City of Fayetteville
File #: 24-4171    Version: 2 Name:
Type: Administrative Reports Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 8/6/2024 In control: City Council Regular Meeting
On agenda: 8/12/2024 Final action:
Title: Amusement Park Research and Feasibility Summary
Date Ver.Action ByActionResultAction DetailsMeeting DetailsVideo
No records to display.

TO:                                            Mayor and Members of City Council

THRU:                      Douglas Hewett, ICMA-CM, City Manager

 

FROM:                     Jodi W. Phelps, Assistant City Manager

                                          Adam J. Lindsay, Assistant City Manager

 

DATE:                      August 12, 2024

 

RE:

Title

Amusement Park Research and Feasibility Summary                      

end

 

COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):                      

Council District(s)

All                     

 

 

b

Relationship To Strategic Plan:

Goal II - The City of Fayetteville will have a Responsive City Government

supporting a diverse and viable economy.

GOAL IV: The City of Fayetteville will be a highly desirable place to live, work and recreate

 

Executive Summary:

Consistent with Council direction from the May 6, 2024 work session, staff engaged community partners and stakeholders in discussions around the possibility of attracting an amusement park to Fayetteville and took the item to the City-County Liaison meeting on August 1, 2024. Those discussions yielded no interest at this time in pursuing a feasibility study for an amusement attraction, but provided several alternate paths to increasing the economic benefits of tourism in the area.

 

 

Background: 

During the May 6 work session, FCEDC President Robert Van Geons provided Council an overview of efforts and potential action strategies to consider should they wish to aggressively pursue new amusement and visitor attraction facilities for Fayetteville.

This presentation was brought forward subsequent to a Council Member request submitted for the research to be presented.

 

Following Mr. Van Geons’ presentation on May 6, Council provided consensus for staff to engage community partners and potential stakeholders in the discussion to determine interest in pursuing the feasibility study for an amusement park to be located in Fayetteville.

 

 

 

Issues/Analysis: 

Research and consultation with the stakeholders provided a clear picture on the history of amusement attractions in Fayetteville, potential costs and consultants to support the next steps and possible alternative options to consider.

 

History of Previous Efforts

 

Of note was a 1999 study commissioned by the then Fayetteville Area Convention and Visitors Bureau to assess the viability of attracting an amusement park or similar to Fayetteville. The 1999 study returned the following results summarized for reference:

 

In 1999, the Fayetteville Area Convention and Visitors Bureau engaged International Theme Park Services, Inc. (ITPS) to perform a comprehensive feasibility analysis for a proposed theme park attraction in the Fayetteville, NC area.

 

The analysis highlighted several critical considerations:

 

1.                     Site Selection: ITPS emphasized the importance of site selection and reviewed large tracts of undeveloped land along the I-95 corridor at exits 58, 56, 52, 49, 46, and 41. They recommended a location off exit 49, encompassing 42-57 acres for the park and an additional 18-24 acres for parking, totaling 64-88 acres.

 

2.                     Park Concept: ITPS recommended a traditional, high-quality theme park with a "wheel and spoke" design for themed sections. The park should offer a mix of family-oriented active and passive entertainment, including food and beverage options, games, arcades, rides, attractions, and merchandise shops. Although initially considering a WWII-themed living history park, the study concluded that a traditional theme park would attract more investors and developers.

 

3.                     Market Analysis: The majority of visitors were expected to come from the primary and secondary resident markets, within 50 and 100 miles of Fayetteville, respectively. The total potential market population was projected to be 4,775,766 in the opening year, growing to 5,067,624 by the fifth year. The analysis noted a sizable population under the age of 15 but also highlighted the challenge of relatively low median household incomes. The first-year attendance was projected at 1,050,040, increasing by 5.49% annually over five years. The recommended ticket price was $32.50.

 

4.                     Financial Projections: Based on 1999 leisure industry data, the gross operating revenue for the first year was expected to be $34,023,752, with net operating earnings at $10,730,664. The five-year cumulative net earnings were estimated at $61,169,139, supporting a net investment range of $67.4 million to $79.5 million. The expected internal rate of return was 25%.  

 

Next Steps to Proceed

 

Should Council and community stakeholders agree to pursuing an amusement attraction, staff identified possible consultants to support the feasibility study and market analysis needed to attract potential developers.

 

It was determined the cost of the study would be approximately $75,000.

 

Discussion Outcomes and Options

 

In discussion with stakeholders, it was determined that relevant community partners including Distinctly Fayetteville and County do not currently have the staff or financial capacity to pursue the feasibility study at this time as it does not align with existing priorities and interests.

 

While there was not significant interest expressed in an amusement park, partners felt there may be interest in collaboration on a natatorium/indoor aquatic center with recreation amenities. In addition, there is potentially interest in Distinctly Fayetteville developing a destination master plan.

 

As a result of the July 22, 2024 stakeholder conversation, the amusement park feasibility study was taken to the August 1, 2024 Fayetteville-Cumberland Liaison Committee Meeting for discussion and direction where it did not gain support to move forward.

 

 

Budget Impact: 

N/A

 

 

Options

N/A

 

 

Recommended Action: 

N/A

 

 

Attachments:

N/A