The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCSD-10-049 - Proposed Improvements - Rangers and The Aud!- -vmmur+ -~rvFces REPORT REPORT TO: Mayor and Council DATE OF MEETING: June 28, 2010 SUBMITTED BY: Keith Baulk, Director Enterprise Division PREPARED BY: Workplan Development Group WARD(S) INVOLVED: All DATE OF REPORT: June 23, 2010 REPORT NO.: CSD-10-49 SUBJECT: DECISION-MAKING WORK PLAN FOR EXPANDED SPECTATOR FACILITY RECOMMENDATION: That staff be directed to commence the "decision-making work plan" for an expanded spectator facility as outlined in Report CSD-10-49. BACKGROUND: On June 14th 2010 representatives of the Kitchener Ranger Hockey Club (KRHC) made a presentation to council proposing a 3800 seat expansion to the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex (The Aud). This would bring the overall seating capacity to approximately 10,000. The KRHC presentation outlined the process they had undertaken to develop a business case which ultimately lead to the expansion proposition. While they had also analysed the potential of anew, larger building, it became clear that expansion of The Aud was more aligned with their overall goals for this project. The goals they have established for this project are as follows: 1. Expanded seating capacity 2. Improved amenities such as team spaces, ice quality, fan comfort 3. Provide a facility capable of hosting other major events 4. Rangers would be the primary funder of the capital costs Following the presentation by the KRHC, council directed staff to develop a work plan which would outline the various reviews, studies and steps that should be undertaken to assist council in making a decision about whether the city could and/or should support a larger (new or expanded) spectator facility in this community. In addition, council asked for a timeline to complete the various reviews. 7(a)-1 REPORT: In order to develop the work plan, representatives of various city departments and divisions came together to provide input on what should be included. These departments and divisions included FM, Project Administration, Legal, Communications, CSD and Finance. This team met on two occasions and developed a proposed work plan matrix which is attached. This plan is not necessarily all-inclusive as additional work may be required as the process evolves. The work plan identifies that several reviews should be undertaken, how the work should be phased, staff responsibility for each review, where public consultation should occur and a financial allowance for each project. Staff is suggesting that the decision-making work plan be implemented in three phases as follows: ^ Phase 1: July 2010 -March 2011 ^ Phase 2: March 2011 -May 2011 ^ Phase 3: May 2011 -June 2011 This phasing provides sufficient time to undertake the work but is aligned with ensuring the decisions related to moving the project forward are made by the newly elected council beginning in 2011. Since the project would need to start in May of a year, and depending on the time required to complete all the pre-construction work, the earliest the project could start would be 2012. The proposed plan provides for community engagement and consultation at the end of Phase 1 primarily to review the Goals and Needs business case (especially around the findings related to the 3 options - no action, expand or new). At the end of phase, following the consultation council may decide to eliminate one or more of the options. It is also proposed that consultation take place in Phase 2 to share more details on the studies and also receive community input on the remaining option(s). Staff are proposing the work plan be implemented in three phases to accomplish the following major goals: Phase 1: July 2010 -March 2011 Goals: - Review and verify the validity of the KRHC business case - Establish longer term goals, objectives and needs for the City of Kitchener around operation of a spectator venue to determine the degree these goals and needs are aligned with a larger venue - Re-confirm the structural and engineering feasibility of the proposed KRHC design - Confirm the potential of providing a loan to the KRHC to fund the project and/or any alternative solutions that would result in the ability to fund the project - Engage the public to present the findings of the Goals and Needs business case and receive feedback especially as it relates to the options that exist (no action, expand or new) 7(a)-2 Phase 2: March 2011 -Mav 2011 Goals (subject to findings and direction from Phase 1): - Identify potential locations and possibly a preferred site if a new facility remains an option - Determine the operational impacts of a new or expanded venue and the impacts on the other facilities on the current site - Further explore funding, partnership and management options - Conduct a community consultation which presents the detailed analysis of options that would remain viable after the phase 1 review and receive feedback Phase 3: Mav 2011 -July 2011 Goals (subject to findings and direction from Phase 1 and 2 analysis) - Undertake an environmental review - Determine the feasibility of a capital campaign COMMUNICATION: Staff from the city's Corporate Communications and Marketing Division will develop a phased communication plan covering all three phases of the project and provide a plan and support for any significant community consultations that would be required if the project continues to move through each phase. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Staff also provided a financial allowance to complete each of the reviews and studies. The costs are provided in detail in the attached matrix. Due to the short timelines associated with providing this initial report to council, it should be recognized that subject-matter expert staff proposed the allowance based on their previous experience in delivering these kinds of reviews. As a result there will be some variance, however as the process evolves these will become firmer cost estimates. The allowance required for each of the three phases is as follows: Phase 1 - $ 93,000 Phase 2 - $ 154,000 Phase 3 - $ 45,000 The KRHC have agreed to fund the costs associated with Phase 1 to an upset limit of $93,000. If the project is ultimately approved, they would incorporate those costs in the project budget to recover from the associated project revenue. The KHRC would like to reserve making a 7(a)-3 decision on funding other components of the work plan based on council's decisions and direction at the end of each phase. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Pauline Houston 7(a)-4 DECISION MAKING WORK PLAN Revision 3 -June 23, 2010 PHASE 1 Project Description Phase Responsibility Consultation Allowance (yes/no/who) Uoals and Needs Determine the City's 1 CSD Yes (see below) $25,000 Business Case goals and needs around delivering spectator facility business (from Ci 's Pers ective) Current Buildings Status of current 1 FM No $25,000 Audit (inc. Stadium buildings on site and Ball Park etc.) Design Review Feasibility review 1 FM No $ 7,000 and impact on existin Ranger Business Case Review/confirm 1 CSD (Finance) No $7,000 Review Ranger business Case assum tions Communication Plan Internal and external 1-3 Comms N/A In House mesa in lan Capital Cost Peer Are the projected 1 FM No $4,000 Review capital costs accurate and what should be added/deleted to accomplish the oals? Debt Capacity Can the City provide 1 Finance No In House Analysis and funding the loan, when, options and/or are there o tions? Public Engagement on Undertake a public 1 Comms Yes -community $25,000 Phase 1 findings engagement on the findings from Phase 1 primarily around the 3 options (no action, ex and, new) 7(a)-5 PHASE 2 Project Description Phase Responsibility Consultation Allowance ves/no/~~-ho) Location Analysis (if Analysis of potential 2 ED (PA) Yes-community $35,000 required) locations if a new venue remains an o tion LEED LEED Level 2 FM No In House Recommendation Communication Plan Internal and external 1-3 COMMS N/A In House mesa in lan Planning Studies Traffic, parking, site 2 Planning Yes - $60,000 lan conce t etc. nei hbourhood Operational Impacts Impact on current 2 CSD Yes - $15,000 Review operations, costs, stakeholders utilities and other facilities on site. Event Opportunities Feasibility study to 2 CSD No $5,000 Feasibility Review review additional event opportunities and ro'ections Partnership and What is the best way 2 Finance No $10,000 Management Options to manage the Business Case facili Draft License/Loan What would need to 2 Legal No In House Agreement be agreed to? The rental agreement and loan agreement would need to be developed concurrentl Economic Impact What would be the 2 CSD No $4,000 Study increased economic impact of additional seatin Government Funding Is government 2 Finance No In House Stud fundin available? Risk Assessment What are the risks, 2 Internal Audit No In House how much $ & what ha ens Final Options Detailed analysis 2 Comms Yes -community $25,000 Analysis and Public and consultation on Consultation options (and other related studies) that have not been eliminated in Phase 1 7(a)-6 PHASE 3 Project Description Phrase Responsibility Consultation Allowance (yes/no/who) Environmental Study Site environmental 3 ED (PA) No $30,000 issues Communication Plan Internal and external 1-3 COMMS N/A In House mesa in lan Capital Campaign Is a fundraising 3 CSD No $15,000 Feasibility campaign possible, should it be undertaken and capacity? 7(a)-7