dubuque, IA, the theater is a treasured asset, and its preservation should be linked to arena funding. In this manner, both assets can be
renewed and enhanced. Linking the two amenities, as they have been in the past, will ensure that multiple audiences and patrons have the Center's best interests at heart.
Operating economies will also be attained and naming rights and a ticket surcharge should be implemented at a minimum to support operations.
The funding required for improvements to the Five Flags Civic Center should be as broad as possible with funding from the State, County, City and adjacent communities. In
the absence of a detailed capital stack analysis, it is apparent that the most logical sources of funding are State and local grants and investment, including Historic Tax
Credits, sponsorships/ naming rights (this can be used to back bonds as well as support operations), Federal programs, some dedicated funding (line item in County and City
budgets), and a portion of existing or new tax sources. Minimizing the burden on taxpayers is understood to be a key priority and can be achieved with thoughtful strategies.
29 CONSULT-
ec io'p.,
Goncluslo
oJOHNSON
CONSILLTING
i
"ri'77, �j
Conclusion
Five Flags Civic Center: Economic & Fiscal Impact Analysis
The Five Flags Civic Center has served millions of visitors to Dubuque's downtown core over the past several decades. Imagine if you will, the current arena being absent
from the local marketplace and reflect on what this would mean to area hotels, restaurants and retail establishments - downtown Dubuque would be much less vital and
attractive than it is today. Turn the tables on this vision and imagine attracting double to triple the patrons currently served at an enhanced arena and theater.
Johnson Consulting's independent analysis finds that the 2018 and 2019 studies prepared by CSL have provided good direction and guidance to the community and that the
levels of demand as projected, are achievable. We do believe that the economic impacts were understated, and our more detailed estimates add supplemental spending from
local residents that would leak to other markets if improvements to the Five Flags Civic Center are not made.
Pursuant to Scenario 4 Hybrid, upon stabilization (Year 5), visitors to Five Flags Civic Center are estimated to generate $21.2M in total spending and $3.7M million in
increased earnings, and support 141 FTE jobs annually. Overall, this is almost 3-times the impact estimated in the 2018 and 2019 studies by CSL and more accurately reflects
the impact of both local and non -local visitation to the Civic Center. The fiscal impact of the Five Flags Civic Center is projected to total close to $1.1 M in tax revenues from
sales, food and beverage and hotel taxes in Year 1, and stabilizing at $1.3M in tax revenues in Year 5.
As it relates to funding, the finance staff at the City of Dubuque were pioneers in the Vision Iowa program and it is evident what has been accomplished. This project is of the
scale of the Grand River Center and a funding strategy was developed for that project. We know that most markets the size of Dubuque have similar arenas, including Des
Moines and Coralville. Given the finance tools that are available in Iowa, these are the most relevant examples, but the corporate and philanthropic groups in Dubuque must
be approached. This project has regional ramifications. Any funding plan should at least include the City of Dubuque and the County. Multiple jurisdictions funding projects has
been accomplished. The Fox Valley in Wisconsin, for example, cobbled together 19 communities to fund a major indoor sports complex for the region. In Dubuque, the
association with the theater opens the project up to people who do not necessarily support arenas. By illustrating what will happen at the theater, the result will bring two
advocacy groups to the table, a situation that does not always exist when projects like this are seeking financing.
Local corporate and philanthropic groups will respond best to a high -quality project that means a lot to Dubuque. It is clear to us that downtown is important to both local
residents and businesses. To the extent the arena can be used to enhance the theater and downtown, it will have the greatest resonance with business and social leaders in
the community.
31 ` JOHNSWh
�, CONSULTING
From: Clark Scholz <clarkscholz34@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 12:59 PM
To: Jenny Larson <Jlarson@cityofdubugue.org>
Subject: 5 Flags Improvements & Taxes
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender I Block sender
I am greatly concerned about the cost of a new Fove Flags Center. The TH article said that the average
home would say a almost $194 property tax increase per year.
I would like to know how that figure was arrived at? What is the average taxable value of a home on
Dubuque?
I can not vote for such a costly project that has no guarantee of being self sufficient or at least reducing
tax payers support of such a facility.
The money is better spent on roads, bridges, sanitary sewers and storm sewer projects.
Please forward this email to the Mayor and Council Members.
Clark Schloz P.E.