The arguments in favor, and against, a publicly funded water park
The city is a center of attraction and features many amusement areas that are mainly privately-owned. Privately- owned facilities are relatively heavily taxed as compared to the public-owned facilities thus increasing the operational costs. In addition, public facilities receive government funding in terms of subsidies thus bringing down their operational costs. It implies that the government owned facilities will offer services at a relatively reduced prices hence increasing on the affordability by the general public. On the contrary, services from private facilities are relatively expensive and as such limit the accessibility by the public ¬(Park, 2010). For instance, in this case, a publicly funded water park implies that the operational costs will relatively be reduced unlike in cases where it could be privately-owned. It is thus advisable to implement the project as this will ensure that most of the public requirements are met. However, from another point of view, it can be argued that private owned water park would better serve the public. In most cases, public projects are characterized with corruption, poor management and maintenance. Such cases are avoided at all costs in case of private facilities since a private facility is more concerned with profit maximization through maximum customer satisfaction. In this case then, the public funded water park would be considered inappropriate.
The groups you anticipate would favor and oppose this project
The city is said to attract numerous visitors both during winter and summer to various privately-owned amusement areas. It implies that there are many private businesses operating with area and who are specializing in the amusement areas. An introduction of a newly established public water amusement project would mean a reduction in the total market share of all the other operating amusement areas. There will be a general reduction in the number of visitors visiting other amusement areas, and there is a high probability that many would opt to go to a public funded water park because it would relatively be cheap. As such, it can be expected that the project will receive much opposition from the owners of these other privately owned facilities (Monclús, 2009). However, such a project would receive much support from humanitarian organizations who are much concerned about the affairs of the public. Tourist agencies will also support such a project since they will be able to maximize on their profits.
Techniques for measuring the revenue and costs of the project
Several techniques are used in the evaluation of the project. These will include both overview appraisal and analytical techniques. In the case of the overview appraisal, the main aim is to accomplish better outlay decisions of current expenditure, as well as capital on schemes, programs and structures. Overview can be applied in the process of evaluation. From a societal point of view, the economic analysis tries to weigh the desirability of a project. However, discounted cash flow techniques are the most common recommended analytical methods (Rouse, Maguire & Harrison, 2011). This is because such techniques take into account the time value of the currency. Most individuals would be willing to receive their benefits at the earliest time possible while at the same time paying for the costs at the latest time possible. Benefits versus costs will take time at different points in the whole life of any given project and as such the valuation of both benefits and costs must take into consideration the different periods at which they take place.
General cost-benefit analysis of the project
The general standard of the CBA is to do an assessment in order to determine as to whether the economic and social related to any given project are less than the economic and social costs. As such a project will be considered much desirable and viable when the associated benefits outnumber the costs. In this case, it will be advisable to implement the project if the total expected benefits exceed the total incurred costs in that particular project. However, it does not always imply that a project is viable even if the net expected benefits exceeded the costs especially in cases where other projects with higher net present value were competing for the same limited resource. Under such circumstances, it would not always be advisable to adopt and proceed with such a project, as per the requirements of the affordability constraints. However, in this case, the water park project is not in competition with any other project and as such it would be advisable for the stakeholders to move ahead and implement the project. In this case, all the associated costs and benefits, whether direct or indirect will be taken into consideration (Priemus, Flyvbjerg & Wee, 2008). In this project then it will be important to do an in depth analysis of the benefits as well as the associated costs of the project in order to determine the viability of its implementation. This will give the guidelines on whether to undertake the projected water park project or else decline from its implementation.
Tools one would need to identify the location and timeframe of a project of this magnitude
Undertaking such a project will require the combination and application of several tools in order for it to be successful. Of importance is to make better use of the knowledge and skills provided by qualified personnel who have a deep understanding of the project in question. These professionals such as engineers and quantity surveyors will ensure that the project is run in the best way and that the projected results are achieved. There will be a dire need of providing all the necessary resources such as finances, building materials, among others and these should totally be accounted for to minimize issues of misuse and wastage. There will be the application of the emerging and most recent technologies that would help easy implementation and management of the project in question.
Groups that could partner with city to collaborate on the project and groups that would actively campaign against the project
Non-governmental organizations that are humanitarian based will most purposely fight for and focus on the efforts aimed at implementing the project. This is because such bodies and agencies are fighting for the projects that aim at the benefiting the general public. Others are fighting at ensuring that there is increased equality through reduction of the inequality gap that exists between the rich and the poor. As earlier stated, privately-owned facilities, in this cases amusement areas, are relatively expensive and as such only affordable to the more fortunate of the society. On the contrary, the public amusement areas are relatively cheap and will thus reduce the imbalance created between the elites and the less advantaged of the society. Those organizations fighting for the social welfare of the population will thus support the projected water park facility as it will boost the social and economic welfare of the majority of the population. On the other hand, private formed bodies such as cartels, by the business operators of the privately-owned amusement areas, would go against the implementation of the project, as they would see this as a potential barrier against their businesses.
Avenues for providing public input and dialogue about the project
Such a project would require innovative public involvement, the general public, and government officials who could be both elected and selected. It will require a well thought dialogue that would better suit the requirements of the project. Members will be required to give out their take of the project through deliberations. Under this platform, all the opinions of the members will be taken into consideration in order to establish the best accord to follow in order to achieve the best results from the total project (Fishkin, 2009).
Consideration of financial constraints and gains that would be effected by the water park
The project is likely to have different financial impacts that will be both positive and negative. First, a huge amount of money will be used during the initial stages of the project implementation process that would include initial planning and quantification of the project. Huge maintenance costs may also be incurred in order to ensure stable and smooth operations of the project (Cárcamo-Díaz, Goddard & United Nations, 2007). This will be in terms of the payments provided to the employee personnel who ensure smooth running of the project. Implementing the project will not be a simple undertaking. For instance, some suits may be filed in courts by the private business operators from that locality. Such businesspersons may feel that their lives are put in jeopardy and hence decide to sue the public water park project in order curtail its implementation. Under such circumstances, the government and all stakeholders may be forced to meet legal costs in order to ensure the success of the project. However, the project will have considerable benefits especially after its completion (Organisation de cooperation et de development économiques, 2006). There will be money inflow into the government in the form of the revenue collected from the people accessing the water park for amusement or any other related purpose.
Additional evidence, research, comparisons, and figures that they would need to consider the project on behalf of the city
In many major cities all around the world, such projects have been undertaken; some have failed while others have been a success. Reports will be kept when there is undertaking of a project may it be private-owned or public owned. These reports have covered on all the costs incurred, and any accrued benefits achieved from the implementation of any given project. In addition, there could exist research and reports of any project that could have taken place in the early years. Such researches will also provide well researched, and detailed information regarding different projects that the government may have carried out in past years. Field studies may also be conducted by all relevant stakeholders in order to back up any information that may have been obtained from the existing literatures. Combination of such materials will be appropriate and very effective in ensuring that there is fertile information that would help in assessing the viability of the project (Hesse-Biber, 2011). There will also be an in-depth comparisons between the existing materials and any information that would relate to the project in question. Existing figures will assist the quantity surveyors invalidation of any numeral data that they could be using in regard to the project in question.
Cárcamo-Díaz, R., Goddard, J. G., & United Nations. (2007). Coordination of public expenditure in transport infrastructure: Analysis and policy perspectives for Latin America. Santiago, Chile: United Nations / CEPAL.
Fishkin, J.(2009). When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2011). The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Monclús, F. J. (2009). International exhibitions and urbanism: The Zaragoza Expo 2008 project. Farnham, England: Ashgate.
Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques. (2006). Government R&D funding and company behaviour: Measuring behavioural additionality. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Park, L. S. (2010). A long walk to water: Based on a true story. Boston: Clarion Books.
Priemus, H., Flyvbjerg, B., & Wee, B. (2008). Decision-making on mega-projects: Cost-benefit analysis, planning and innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Rouse, P., Maguire, W., & Harrison, J. (2011). Revenue management in service organizations. New York, N.Y.] (222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10