FLS2731 Lecture 1: Cell City Worksheet Answer Key

149 views7 pages

striker180xqa

23 Nov 2022

School

University of Ottawa

Department

French as a Second Language

Course

FLS2731

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Floating around in the cytoplasm are small structures called organelles. Like the organs in your own body, each one carries out a specific function necessary for the cell to survive. The organelles might represent companies, places, or parts of the city because they each have similar jobs. Below are the descriptions of important parts of the cell city: Controls what goes in and out of the city. Controls all the activities in of the city. Stores all the records of the city and passes them on as the city grows. A place in the city hall where plans are made for the construction of the city. Delivers products made at the construction company to other locations in the city. Processes large quantities of food entering the city into smaller packages that can be used more easily. Uses the sun"s energy to produce power for the city.

Related Questions

Suppose you are the general manager of a concrete mixing and delivery facility located in

Lexington. Your firm buys the raw materials for concrete (i.e., sand, gravel, and cement),

mixes the concrete according to customer specifications, and delivers the concrete to the job

sites (including residential, industrial, and road construction sites). Your cost accountant

has observed that the real (inflation adjusted) average cost of production has declined as

your business has grown, so your business may exhibit economies of scale. You confirm this

observation with a market analyst who studies the construction industry. What implications

does this feature of your cost structure have for the way you manage the business?

A city engineer and economic development director of Buffalo are evaluating two sites for the construction of a multipurpose sports arena. At the downtown site, the city already owns enough land for the arena. However, the land for the construction of a parking garage will cost $1 million. The wet side site is 30 kilometers from downtown, but the land will be donated by a developer who knows that an arena at this site will increase the value of the remainder of his land holdings by many times. The downtown site will have extra construction costs of $10 million because of infrastructure relocations, the parking garage, and drainage improvements. However, because of its centralized location, there will be greater attendance at most of the events held there. This will result in more revenue to vendors and local merchants in the amount of $350,000 per year. Additionally, the average attendee will not have to travel as far, resulting in annual benefits of $400,000 per year. All other costs and revenues are expected to be the same at either site. If the city uses a discount rate of 8% per year, where should the arena be constructed using the incremental benefit-cost analysis? One of the two sites must be selected. (Hint: Assume an infinite life for the public project. No need to calculate the absolute B/C ratio, since one of the two sites must be selected.)

mauvetiger357

Because sports facilities are not expected to generate additional net output in a metropolitan area and no systematic empirical analysis ever finds evidence that they do, sports facilities cannot be counted on to augment tax collections. Indeed, public expenditures occasioned by operating a sports facility generally exceed revenues generated by it. To assess the budgetary impact of a new facility, however, it is necessary to know the financing and lease terms. If the financing burden is large and falls primarily on public coffers and if the lease terms are concessionary to the team, then the public obligation for debt service, infrastructure maintenance, environmental remediation, incremental sanitation and security expense, probable cost overruns, and subsequent facility enhancement is likely to generate a substantial budgetary hole in the municipal, county and/or state accounts. Such budgetary gaps must be filled either with decreased government services or with higher taxes; either will produce a drag on the local economy. Unfortunately for host cities, the monopoly status of the major team sports leagues has enabled the teams to drive impressive bargains in negotiating financing and lease terms. Even as sports facilities have grown more and more expensive, in some cases costing over half a billion dollars, public contributions to construction costs have continued to average nearly 70 percent. Quirk and Fort (1992, pp. 170-171), after studying 25 facilities built between 1978 and 1992, concluded that the host cities provided on average a $7 million per year operating subsidy to the team. In none of the cases did the host city receive a positive net operating income from the facility. The perverse influence of the 1986 Tax Reform Act on lease terms described above and the escalating costs of recent facility construction suggest that the size of these subsidies has only grown since 1992. Promotional economic impact studies often claim that an additional positive economic stimulus is derived from the actual construction of the sports facility. The problem with this contention is that the funds to build the stadium or arena have an opportunity cost. If the construction is funded by the city, then the city must raise the money via higher taxes or reduced services. Spending on construction thereby causes lower spending by the government in other areas or lower disposable household income. If stimulating a local economy were so simple, every municipal government could guarantee full employment with a public works program that hired workers to dig holes in the ground and then hired other workers to fill the holes. Only in the case where some of the funding comes from state or federal coffers can the city expect to experience a net job gain from facility construction, and in this case, the gain comes at the expense of worker layoffs elsewhere in the state or country. The logical implications of both multiplier and budget impact analysis are consistent with the results of empirical studies that fail to detect any discernible effects on local economic growth associated with a sports facility or a team.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. They argue that the lack of economic benefits is due in part to the budgetary impact of the stadium construction. What do they mean? Explain your answer with sufficient detail to convince me you read that part of the article

periwinklealpaca577

FLS2731 Lecture 1: Cell City Worksheet Answer Key

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

NATS 1670 Study Guide - Final Guide: Francisella, Clostridium, Measles

VTPP 423 Lecture 3: Cell Physiology

HLSC 1200U Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Lipid Bilayer, Fluid Compartments, Golgi Apparatus

Related Questions