Before the Arkansas Racing Commission in the Matter Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Online Casino Player Count Service™
Wells Gaming Research Service you can count on! Information Package Professional Services Online CPCS™ Description Richard H. Wells, Background & Qualifications Client List (Current & Previous Clients) March 2005 495 Apple Street, Suite 205 Reno, Nevada 89502 Phone: (775) 826-3232 Fax: (775) 827-0986 E-Mail: [email protected] Web Page: http://www.wellsgaming.com/ Professional Services Offered Wells Gaming Research (hereinafter referred to as WGR) is a highly respected provider of a wide-range of research and advisory services for the casino gaming industry. Included are: Casino Player Count Service™ WGR's Casino Player Count Service™ has become the standard for measuring relative player count performance within the casino gaming industry. Our player count service is widely used by casinos, as well as by a select group of investment bankers. WGR’s weekly online player count reports are accompanied by a host of powerful, user friendly analytical tools that make it quick and easy for a client casino to monitor the competition. Client casinos can simply logon to WGR’s website and evaluate their competitors using the following performance criteria: • Casino rankings based on player count volume • Number of table game and/or slot machine players • Percent distribution of players • Gaming capacity inventory for both table games and slot machines • Percent distribution of market capacity • Percent of capacity utilized • User defined market fair share percentages Fair Share Goal Setting Targets for User Defined Markets One of the newest and most exciting features of WGR’s Casino Player Count Service™ is fair share goal setting for user defined markets. WGR’s online player count service automatically calculates the number of players required for a casino to reach a series of fair market share targets (for example, 100%, 105%, and 110%). -
South Central Gaming Zone of Kansas
South Central Gaming Zone of Kansas Projections of Casino Visits and Gaming Revenues Prepared For: Kansas Lottery Gaming Facility Review Board November 2010 Prepared by: Wells Gaming Research 6900 South McCarran Blvd. Suite 3030 - Reno, NV 89509 775-826-3232 - http://www.wellsgaming.com South Central Gaming Zone of Kansas 2010 Projections of Gaming Revenues and Casino Visits Table of Contents Section 1 Page Introduction Background 1-1 Project Objectives, Scope of Work 1-3, 1-4 Gravity Model 1-5 Research Methodology 1-7 Limiting Conditions 1-10 Section 2 Executive Summary 2-1 Highlights of WGR's Research & Analyses 2-1 Trade Area Description 2-1 Trade Area Map (MAP 1) 2-2 Demographic Highlights 2-3 Summary of Current Gaming Capacity 2-5 Summary Comparison of the Applicants' Proposals 2-7 Highlights of the Gaming Revenue Projections 2-9 Section 3 Demographics for 2000 through 2017 Total Population 3-1 Adult Population 3-3 Median Household Income 3-4 Existing Gaming Capacity for the South Central Gaming Zone's Trade Area 3-6 Section 4 The WinSpirit - a Global Gaming KS, LLC Proposal Highlights of Global's WinSpirit 4-1 Development Site (MAP 2) 4-2 Gaming Capacity & Amenities 4-3 Existing & Proposed Competition 4-5 Scenarios - Brief Description of Each of the 7 Scenarios 4-6 Gaming Revenue Projections 4-8 Casino Visit Projections 4-10 Section 5 The Kansas Star - a Peninsula Gaming Partners, LLC Proposal Highlights of Peninsula's Kansas Star 5-1 Development Site (MAP 3) 5-2 Gaming Capacity & Amenities 5-3 Existing & Proposed Competition 5-6 Scenarios - Brief Description of Each of the 6 Scenarios 5-7 Gaming Revenue Projections 5-9 Casino Visit Projections 5-11 Section 6 Information on Wells Gaming Research & Richard H. -
Task 4 – Project Specific Gaming Revenue Projections
Task 4 – Project Specific Gaming Revenue Projections South Central Gaming Zone – Sumner County, Kansas Final Report Prepared For: Kansas Lottery Gaming Facility Review Board July 15, 2008 Prepared By: Wells Gaming Research 495 Apple Street, Suite 205 Reno, NV 89502 775-826-3232 http://www.wellsgaming.com Task-4 Project Specific Gaming Revenue Projections South Central Gaming Zone of Kansas Table of Contents Section 1 Page # Introduction 1-1 Research Methodology & Scope of Work 1-3 Map - South Central Zone 1-5 Gravity Model Analyses 1-6 Limiting Conditions 1-7 Section 2 Trade Area Summary 2-1 Map - South Central Zone 2-2 Current Gaming Capacity 2-3 Gravity Model Projections 2-5 Sumner Resort Harrah's Kansas 2-6 Map - South Central Zone, Harrahs Kansas Resort 2-8 Gaming Capacity Recap 2-9 WGR's Gravity Model Forecasts Compared w/ Harrah's Pro Forma Projections 2-10 Financial Statement Analyses 2-13 Balance Sheet 2-14 Income Statement 2-17 Penn National's Casino Resort in Wellington, Kansas 2-24 Map - South Central Zone, Penn National Sumner 2-26 Gaming Capacity Recap 2-27 Gravity Model Forecasts Compared w/ Penn National's Pro Forma Projections 2-28 Balance Sheet Analysis 2-31 Income Statement 2-34 Marvel Gaming, LLC 2-41 Map - South Central Zone, Marvel Gaming 2-43 Gaming Capacity Recap 2-44 Comparison of the Gravity Model Forecasts with Marvel's Pro Forma Projections 2-45 Balance Sheet 2-48 Income Statement 2-51 Section 3 Wells Gaming Research Company Information 3-1 Wells Gaming Research July 2008 Task-4 Project Specific Gaming Revenue Projections South Central Gaming Zone of Kansas Introduction The State of Kansas has lost gaming revenues for many years to a number of surrounding states, particularly to Missouri and Oklahoma. -
Pope County Casino Resort Development
Presentation by Gulfside Casino Partnership Confidential - Property of Gulfside Casino Partnership 1 Phase 1 ($148 million): 300-room hotel, including 40 suites 60,000 sq. ft. gaming space (1,500 slot machines; 50 table games) 300-seat buffet Fine dining steakhouse Show bar and casino Bar Casino lounge/club 24 hour cafe Coffee and pastry shop Retail Pool bar and deck Surface parking lot Confidential - Property of Gulfside Casino Partnership 2 Confidential - Property of Gulfside Casino Partnership 3 Confidential - Property of Gulfside Casino Partnership 4 Confidential - Property of Gulfside Casino Partnership 5 6 Confidential - Property of Gulfside Casino Partnership Confidential - Property of Gulfside Casino Partnership 7 Confidential - Property of Gulfside Casino Partnership 8 Confidential - Property of Gulfside Casino Partnership 9 10 Confidential - Property of Gulfside Casino Partnership Confidential - Property of Gulfside Casino Partnership 11 Confidential - Property of Gulfside Casino Partnership 12 Confidential - Property of Gulfside Casino Partnership 13 Confidential - Property of Gulfside Casino Partnership 14 Confidential - Property of Gulfside Casino Partnership 15 Confidential - Property of Gulfside Casino Partnership 16 Confidential - Property of Gulfside Casino Partnership 17 Confidential - Property of Gulfside Casino Partnership 18 Confidential - Property of Gulfside Casino Partnership 19 Phase 2 ($52 million): 150 additional hotel rooms (total 450 rooms) 15,000 sq. ft. gaming space (total 1,800 slots; 75 table -
How Plan Implementation Fails: Examining the Role of Experience, Expectations, and Externalities
How Plan Implementation Fails: Examining the role of Experience, Expectations, and Externalities DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Zachary E. Kenitzer Graduate Program in City and Regional Planning The Ohio State University 2016 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Jennifer Evans-Cowley AICP, Advisor Dr. Rachel G. Kleit Dr. Bernadette Hanlon Copyrighted by Zachary E. Kenitzer 2016 Abstract Plans developed as a result of Hurricane Katrina and the Mississippi Renewal Forum, including the de facto nullified SmartCode, three vacated SmartCode Community Plans, and two tabled and non-adopted Comprehensive Plans failed. Further indicated by a gap between Plan vision and on-the-ground results, other authors and scholars point to the process of Plan implementation as the key to this failure. Despite this observation, a case study of implementation does not exist. Also, few academic case studies that explore the implementation of Plans exist. To explore ‘Why Plans Fail’ this dissertation employs a Case Study approach, rooted in Grounded Theory Methodology and the Constant Comparative method. Five methods of analysis include two forms of Plan evaluation, document analysis, semi-structured interviews, and a new exploratory method of Tenure Analysis. Findings derived from analysis explore the roles of implementation experience, expectations, and externalities in Plan and policy failure. The research concludes by arguing for further case studies, a careful rethinking of how the American Planning Association approaches their advocate role, and that Planners should stop treating implementation like the ‘black box’ of the Planning and Plan-Making process. -
Chapter 11. Background Assessment Northern Harrison County in the 1800S
Figure B-1. Open-range grazing of sheep was common in Chapter 11. Background Assessment Northern Harrison County in the 1800s. HISTORY OF HARRISON COUNTY Harrison County was first settled in 1699, when Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville established a new colony for France at Biloxi.1 Bounded by water on three sides, Biloxi’s strategic location allowed for the operation of a port. D’Iberville commissioned Fort Maurepas to defend the port. Biloxi quickly became a provincial capital for the French Empire in North America, which stretched from the Rocky Mountains to the Alleghenies. In consequent battles for global dominance, France lost Biloxi and a great portion of its territory to the English in 1763.2 At this point, the importance of Biloxi as a provincial capital ceased. When the English assumed control of Biloxi and the French territory, Captain George Johnston moved the capital to the Natchez District along the Mississippi River.3 The move allowed the Governor to oversee the production of cotton and tobacco in the middle to northern sections of Mississippi. With Biloxi and the surrounding region no longer an economic center, residents shifted to fishing and harvesting timber from oak trees that lined the coast and extended inland for 100 miles.4 Harrison County was officially designated as a county in 1841, when land was reapportioned from Hancock County because of increasing population. The County’s namesake is the ninth President of the United States, General William Henry Harrison. Although the county seat was originally in Mississippi City, today it is shared by the cities of Gulfport and Biloxi, the two largest cities in Harrison County.