Overview of Kaiseizan Park
A 12.89ha project area in Koriyama City (population about 313,000), with 1.4 million annual visitors and a 19-year project timeline
Project period (2024–2043)
19 years
Designated management fee (19-year total)
¥1.44B
Annual park visitors
~1.4M
Evaluation rubric maximum + incentive points
500+8 pts
Among Park-PFI (Public Solicitation Management System) projects in Japan, the Kaiseizan Park project in Koriyama City, Fukushima Prefecture, stands out for the sophistication of its evaluation criteria design. A 500-point rubric supplemented by up to 8 incentive bonus points for sounding participation is exceptional even by national standards.
This article analyzes the rubric's design philosophy, the 3-phase sounding structure, the 19-year revenue model, and the 5-company JV consortium, providing a reference point for municipalities designing their own evaluation frameworks.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Location | Kaisei 1-chome, Koriyama City, Fukushima Prefecture |
| Total Park Area | Approx. 30.3ha |
| Project Area | Approx. 12.89ha |
| Approach | Park-PFI + Designated Manager System |
| Project Period | April 2024 – March 2043 (19 years) |
| Development Cost | Approx. ¥700 million (municipality max 90% / private min 10%) |
| Designated Management Fee | ¥1.44 billion over 19 years (approx. ¥75.87M/year) |
| Operator | Daiwa Lease Group (5-company JV) |
| Number of Bidders | 2 (2 joint business entities) |
| Annual Visitors | Approx. 1.4 million |
Koriyama City is a core city with a population of 313,125 in the preliminary count of the 2025 census, and Kaiseizan Park is an urban park at the city center with over 130 years of history. While the total park area is approximately 30.3ha, the Park-PFI project covers the western area of approximately 12.89ha, including three adjacent neighborhood parks.
Three-Phase Sounding Design
Trial sounding (+5 points) → pre-sounding → market sounding (+3 points): structure and the intent behind incentive design
Unit costs and amounts in financial examples without a cited source are illustrative assumptions, not statistically established market rates. Use estimates and comparable records appropriate to the target facility, location and business when preparing a project plan. Distinguish these assumptions from cited statistics and case expenditure.
Why Three Phases?
The Kaiseizan Park sounding was not a mere "market survey." Each of the three phases had a clearly defined purpose and incentive structure, creating a framework for progressively deepening dialogue with private operators. The approximately four-year preparation period from initial review (March 2020) to opening (April 2024) reflects this careful dialogue process.
Phase 1: Trial Sounding (October 2020)
A social experiment format provided opportunities for private operators to actually set up shops and host events in the park. Businesses and NPOs that participated during the one-month period (9:00–21:00) with waived usage fees received 5 bonus points in the subsequent tender evaluation.
Trial participation added 5 points out of 500, or 1% of the evaluation. Participants could observe visitor routes, activity at different times and the surrounding commercial environment. The trial offered information from actual use that could supplement desk research.
Phase 2: Pre-Sounding (September 2021)
This phase aimed to capture private-sector needs and intentions during the feasibility study stage. Opinions were collected broadly via email inquiry format, and the analysis of private-sector concerns and proposal possibilities informed the design of Phase 3's public solicitation guidelines.
Pre-sounding served the practical function of "obtaining feedback on tender conditions." By identifying points where private operators felt the conditions made participation difficult, and reflecting these in the tender requirements, the risk of "publishing a tender with zero applicants" was reduced.
Phase 3: Market Sounding (January 2022)
Conducted just before finalizing the public solicitation guidelines. Final feedback on the project scheme was obtained, and conditions were adjusted to facilitate private-sector entry. Participants received 3 bonus points in the tender evaluation.
The incentive structure across the three phases reveals the following design logic:
| Phase | Timing | Purpose | Incentive |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial | Oct 2020 | On-site validation & operator commitment test | +5 points |
| Pre | Sep 2021 | Feedback on tender conditions | None |
| Market | Jan 2022 | Final adjustment of project scheme | +3 points |
For detailed guidance on sounding (market survey) design methodology, see Sounding Design Template.
Structural Analysis of the 500-Point Rubric
Allocation rationale for project overview (120), designated park facilities (100), public solicitation facilities (80), management (100), cost reduction (70), and added value (30)
Scoring Allocation Is a Statement of Municipal Intent
A tender evaluation rubric is a declaration of what the municipality values. The Kaiseizan Park 500-point rubric prioritizes project stability and park public benefit while preserving space for private-sector creativity — a balanced design.
Scoring Structure
| Category | Points | Share | Evaluation Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project Overview (Master Plan) | 120 | 24% | Implementation policy, citizen services, area management, stability |
| Designated Park Facility Development | 100 | 20% | Overall facility vision + 8 zones × 10 points each |
| Public Solicitation Facilities | 80 | 16% | Vibrancy creation, synergy effects, risk management |
| Management & Operations (Designated Manager) | 100 | 20% | Equal access, utility maximization, human/material capacity, maintenance, employment |
| Cost Reduction | 70 | 14% | Quantitative reduction, cost appropriateness, revenue sharing |
| Added Value Proposals | 30 | 6% | Unique added value proposals |
| Total | 500 | 100% | |
| Incentive | +8 | — | Trial participation +5, market participation +3 |
Three Distinctive Features of the Scoring Design
1. Heaviest Weight on Project Overview (120 points = 24%)
Placing the highest point allocation on Project Overview signals that Park-PFI is not "a facility construction project" but "a long-term park management enterprise." Over a 19-year project period, the quality of the overall vision and its sustainability matter more than the merits of any individual facility design.
2. Revenue Sharing Embedded Within Cost Reduction (40 of 70 Points)
Within the 70-point Cost Reduction category, 40 points are allocated to revenue sharing. Park-PFI is not simply a system for attracting revenue-generating facilities — the institutional core requires that private revenues be returned to park maintenance and development. This scoring explicitly translates that principle into evaluation criteria.
The 40 points for revenue sharing represent 57% of the Cost Reduction category and 8% of the total 500 points. This functions as a filter to exclude "projects that only benefit the private operator" and select "projects that give back to the park."
3. Modest Allocation for Added Value (30 points = 6%)
Allocating only 30 points to Added Value proposals may appear to undervalue private creativity, but the reality is the opposite. Dedicating 470 of 500 points to evaluating "what must be done" while reserving 30 points for "proposals beyond the baseline" prioritizes fulfillment of core requirements while maintaining room for differentiation.
Minimum Threshold Criteria
Total scores across all committee members must reach 60% or more of the maximum, and "Project Overview," "Problem-Solving (Designated Park Facilities)," and "Management & Operations" must each individually reach 60% or more. This minimum threshold functions as a safety valve to exclude proposals with extremely weak performance in any critical area.
Revenue Model Structure
The ¥1.44 billion designated management fee (approx. ¥75.87M/year) and the ¥700 million development cost burden structure
The Meaning of 19 Years and ¥1.44 Billion
The Kaiseizan Park revenue model comprises a designated management fee of ¥1.44 billion (approx. ¥75.87M/year) and development costs of approximately ¥700 million. While the municipal fiscal burden is not insignificant, usage fee income from private revenue facilities and private-sector development cost contributions provide offsetting effects compared to pre-Park-PFI maintenance costs.
| Item | Amount | Bearer |
|---|---|---|
| Designated Management Fee (19 years) | ¥1.44 billion (approx. ¥75.87M/year) | Koriyama City |
| Development Cost | Approx. ¥700 million | Municipality max 90% / private min 10% |
| Revenue Facility Usage Fee | Undisclosed (returned to city as revenue sharing) | Private → City |
The development cost burden ratio of "municipality max 90% / private min 10%" is significant. While not fully private investment, requiring a minimum 10% self-funding from the private sector ensures operator commitment.
The annual designated management fee of approximately ¥75.87 million, calculated against the 12.89ha project area, works out to approximately ¥5.89 million per hectare per year. This level is not excessive compared to standard Designated Manager System fees, and when revenue sharing income from commercial facilities is factored in, the municipality's effective burden is reduced.
The Significance of a 19-Year Project Period
The maximum Park-PFI facility installation permit period is 20 years, making Kaiseizan Park's 19 years nearly the upper limit. The extended project period produces three effects:
- Private investment recovery: When the private sector invests in facility development, sufficient time for return on investment is necessary. Short periods discourage private investment
- Integrated maintenance: Having the developer maintain facilities long-term supports quality preservation
- Regional integration: Operators have adequate time to establish roots in the community and build relationships with local stakeholders
Consortium Composition Analysis
Functional division among Daiwa Lease, a.ru.ku Publishing, Tokyo Biso Kogyo, Hakko Construction, and Sakura Engineering
Roles of national and local companies
The five-company Daiwa Lease Group JV includes three local firms. It combines national PPP/PFI experience with local construction and operating experience. Other projects should likewise clarify each firm’s duties and responsibilities.
| Company | Base | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Daiwa Lease (Lead) | Daiwa House Group | PPP/PFI planning, management, facility development |
| a.ru.ku Publishing | Koriyama City | Regional content, communications, tenant recruitment |
| Tokyo Biso Kogyo | Tokyo | Maintenance, cleaning, management operations |
| Hakko Construction | Koriyama City | Civil engineering, construction |
| Sakura Engineering | Koriyama City | Civil design, surveying, investigation |
Functional Roles and Consortium Design Principles
Daiwa Lease as Lead Entity
Daiwa Lease is the Daiwa House Group's PPP/PFI specialist with a nationwide track record in park and public facility development and management. As lead entity, it handles overall risk management, financial institution coordination, and serves as the interface with the client (Koriyama City). Having a major firm with national expertise and creditworthiness as lead provides assurance to the municipality.
Strategic Value of the Three Local Companies
- a.ru.ku Publishing: A web media company based in Koriyama City. It brings the regional content expertise — what resonates with local residents, what events attract visitors — that a major firm alone cannot see
- Hakko Construction: A local civil engineering firm. Having local companies handle construction work ensures that expenditure circulates within the regional economy. Rapid response for maintenance and repairs over the nearly 20-year project period is also expected
- Sakura Engineering: A local design and surveying firm. Local knowledge of the park's topography, soil conditions, and surrounding environment enhances technical precision
The evaluation rubric's "employment considerations (10 points)" also demonstrates that local employment creation is explicitly assessed.
Revenue Facility Composition
Facilities opened at the April 2024 renewal include five shops — café, gardening goods, bakery, ramen, and others — plus a multipurpose space. Leveraging the approximately 1.4 million annual visitor base, the development centers on dining-oriented vibrancy facilities.
The facility composition reflects a "daily-use" business model. Rather than tourist-oriented extraordinary experiences, the design centers on cafés and bakeries that residents use routinely, promoting repeat visits and stabilizing revenue.
Implications for Other Municipalities
Lessons from three perspectives: evaluation criteria design, sounding design, and consortium design
Applying the Scoring Design
Preparing a scoring rubric requires staff who can develop the criteria and evaluate proposals. However, the structural principles — prioritizing project overview, explicitly including revenue sharing as an evaluation criterion — can be applied even in simplified 100-point rubrics.
Phased Sounding Design
Kaiseizan Park used three stages of sounding over four years of preparation. Another municipality considering this approach should assess its timetable and staffing. Trials involving trading or events also require decisions on facility use, participants and the scope of municipal support.
Consortium Design Guidelines
Kaiseizan Park included employment and local collaboration in its evaluation, and selected a JV with local firms. This does not establish that the scoring alone determined its membership. Local participation also depends on available expertise and cooperation among firms.
Municipalities considering Park-PFI need to choose evaluation criteria, sounding methods and JV responsibilities according to the park’s conditions and their staffing capacity.
Park-PFI Evaluation Criteria Design Methods
Practical guide to rubric structure design and review processes
Sounding Design and Implementation Procedures
3-phase sounding design methodology and practical guide for municipal officials
What to do next
When considering Park-PFI, examine the park's conditions, use and operator interest.
| # | What to check or consider | Responsible team or contact |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Check the park's site area and the footprint of existing buildings, including rest and sports facilities, to establish current building coverage | Parks team |
| 2 | Check the building coverage limits and exceptions in the local ordinance. Compare them with existing building footprints to assess whether new facilities can be added | Parks team |
| 3 | Study visitor numbers and patterns of use, including weekday, weekend and seasonal differences, to assess likely demand | Site surveys and existing survey records |
| 4 | Check actual fees at comparable parks, taking account of differences in area, location and facility use | Other municipalities and published records |
| 5 | Present the survey results and proposed use to private operators. Ask about their interest and the conditions needed for a viable project | Market sounding |
Assess the scope for new buildings against existing building footprints and the local ordinance. If there is no room to add buildings, consider reuse of existing facilities and other project methods.
References
Kaiseizan Park Park-PFI Project — Koriyama City (2022)
Our company-led corporate group selected as designated operator for the Kaiseizan Park Park-PFI project — Daiwa Lease Co., Ltd. (2022)
Kaiseizan Park Park-PFI Project Case Study — Daiwa Lease Co., Ltd. (2024)
How will Park-PFI/PFI projects transform the Koriyama Kaiseizan area? — aruku MORE (2024)
Related Articles
5 Park-PFI Success Cases
Success patterns from large parks to small cities
The Complete Guide to Park-PFI
How it works, case studies, and implementation steps
How to Build a Park-PFI Revenue Plan
Revenue plan guide with simulation template
