City of Charlottetown CHARLOTTETOWN MULTI-USE FACILITY TASK FORCE COMMITTEE
>> Report of Findings: December 2017
1 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
Contents
Executive Summary
Part A: Understanding the Infrastructure Challenge
Executive Summary ...... 4 1 Background and Overview ...... 9 1.1 Establishment of the City’s Task Force ...... 9 1.2 Composition of Task Force ...... 9 1.3 Task Force Objectives ...... 9 1.4 Professional Consulting Resources Deployed ...... 10 1.5 Organization of the Report ...... 10 1.6 In-Scope Facilities ...... 10 1.6.1 Multi-Use Sports and Event Centre (MUSEC) ...... 11 1.6.2 Community Recreation Facilities ...... 11 1.6.3 Combined Community Recreation and Event Centres ...... 12 2 Background Information ...... 13 2.1 Prior Analytical Work for a Replacement Event Centre ...... 13 2.2 Simmons Sports Centre and Park Master Plan ...... 14 2.3 City of Charlottetown Community Recreation Facility Feasibility Plan ...... 14 2.4 Bell Aliant Centre Study ...... 15 2.5 Eastern Gateway Master Plan ...... 15 2.6 Eastern Gateway Secondary Planning Exercise ...... 15 2.7 The Need for a New City-Wide Recreation Facilities Renewal Strategy ...... 16 3 Characterizing the City’s Existing Facilities ...... 17 3.1 The Facilities Under Review ...... 17 3.2 Current Condition and Required Capital Investment ...... 20 3.2.1 Simmons Sports Centre ...... 20 3.2.2 Cody Banks Arena ...... 22 3.2.3 Eastlink Centre ...... 22 3.3 Recent Historical Operating Performance ...... 24 3.3.1 Operating Revenue ...... 24 3.3.2 Expenses ...... 26 3.3.3 Recovery Rate and Grants ...... 28
December 2017
2 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
Part B: Future Needs and Opportunities
4 Outcomes of Community Consultation ...... 29 4.1 Approach to Engagement ...... 29 4.2 Groups and Organizations Consulted ...... 30 4.3 Summary of Outcomes and Opportunities ...... 31 4.4 Recommended Future Consultations ...... 32 5 Why Community Facilities Matter ...... 33 5.1 Current and Future Need for Community Ice Facilities ...... 33 5.1.1 Charlottetown’s Changing Demographic ...... 33 5.1.2 Existing Indoor Ice Supply ...... 34 5.1.3 Existing Indoor Ice Utilization ...... 35 5.1.4 Existing Indoor Ice Standards of Provision ...... 36 5.2 Conclusions regarding Ice Requirements ...... 37 6 Why an Event Centre Matters ...... 38 6.1 Market Rationale for an Event Centre...... 38 6.2 Comparisons to Other Cities...... 40 6.3 Recognition of Economic Impact ...... 41
Part C: Analyzing Options and Locational Choices
7 Establishing A Range of Options ...... 42 7.1 The Landscape of Options Considered ...... 42 7.2 Evaluation of Principal Options ...... 43 7.2.1 Pros and Cons of Event Centre Options ...... 43 7.2.2 Pros and Cons of Community Ice Options ...... 44 7.2.3 A Combined Solution for Ice: A New Multi-Use Event Centre PLUS 1 Community Ice Pad ...... 46 7.3 Site Selection Matters ...... 48 7.3.1 Considerations by the Task Force ...... 48 7.3.2 Preferred Location ...... 49 8 Capital Cost Estimates ...... 50 9 Financial Impacts of Proposed Changes ...... 52 9.1 Introduction ...... 52 9.2 Basis for Comparison ...... 53 9.3 Financial Comparisons to the Baseline ...... 53
December 2017
3 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
9.4 Conservative Assessment: No Change in Revenues Assumed ...... 54 9.5 No Capital Reserve Assumed ...... 54 9.6 Results and Confirmation of the Preferred Option ...... 54 9.7 Capital Cost Considerations and Life Cycle Needs ...... 58 10 Next Step: Consideration of Funding Potential ...... 59
APPENDICES
A. Indicative Capital Costs for a New MUSEC B. May Facility Tour Report C. Design Functionalities
December 2017
4 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
Executive Summary
Introduction
This report of findings represents the culmination of the work of the City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force. It presents the results of analysis, consultation and the consideration by the Task Force of a range of alternative solutions to the need for new investment in the City’s community arenas, and in its current Multi-Use Sports and Event Centre (MUSEC), the Eastlink Centre. The result of this work is a belief among the members of the Task Force that change is required, and that planning should now commence to invest in the renewal of these facilities.
The work of the Task Force was conducted over approximately 18 months, and comprised regular meetings of the Task Force to consider the issues, receive analysis and opinion, and ultimately to prepare this report. Consultation with user groups was conducted early on and the opinions of these groups on a range of matters pertaining to the facilities and their quality, availability of ice time, and their aspirations for growth of their respective sports helped guide subsequent analysis. The Task Force was assisted by professional consulting services provided by Sierra Planning and Management and MacPherson Roche Smith.
In addition, the Task Force undertook a two-day facilities tour in Southern Ontario, a valuable exercise that connected the work of the Task Force to the recently lived experience of other cities in terms of planning, locating, funding, designing, delivering and operating new state-of- the-art community and major spectator venues. The Task Force representatives were met by facility managers, senior municipal managers and civic leaders who collectively provided insights into not only the planning process which led to the development of these downtown event centres, but past, present and future challenges and opportunities in their operation. A report of the tour to Kingston, Oshawa, St. Catharines and Mississauga is provided as an appendix to this report.
Understanding the Infrastructure Challenge
The City of Charlottetown is not alone in facing a need to plan for renewal of its sport and recreation facilities. Many cities across Canada face a similar infrastructure challenge arising because of the age of their facilities, the limitations of available capital to maintain and replace essential building systems, and in some cases, the absence of an asset management-based strategy to repair, replace and plan for new development.
Municipal sport and recreation facilities, as a category of public sector assets, have recently been demonstrated to have the poorest condition rating among all categories of assets. Informing the Future, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Infrastructure Report Card, 2016, quantified the relative condition of facilities across the nation through a detailed methodology and survey. Nineteen (19%) percent of sport and recreation facilities were categorized as being in poor or very poor condition, the highest proportion compared to all other asset classes, including roads and bridges, stormwater, wastewater and potable water facilities, and other public buildings. Among sport and recreation facilities, ice arenas had the highest proportion (28%) of facilities in poor or very poor condition.
December 2017
5 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
The target annual rate of reinvestment in infrastructure and facilities is recommended by the FCM at between 1.7% and 2.5% of asset value. Collectively, municipalities are not achieving this range (currently at 1.3% per annum).
None of this should be construed as a lack of recognition of the need for investment. It is broadly recognized that reinvestment requirements are more than just improvements to existing facilities, many of which are functionally constrained by modern design standards and the expectations of patrons. There is a need to maintain a competitive level of functionality to sustain their appeal and enhance quality of life benefits for area residents. Recreation assets are just one part of the broader quality of life equation but an important one which many municipalities have recognized is within their area of control.
Precedent Work
The deliberations of the Task Force are part of a continuum of work that has precedents in much earlier studies. The City undertook a detailed viability assessment for a range of options to renovate or replace the Eastlink Centre (then the Civic Centre) in 2008 and 2009. This was followed by a master planning exercise for the Eastern Gateway lands which reported in 2011 following extensive public consultation. This plan positioned a new sport and event venue as the civic centerpiece of a reconfigured mixed use and open space system that would rejuvenate this formerly industrial landscape.
The future of the Simmons Sports Centre (Simmons) and its surrounding sports fields was considered in 2012 as part of a master planning exercise. This project, with input from city-wide user groups as well as neighbourhood residents identified the scale of condition problems with the arena and recommended the eventual decommissioning of the arena in favour of new and innovative recreation concepts.
Surrounding this prior work was recognition that changes to the arena portfolio in the City could only occur through a broader strategy of addressing the linked questions of planning for community use of recreation facilities and maximizing the potential associated with a spectator venue. The City of Charlottetown Parks and Recreation Department and Arenas Superintendent prepared an internal report in 2015 that supported the need to replace both Simmons and Cody Banks Arena (Cody Banks) in the short to medium term.
Adding Value
We believe the work of this Task Force places this prior work in its appropriate context and gives the City a clear vision as to the most effective long-term strategy for change. There is, however, a critical question of timing: The replacement of existing community ice arenas represents a lower cost opportunity that could therefore occur in a shorter timeframe than might be anticipated for the replacement of the higher cost sport and entertainment centre. As this report makes clear the dynamics around the form, function, and capital cost of community rinks versus MUSECs differ between the two types of asset.
The Task Force debated at length the merit of separating out the investment plans for community ice arenas and the event centre but ultimately concludes that there is greater merit in addressing community ice needs and the event centre in a coordinated, single phase. Indeed, the financial analysis of the future operating costs of all arenas together demonstrates that a
December 2017
6 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings combined solution has the greatest capacity to lessen the City’s overall exposure to operating deficits for these facilities combined.
Solutions Considered
The Task Force considered a range of solutions, identifying the need to replace Simmons outright, and the greater opportunity to repurpose Cody Banks for alternative (non-ice) recreation uses.
The range of options considered are outlined in the report and includes considerations of renovations (discounted) to the existing facilities, rebuilding in-situ (also discounted owing to site constraints) and building a new complex. Ultimately, and despite the estimated capital cost, the Task Force is fundamentally in favour of building new – it is the only viable way to ensure a long-term solution based on best practices and which provides the level of functionality that satisfies the range of needs (and hence future revenue generation capacity and cost control).
The Task Force was not mandated to consider the future use potential of any facilities recommended for decommissioning, nor undertake a detailed site selection process sufficient to provide a shovel-ready plan for development. Notwithstanding, it was apparent through our work that considering the re-use potential of certain facilities was part of the solution, rather than an afterthought or next phase consideration. Regarding site selection, the Task Force conducted site testing exercises and concluded that the development of a new complex in the Eastern Gateway to the City of Charlottetown is likely to be the most effective solution. This is the case for several reasons, including not only the visibility that such a location affords and a facility of this scale demands, but also the capacity of this significant public investment to organize and stimulate the broader build-out of the area for a range of commercial and public uses. There are also operational benefits to relocating the event centre to this location, in close proximity to the existing Eastlink Centre.
Recommended Strategy
The Task Force recommends the following specific investment to ensure the long-term viability of the supply of community ice arena functions, and maximize the City’s participation in the spectator events market:
1. Decommission and demolish Simmons (and plan for other-use of the lands as contemplated within the Simmons Sports Centre Master Plan); 2. Re-purpose Cody Banks for dry-use recreational opportunities and consider ways and means to ensure the facility remains a revenue-neutral facility for the City on an operating basis; 3. Locate, design, achieve a sustainable funding plan, and implement the development of a new MUSEC comprising a main spectator seating bowl and ice surface. Fixed seating in the order of (and no less than) 5,000 seats is warranted to achieve the appropriate balance between the capacity to host major national events and more frequent, regional scale sport and non-sport events;
December 2017
7 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
4. Integrate with, and as part of the MUSEC, a second NHL-size ice surface dedicated for use by the community. Seating to be commensurate with typical community-oriented rinks (e.g. 400-500 seats); and, 5. Re-designate (and repurpose as necessary) the Eastlink Centre arena as a dedicated community ice arena.
This strategy will ensure that the City’s existing number of indoor ice surfaces are maintained at five (5), and that the Eastlink Centre’s arena is successfully replaced as an event centre (as is recommended based on a balance of factors presented in this report). Significantly, the decommissioning of both Simmons and Cody Banks requires only the development of a single additional community-dedicated rink given the potential to repurpose the existing arena at the Eastlink Centre to community-only use.
As outlined in the following report, the Task Force was persuaded that the existing trade centre component of the Eastlink Centre represents a viable and important revenue generator which should remain a City asset under its control and form part of any emerging new business plan for trade centre and event centre activity. The continued use of the Eastlink Centre as an arena still enables its off-season use, if and as needed, to provide expansion capacity for the trade centre. The proximity of a new event centre on the Eastern Gateway lands provides the best possible conditions for a single management operation to manage the Eastlink Centre’s arena and trade centre, and a new MUSEC.
Immediate Next Steps
This report provides a considerable amount of detail in terms of capital cost and operating cost considerations associated with the recommended changes. Readers are advised to refer to the specific sections of the report which address the financial implications. The Task Force and its consultants have established an approach to financial impacts that is based on conservative assessments (i.e. higher rather than lower estimates) to ensure that City Council is fully apprised as to the costs associated with the project.
The immediate next steps should include a detailed discussion with City management regarding the content, observations and recommendations of the Task Force. This report represents a summary of the detailed work undertaken by the Task Force. With the conclusion of the work of the Task Force it is recommended that provisions be established to enable the City administration to receive and continue the due diligence analysis that has led to these conclusions. Specifically, this relates to the further steps required to identify the precise location for the recommended new complex, in the general area of the Eastern Gateway.
Should Council wish to further this project, there are several items which can be addressed concurrently:
1. Site location confirmation and necessary due diligence to establish ownership interests, parameters for obtaining, acquiring or otherwise securing the lands for development; 2. Work to address the various site-related risks that may exist – ranging from typical to atypical site-related development costs (environmental conditions, geotechnical conditions, traffic, parking and so forth); and,
December 2017
8 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
3. Establish a funding strategy which should be organized around the principle of partnership interests – public, institutional, as well as private.
The market opportunities for a new MUSEC as well as the likely operating financial impacts have been established as part of the work of the Task Force. Detailed operational planning for the delivery and operation of a new MUSEC, including detailed pre-opening costs and operating financial projections, is required as a subsequent step but should be undertaken only after the matters of site location and capital funding have been further addressed as suggested herein.
Respectfully submitted:
City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force
December 2017.
December 2017
PART A: UNDERSTANDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGE
9 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
1 Background and Overview
1.1 Establishment of the City’s Task Force
A Multi-Use Facility Task Force (the Task Force) was established to explore the feasibility of establishing a new sports and event facility in the Capital City and to create a succession plan for aging and challenging facilities, including the Eastlink Centre. The Task Force fulfills an advisory role to the Charlottetown City Council on matters concerning the possibility of planning and developing a new multi-purpose sports and event centre for Charlottetown. The Task Force was th appointed on May 9 P P, 2016.
1.2 Composition of Task Force
The Task Force comprises the following members, with administrative support from Karen Lavers, Executive Assistant to Mayor and Council, City of Charlottetown:
. Mike Hennessey, Chair – President of Hennessey Holdings, prior Partner and Director of Business Development at DeltaWare Systems;
. Brian Cameron, CPA, CA – Partner, Arsenault Best Cameron Ellis, Public Accounting firm;
. Spencer Campbell, QC – Regional Managing Partner, Stewart McKelvey, Chair of the Charlottetown Arts and Culture Advisory Board (2014), Past Chair of the QEH Foundation (2011-2013);
. Dennis King – Executive Director, PEI Seafood Processors Association;
. Barb Stevenson, QC – Partner, Carr Stevenson MacKay, Chairperson of the Ethics Committee of the Law Society of PEI, Chairperson of the PEI Indemnities & Allowances Commission, former Director of the Bank of Canada;
. Mitchel Tweel, Councillor Ward 4, City of Charlottetown and Chair of the City’s Parks, Recreation and Leisure Standing Committee; and
. Berni Wood – Owner of Reel Media Studio, Owner of Berni Wood & Associates, a management consulting firm, and Chair of Professional Photographers of Canada (Atlantic)
1.3 Task Force Objectives
The objectives of the Task Force include, but are not limited to, the following:
. Act as a resource and advisory body to Charlottetown City Council.
. Engage in public consultation with City staff, anchor tenants, sport and entertainment groups, concert promoters, recreational users, and Charlottetown residents to determine need requirements for each component of the potential event centre.
December 2017
10 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
. Create a platform for community and stakeholder engagement with the purpose of collecting endorsements, recommendations, and other professional advice.
. Determine necessary infrastructure for competing in the vibrant sport and entertainment marketplace.
. Through consultation with similar, existing projects identify range of costs associated with the development and construction of the potential facility, as well as an appropriate annual operational budget range.
. Identify, evaluate, and make recommendations concerning potential partnership opportunities and funding resources.
. Identify preferred site options for the potential project development.
1.4 Professional Consulting Resources Deployed
Through a competitive bid process, a team led by Sierra Planning and Management was assigned to the Task Force to provide professional consulting resources to help guide and execute the work of the Task Force. In addition, the consulting team included MacPherson Roche Smith, Chartered Professional Accountants and Management Advisors. The Task Force also engaged International Coliseums Company (ICC), a specialist facility advisory firm, in respect to estimates of facility capital costs. 1.5 Organization of the Report
The report represents the findings of the Task Force, was compiled by the consulting team and is recommended to the City for its receipt, review and action as appropriate.
The report is organized in three sections:
Part A: Understanding the Infrastructure Challenges provides a situational assessment of the City’s existing arena facilities and establishes the broader context of planning for facility renewal which has occurred over the last decade;
Part B: Future Needs and Opportunities identifies the future multi-use facility requirements of the City with specific regard to both community recreation ice facilities and an event; and,
Part C: Analyzing Options and Locational Choices is at the heart of the Task Force’s work to establish the range of ways that the future needs of the City for its ice facilities can be effectively met. 1.6 In-Scope Facilities
The Task Force was tasked to assess the future planning for the City’s ice arenas which include not only the community recreation ice facilities but also the Eastlink Centre. Regarding the Eastlink Centre, while the focus is on the role of the arena in terms of ice needs and events, the linked trade centre is integral (as was confirmed through this exercise) to the role of the current arena as an event centre above and beyond hosting ticketed spectator sports events.
December 2017
11 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
The work of the Task Force is defined by what is in-scope. The arenas are all assets owned, operated and/or funded by the City of Charlottetown. However, they fall into two distinct asset types: the first is that of Multi-Use Sports and Event Centre (MUSEC), and the second is a community ice arena. These two facility types are further explained below.
1.6.1 Multi-Use Sports and Event Centre (MUSEC)
A MUSEC is a regional-scale facility designed specifically to accommodate the needs of a wide range of spectator sports and other events (normally ticketed events, but not exclusively). These facilities are best described as multi-purpose, and are capable of hosting:
. Sports franchise (typically hockey, possibly supplemented by minor sport, indoor lacrosse, football or basketball);
. Concerts, entertainment, arts and cultural events;
. Public assembly (graduations, political rallies, etc.);
. Theatrical shows;
. Other ice sports events and championships (including curling, hockey, figure skating, as well as provincial and national/international tournaments for these and other sports);
. Other sports (gymnastics and other large space volume sporting) and entertainment type uses (circuses, motocross and other vehicle-related entertainment events);
. Animal/equestrian events (grand prix, rodeo, bull riding, Lipizzaner Stallions); and,
. A range of flat floor events (trade shows, consumer shows, boat/home & garden shows, conferences, and banqueting).
In Canada and the United States most of these venues are built around an NHL sized ice rink, and seating capacity varies depending on the scale of the market place: from those that house NHL and other top-level sports franchises, to a range of smaller venues (3,500 to 10,000 fixed seats) in other regional centres that accommodate provincial level spectator sports as core elements of their multi-purpose function as sports and event centres. The most recent example of a new MUSEC in Eastern Canada is the new Moncton Downtown Centre, currently under construction.
1.6.2 Community Recreation Facilities
Broadly defined, community recreation facilities comprise the full spectrum of single purpose recreation buildings as well as multi-use community recreation centres which incorporate a range of uses. These multi-use buildings can include any combination of uses such as ice pads, aquatic facilities, gymnasia, and other community oriented spaces such as meeting rooms, fitness rooms, as well as libraries and other services.
In the context of the City of Charlottetown, the facilities under review comprise both single purpose buildings such as the Simmons Sports Centre (Simmons) and Cody Banks Arena (Cody Banks), as well as the Bell Aliant Centre which is a good example of a multi-purpose community
December 2017
12 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings recreation centre. Our focus in this report is on ice facilities, however it is worth noting that both Simmons and Cody Banks are also part of multi-use campuses that include outdoor recreational space.
Any consideration of the replacement of single-purpose recreation facilities is predicated on adopting best practice in the provision of new municipal infrastructure. Typically, this includes the avoidance of single-purpose, single-rink facilities in favour of multi-pad facilities which may also include other recreational uses.
Community recreation centres are therefore more accurately described as facility types along a continuum between smaller, single-purpose buildings to larger-scale multi-use recreation centres. In general, the scale of uses within these buildings are designed to meet community- serving needs whether locally, city-wide or regionally.
1.6.3 Combined Community Recreation and Event Centres
A dedicated MUSEC is distinct from community recreation centres through its design, capacity to accommodate large numbers of people, seating, quality of construction and finishes, range of concessions and points of sale, provision of media facilities, as well as floor to ceiling heights and capacity to host major events. As such, the distinction is more than just the seat count. Many community centres around the country have a considerable number of fixed seats (up to 3,000 seats or more) but are essentially community facilities in their design and functions. The Eastlink Centre operates as an event centre but is lacking many of the modern attributes of a MUSEC.
Hybrid facilities exist which combine both sport and entertainment functions (the event bowl) and community recreation facilities, but these are not combined in one rink. The event bowl represents a spectator facility and is designed to that standard, capable of achieving a separation from the community facilities. Most often the hybrid is in the form of an event centre comprised in the same building as one (or more) community ice pads as well as other uses. Examples of note include the KC Irving Centre in Bathurst, Credit Union Place in Summerside, as well as major event and recreation complexes such as the Hershey Centre in Mississauga, and GM Place in Oshawa.
December 2017
13 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
2 Background Information
The period from 1975 to 1995 was a time of significant development in downtown Charlottetown and in the waterfront area. Through significant partnerships with both the Federal and Provincial Governments, effective land use and development planning, and leadership from the Charlottetown Area Development Corporation, the City was able to achieve major redevelopment in these areas. In that time, municipal amalgamation occurred creating the new City of Charlottetown and the neighbouring towns of Stratford and Cornwall. Significant investment occurred along the Charlottetown waterfront including a new hotel and convention centre, new and substantially redeveloped residential space, redeveloped transportation and environmental infrastructure, the creation of modern facilities for commercial port and boating facilities for recreation and commercial uses.
There were four recreational facilities for ice sports including the Charlottetown Forum on Fitzroy Street, Cody Banks in the Sherwood area, Simmons on North River Road and the rink on the University of Prince Edward Island campus. With the commitment of the City and the Province to host the 1991 Canada Winter Games, the building currently known as the Eastlink Centre was constructed to replace the Forum. In addition, a community group primarily interested in developing swimming facilities had been lobbying for a new indoor pool. The community and the University came together to establish a new organization known as Capital Area Recreation Inc. (CARI). They developed a new centre now known as the Bell Aliant Centre which includes a swimming pool and two ice pads. Attached to the University’s gymnasium facility, it is now the home of Panther Sports, Andrews Hockey School and several other community groups (e.g. minor hockey, ringette, etc.).
2.1 Prior Analytical Work for a Replacement Event Centre
th The notion of a replacement event centre came about around the 20 P P anniversary of the Eastlink Centre, then known as the Civic Centre. The facility initially was the home for an American Hockey League franchise known as the PEI Senators. When they closed their operation, the space was taken over by the owners of a Montreal-based team known as the Rocket who played in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (QMJHL). Subsequently, it sold the franchise to a group of Island business persons who now own and promote the Charlottetown Islanders.
The Board of Directors, in exercising its responsibility for the operation of the Civic Centre, wanted to examine the current operations and explore the opportunities and challenges in the future. Efforts to promote the Civic Centre as a venue for concert and conference events were limited by several factors in the design of the building itself. Following a proposal call, IBI Group were engaged to prepare a market and strategic analysis and to examine investment options for the facility. The preferred option identified in the 2009 report was to decommission the Charlottetown Civic Centre (CCC) due to its age and growing maintenance costs.
As a follow-up to the market study, IBI Group were engaged to further study the options in light of the market analysis. This study concluded that the facility limitations and the growing costs of maintenance and operations meant that the Civic Centre was unfit to meet future ice needs and incapable of leading strategies to achieve the desired entertainment and conference development.
December 2017
14 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
It was recommended at that time that a new state of the art MUSEC be located on the site of the existing Provincial Works garage on Riverside Drive. Its role would include meeting the community’s ice needs and providing for the development of entertainment, conference and related events. This option was seen as being contingent on the development of an integrated downtown, waterfront and tourism master plan and a due diligence assessment to identify a preferred location. The response to the proposed integrated plan became the Eastern Gateway Master Plan.
2.2 Simmons Sports Centre and Park Master Plan
In 2013 Sierra Planning and Management developed a Master Plan for Simmons. The plan presented two options to meet long-term ice needs. One option was to decommission Cody Banks and provide for twinning on the Simmons site. The other involved decommissioning Simmons and building a new community centre which would house other year-round recreation activities. The study indicated a preferred option could not be identified until a city-wide ice facility strategy was finalized.
2.3 City of Charlottetown Community Recreation Facility Feasibility Plan
The City of Charlottetown Parks and Recreation Department, along with the arenas’ Superintendent prepared a feasibility plan for a proposed multi-purpose facility in the City of Charlottetown as suggested in the Simmons Sports Centre Master Plan. The primary purpose of their internal study was to present relevant information from their perspective gained from:
. Managing the existing infrastructure; and, . Working with first hand user groups and recreation leaders in the City.
The primary purpose of the study was to develop information, facts and opinions that could be presented to the City of Charlottetown concerning the status/ future of Simmons and Cody Banks, and to make recommendations concerning if, and when, the provision of a new arena facility could be objectively recommended.
Key observations from their work include the following:
. Demographic information suggests a slow but steady growth for the City of Charlottetown. . While the current arenas are well used and maintained, the buildings are nearing the end of their useful life span because of a series of non-conforming building code conditions, a limited life span for key building systems, and the likelihood of structural and mechanical failures due to aging infrastructure. . Current demands for ice time for hockey, figure skating, ringette, public skating, etc. appear generally to be served effectively within the existing arena infrastructure. . There is opportunity in new construction to pursue significant sustainable design standards. . There may be an opportunity in the planning process to address some related recreational opportunities in the City.
December 2017
15 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
2.4 Bell Aliant Centre Study
Sierra Planning and Management were also commissioned in 2015 to consider the economic impacts associated with current operations as well as expansion options (1 and 2 additional pads) at what is now known as the Bell Aliant Centre (formerly the CARI Complex). While the facility does not operate as an event centre, the economic impact of the facility (including the Andrews Hockey School) is considerable.
2.5 Eastern Gateway Master Plan
The Eastern Gateway Master Plan addressed the MUSEC as a catalyst for the implementation of the Eastern Gateway Plan. The 2011 Plan included the concept of an event centre as an anchor in the broader redevelopment of the area.
2.6 Eastern Gateway Secondary Planning Exercise
In late 2016, the City of Charlottetown commissioned the development of a secondary plan for the Eastern Gateway area to formalize the ideas of the publicly supported plan for the area into land use policies within the City’s Official Plan. The work to formalize the plan into policy language and a land use schedule has involved public consultation in the spring of 2017, development of a draft secondary plan and further consultation with land owners. At this time, the draft plan is to be scheduled for a public hearing at a date to be set by City Council.
Figure 1: Future Land Use Charlottetown Eastern Gateway
Source: Proposed Eastern Gateway Master Plan, Draft 2017
December 2017
16 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
2.7 The Need for a New City-Wide Recreation Facilities Renewal Strategy
The range of prior work on record demonstrates conclusively in the opinion of the Task Force that a comprehensive approach to planning for replacement facilities is necessary at this time. Questions of how, when, and where are matters addressed later in this report.
In 2013, the very poor condition of Simmons rink was reported, and public input highlighted the need for a capital planning solution to the aging arena. However, this can only occur as part of a combined, city-wide strategy.
Implementing the provisions of the Eastern Gateway Master Plan to achieve regeneration of the area can be assisted by public infrastructure decisions potentially including the development of new municipal capital facilities. This plan too has benefitted from considerable public consultation.
Charlottetown’s downtown (comprising the original 500 lots) has witnessed progressive changes to its infrastructure in recent decades, including a focus on regeneration and waterfront development. Both the City and the Charlottetown Area Development Corporation (CADC) have been active in planning for the health and vibrancy of downtown and the expansion of the waterfront for tourist-oriented uses. Downtown regeneration is an ongoing commitment of the City and it has made strides with its partners to date (Delta Convention Centre, Holman Grand Hotel, Dominion Building refurbishment as examples). New recreation and event centre infrastructure is not a complete solution to waterfront or downtown regeneration and there is no appropriate site within the downtown area. However, the Eastern Gateway represents a vital development opportunity in proximity to downtown.
In the view of the Task Force, the need for clarity and certainty in planning for replacement infrastructure is important but is even more important when it is recognized that the facilities in question (all regional ice facilities as well as the event centre) have an important role to play in the economic development of the region.
It is important to follow a continuum of planning and recognize how potential infrastructure renewal for the event centre and community recreation facilities is part of that process. Making important decisions about ice strategy helps create certainty that enables other related infrastructure decisions to be made effectively. The Task Force endorses the view that the question of new arena(s) is a central part of growth management for the City as a whole. It is the responsibility of all of us, and not something to be viewed as catering to a minority of interests within the community.
December 2017
17 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
3 Characterizing the City’s Existing Facilities
3.1 The Facilities Under Review
Four facilities are under review as part of this exercise, as identified on the map below.
Figure 2: Location Map of Facilities under Review
[Cody Banks Arena]
[Bell Aliant Centre]
[Eastlink Centre]
[Simmons Sports Centre]
December 2017
18 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
Eastlink Centre: 46 Kensington Road
Built in 1990, the Eastlink Centre represents the City’s current MUSEC. The limitations of the complex in that regard are addressed later in this report. The Eastlink Centre itself is comprised of the arena, trade centre as well as the Red Shores Casino and Charlottetown Driving Park. Land ownership is comprised of three separate owners.
The arena itself comprises the following elements: . NHL-sized ice surface;
. 3,718 fixed seating capacity;
. Capacity for 1,700 portable seating for other events;
. 10 corporate boxes; and,
. Press boxes, dressing rooms, and on the second floor, a range of services including administration space and tenant offices.
The trade centre includes an exhibition hall of significant scale (42,000 square feet with 25’ clearance). Seating capacity has been set at around 4,000 seats, and booth space for trade shows is limited to 300 booths. There are 7 meeting rooms (including those which have been renovated). The complex has 800 parking spaces comprised of: . The Park Street parking lot;
. The Charlottetown Driving Park parking lot; and,
. Parking at the front and west side of complex.
Bell Aliant Centre: 550 University Avenue
Established in 2004, the Bell Aliant Centre is a multi-use recreational facility located on the University of Prince Edward Island campus, north of the downtown core. The facility was created to satisfy the ice needs of the University and the greater Charlottetown area. In addition to two NHL-sized ice pads, the facility has an aquatics facility and a Seniors Active Living Centre. We understand the existing land lease is sufficient for a third ice sheet. However, all parties consulted recognized that parking was a constraint for potential expansion.
December 2017
19 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
Figure 3: Eastlink Centre Site Map Figure 4: Bell Aliant Centre Site Map
Eastlink Arena Site Bell Aliant Centre 3.66 acres / 1.48 ha 8.45 acres / 3.42 ha 113.17 acres / 45.8 ha
Harness Racing Facility (Atlantic Lottery Corp. owns land)
*
Trade Centre + Red Shores Casino (Province owns land)
Eastlink Arena (City owns land)
Simmons Sports Centre: 170 North River Road
Built in 1973, Simmons is located north of the downtown core, along identified active streets (North River Road and Kirkwood Drive) and sits adjacent to Queen Charlotte Intermediate School and Colonel Gray Senior High School. The facility has one arena and is used for community and recreational programming. Simmons is also near existing residential areas, new subdivisions and developments.
Cody Banks Arena: 58 Maple Avenue Cody Banks was built in 1973 and is located in the residential neighbourhood of Sherwood, northeast of the downtown core. The property includes one arena and a lawn bowling field. The facility is adjacent to Sherwood Elementary School which the provincial government announced is to be replaced in its 2018 Capital Budget address.
December 2017
20 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
Figure 5: Simmons Sport Centre Site Map Figure 6: Cody Banks Arena Site Map
Simmons Sports Centre Cody Banks Arena 15.8 acres / 6.42 ha 5.56 acres / 2.25 ha
Figure 7: Inventory of Facilities
Facility Building Owner Operator Land Size Land Owner (acres) Eastlink Centre Arena: City of Eastlink Board of 3.66 City of Charlottetown; Charlottetown; Trade Directors and Province of PEI; Centre and Casino: management Atlantic Lottery Corp. Government of Prince Edward Island Simmons Sports City of Charlottetown Parks and Recreation 15.80 City of Charlottetown Centre (Charlottetown) Cody Banks City of Charlottetown Parks and Recreation 5.56 City of Charlottetown Arena (Charlottetown) Bell Aliant Capital Area Recreation Bell Aliant Centre 8.45 University of Prince Centre Inc. management Edward Island
3.2 Current Condition and Required Capital Investment
3.2.1 Simmons Sports Centre
The building condition audit undertaken for the 2013 Master Plan established a range of capital cost requirements to maintain the current functionality of the building.
A total of $2.4 million (2013) was estimated for the arena based on work required (“must do”), near to mid-term (“should do”), and additional work which could be undertaken (“could do”) to improve the integrity of the building systems. For planning purposes, items which are required
December 2017
21 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
“must dos” and “should dos” represent a basic level of repair that facilities should undergo in the next 1 to 5 years.
Based on the 2012 Building Condition Assessment for Simmons a significant number of building systems are rated as Poor. This includes the rink slab itself, its building foundations, building siding, brick veneer, roof, exterior doors, washrooms as well as ice pad boards, glass and all the mechanical and electrical systems.
The total repair costs including the pool, fields and arena was estimated at close to $3.5 million:
Figure 8: Prioritized Repair Estimates for the Simmons Arena, Pool and Fields
Must do Should do Could do Total Arena $113,300 $1,001,750 $1,284,500 $2,399,550 Pool $0 $961,500 $0 $961,500 Fields $0 $0 $85,000 $85,000 Total $113,300 $1,963,250 $1,369,500 $3,446,050
These costs do not address improvements in functionality and quality of the arena, pool or fields.
The consulting team estimated that to improve the functionality of the arena an investment of some $4 million (in addition to the costs identified above) represents an order of magnitude capital expenditure. This includes costs associated with:
. New exterior siding; . New interior finishes; . New fittings and equipment; . Partitions and doors; and, . Mechanical and electrical work (excluding ventilation, fire alarms and signage which is identified in the above estimate of basic capital repair).
Therefore, to address the improvements to the arena that are required to modestly enhance its current functionality, the cost is in the order of $6.4 million as of 2013.
The cost of a new single pad facility built to modern standards is likely to be in the $12 to $15 million-dollar range. Given that Simmons cannot be renovated into becoming a fully functional, appropriately scaled modern arena, these cost comparisons serve to illustrate that renovating Simmons is far less desirable than demolishing and rebuilding. However, as this report makes clear, there is also no recommendation for the City to build single pad replacement facilities for community ice.
December 2017
22 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
3.2.2 Cody Banks Arena
At 43 years old, Cody Banks (originally built by the community and known locally as the Sherwood Sportsplex) represents an older facility, lacking the functionality of a modern facility. Unlike Simmons, the building is in relatively good condition with minimal expenses planned at this time. A building condition assessment has not been undertaken in the recent past to the Task Force’s knowledge and it is recommended that this be undertaken to establish future capital costs to maintain current functionality.
3.2.3 Eastlink Centre
The Eastlink Centre was developed and opened for the 1991 Canada Winter Games and represents an example of a utilitarian spectator arena designed for ice sports. The arena itself is integral with the trade centre which represents a large volume exhibition space sharing access from the lobby of the arena as well as a separate entrance to the north.
The ice surface is constructed at grade and the arena is an example of a bottom-loaded seating arrangement. Access to the seating stands is provided at grade through a number of vomitories (passageways through to the seating bowl) which lead to a ground level concourse encircling the ice surface itself. As such, the original design included the separation of first row seating from the ice surface via a series of steps such that the first row of seating is somewhat distant and elevated from the ice surface. In more modern arenas, a top down or tiered loading system is used.
Functional deficiencies in the current layout hamper facility operations to a lesser or greater degree depending on the activity, and are generally held to limit the ability of the venue to maximize its event revenues. This includes not only an inability to secure certain events but also a constrained ability to generate revenues from concessions and other on-site sources.
Primary limitations of the building include:
. Access to the stands via the walkway surrounding the ice surface creates potential areas of conflict;
. For sporting events, there is no separation of access for players, officials, and the general public. This creates a potential for conflict, as well as inefficiencies in accessing both the ice surface and the stands. The continuous ring corridor under the stands providing access to change room and washroom areas prevents proper separation of public areas from sports team areas or concert backstage areas;
. The zamboni must cross a publicly accessible walkway to reach the ice surface creating conflict and safety concerns between the ice floor servicing equipment and public circulation; and,
. The existing clearance to the underside of the steel structure of only 9.14 metres or 30 feet, which limits the ability to attract larger stage acts. Many newer venues have a 50+ foot height. While the roof is itself a well-constructed steel structure with significant loading capacity, its height is such that insufficient clearance is provided for concerts and other events which require lighting and props to be hung.
December 2017
23 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
Secondary deficiencies include:
. The location of concession stands outside the “paid ticket” area requires constant monitoring of hand stamps during events. Revenue is reduced due to poor access during events;
. Two sets of washrooms are located within the backstage area during concerts and therefore inaccessible;
. When related events are held in both the arena and the trade centre at the same time (such as Old Home Week), movement of equipment and materials must take place across the lobby; and,
. Deficiencies in the existing Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system also presents challenges to operational efficiency of the facility. The air handling system performs poorly and has high ongoing maintenance costs.
The ideal seat count is a matter of opinion but at fewer than 4,000 fixed seats the venue lacks the capacity to bid for certain higher-level events. Certainly, the current fixed seat count is sufficient for the existing sports franchises in the building.
The number of suites is often cited as a problem, but our research suggests that only a modest increase in the number of suites would be warranted. What is clearly required, however, is an improvement in viewing sight lines and the potential for other types of modern seating options such as loge seating and improved restaurant/game viewing potential.
Overall, the problems identified a decade ago remain the challenge for the effective use of the facility and the result is also rising annual deficits. For this facility type, what the neighbours are doing is highly relevant as the market for events is highly competitive. Since IBI Group’s report, other facilities have been developed both in Atlantic Canada and elsewhere in the country which showcase modern, state of the art facilities which act as true MUSEC. These venues are designed to maximize revenue and shape the opinions of tour promoters and other event organizers as to the merits of bringing events to Charlottetown.
The historic problems facing PEI of difficult access and limited airlift have largely been removed and the capacity of Charlottetown to attract events rests less on geography and more on the size of the market and the quality of the building. It is within the City’s control to address the facility issue.
December 2017
24 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
3.3 Recent Historical Operating Performance
3.3.1 Operating Revenue
Simmons Sports Centre
Figure 9: Simmons Operating Revenue Breakdown
2016 2015 Average (%) Skating $ 58,544.08 $ 61,009.85 $ 59,776.97 22.45% Hockey 92,421.27 90,214.39 91,317.83 34.29% Rentals 112,386.14 100,450.95 106,418.55 39.96%
Other U 9,107.31 U 8,456.70 U 8,782.01 U 3.3% Total $ 272,458.80 $ 260,131.89 $ 266,295.35 100.00%.
Simmons generates revenue strictly from community ice-related recreational programming. Operating revenues generated by Simmons grew at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately 6.2% from $214,572 in 2013 to $272,459 in 2016. Simmons has generated 1 approximately 22% of annual operating revenue from skating P0F P; $34% from minor hockey; 40% 2 from rentalsP1F P; and 3% from miscellaneous sources over 2015 and 2016.
Cody Banks Arena
Figure 10: Cody Banks Operating Revenue Breakdown
2016 2015 Average (%) Skating $ 67,616.33 $ 47,407.78 $ 57,512.06 27.51% Hockey 99,677.20 82,109.12 90,893.16 43.48% Rentals 66,507.81 48,693.22 57,600.52 27.55%
Other U 3,505.68 U 2,589.46 U 3,047.57 U 1.46% Total $ 237,307.02 $ 180,799.58 $ 209,053.30 100.00%.
Cody Banks also generates revenue strictly from community ice-related recreational programming. Operating revenues generated by Cody Banks grew at a CAGR of approximately 5.4% from $192,333 in 2013 to $237,307 in 2016. On average over 2015 and 2016, minor hockey generated approximately 43.5% of annual operating revenues; skating contributed 27.5%; rentals 27.6%; and other sources accounted for 1.4%.
1 Skating revenues include – public skating programs, ringette, and figure skating 2 Rental revenues include – pre-school skates, recreation and schools, private ice rentals, and miscellaneous rentals
December 2017
25 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
Eastlink Centre
Figure 11: Eastlink Centre Operating Revenue Breakdown
. 2016 2015 Average (%) ARENA Skating $ 383.57 $ 323.87 $ 353.72 0.47% 3 HockeyP2F 151,895.19 128,251.89 140,073.54 19.81% Rentals 95,893.43 80,967.10 88,430.27 12.51%
Storm basketball U 79,911.19 U 67,472.59 U 73,691.89 U10.42%
Arena subtotal $ 328,083.38 $ 277,015.45 $ 302,549.42 U42.80% TRADE CENTRE Trade centre $ 179,001.07 $ 151,138.59 $ 165,069.83 23.35% Event grounds 19,178.69 16,193.42 17,686.05 2.50%
Large events 89,500.53 75,569.30 82,534.91 U 11.67%
Trade centre subtotal 287,680.29 242,901.31 265,290.80 U37.52% 4 Miscellaneous subtotalP3F U 150,872.33 U 127,388.24 U 139,130.29 U 19.68% Total $ 766,636.00 $ 647,305.00 $ 706,970.50 100.00%
Operating revenues generated by the Eastlink Centre grew at a CAGR of approximately 6.6% from $592,938 in 2013 to $766,636 in 2016. The Eastlink Centre is projected to have generated approximately 43% of its annual operating revenues from the arena, 37% from the trade centre and 20% from miscellaneous sources over 2015 and 2016.
Bell Aliant Centre
Figure 12: Bell Aliant Centre Operating Revenue Breakdown
2016 2015 Average (%) Aquatics $ 913,683 $ 905,198 $ 909,440 31.31% Arena 795,531 742,272 768,901 26.47% Commercial tenants 303,425 295,685 299,555 10.31% 5 Other P4F U 903,606 U 949,181 U 926,394 U 31.91% Total $2,916,245 $2,892,336 $2,904,290 100.00%
Operating revenue generated by the Bell Aliant Centre grew at a CAGR of 0.7% from $2,837,246 in 2013 to $2,916,245 in 2016. Approximately 26% of annual operating revenues were generated by the arena; 31% by the aquatics facility; 10% by commercial tenants; and 32% from other sources.
3 Hockey revenues include – Islanders, minor hockey, and tournaments 4 Miscellaneous revenues include – ticket printing, rebates, and other 5 Other revenues include – general and administrative, amortization of capital construction, amortization of grants, amortization of campaign funding, and insurance proceeds
December 2017
26 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
3.3.2 Expenses
Simmons Sports Centre
Figure 13: Simmons Expense Breakdown
2016 2015 Average (%) Professional services and staffing $208,150.74 $209,112.23 $208,631.49 53.94% Office and administration 4,471.72 3,518.16 3,994.94 1.04% Building maintenance and utilities 178,261.44 169,994.02 174,127.73 45.02% Total $390,883.90 $382,624.41 $386,754.16 100.00%
Expenses incurred by Simmons grew at a CAGR of approximately 2.1% from $359,893 in 2013 to 6 $390,884 in 2016. On average over 2015 and 2016, professional services and staffing P5F P 7 accounted for 54% of annual expenses; building maintenance and utilities P6F P accounted for 45%; and office and administration expenses accounted for 1%.
Cody Banks Arena
Figure 14: Cody Banks Expense Breakdown
2016 2015 Average (%) Professional services and staffing $273,396.54 $281,744.66 $277,570.60 68.05% Office and administration 5,730.90 4,637.69 5,184.30 1.27%
Building maintenance and utilities U 127,764.32 U 122,569.87 U 125,167.10 U 30.68% Total $406,891.76 $408,952.22 $407,921.99 100.00%
Expenses incurred by Cody Banks have decreased by a compounded annual reduction rate of approximately 2.6% from $452,241 in 2013 to $406,892 in 2016. Professional services and staffing accounting for approximately 68% of annual expenses over 2015 and 2016; building maintenance and utilities accounted for 31%; and office and administration expenses accounted for 1%.
6 Professional services and staffing expenses includes – wages and benefits, clothing-uniforms, training, occupational health and safety and security. 7 Building maintenance and utilities expenses includes – facility maintenance and repair, power, water, sewer, fuel, gas and oil, equipment and snow removal.
December 2017
27 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
Eastlink Centre
Figure 15: Eastlink Centre Operating Revenue Breakdown
2016 2015 Average (%) ARENA Professional services and staffing $ 623,586 $ 640,323 $ 631,995 38.36% Office and administration 156,290 127,113 141,701 8.60%
Building maintenance and utilities 551,712 525,862 538,787 U32.70%
Arena subtotal U 1,331,588 U1,293,298 U1,312,443 U79.66% TRADE CENTRE Professional services and staffing 187,827 192,869 190,348 11.55% Office and administration 32,376 26,332 29,354 1.78%
Building maintenance and utilities U117,880 U113,020 U115,450 U 7.01%
Trade centre subtotal U338,083 U 332,221 U 335,152 U 20.34% Total $1,669,671 $1,625,519 $1,647,595 100.00%
Expenses incurred by the Eastlink Centre grew at a CAGR of approximately 2.1% from $1,534,082 in 2013 to $1,669,671 in 2016. The Eastlink Centre is projected to have incurred approximately 80% of its annual expenses from the operation of the arena and approximately 20% from the operation of the trade centre.
Bell Aliant Centre
Figure 16: Bell Aliant Centre Expense Breakdown
2016 2015 Average (%) Aquatics $ 970,926 $ 939,806 $ 955,366 27.33% Arena 475,789 471,700 473,745 13.55% Commercial tenants 24,078 24,426 24,252 0.69% General and administrative 1,419,161 1,360,451 1,389,806 39,75% 8 Other P7F 611,388 U 694,675 U 653,031 U 18.68% Total $3,501,342 $3,491,058 $3,496,200 100.00%
Expenses incurred by the Bell Aliant Centre grew at a CAGR of approximately 0.5% from 3,422,069 in 2013 to 3,501,342 in 2016. The Bell Aliant Centre incurred an average of $3,496,200 in annual expenses over 2015 and 2016. Approximately 13.55% of expenses were related to the operation of the arena; 27.33% by the operation of the aquatics facility; 0.69% of expenses is directly related to commercial tenants; 39.75% for general and administrative; and 18.68% of expenses are from other sources.
8 Other expenses include – depreciation and interest and expenditures related to insurance proceeds.
December 2017
28 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
3.3.3 Recovery Rate and Grants
Figure 17: Recreation Facility Net Operating Position and Recovery Rate Summary
Simmons Cody Banks Eastlink Centre Bell Aliant Revenues $ 266,295.35 $ 209,053.30 $ 706,970.50 $2,904,290.50
Expenses U 386,754.16 U 407,921.99 U1,647,595.00 U3,496,200.00 Net operating position -$ 120,458.81 -$ 198,868.69 -$ 940,624.50 -$ 591,909.50 Recovery rate (%) 68.8% 51.3% 42.9% 83.1% Annual operating grant $ 120,458.81 $ 198,868.69 $ 934,773.00 $ 657,697.00
The recovery rate shown above displays the percentage of annual expenses paid for through revenues generated by facility operations. Subsidization, usually in the form of grant money, is needed to ensure the sustainability of facility operations. Simmons and Cody Banks, as City- owned and operated facilities, do not receive an operating grant, however the losses generated by the operation of the facilities amount to subsidization by the City. The Eastlink Centre received average annual operating grants of $747,773 from the City of Charlottetown and $187,000 from the Province over 2015 and 2016. The Bell Aliant Centre receives annual operating grants from the City of Charlottetown, the University of Prince Edward Island and the Town of Stratford. These grants amounted to an average of $559,147 from the City of Charlottetown, $83,550 from the University of Prince Edward Island and $15,000 from the Town of Stratford annually during 2015 and 2016.
December 2017 PART B: FUTURE NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
29 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
4 Outcomes of Community Consultation
4.1 Approach to Engagement
During the summer of 2016, the Task Force deliberated the appropriate means by which to engage various community, user group and commercial stakeholders. As a result, the following strategy for engagement was adopted and implemented through August and September 2016:
. Outreach to arena user groups identified by the Task Force;
. Advertising in the local media to invite any interested members of the community or other groups to provide input to the work of the Task Force;
. Members of the Task Force developed a standardized questionnaire which addressed primary issues of interest to the Task Force. These questions and areas of investigation pertain to current and future use of the arenas and multi-use facilities by community sports and recreation groups; and,
. In addition to inviting all parties to submit written responses to the questionnaire, th presentations by user groups were held primarily on September 19 P P, 2016.
Recognizing that the questionnaire focused primarily on the interest of community users, the Task Force sought other means by which to gain insight into the current and future strength of the broader events and entertainment market that is critical to the operation of the Eastlink Centre and any future replacement facility. This involved a more detailed analysis of the operating performance of the Eastlink Centre as well as consultation with experts in the field of events planning and event centre operations. At the outset, however, the Task Force met with a range of internal stakeholders which included the management of the Eastlink Centre as well as City staff including the Manager of Facilities and Director of Parks, Recreation and Leisure, as well as the General Manager and support staff at the Bell Aliant Centre.
Together these external stakeholders identified the range of issues which exist with the current facilities and the alternative solutions which are possible.
In addition to operating staff, the Task Force relied upon the advice and insight provided by the City of Charlottetown Events Development Officer, Mr. Wayne Long and Manager of Planning and Heritage, Mr. Alex Forbes. The results of these discussions are presented in the Summary of Consultation provided in Section 4.3.
December 2017
30 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
4.2 Groups and Organizations Consulted
List of Responding Users:
User Groups Andrews Hockey School Charlottetown CanPower Skate Charlottetown Curling Club Charlottetown Figure Skating Club Charlottetown Islanders Charlottetown Minor Hockey Association Charlottetown Ringette Holland College Island Gymnastics Academy Inc. Island Storm PEI Soccer Association Speed Skate PEI Inc. Tennis PEI University of PEI
Each of the user groups that responded did so for the following general themes: . The number of existing participants, age and overall profile (geographic area, area of focus); . The operating structure of the organization and whether linked to provincial and national sport organizations; . Current ice time utilization and the issues surrounding access to ice at present; . Suggested improvements in facilities as well as access to ice time to meet current needs; . Projections of both membership as well as ice time requirements over the medium to long-term (5-10 years); and, . Any further observations regarding required future facilities.
While the focus of user group interaction was ice use in the City’s various facilities, the Task Force did not limit the potential for other non-ice recreation user groups to provide their input. Several groups did so and the results are documented in this report. The Task Force considers it important that additional non-ice uses in a multi-use facility are given consideration. However, the mandate of the Task Force does not include a recreation facilities and services master plan which would encompass more assets and services than the facilities which are in-scope for this exercise.
The Task Force understands that a full ice needs and options assessment will be central to any future recreation plan which includes the consideration of cultural facilities, other community centres, as well as outdoor fields.
Consultation with ice user groups reflects the core needs of infrastructure renewal. The focus of input on ice needs does not preclude the consideration of other complementary uses within a new facility where these represent best practice and effectively meets an identified range of needs.
December 2017
31 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
4.3 Summary of Outcomes and Opportunities
The following table summarizes the information provided by the user groups, gathered via presentation to the Task Force and / or written responses to the City’s questionnaire. All groups provided valuable input to this process9. Public input to the work of the Task Force was considered essential and has helped identify the gap which exists between desired access to the City’s facilities by some of these groups and the comparably high level of (regulation-size) ice provision by the City which is on par with many other cities in Canada.
Accordingly, the future strategy of the City should involve not only reinvestment in facilities to maintain its level of provision, including a consideration of one Olympic-sized surface, but a continued commitment to improving equitable access to its facilities for all user groups.
Annual Ice Time Group Improvement Needs Anticipated Future Growth Usage & Sufficiency Andrews Satisfied with current Olympic size arena. Adequate Continued growth anticipated. Hockey School facilities. Mainly use dressing room space. Bell Aliant Centre. Charlottetown Use 120 hrs. Dressing Rooms. Eastlink Centre Turning away kids. Many new CanPower should be used for more sporting registrants are newcomers. Skate events. Charlottetown Require 5 sheets, Existing facility requires repairs. Potential to gain new members if Curling Club Oct-Apr, 1 day/week. had a new facility. Charlottetown Use 230 hrs. Additional ice time, meeting space, Potential to offer better programs if Figure Skating conference rooms, dressing rooms, could get more ice time. Club proper sound system. Charlottetown Use 300+ hrs. More space and better building Would like to expand camps if more Islanders flow in facility, improved parking. prime time was available. Charlottetown Use 1,100 hrs. Play With growth of other ice sports Anticipated growth of 10-15%. If Minor Hockey mostly out of there are fewer hours available unable to acquire additional ice Association Simmons. for CMHA to run programs. time, then need to cap registrations. Charlottetown Use 650 hrs. Require NHL size ice to host tournaments. Anticipate 5-7% growth over next 5 Ringette 750 hrs. Equal ice time per athlete. years. Holland Use 150 hrs. Additional ice time. Need 150-200 Would like to expand recreational College hrs for varsity, 150 for intramural. offerings to all students. Island Use 4,180 hrs. Require more space for a better Repurposed arenas could be used Gymnastics Current facility too training facility. Can’t grow for Gymnastics (i.e. Cody Banks or Academy Inc. small for all without a bigger facility. Simmons). Have 1,227 gymnasts; participants. 150+ on wait list. Island Storm Current needs met. Would like equal access rights. Growth is anticipated. PEI Soccer n/a Complex that includes rink(s) and Unable to grow winter programming Association a multi-sport indoor space. as current facilities are maximized. Speed Skate Use 315 hrs. 42% of Olympic sized ice surface for Anticipate growth over next 5-10 PEI Inc. ice time lost Jan-Mar. safety. years. Tennis PEI n/a Require additional indoor courts Expect to see an immediate increase to accommodate growing needs. of 15-20% in the first calendar year. University of Use 350 hrs. Needs City’s overall coordination of user Not significant. PEI being met. groups.
9 The consulting team has interpreted the information as provided, and is not to be held accountable for inaccuracies in information.
December 2017
32 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
Consultative meetings were also held, with several internal and external stakeholders including representatives of Meetings and Conventions PEI, the City of Charlottetown, the Province of PEI and the consultant for the Eastern Gateway Area Secondary Plan.
The results of the consultations confirm that the community is strongly invested in the existing facilities and that the growth in participation in ice sports is dependent on access to enough ice time, as well as a reliable schedule of ice time. Together, these groups play a key role in developing the youth of the community, promoting health and wellbeing, and generating considerable social and economic gains for the region.
Coupled with the utilization statistics for the facilities, the consultations demonstrate that there is a gap between available ice time (for which there is remaining prime time ice at all facilities) and the practicality of scheduling that ice to meet the needs of the players, parents and organizations as a whole. A good example is the fact that the Eastlink Centre has approximately 25% of prime-time ice unused but it is comprised of remnant hours following events, or otherwise uncertain ice time which is effectively un-programmable by community organizations that rely on clarity and certainty in ice allocations throughout the season.
This is the practical reality of using an event centre for community and minor sports and is an experience repeated in many cities across the country. It is apparent that ice needs are real, the community has the potential for growth and any consideration of removing a facility and not replacing it will likely create a stress to the system that results in reduced customer satisfaction and constrained growth of participation in ice sports.
New facilities do not lessen the competition among groups for the most favourable ice time and long-term allocations of ice that best meet their needs, but they can create environments which foster a willingness to schedule ice over a longer daily period – for example extending demand for prime-time ice in the early mornings in the week and a demand for ice time both earlier in the afternoon and later at night. Good facilities, with modern amenities enable the existing norms to change and offer users, parents and others the potential to improve the quality of their experience with the City’s recreation facilities.
Reinvestment in new facilities can be expected to improve both utilization and customer satisfaction providing the City’s management of access to ice time and its ice allocation policies remain based on consultation with users, annual metrics of registration among the user groups, and a consistent approach to fairness and equity. The City and user groups are already partners in this process which should be maintained and further enhanced regardless of whether the new building(s) are operated directly by the City or via a third-party management firm working on behalf of the City. 4.4 Recommended Future Consultations
Should the City of Charlottetown decide to adopt an ice replacement strategy, consultation with all user groups and the public will be required as part of the implementation of that plan and the specific changes proposed for each facility.
December 2017
33 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
5 Why Community Facilities Matter
5.1 Current and Future Need for Community Ice Facilities
5.1.1 Charlottetown’s Changing Demographic
Between 2011 and 2016, the Charlottetown Census Agglomeration (CA), which includes the City of Charlottetown, Town of Cornwall and Town of Stratford, among other communities in the immediate surrounding area of the City, experienced a population growth of 7.5%, increasing from 64,485 to 69,325. This is higher than the Province of PEI’s growth rate of 1.9% over the same period.
Figure 18: Historic Population Change Comparison, 2006-2016
Pop. 2006 Pop. 2011 % Change Pop. % Change 2011- 2006-2011 2016 2016 Charlottetown CA 58,625 64,485 10.0% 69,325 7.5% Prince Edward Island 135,850 140,205 3.2% 142,910 1.9% Source: Statistics Canada Census Data, 2006, 2011, 2016.
When looking at the distribution of Charlottetown CA’s population by age cohort, it becomes evident that those age cohorts over 60 years of age (which account for nearly 25% of the total population) are experiencing the most growth. This aging profile is typical of many small and medium-sized cities in Canada.
Figure 19: Historic Population Distribution for Charlottetown CA, 2006-2016
Age Cohort Pop. 2016 % of Total Pop. % Change 2006-2016 0-9 7,610 11.0% 23.2% 10-19 7,820 11.3% -1.9% 20-29 9,100 13.1% 15.5% 30-39 8,440 12.2% 15.3% 40-49 9,230 13.3% 0.9% 50-59 10,105 14.6% 15.2% 60-69 9,270 13.4% 73.3% 70-79 4,880 7.0% 38.0% 80+ 2,875 4.1% 18.6% Total* 69,330 100.0% - Source: Statistics Canada Census Data, 2006, 2016. *Note: Sum of the population by age cohort is not equal to the total population due to rounding by Statistics Canada
December 2017
34 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
The change in population distribution by age cohort for the Charlottetown CA is similar to that of the Province, which have both experienced consistent growth in residents aged 50 and over since 2006.
As reported earlier this year following the release of age data from the 2016 Census, Atlantic Canada is aging more rapidly than any other region of Canada. The aging of the CA and the Province can be seen graphically below.
Figure 20: Comparison of Historic Population Distribution by Age Cohort, 2006-2016
Charlottetown CA Province of P.E.I.
80+ 80+ 70-79 70-79 60-69 60-69 50-59 50-59 40-49 40-49 30-39 30-39 20-29 20-29 10-19 10-19 0-9 0-9
10000 5000 0 5000 10000 25000 15000 5000 5000 15000 25000
2006 2016 2006 2016
Source: Statistics Canada Census Data, 2006, 2016.
However, this demographic trend should not be viewed as justification for closing ice arenas. It may well justify a range of age-appropriate focuses as part of broader recreation planning, but ice usage will remain a focus of the City’s recreation landscape. The balance of demand and supply can be expected to shift in response to short term factors, but the overall growth of the City and region will maintain the need for the existing level of service in ice provision.
5.1.2 Existing Indoor Ice Supply
The City of Charlottetown currently has an inventory of 5 ice surfaces (treated as 4.25 ice pads for community use as the Eastlink Centre is only partially available for community use), while the surrounding area (within the Charlottetown CA) has an additional 3 ice pads for community use.
December 2017
35 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
Figure 21: Total Supply of Charlottetown and Area Arenas
City of Charlottetown Indoor Ice Supply Cody Banks Arena 1 Simmons Sport Centre 1 Bell Aliant / CARI 2 10 Civic Centre (Eastlink)P8F 0.25 Total 4.25 Surrounding Area Indoor Ice Supply Pownal Centre, Alexandra 2 APM Centre, Cornwall 1 Total 3 Charlottetown CA Total 7.25 Note: The North River Community Rink in Cornwall is slated for demolition.
5.1.3 Existing Indoor Ice Utilization
The ice season for each facility runs from October 1 to April 30 for each year. Hours of operation and prime/non-prime hours vary between facilities. Average utilization hours from 11 2012-2016 are calculated below. P9F
Figure 22: Average Annual Prime Time Utilization Summary
Arena Average Prime-Time Utilization Cody Banks Arena 66.8% (2012-2016) Simmons Sports Centre 65% (2012-2016) Bell Aliant / CARI 81.3% (2013-2016) Eastlink Centre 43% (2015-2016) Sources: City of Charlottetown Parks and Recreation Department, Bell Aliant Centre, and Eastlink Centre.
The Eastlink Centre, despite its event focus, still supplies ice for community use – upwards of half the available prime time ice.
10 The Eastlink Centre represents 0.25 ice pads since the availability for community use is somewhat limited. See Figure below for Eastlink Prime Time Utilization by User.
11 Prime time for Simmons and Cody Banks is defined as Monday to Friday 4:00 pm – 11:00 pm; Saturday and Sunday 6:00 am – 11:00 pm. Non-prime time for both arenas is defined as Monday to Friday 6:00 am – 4:00 pm.
December 2017
36 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
Figure 23: Eastlink Prime Time Ice Utilization 2015-2016 (Jan. to April) and 2016-2017 (Sept. to Dec) by User
Unused, 26%
Community use, 43%
Storm, 15%
Islanders, 16%
The practical availability of prime-time ice for community ice is highly constrained, illustrating the difficulty of programming both event/spectator sports and community ice in the same single pad venue. Roughly half of the prime-time ice available to the community is left unused. The effect of this reality is a frictional level of ice underutilization which reduces the effective supply of ice in the City to 4.25 ice pads.
5.1.4 Existing Indoor Ice Standards of Provision
Population-Based Standards
The City’s population is 36,094 as of 2016 – just over half of the total within the economic region which comprises the CA. The region includes the entire area extending from the City south to Route 3 and the eastern border of Queens County, north to the communities of the North Shore, excluding Rustico, and south to include Cornwall. It is this broader region that the City’s arenas serve. Pownal’s arena has also been added to the assessment of supply as it is relatively close to the CA.
While these communities may be small and for those with arenas, the argument may be made that they provide standalone services to their ice users, this is inaccurate – the system works as a regional supply and any new strategy for replacing ice (including who pays the cost) should be on a regional basis. The facilities may be the responsibility of the City, but they are valued by a broader group of residents. At the very least, regional consumption of ice in the City of Charlottetown is evident, and as such, consideration should be given to new ways of funding infrastructure.
Current population-based standards of facility provision were established using population data from Statistics Canada 2016 Census Data. Comparable standards of provision are provided based on communities of a relative size.
Charlottetown CA is currently providing 1 ice pad per 9,562 population, which is a somewhat higher standard of provision compared to other similar sized municipalities, which typically offer 1 ice pad per 12,000 to 15,000 population. Such comparable standards are guidelines and
December 2017
37 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings should not be viewed as indicative of an over-supply of ice – utilization, consumer feedback and condition/functionality are all relevant considerations as well.
Figure 24: Population-Based Standards for Ice Pads
Ice Pads 2016 Pop. Population Standard Charlottetown CA 7.25 69,325 9,562
Participation-Based Standards Participation-based standards reflect the scale and specificity of demand for such activities which may be influenced by a range of locational, demographic, historic and newcomer dynamics. An assessment of local level participation and team registration by sports was undertaken.
Based on the participation numbers provided by the City of Charlottetown (obtained through consultation with ice groups in 2016), there is currently 1 ice pad being provided per 518 registered participants. This is a comparable level of provision as observed across other municipalities and which typically range between 1 ice pad per 450 to 700 registered participants.
Figure 25: Participation-Based Standards for Ice Pads
Ice Pads 2016 Participation Participation Standard City of Charlottetown 4.25 2,20312 518
5.2 Conclusions regarding Ice Requirements
The Task Force has concluded that the current supply of 5 indoor ice surfaces in the City (plus 3 additional ice surfaces in the surrounding communities) represents a sufficient supply of ice to accommodate the foreseeable future needs of the population of the region.
There is no requirement to add additional ice to the regional supply in the foreseeable future but there is equally no justification for reducing the supply. Maintaining the supply and recognizing that a future event centre ice sheet should be considered separate from the community inventory suggests that demand can be accommodated effectively. This is more likely to be the case if a greater amount of available prime-time is booked as may be justified with the improved level of service that a new state-of-the-art community rink complex can provide.
12 Includes registered participants from CanPower Skate (500), Charlottetown Minor Hockey (404), Sherwood-Parkdale Minor Hockey (465), Charlottetown Ringette (250), Holland College (200), Speed Skating PEI (134), and UPEI (250) and is based on 2016 registration figures as self-reported by user groups participating in this exercise.
December 2017
38 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
6 Why an Event Centre Matters
6.1 Market Rationale for an Event Centre
The City of Charlottetown is firmly invested in the events market. As a provincial capital, the City enjoys a range of infrastructure with which to host festivals, events, national and international competitions. The Eastlink Centre is part of that complex of infrastructure and as reported by IBI Group in 2009 is effectively doing well with the limited functionality of the arena. The same limitations do not exist for the trade centre which remains a vital space for hosting a range of events, some of which use both the arena and trade centre. The trade centre is an important part of the success of the Eastlink Centre – and it is important that we recognize its success in achieving a balance of events, both sporting and non-sporting, community and regional events, larger corporate events and more local participatory events.
However, despite the compelling case for continued involvement in the market for events and spectator sports, the success of the City can be expected to gradually diminish as the Eastlink Centre becomes less able to compete with modern replacement facilities being developed elsewhere.
The City has on record the reports from IBI Group which document the strong position of the Eastlink Centre (then Civic Centre) in the events market as of 2009. Since then the Eastlink Centre has seen its deficits climb and a change in the number and type of events – this even with the addition of the basketball franchise.
The following outlines the breadth of events hosted at the Eastlink Centre as well as the relationship between the arena and the trade centre.
Figure 26: Utilization Summary: Event Days, 2009-2016
Event Category No. of Event Days 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Non-Islanders/Storm Sports (e.g. 10 3 24 0 1 1 14 7 curling championships, Harlem Globetrotters) Concerts/Family Shows/Theatre 7 5 4 3 1 2 2 1 Trade Shows 81 74 68 71 69 61 56 45 Banquets 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 Community Events 11 10 8 6 9 16 15 38 Conferences 8 1 3 3 4 0 2 3 Islanders/Storm Games 36 36 36 36 56 56 56 56 Total Event Days (excl. Community Ice) 154 130 144 120 141 137 147 154
The overall number of event days is impressive compared to other comparable venues in Canada (see Figure 31).
December 2017
39 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
Utilization by percentage of event days demonstrates the importance of the trade centre which hosts the majority of events independent from the arena (67%). About one fifth of events excluding the sports franchise events are based on joint use of the arena and trade centre.
Figure 27: Utilization by Event Type, 2016
Conferences, 2% Islanders Games, 23% Community Events, 25%
Banquets, 3% Storm Games, 13%
Non-Islanders/Storm Sports 5%
Trade Shows, 29% Concerts/Family Shows/Theatre, 1%
Figure 28: Utilization by Event Type, 2015
Conferences, 1% Community Events, 10% Storm Games, 14%
Banquets, 1%
Islanders Games, 24%
Trade Shows, 38%
Non-Islanders Sports, 10%
Concerts/Family Shows/Theatre, 1%
December 2017
40 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
Figure 29: Arena Utilization by Event Type, 2016 Figure 30: Non-Sports Franchise Events Split by Arena and Trade Centre
Both Arena Arena, Events, 29% and Trade 14% Centre, 19%
Islanders Games, 46%
Storm Games, 25% Trade Centre, 67%
The relative separation of the trade centre from the arena in terms of events suggests that changes to the function of the arena to repurpose it as a community rink may not impact the trade centre in a significant manner. If a new arena/event centre to replace the Eastlink Centre can be built in general proximity, even the lost synergy of having the arena and trade centre in one building complex may be minimized. 6.2 Comparisons to Other Cities
The following outlines the event day performance of comparable event centres in Canada.
Figure 31: Comparison of Event Days to Similar Scaled Event Centres
Event Type Rogers K-Rock SOEC, Moncton Abbotsford Meridian Centre, Penticton, SEC, NB Sports and Centre, St. Kingston, ON BC Entertainment Catharines, Centre, BC ON 2015/16 City Population 123,798 33,761 71,889 141,397 131,400 Facility Seating Capacity 5,000 4,700 (to 9,000 7,000 5,300 6,430 for concerts) Banquets 12 4 8 1 Concert 7 10 18 9 2 Community / Educational 4 9 3 6 / Theatrical Family Shows 9 1 26 1 Convention 3 2 Meeting/Conferences 7 1 Consumer Show 4 Trade Show 1 15 8 Sporting 59 38 56 47 62 Total for Year 106 64 77 107 81
December 2017
41 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
Figures 26 and 31 indicate the Eastlink Centre accommodates a significantly larger number of event days (sporting and non-sporting) on an annual basis. There remains an important market for trade and event space in the City.
The development of a new event centre in the City should be in the order of (and no less than) 5,000 seats.
6.3 Recognition of Economic Impact
The Task Force has not identified the potential economic impact of the existing Eastlink Centre nor any replacement facility. The Task Force recognizes that debate exists as to the true nature of economic impacts associated with large scale public infrastructure projects and their net benefit to the economy given the size of the capital investment. For many, the costs associated with these facilities are a necessary cost of entry to competing in the marketplace for events and reputational benefits which have a long-term impact on the quality of life and pride within communities. These are meaningful if somewhat intangible benefits.
Currently, the Eastlink Centre represents a sunk capital cost. A new facility represents new capital which will need to be sourced.
The economic impacts associated with these kinds of facilities - impacts arising from expenditure at the facility, in the surrounding region by visitors and as a result of operating the facility – have been measured elsewhere. Total estimates of annual impact vary, and the results of various studies are outlined below.
Figure 32: Examples of Impact in Other Venues
Venue Location Estimated Annual Economic Impact
Moncton Sports + Moncton, NB Regional Spending Impact (direct and indirect Entertainment Facility nation-wide): $29 million (estimate: facility not yet open)
ShoWare Center Kent, WA Total Spending Impact: $25 million
Budweiser Gardens (formerly London, ON In-facility spending impact for non-sport John Labatt Centre) related events is estimated to be in the $10 million to $13 million range
Rogers K-Rock Centre Kingston, ON Total Impact (direct, indirect and induced) is estimated at $15 million to $16 million
Abbotsford Sports and Abbotsford, BC In-Facility Spending: $13 million Entertainment Centre Off-Site Spending: $8 million
December 2017
PART C: ANALYZING OPTIONS AND LOCATIONAL CHOICES
42 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
7 Establishing A Range of Options
7.1 The Landscape of Options Considered
The Task Force and its consulting support spent considerable time addressing the lengthy list of potential options to improve the facilities in the City and assess the benefits of new multi-use facilities for community recreation as well as spectator events.
As established at the outset of this exercise, consideration of the Eastlink Centre and its replacement represents a different set of needs, justifications and timelines compared to the conversations around the replacement of Cody Banks and Simmons.
Figure 33: Range of Potential Options
EVENT CENTRE OPTIONS COMMUNITY ICE OPTIONS
EVENT CENTRE OPTION 1 COMMUNITY ICE OPTION 1 Renovate Eastlink Centre Arena. Renovate or Rebuild In-Situ Simmons Sports Centre Arena and Cody Banks Arena. EVENT CENTRE OPTION 2 Rebuild Eastlink Centre Arena / Trade Centre COMMUNITY ICE OPTION 2 In-Situ. Decommission Simmons Sports Centre Arena and Twin Cody Banks Arena. EVENT CENTRE OPTION 3 New Multi-Use Event Centre (Single Arena). COMMUNITY ICE OPTION 3 Decommission Simmons Sports Centre Arena and Build Third Ice Surface at Bell Aliant Centre.
COMMUNITY ICE OPTION 4 Decommission Simmons Sports Centre Arena and x Cody Banks Arena, and Build New Multi-Use Community Recreation Centre with 2 Ice Pads.
COMBINED OPPORTUNITY
COMBINED A New Multi-Use Event Decommission both Simmons Sports Centre Arena OPTION: Centre PLUS 1 and Cody Banks Arena; and, Community Ice Pad Single complex comprising Multi-Use Event Centre PLUS 1 Community Ice Pad; Repurpose Eastlink Centre Arena to exclusive use for community ice.
December 2017
43 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
7.2 Evaluation of Principal Options
The following describes in detail certain of the options that were given consideration by the Task Force (as exhibited in Figure 33 above), including the necessary consideration of status- quo/renovation options.
7.2.1 Pros and Cons of Event Centre Options
Event Centre Option 1: Renovate Eastlink Centre Arena
Renovation of the Eastlink Centre arena would need to be significant to substantially improve seating capacity and functionality (including southward extension of the building footprint).
Previous studies (IBI Group and Giffels) have discounted the merit of major renovation given its high cost and the limited impact that such renovations would have on the functionality of the building compared to a new state-of-the art venue. Renovation Costs (2009) were estimated conservatively at between $22 million to $35 million. This suggests that a new building would provide better value for capital investment, would have lower lifecycle replacement costs over the next 20 years and would improve functionality for years to come.
Event Centre Option 2: Rebuild Eastlink Centre Arena/Trade Centre In-Situ
The Eastlink Centre site has several complications including limitations on available land for expansion of the arena footprint if rebuilt on site while retaining the trade centre in its current configuration.
It is more likely that a redevelopment in-situ would include a reconfiguration/redevelopment of the trade centre (located on land owned by the Provincial Government).
While the land on which the Eastlink Centre’s arena sits is owned by the City of Charlottetown, the site is effectively too small for the development of a new state-of-the-art facility with a minimum fixed seating capacity of 5,000 and sufficient land availability for parking, access and circulation and effective operational support to service the building.
The feasibility of this particular option (and its failing) lies in the closing down of the Eastlink Centre in its entirety during the demolition and construction process. This could mean a closure of 3 or more years, and the loss of any presence in the event market for the City, impacts on the two sports franchises, as well as the loss of community access. Additionally, the impact on the capacity of the venue to book events may extend forward to the period prior to construction as event planners seek longer term (multi-year) opportunities in other venues in the Atlantic Region.
Event Centre Option 3: New Multi-Use Event Centre (Single Arena) Located in The Eastern Gateway Development Zone
Locational and other benefits of investment in a new event centre is evaluated in Section 7.2.3 of this document. However, investment in a single-pad event centre, as presented in this option does not reflect best practice in facility development. Multi-pad venues typically offer greater
December 2017
44 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings opportunities for event and tournament hosting which support greater operational efficiencies in comparison to single pad facilities.
7.2.2 Pros and Cons of Community Ice Options
Community Ice Option 1: Renovate or Rebuild In-Situ Simmons Sports Centre Arena and Cody Banks Arena
Reinvesting in major renovations to Simmons and Cody Banks will only maintain historic levels of functionality rather than provide facilities, amenities and services common to most new multi-use recreation centres.
In addition, renovation or rebuilding in-situ does not address the locational constraints of these two community arenas (including traffic congestion at Simmons / residential character of Cody Banks site).
Considerations Related to Renovation
Simmons is expected to require $2.4 million (short term) and $4.0 million longer term ($6.4 million as of 2013) for lifecycle repairs. Further, capital cost requirements for the renovation of the Cody Banks in-situ are unknown, but can be expected to be significant.
The renovation of these facilities defers, rather than answers, important questions of long term strategy surrounding recreational assets.
Considerations Related to Rebuilds
Rebuilding Simmons and Cody Banks in-situ to modern standards of amenity and functionality for single pad arenas ($12-$15 million per venue) assumes that no additional recreational space is developed on either site.
In the case of Simmons, the costs of renovation and functional enhancements would tend to favour a new build solution rather than renovation. However, this is not the case for Cody Banks which, despite its functional deficiencies, is in better condition. Neither should be rebuilt as standalone facilities.
It is now uncommon in urban communities (towns and cities capable of supporting multiple arenas) to reinvest in single pad buildings, even if the potential to add a range of non-ice uses exists. Business models for arena operations are now predicated largely on the minimum standard of twin ice surfaces, with the capacity for expansion as necessary.
The proposition to renovate and/or rebuild both arenas in-situ may result in additional revenues through improved functionality. However, operating efficiency (per square foot cost reductions and revenue enhancements) can be expected to be less than a similar functioning twin pad facility. This option does not meet City objectives, and would not be supported through a recreation master plan process and is contrary to best practice for co-location and multi-use facilities.
December 2017
45 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
Community Ice Option 2: Decommission Simmons Sports Centre Arena and Twin Cody Banks Arena
This option features a decommissioned Simmons (considering the prohibitive costs to renovate this facility). The condition of Simmons favours demolition. This site is not ideal for a modern multi-use community recreation centre which may reasonably be expected to serve as a community hub for multi-use (ice and non-ice uses). While the combined site is large, the majority of the 14.8 acres of City-owned land is given over to sports field use. Nestled within a residential area, some distance from arterial roads, a facility as large as 80,000 to 100,000 square feet is not appropriate. This view is consistent Figure 34: Cody Banks Arena Site-testing with the findings of the 2013 Simmons Sports Centre Master Plan.
Investment in replacement ice as part of a twin solution for Cody Banks is expected to be a lower cost and a better value proposition compared to investment ice (whether via renovation, rebuild or twinning) at the Simmons site. The latter is also true given existing traffic capacity. Management issues at the Simmons site will not be alleviated by doubling capacity for ice use unless innovations and considerable expense for site planning and infrastructure are undertaken.
The configuration of the 5.56-acre Cody Banks site, the location, as well as access and circulation constraints, could limit options for a second pad. Further to that, initial site-testing as part of the 2013 Simmons Sports Centre Master Plan indicates that twinning at this location would offer little opportunity for additional, non-ice related on-site development. While the 2013 Simmons Sports Centre Master Plan identified twinning at Cody Banks as an option, this was not the recommended solution; since then, City administration has backed the replacement of both Simmons and Cody Banks.
Further, while this option addresses the question of decommissioning only one facility, it does not speak to event centre needs and future of the Eastlink Centre.
Community Ice Option 3: Decommission Simmons Sports Centre Arena and Build Third Ice Surface at Bell Aliant Centre
Other community ice solutions include the decommissioning of Simmons and development of a third ice surface at the Bell Aliant Centre within the existing land lease from the University; and decommissioning of Simmons and Cody Banks, and development of a new event centre with 2 ice pads.
December 2017
46 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
Figure 35: Expansion Possibilities at Bell Aliant Centre
Expansion Possibilities
Community Ice Option 4: Decommission Simmons Sports Centre Arena and Cody Banks Arena, and Build New Multi-Use Community Recreation Centre with 2 Ice Pads
All the preceding options for community ice speak to the limitations of retaining (via renovation, rebuild or twinning) Simmons and Cody Banks. The option to invest in a new multi-use community recreation centre with 2 ice pads still does not speak to event centre needs and the future of the Eastlink Centre and raises further questions as to site potential location given the constraints of the existing community arena sites.
7.2.3 A Combined Solution for Ice: A New Multi-Use Event Centre PLUS 1 Community Ice Pad
The development of a second ice surface at a new event centre enables a trade centre-like function to occur, if warranted. The second ice surface (dry in summer, and with capacity for a false floor for events) does not replace the function of the event/trade centre and would be added for community use primarily.
December 2017
47 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
Figure 36: Example Footprint for a Multi-Use Event Centre and 1 Additional Community Ice Pad
Under this option, Simmons can be decommissioned and replaced by the community ice pad as part of the new MUSEC.
In terms of location, the Eastern Gateway site is highly compatible for a showcase facility such as a new event centre. As referenced in the 2011 Eastern Gateway Plan, a single bowl event centre would require approximately 3 to 4 acres plus land for parking and operational support to the building. Requirements increase with fixed seat count, as does parking – assuming the need for 1,000 to 1,200 parking spaces on-site with more in the surrounding area (to be determined based on seat count). As such, the total area for a new event centre (with 1 community ice pad) is more likely in the order of 13-15 acres.
Considering this, accommodating a event centre with an integrated second pad will likely require some land assembly and reconfiguration of access and circulation routes in the Eastern Gateway. Major public infrastructure such as this is an opportunity to stimulate the overall redevelopment of the area to achieve the highest and best use as targeted by the City through its emerging land use policy framework for the area in general.
An event centre is a driver for change in the Eastern Gateway and a significant opportunity to plan for a new recreation and entertainment venue, new civic space and pedestrian connections, and additional commercial development. Parking demand arising can be potentially accommodated through a range of off-site and on-street parking in the surrounding area, limiting the amount of dedicated parking on site.
The Eastern Gateway location strongly supports the decommissioning of Cody Banks and the transfer of community ice to the existing Eastlink Centre.
December 2017
48 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
7.3 Site Selection Matters
7.3.1 Considerations by the Task Force
The options presented in this report each have locational considerations however the Task Force has not undertaken a detailed site selection process. The Task Force, has however, identified the pros and cons of alternative locations for a new event centre and community rinks. Should the City decide to implement the recommendations of this Task Force it will need to assess potential sites within the Eastern Gateway Development zone, including assessment of land acquisition costs, timing of acquisition, extra-ordinary site related costs, and site planning for the facilities. The Task Force has undertaken some initial assessment of site and building footprints for the recommended facility option in order to screen out certain sites in the City which are not viable due to size, configuration, adjacent uses, current ownership and displacement of uses that would be required. Based on this process, the preferred location at the Eastern Gateway area is justified in the view of the Task Force, with the next steps comprising necessary site planning, site due diligence and negotiation with the Province and other land owners as necessary.
To aid the City in this work, the following factors are of particular importance:
1. Availability of land and willingness of the current owner to collaborate in the vision (this also extends to surrounding land owners). 2. The ability to synchronize acquisition and development according to the needs of the project (i.e. the ability to secure the land and establish its developable state quickly). 3. A location which on balance provides the greatest public benefit. This does not necessarily favour a brownfield versus a greenfield site, but the distinction is between land that would likely be developed anyway over time versus existing urban sites which have ongoing development constraints such as potential environmental contamination, complicated or numerous land ownerships, and existing development. Public infrastructure spending can help stimulate development, while an overly complicated site can create delays in securing the site and jeopardize the project.
A suggested template for detailed site selection and site planning is provided below.
December 2017
49 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
Figure 37: Suggested Template for Detailed Site Selection and Site Planning
Criteria for Selecting Location
A) SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND LOCATION 1. Capacity to accommodate building footprint and potential future building footprint/appropriate outdoor uses. 2. Consistency with Provincial and municipal strategic and land use planning policy (e.g. zoning considerations). 3. Proximity to existing or planned clusters of community sports facilities and other compatible/complimentary uses. 4. On-site parking availability (both public and private). 5. Off-site parking availability (both public and private). 6. Venue visibility for naming rights (i.e. will location and surrounding environment enhance the image of the facility). B) TRANSPORTATION 1. Ease of access by active transport and public transport. 2. Regional automobile access. 3. Local automobile access/egress – impact. 4. Charter bus / truck parking and loading-related access. C) COSTS AND EASE OF ACQUIRING DEVELOPMENT LAND 1. Dollar cost of land acquisition. 2. Ability to assemble property. 3. Timing (assemble property, remediation, servicing, planning approvals and construction). 4. Proximity to other facilities and/or land and/or infrastructure (for potential synergies in terms of access to centralized parking or other operational support). 5. Likelihood of site (in relative terms) to generate extraordinary development costs. D) URBAN CONTEXT / ENHANCEMENT 1. Relative likelihood for contributing to urban regeneration. 2. Design opportunity to create a signature building and focus (site lines, historic influence, visual/physical relationship to other civic buildings, exposure, etc.). 3. Enhancement of immediate site context – street vitality and walkability (in relative terms). 4. Minimizes conflict with surrounding land uses (e.g. residential neighborhoods). E) ECONOMIC SYNERGIES 1. Positive impact on existing local retail/commercial/ accommodations sectors. 2. Can clearly stimulate new development in the surrounding area which may be master planned to tie into the MUSEC campus.
7.3.2 Preferred Location
Based on the general application of these criteria, the view of the Task Force is that the City’s Eastern Gateway represents the best general location for siting a new facility and ensuring operational success as well as maximizing to the fullest extent possible the combined event, festival, recreational and entertainment uses of the Eastlink-Eastern Gateway campus.
December 2017
50 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
8 Capital Cost Estimates
The Task Force undertook a capital cost estimation exercise through specialist consultants to better understand the likely envelope of costs associated with the preferred option of developing a new event centre and additional, integrated community ice pad; decommissioning the two rinks and dedicating the Eastlink Centre for community ice. The following outlines the cost of the new build, with decommissioning costs being small. The costs exclude items which are intangibles at present: land costs and any extra-ordinary site costs, should these exist, over and above normal servicing and site development. Normal site servicing costs are included in the estimates.
Also excluded are any capital costs associated with significant amounts of public parking. The preferred location in the Eastern Gateway is unlikely to require significant on-site parking given the existence of parking in the local area both on and off-street. However, the amount of new off-street parking required will be subject to the necessary studies should this project be implemented. Because the facility includes community ice, it will be important to provide sufficient on-site parking for the community arena and this can be anywhere from 100 to 150 spaces based on general experience elsewhere. At this point and as part of our general site testing we have included provision for 500 on-site parking spaces.
The intent is not to define a cost which City Council or the public should view as final – at this stage of the analysis, understanding the potential order of magnitude of capital costs can contribute to effective decision-making; but so too is it important to understand that these costs will change once the concept is translated into a design and functional space program, an understanding of gross floor area of the building, and details of the site are known.
The estimates provided in this report are based on a conservative assumption (higher not lower costs) and a large footprint building (as high as 190,000 square feet). The costs exclude taxes and are current estimates (2017).
The methodology followed does not rely on overly simplistic measures of expected cost per square foot or total capital cost per fixed seat, applied to a notional scale of facility. The method involved identification of a similar facility and adjusting costs to reflect locational differences, and escalation in costs. As such, if City Council moves forward with replacement plans, the scale, form, and massing and quality of construction will be subjects for further enquiry and may impact costs downward. The comparable facility (the Silverstein Eye Centers Arena and Centerpoint Community Ice Rink in Independence, Missouri) is likely larger than would be built in Charlottetown but otherwise is an effective comparison. The obvious comparator – Moncton’s Downtown Centre – is in fact a different building type (single bowl event centre with substantially greater levels of seating/suites and amenities).
The resulting assessment of cost is provided in full in Appendix A and summarized below:
5,000 fixed seat event centre Plus 1 Between $74 million and $81 million. Plus, an allocation Community Ice Pad: 185,000 sq. ft. of $2 million for 500 parking spaces.
December 2017
51 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
A comparison of these estimates to other buildings constructed or planned to the point of cost estimation is provided below.
Figure 38: Historical Cost Comparison for Charlottetown PEI Events Centre
Seats Construction Cost Cost Per Escalation Location Adjusted Comments Hockey Start Seat Q2 2017 Factor Cost Per Config. Seat
Canalta Centre, 5760 2013 $55,728,404 $9,675 1.076 1.07 $11,181 WHL Medicine Hat, AB Medicine Hat Tigers Fort McMurray 6200 2016 $120,000,00 $19,355 1.000 0.83 $16,065 Proposed Events Centre 0 WHL Team (Budget) Meridian Centre, 5300 2012 $50,000,000 $9,434 1.108 1.05 $10,975 OHL Niagara St Catharines, ON Ice Dogs
Rogers K-Rock 5614 2016 $46,500,000 $8,283 1.362 1.05 $11,845 OHL Kingston Centre, Kingston, Frontenacs ON Powerade Centre, 5000 1997$26,500,000 $5,300 2.120 1.05 $11,798 OHL Brampton, ON Brampton Hershey Centre, 5420 1998 $22,000,000 $4,059 2.087 1.05 $8,895 OHL Mississauga, ON Mississauga City of Spruce, AB 4700 2018 $71,465,000 $15,205 1.000 1.07 $16,270 AJHL Saints WFCU Centre, 6450 2007 $71,000,000 $11,008 1.091 1.00 $12,009 OHL Windsor Windsor, ON Spitfire Moncton Event 8500 2016 $104,205,00 $12,260 1.00 1.00 $12,260 QMJHL Centre, NB 0 Moncton Average $12,366 Wildcats Notes: 1. The adjusted cost per seat is in 2017 dollars in Charlottetown PEI. 2. Forward escalation is not included. An escalation allowance of 1% per annum calculated to mid-point of construction is recommended.
3.
December 2017
52 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
9 Financial Impacts of Proposed Changes
9.1 Introduction
A final and important function of the Task Force was to establish in broad terms the financial costs and benefits to the City of Charlottetown arising from the proposed option. To do this, the preferred option was measured against a range of other circumstances, some of which are options presented earlier in this report.
The Task Force wishes to point out that the financial implications of the options, while important and hence considered as part of this report, were not the primary determinant of the preferred option. That option, along with consideration of others, was based on a detailed assessment of community needs and opportunities, best practice and locational considerations for arenas – recognizing that these facilities should be viewed as City and region-serving assets.
In financial terms, there remains the question of capital costs and how to fund the proposed development. The refinement of capital costs will occur over time if and when the City chooses to advance the project with more detailed design and functional space programming (which may involve non-ice recreational and community uses), and the particulars (and particular costs, timing, and overall merits) of the chosen site are more fully understood.
At this time, in order to advance the strategy of the City with respect to required infrastructure renewal for community recreation ice facilities and the event centre, the following sections shed light on the operational impacts associated with making change. The City and public are aware that the operational performance of these facilities (that is, how much deficit is created for annual operations to meet the needs of the community) is as important as the capital costs associated with their construction. Over time the aggregation of annual deficits can amount to a sizeable portion of (and in some cases even exceed) the original capital costs. So, it is important to understand how each combination of changes to the portfolio of assets creates different financial impacts both on an annual basis and a long-term basis.
The costs and revenues considered are those which accrue to the facilities in question (both the existing facilities and the proposed new facilities) and do not include the so-called “below the line” impacts associated with positive economic impacts arising from the enhancement of the City’s hosting infrastructure. The enhanced economic impact which can be reasonably expected to arise from the operation of modern, efficient and larger facilities, is not factored into the operating costs/revenues equation which is facility-specific. The commitment to infrastructure renewal of this kind will ensure not only the retention and enhancement of existing tourism dollars to the City arising from events held in these venues, but will also help improve the quality of life in the region, its reputation and hence its capacity to attract and retain employers and residents.
In short, investment in recreation assets is very much part of the economic development function of the municipality, over and above the primary role of the City in providing affordable recreational facilities for its residents.
December 2017
53 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
9.2 Basis for Comparison
The operating deficits of the existing facilities, established and recorded in Section 3.3.2 of this report, represent the baseline commitment of tax-payer dollars to the provision of recreation services and the operation of the existing event centre.
These deficits are covered by grants provided by the City and its partners: in the case of the Eastlink Centre, the bulk of the grant funding to cover the net operating loss is provided by the City, with the Province contributing a smaller, but important element to support the trade centre. Similarly, the City funds the bulk of the operating deficit at the Bell Aliant Centre, with UPEI and the Town of Stratford providing smaller contributions. Regarding Simmons and Cody Banks, the City funds these deficits entirely.
The Task Force wishes to note that, on the advice of its consultant, none of the deficits identified as part of this report, represent atypical amounts. Indeed, the deficits for all facilities are within the range of deficits expected for facilities of this type, condition and functionality.
For the purposes of the baseline versus options assessment, the grants identified earlier in the report are excluded, resulting in a picture of total operating loss for the existing facilities combined.
The operational comparison speaks directly to the capital strategy which should be pursued.
The total existing net operating deficit (including the deficit-heavy pool at the Bell Aliant Centre) is $1.8 million. To illustrate the importance of this figure and changes to it, for as little as a 25- year horizon (roughly half the expected life of the facilities in question), this level of public funding amounts to over $38 million in present day equivalent costs.
9.3 Financial Comparisons to the Baseline
The financial comparison is based on the following options described below:
1. Preferred option: Decommission Simmons and Cody Banks; New event centre + 1 community ice pad; Repurpose Eastlink Centre for 1 community pad; repurpose Cody Banks for dry-use (Total: 5 pads)
2. Decommission Simmons and Cody Banks; New Standalone Community Twin Pad; No Change to Eastlink Centre; Repurpose Cody Banks for dry-use (Total: 5 pads)
3. Decommission Simmons and Cody Banks; New Third Pad at Bell Aliant Centre; New event centre (single arena) and repurpose Eastlink Centre arena for 1 community pad (Total: 5 pads)
None of the options other than the preferred option are recommended, but they collectively form alternatives for addressing the landscape of financial options.
December 2017
54 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
9.4 Conservative Assessment: No Change in Revenues Assumed
With the exception of a new MUSEC, the revenues associated with use of the arenas as community recreation venues are kept unchanged. As an example, in all cases, Simmons is to be decommissioned and its revenues are transferred to the replacement facility. However, it is very likely that revenues will in fact grow in response to development of a new facility, whether this be a single pad addition or a standalone twin rink.
For the MUSEC, the advice of both the Task Force’s consultant as well as a third-party management firm is that the overall deficit associated with such a new facility is likely to improve from its current level to somewhere close to half of that amount through a combination of revenue growth and cost reductions. This assumption is predicated on the capacity of the City to achieve an operating model which likely includes third party management of the facility by a professional event centre management firm. The premise for such a model lies in the ability of the private sector manager to maximize revenues and manage costs effectively through focused marketing, industry knowledge and best practices, applying their expertise in concession services, as well as innovation in their approach to building operations.
A key finding from the tour of comparable facilities by the Task Force was the importance of specialist event centre management in helping the municipal owners of event centres achieve the most effective balance between commercial event hosting and revenue generation on the one hand, and community access to the facility on the other. In all cases, third party management was considered essential to successfully operating these event centres.
9.5 No Capital Reserve Assumed
All new facilities should be subject to business planning that assumes the development of a capital reserve contribution from current operations. As with many examples of municipal infrastructure, none of the facilities under review have been subject to an ongoing annual contribution toward capital reserves. The decision as to whether to apply this as an added expense to any single facility rather than fund a universal reserve fund from tax revenues or other income sources is a decision for the City.
9.6 Results and Confirmation of the Preferred Option
As a relatively complicated exercise of considering existing and new development, as well as changes in how facilities operate, the comparison of financial projections for operating costs and revenues is best provided graphically. Accordingly, Figures 39 and 40 provide an indication of:
. All facilities under consideration including new facilities, together with baseline net operating positions. For future facilities this is based on estimates of performance;
. Identification of what changes are proposed to each facility under each of the options for consideration; and,
December 2017
55 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
. Detailed estimates of resulting net operating income by option as well as on a per square foot basis for each option.
Figure 39: Total NOI by Option Summary
Total sq. Total $ per $/sq.ft. Total NPV NPV $/sq.ft. ft. annum Preferred Option 441,000 ($1,527,888) ($3.46) ($32,292,580) ($73.23)
Community Ice Solution Only 361,000 ($1,902,285) ($5.27) ($39,261,428) ($108.76)
Bell Aliant Option 441,000 ($1,606,719) ($3.64) ($33,160,790) ($75.19)
December 2017 EXISTING ASSETS NEW ASSETS
A B C D E F G H New MUSEC TOTAL $ TOTAL Eastlink Plus 1 New MUSEC New Trade Community (Single Community per NPV Simmons Cody Banks Bell Aliant Eastlink Arena Centre Pad Arena only) Twin Pad Annum
Current Baseline NOI (excl. grants) Per Annum (Average of 2015 & 2016) ($120,459) ($198,869) ($591,910) ($936,105) ($4,519) ($584,873) ($540,000) ($369,751) 25 Year Present Value ($2,486,332) ($4,104,752) ($12,217,316) ($19,321,693) ($90,562) ($12,830,994) ($11,145,877) ($7,631,858)
Total Current (A+B+C+D+E) ($1,851,862) ($38,220,654)
Options
Decommission Simmons & Cody Banks; New MUSEC + 1 community Preferred Community ice pad; Repurpose Eastlink for 1 ($1,527,888) ($32,292,580) Option Remove Dry Use As Is As Is YES NO NO community pad; repurpose Cody Use Banks for dry-use (Total: 5 pads)
Decommission Simmons & Cody Community Banks; New Stanalone Community Ice Solution Twin Pad; No Change to Eastlink Remove Dry Use As Is As Is As Is NO NO YES ($1,902,285) ($39,261,428) Only Centre; Repurpose Cody Banks for dry-use (Total: 5 pads)
Decommission Simmons & Cody Banks; New Third Pad at Bell Aliant; Bell Aliant New Community New MUSEC (single arena) and ($1,606,719) ($33,160,790) Option Remove Dry Use As Is NO YES NO repupose Eastlink Arena for 1 Third Pad Use community pad (Total: 5 pads)
57 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
The results of the exercise reflect a number of important realities that the City should weigh in its review of this report:
1. The preferred option as identified remains the option which is most likely to result in an improvement of annual and long term operating deficits for all facilities combined.
2. The repurposing of the Eastlink Centre’s arena to community use does not need to result in added capital expenditures in the short to medium term. The facility will have deferred maintenance and lifecycle investment needs over time, but in order to utilize the facility for community use, all that needs to happen is to re-designate it as such. Of course, the City may wish to engage the public in assessing the value of spending new dollars on changes to the facility and that is something that the Task Force would support as long as the central function remains that of community ice rink in order to contribute significantly to the City’s ice supply for community use.
3. The Eastlink Centre arena as a community rink will result in very significant cost savings, as the event centre functions are effectively transferred to the new MUSEC. The Task Force is not providing detailed recommendations regarding the operational control of the Eastlink Centre.
4. The achievement of these cost savings is most likely to occur if the operations are assumed within the mandate of a third-party management firm.
5. The option to pursue a new 2-pad event centre, and repurpose the Eastlink Centre but build the new venue some distance from the existing Eastlink/Waterfront/Eastern Gateway campus is viable ONLY if land can be acquired at a cost comparable to the Eastern Gateway. The Task Force cannot speculate as to land costs, but beyond capital costs are the operational realities. Specifically, separating the functions at distance will undoubtedly add to the overall costs associated with both the MUSEC and the existing trade centre (labour, administration, equipment, materials duplication, as well as lost revenue opportunities because of the separation of facilities).
6. Focusing attention only on solving the need to replace Simmons and Cody Banks, and ignoring the Eastlink Centre is in fact likely to be the most expensive solution for the City in operation terms. This approach may result in lower initial capital costs (through building as an example a new twin pad community arena), but it does nothing to stem the problems facing the Eastlink Centre. Those deficits are assumed to be maintained as is, but in reality they may worsen so that even our estimates of deficit over the long term are underestimated.
7. Furthermore, building a new standalone twin pad community rink complex is unlikely to reap the same level of financial payback that integrating a second pad into a new MUSEC, and repurposing the Eastlink Centre will achieve. The greater likelihood is that the size of the facility will grow through the planning stages, resulting in a potentially warranted and publicly supported new multi-use community recreation facility comprising a range of subsidized uses. The resulting operating costs will be higher by comparison. Eastlink Centre’s arena also represents a sunk capital cost, which lowers
December 2017
58 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
the costs of achieving the replacement of Simmons and Cody Banks relative to a new standalone twin pad complex.
8. The option to add a third pad at the Bell Aliant Centre has several benefits as well as potential drawbacks. The Task Force recognizes the important role that the Centre plays in the community as both a community asset and driver for economic growth. It is also possible that a third pad can be added within the existing limits of the land lease with UPEI under which the complex is permitted.
9. The operational benefits of adding a third pad at the Bell Aliant Centre are apparent and are factored into the analysis (note: revenues are transferred from Simmons as in all options so that it is not appropriate to suggest that the Bell Aliant Centre will gain greater revenues – the same is true of all solutions). The analysis results in an essentially breakeven position for the third pad.
10. The limitations of this option become more apparent when considering the capital costs and the benefits of a multi-use facility that has two pads. Building at Bell Aliant Centre and repurposing the Eastlink Centre arena will negate the need for a second pad at the MUSEC. However, in the context of the market for Charlottetown, a two-pad MUSEC is highly preferred for hosting a wide range of events. Reducing this capacity in favour of a third pad at the Bell Aliant Centre (a non-event centre building) is not recommended. The alternative – building a two pad MUSEC and an additional pad at the Bell Aliant Centre, leaves the Eastlink Centre as surplus to needs. This too does not represent a good use of this 26-year building which, as a sunk cost, is an ideal community ice pad.
9.7 Capital Cost Considerations and Life Cycle Needs
In addition to the high cost of not replacing the existing Eastlink Centre with a new MUSEC, the reality is that capital costs will likely escalate and a decision to replace that facility will be required well within the medium-term horizon of 10 years. To delay is to potentially escalate costs. To decide not to replace the Eastlink Centre means that decisions will need to be taken to invest in necessary life cycle replacements at the facility, including a new roof and other systems over time.
December 2017
59 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
10 Next Step: Consideration of Funding Potential
This Task Force report provides an objective assessment of the issues, options, prospective solutions and their costs – both capital and in terms of operational impacts compared to the status quo.
Maintaining the status quo is not appropriate and lifecycle costs for facilities will at some point challenge the City in terms of whether it should be in the business of providing community facilities on the one hand and an event centre on the other. This report and the conclusions it draws indicate that the City should not adopt the do-nothing approach.
The planning for a new event centre is a long and often complicated process and thus far a decade has been spent debating the solutions to the City’s imperfect event centre. At this time, the Task Force concludes that serious consideration be given to a new event centre. A new community recreation ice arena is also warranted and the timing of achieving this is perhaps more urgent. Yet the best solution is to marry the event centre needs and the community ice arena needs together.
To enact the recommended changes planning must commence now. Having established a preferred course of action, the Task Force recommends that a funding strategy is the immediate next step and should be the focus of City administration to develop a range of funding solutions, engage with upper levels of government and the public. This will inform the strategy and determine whether the high costs of event centre replacement are achievable or if the City needs to focus its attention solely on replacing community ice facilities.
Concurrently, the City should determine its preferred site and work actively with its partners to realize a developable site and a supporting strategy to bring this site forward in a timely fashion. It is important from a funding perspective to have as much certainty as possible over the choice of location – it informs all aspects of the project planning process and without it, achieving a viable funding commitment is less likely.
December 2017 APPENDIX A: INDICATIVE CAPITAL COSTS FOR A NEW MUSEC
2 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
City of Charlottetown, PEI MUSEC Development Checklist July 14, 2017
UPROGRAM ELEMENTS
The anticipated facility will have a main arena spectator bowl for a major hockey tenant (QMJHL) with a community ice rink attached to the main arena footprint.
The project requires 4.5 – 5 acres for the footprint of the facility which will include the back of house storage and rear entrance staging and loading areas along with limited amount of staff parking.
The footprint of the facility is estimated at 170,000 to 190,000 square feet.
USeating capacity
- 4,500, 5,000, 5,500 or 5,800 o Recommended fixed seating size is 5,000 . An estimate can be provided for 5,000 and 5,800 configurations. o Recommended premium seats: 200 loge seats, 12 (basic sizes 10 – 12 seats) . City should consider both 100 loge seats and 250 loge seats . City should consider 12-15 suites o Two large party suites (24 – 30 seats) o Recommend the first 5 – 7 rows to be retractable with back of house end zone retractable also. This provides for greater flexibility in scheduling non-hockey events. . City should consider non - retractable seats as a lower cost alternative. o Community rink to have 250 – 300 bleacher seating capacity . City could consider a mezzanine deck for additional seating
USeating quality
- Mix of 19 and 21-inch seats o City could consider a certain number of 23” seats as an alternate - Recommend padded seats throughout o City should consider plastic seats throughout as an option and a mix of plastic and fabric as a third option to reduce costs
UConcessions
- Recommend 4 full service concessions (2 on each side) - Recommend multiple areas for vendor sales within the main concourse (kiosks) - Recommend large catering kitchen to service premium seating as well as banquets and conventions/conferences o City could consider reducing the number of full concessions from 4 to 2
December 2017
3 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
o City could consider the removal of the full-service catering kitchen. - Small/limited service concession space will be dedicated in the community rink
URestaurant – lounge
- Upper level for premium seat holders (200 seating capacity) - Lower level for game day patrons (400 seating capacity)
URink sizes
- Both ice surfaces to be 200’ x 85’ NHL regulation with Plexiglas and netting
UDressing rooms
- Main arena o Primary hockey tenant dressing room to include; team room with stalls, dressing area, training room, equipment room and storage, team lounge, fitness training area, coach’s offices and classroom/meeting room o Large QMJHL visitor dressing room without stalls, with dressing/prep area and coach’s room o 4 additional dressing rooms o 2 green rooms for performing artists/concerts o Referees room - Community ice rink o 6 primary dressing rooms o Referees room o Skate rental location . Depending on local demand this space may not be required
UAncillary spaces
- Team offices on site (approximately 2,400 square feet) - Building administration offices (as above) - Team store/retail (1,000 – 1,200 square feet) - Box office with both exterior and interior windows (6 – 8) - Conference and meeting room spaces recommended (approximately 2,000 – 4,000 square feet based on City’s anticipated demand) - Building security office, first aid
UBuilding Structure
- Recommend truss roof structure with full floor rigging to allow for maximum concert configuration uses - Recommend Catwalk - Recommend show power installation
December 2017
4 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Report of Findings
o City could supply a partial grid in the truss which would limit concert staging to only limited sections of the facility - Back of house storage (approximate square footage to be determined with size of facility) - Common zamboni storage area, snow melt pit and maintenance shop - Exterior trash and recycling collection o City could choose to have the trash compactor and recycling receptacles housed indoors (back of house) - Media/press box area (mid-level) and broadcast booth (upper level). Game operations control center (mid – level)
UExterior
- Brick and glass - Tilt wall - Precast - Landscaping
UInterior
- Finishes (includes concourse surfaces)
UCivil design
- Parking for approximately 500 vehicles
USITE SERVICING AND DEVELOPMENT, LANDSCAPE AND PARKING
- 500 parking spaces subject to parking supply and availability analysis for surrounding area; - Site servicing and development estimate to exclude extra-ordinary site servicing and development costs such as possible environmental contamination, hydro-geological and geotechnical conditions, and impacts on building construction costs; and, - Cost estimate to exclude land cost.
December 2017
MEMO
To: Jon Hack Sierra Planning and Management
Fr: Rick Kozuback ICC
Re: City of Charlottetown Event Centre Cost Estimate
We have attached our final cost summary analysis for the proposed City of Charlottetown Event Centre and Community Ice Rink for your review.
In addition to the aforementioned cost summary we feel it is important to explain the process that we went through to provide what we believe is the most accurate analysis of the cost to complete.
At this point of the project, there has not been an actual architectural design completed, to at least the schematic design stage, which would allow for a construction cost estimate to delivered. In addition, we have not engaged in a programing exercise with the community leaders which further complicates any effort to provide for a meaningful estimate. Without a design and the lack of a programming discussion a pure “cost per square foot” unit cost analysis we feel would be insufficient in determining a reasonable estimate.
As such, we felt the most accurate estimate we could deliver to the City of Charlottetown would be to select an existing facility, that ICC has completed, that most reflects the discussions we have had with the Task Force and Sierra Planning and Management and then to use that specific facility as the base building for our estimate. The facility that we chose was the Silverstein Eye Centers Arena and Centerpoint Community Ice Rink in Independence Missouri.
This facility was completed in the fall of 2008 for a total project cost of $51,194,814.00 (USD). The final cost does not include the costs incurred in developing the required surface parking but does include basic site work to provide for a “pad ready site”.
The Silverstein Eye Centers Arena is a 5,800-seat spectator facility with twenty-six (26) luxury suites, one hundred (100) loge seats, a VIP Lounge/Restaurant, a main level restaurant/sports bar, a Team Store, Home Team dressing room, Team offices and Arena Box Office.
The Centerpoint Community Ice Rink is an attached facility to the arena and includes a full concession, skate rental and pro shop space, community meeting room, figure skating warm up room, City Park and Recreation staff office, five dressing rooms and bleacher seating for approximately 300 patrons.
Specific to that assumption, we used the final Guaranteed Maximum Price (“GMP”) budget for the Silverstein Eye Center Arena and Centerpoint Community Ice Rink when completed and delivered to the City of Independence in fourth quarter of 2008. We first converted the 2008 USD final cost to Canadian Funds at a current rate of 1.27. Next, we used an escalation factor from 2008 to 2017 of 1.219 and finally added a Construction Location Factor for Charlottetown of 1.096. The Combined Factor of 1.696 was then used to adjust each specific budget line item from the Silverstein Eye Centers Arena to the Charlottetown project.
1
We provided a series of estimates based on the above process for a 5,800-fixed seat facility and community ice rink, a 5,000-seat facility and community ice rink and finally a 5,000-seat facility without a community ice rink. These estimates are based on our line item by line item breakdown and are relative to fixed seat count and square foot estimates.
ICC also provided a lower range cost estimate for each of the three models based on our value engineering assumptions. Specific assumptions would include reducing square foot allowances for concourses, offices and ancillary areas (10,000 – 20,000 square feet); reduction in the number of luxury suites (based on market needs); reduction in interior amenities and finishes; selection of exterior finishes; roof design and rigging requirements.
It is our position that our methodology provides the most accurate cost estimate for this project and ICC is comfortable that the lower base estimate for each project type is achievable.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this estimate and look forward to working with all parties to further define this project.
2
PROJECT: LOCATION: Charlottetown, PEI
Project Ratios: Escalation Factor (2008 vs 2017) 1.219 Location Factor (Independence, Missouri vs Charlottetown, PEI) 1.096 US$ Exchange Factor 1.27 Combined Factor 1.696 Independence Event Charlottetown Event Charlottetown Event Charlottetown Event Center (2008) Center (2017) Center (2017) Center (2017) 5800 seats 5800 seats 5000 seats 5000 seats 190,000 sq.ft 190,000 sq.ft. 185,000 sq.ft. 155,000 sq.ft. w/ Community Rink w/ Community Rink w/ Community Rink No Community Rink Project Soft Costs, Professional Fees and Facility Start-Up A/E Design Fees & Reimbursables 2,200,000.00 3,405,600.00 3,405,600.00 3,096,000.00 ICC General Conditions & Fees 1,200,000.00 1,857,600.00 1,857,600.00 1,548,000.00 Total Project Soft Costs $ 3,400,000.00 $ 5,263,200.00 $ 5,263,200.00 $ 4,644,000.00
Overall Construction Project Capital Costs 2 SITEWORK (pad ready site) $ 719,388.00 $ 963,857.15 $ 867,471.43 $ 867,471.43 3 CONCRETE $ 4,188,184.00 $ 5,611,451.78 $ 5,050,306.60 $ 5,050,306.60 4 MASONRY $ 1,271,521.00 $ 1,703,621.14 $ 1,533,259.02 $ 1,533,259.02 5 METALS $ 8,705,063.00 $ 11,663,298.76 $ 10,496,968.89 $ 10,496,968.89 6 WOOD & PLASTICS $ 631,181.00 $ 845,674.82 $ 761,107.33 $ 761,107.33 7 THERMAL/MOISTURE PROTECTION $ 1,519,041.00 $ 2,035,255.69 $ 1,831,730.12 $ 1,831,730.12 8 DOORS & WINDOWS $ 1,910,365.00 $ 2,559,563.07 $ 2,303,606.76 $ 2,303,606.76 9 FINISHES $ 3,105,155.00 $ 4,160,377.76 $ 3,744,339.98 $ 3,744,339.98 10 SPECIALTIES $ 285,926.00 $ 383,092.05 $ 344,782.84 $ 344,782.84 11 EQUIPMENT $ 24,750.00 $ 33,160.78 $ 29,844.70 $ 29,844.70 12 FURNISHINGS $ 12,320.00 $ 16,506.69 $ 14,856.03 $ 14,856.03 13 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION $ 1,400,000.00 $ 1,875,761.07 $ 1,688,184.96 $ 1,688,184.96 14 CONVEYING SYSTEMS $ 215,000.00 $ 288,063.31 $ 259,256.98 $ 259,256.98 15 MECHANICAL $ 6,126,721.00 $ 8,208,760.52 $ 7,387,884.47 $ 7,387,884.47 16 ELECTRICAL $ 3,014,784.00 $ 4,039,296.04 $ 3,635,366.43 $ 3,635,366.43 SUBTOTAL - Main arena $ 33,129,399.00 $ 44,387,740.62 $ 39,948,966.56 $ 39,948,966.56
Community Rink (Aprox. 300 seats) Included above $ 11,872,000.00 $ 11,872,000.00 No Community Rink
General Conditions $ 1,700,000.00 $ 2,883,177.05 $ 2,883,177.05 $ 2,883,177.05 Sub Bonds $ - $ - $ - $ - Contingency for Construction Costs $ 1,928,095.00 $ 3,270,023.09 $ 2,943,020.78 $ 2,795,869.74 Builders Risk $ 57,780.00 $ 97,994.10 $ 88,194.69 $ 83,784.96 General Liability Insurance $ 394,828.00 $ 669,622.96 $ 602,660.66 $ 572,527.63 Performance and Payment Bond $ 288,898.00 $ 489,967.11 $ 440,970.40 $ 418,921.88 Taxes $ - $ - $ - $ - Building Permits and Fees By Owner By Owner By Owner By Owner Construction Management Fee $ 1,400,000.00 $ 2,374,381.10 $ 2,136,942.99 $ 1,923,248.69 Subtotal GC & Hard Construction Costs $ 38,899,000.00 $ 66,044,906.03 $ 60,915,933.13 $ 48,626,496.50 Construction Cost Per SF $ 204.73 $ 347.60 $ 329.28 $ 335.36 Construction Cost Per Seat $ 6,706.72 $ 11,387.05 $ 12,183.19 $ 9,725.30 Estimated FF&E Costs BUILDING SIGNAGE AND SCOREBOARDS $ 3,376,250.00 $ 5,726,074.42 $ 5,726,074.42 $ 5,726,074.42 SPORTS RELATED EQUIPMENT $ 1,237,000.00 $ 2,097,935.30 $ 2,097,935.30 $ 1,598,435.30 BUILDING SYSTEMS $ 352,150.00 $ 597,241.65 $ 597,241.65 $ 597,241.65 FIXED AND PORTABLE SEATING $ 1,746,915.00 $ 2,962,744.26 $ 2,518,332.62 $ 2,518,332.62 CONCESSIONS $ 1,022,000.00 $ 1,733,298.20 $ 1,733,298.20 $ 1,733,298.20 SUITE FURNITURE & APPLIANCES $ 223,800.00 $ 379,561.78 $ 379,561.78 $ 379,561.78 TICKETING EQUIPMENT $ 88,294.00 $ 149,745.43 $ 149,745.43 $ 149,745.43 STAGE, ADA RAMPS AND INTERIOR EQUIPMENT $ 81,500.00 $ 138,222.90 $ 138,222.90 $ 138,222.90 OFFICE FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT $ 111,100.00 $ 188,424.10 $ 188,424.10 $ 188,424.10 BACK OF HOUSE AND MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT $ 283,945.00 $ 481,566.89 $ 481,566.89 $ 481,566.89 DRESSING ROOMS, GREEN ROOMS, LOCKER ROOMS, ETC.$ 32,760.00 $ 55,560.52 $ 55,560.52 $ 55,560.52 DECORATING SERVICES $ 140,100.00 $ 237,607.71 $ 237,607.71 $ 237,607.71 CONTINGENCY $ 200,000.00 $ 339,197.30 $ 339,197.30 $ 309,197.30 Subtotal Project FF&E Costs $ 8,895,814.00 $ 15,087,180.46 $ 14,642,768.82 $ 14,113,268.82 Sales Tax on Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Project FF&E Costs $ 8,895,814.00 $ 15,087,180.46 $ 14,642,768.82 $ 14,113,268.82
PROJECT COSTS (based on Independence Arena) $ 51,194,814.00 $ 86,395,286.49 $ 80,821,901.95 $ 67,383,765.33
Total Project Cost Range: Subject to programming; possible reduction in square footage between 10,000 and 20,000 square feet; reduction in luxury suite count from 26 to 12; alternates for interior finishes; adjustment to amenities provided; $78M $74M $63M adjustment to exterior finishes and value engineering estimates for Community Ice. Additional costs for Parking (500 cars @ $4k - 6k per space) $2M to $3M $2M to $3M $2M to $3M Assumptions: Land not included Taxes and building permits not included APPENDIX B: MAY FACILITY TOUR REPORT
City of Charlottetown Multi‐Use Facility Task Force Committee
Ontario Facilities Tour: May 16‐18, 2017
Facility Tour Overview Report June 2017 i City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Facility Tour
Contents
1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose ...... 1 1.2 Itinerary ...... 1 1.3 Attendees ...... 2 2 Brief Synopsis of Tour by Facility ...... 3 2.1 Rogers K-Rock Centre, Kingston, Ontario ...... 3 2.2 Tribute Communities Centre, Oshawa, Ontario ...... 4 2.3 Meridian Centre, St. Catharines, Ontario ...... 6 2.4 Hershey Centre, Mississauga, Ontario ...... 7
Appendix A: Tour Itinerary Appendix B: Facility Background
Sierra Planning and Management and Planning Sierra
June 2017
1 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Facility Tour
1 Introduction
During the period of May 17-18, the City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force had the opportunity of touring some relatively newer multi-use facilities and spectator arenas in Ontario.
1.1 Purpose
1. The purpose of the facility tour is to provide the Task Force with first-hand observation of a selection of comparative facilities and create knowledge transfer regarding how they operate, their successes and challenges and lessons learned (in design, funding and operations). The aim was to learn by way of an holistic account of how the selected facilities were planned: their scale, the importance of location, pre-opening planning, and operational performance – events, types, and successes of the facility to date including how the building functions.
2. The City’s events manager Wayne Long and Mike Dillon of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) were also participants of the tour, providing their perspectives and insight on the events market and how it operates, as well the types of economic and regenerative benefits that major infrastructure facilities of this type are anticipated to create. 1.2 Itinerary
The Itinerary was set to maximize the use of time and was organized as follows:
May 16, 2017 4:51 p.m. Arrive at Ottawa International Airport Flight AC8627
May 17, 2017 9:00 a.m. Tour Rogers K-Rock Centre 1 The Tragically Hip Way, Kingston, ON
led by Lynn Carlotto, General Manager 3:00 p.m. Tribute Communities Centre (99 Athol St. East, Oshawa) led by Vince Vella, Director of Operations accompanied by Ron Diskey and Stephanie Sinnott – City of Oshawa
May 18, 2017 10:30 a.m. Tour Meridian Centre, 1 IceDogs Way, St. Catharines, ON led by Ken Noakes, General Manager
Sierra Planning and Management and Planning Sierra
June 2017
2 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Facility Tour
3:00 p.m. Tour Hersey Centre, 5500 Rose Cherry Pl. led by Mike Hamilton, Executive Director, General Manager Drive to Pearson International Airport 9:20 p.m. Departure from Toronto International Airport flight AC1708
A complete copy of the original itinerary is attached in Appendix A.
1.3 Attendees
In attendance for the duration of the tour were the following:
Consultant Team . Jonathan Hack, Sierra Planning and Management . Rick Kozuback, International Coliseums Company
Task Force Representation . Brian Cameron . Mike Dillon . Mike Hennessey . Dennis King . Mitchell Tweel . Wayne Long . Bernie Wood
Sierra Planning and Management and Planning Sierra
June 2017
3 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Facility Tour
2 Brief Synopsis of Tour by Facility
2.1 Rogers K-Rock Centre, Kingston, Ontario
Please refer to Appendix B (Facility Background) for a summary of this facility.
Reason Selected for Visit:
Comparable scale. Downtown location. Replacement facility (replaced aging venue). Broader policy objectives for downtown urban regeneration. Site fit and approach to patron parking. Operational success.
Key findings of relevance to the application to the Charlottetown market place:
Successes:
A dispersed parking model (parking is supplied by a variety of public and private off- street lots supplemented by on-street parking in the broader downtown area). Most of the 33 hospitality suites are sold – each has 10 seats, cost is $25,000 per year, hockey tickets are extra. Standing room in box is allowed and is paid for separately. Revenues are in the black, and excess is used to pay down debt on the facility – this despite Environics research that shows the per capita spending in Kingston is relatively modest (across key discretionary spending categories). Average patronage of 4,000 per hockey game. $2.75 ticket surcharge. City has role in managing the ice time that is not blocked by the franchise.
Realities and challenges:
Hockey Franchise (Frontenacs) pays zero for ice (games and practice). SMG (Savor, an SMG Company) runs Food and Beverage (F&B) – from the financials it
appears that the F&B is granted to the management company as a commission (i.e. an annual payment is made to the facility), but operations (costs and revenues and therefore success of the F&B function) is granted to SMG. The footprint is tight – the original hope was to load the building on both the 1st and 3rd levels but the concourse was relatively small and hence unable to achieve this. A January 2017 staff report exists in which the basis of the minimum operational surplus necessary to trigger income splitting with operator, is reduced from the previous figure of $750,000.
Sierra Planning and Management and Planning Sierra
June 2017
4 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Facility Tour
Because of the tight site, the back of house function is too small. In addition, King Street is a public street immediately to the north and loading occurs from this public street. In hindsight, the operators would have benefitted from the closure of this street. Requires greater storage space. Not ideal for trade shows, although some conferences occur.
2.2 Tribute Communities Centre, Oshawa, Ontario
Kind attendance by many of the administration of the City of Oshawa, as well as the operator (Global Spectrum). The group included John Henry (Mayor of Oshawa), Councillor Bob Chapman, Ron Diskey (Commissioner of Community Services), and Stephanie Sinnott (Chief Financial Officer of the City of Oshawa). Tour led by Vince Vella (General Manager of GM Place), and Jay Laxton (Operations Manager).
Reason Selected for Visit:
Comparable scale – on the higher end of the range. Includes a secondary ice pad used to provide scale for promoting facilities own recreation leagues; capacity for trade shows, and more. Downtown location. Replacement facility (replaced aging venue). Broader policy objectives for downtown urban regeneration. Site fit and approach to patron parking. Location within sphere of Toronto market place – implications for competition.
Key findings of relevance to the application to the Charlottetown market place:
Main patron entry is behind the stage end of the facility, which is problematic. The stage should have been flipped. Manager viewpoint: 7,000 seats would have been preferred. Primary market is Durham Region, reflective of the strong competition from venues in the Toronto market.
Operations are moving toward break-even. Global Spectrum runs concession for the City. Global Spectrum controls the naming rights, pouring rights, and pizza rights, etc. 10% of concessions goes to team for hockey only. City gets a percentage of ticket sales. Restaurant (2 levels) is a street-entry venue as bowl is sunken – significant opportunity to integrate the building into the urban fabric.
Sierra Planning and Management and Planning Sierra
June 2017
5 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Facility Tour
Sierra Planning and Management and Planning Sierra
June 2017
6 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Facility Tour
Financial Results:
Approximately $400,000 in annual deficit. In addition, a capital reserve of $380,000 is administered. Annual debt: $3.8 million P&I per annum. Historically the building was put at risk for events (City promoted events); now promoters take all risk and facility is rented 92-95 event days. Fewer events than in Kingston, which represents a more stand-alone market.
Design Findings:
Sunken bowl – significant size to facility with wide concourses. Appears overbuilt in terms of number and size of rooms and concourses, but space has been well used including dedicated space by Hall of Fame. Retractable seats (top rows fixed so not a true horseshoe). Advantage is that retractable seats can fill in the horseshoe end to give appearance of 360 for sporting events. Significant “plug and play” production room under the rake (18,000 amps). 23 suites, 4 group rooms and 1 large community room. Original design by NORR/Giffels and original operator was MLSE. MLSE subsequently removed itself from operational management of the facility.
2.3 Meridian Centre, St. Catharines, Ontario
Reason Selected for Visit:
Comparable scale. Edge of downtown location. Previously contaminated land. Replacement facility (replaced aging venue). Broader policy objectives for downtown urban regeneration. Site fit and approach to patron parking. Location within sphere of Toronto market place – implications for competition. Most recent facility built in Ontario (2014).
Key findings of relevance to the application to the Charlottetown market place:
Facility managed by SMG for and on behalf of the City, on a direct fee for service basis (no risk sharing).
Sierra Planning and Management and Planning Sierra
June 2017
7 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Facility Tour
Facility is deficit producing but steadily improving as number of events days increases every year. Facility design and construction process was subject to a value engineering process, which did not take the operator’s lead in determining the importance of key operational-related capital costs – example is the loss of catwalk mounted spotlights, which then necessitated their positioning in a box with imperfect sight lines. Lights are not LED and for a venue so new, this is an immediate upgrade required at higher cost than if originally budgeted. Other main challenge is the fact that the facility is in the canal floodplain beneath downtown – access from downtown on foot is by 2 pedestrian entries on the third level. While this connects the centre with downtown and parking, the box office is on the ground floor and separated from the main flow of pedestrian traffic. Full 360 design is achieved with excellent state-of-the-art retractable seats. Good design for plug and play production systems for events at concert stage end. Importantly, this facility (while a single pad) has a community entrance and community dressing rooms, with direct access to the ice. Width of concourse is too narrow in places. Main concourse is at 2nd level. Boxes follow traditional design and are small with floor-to-ceiling dividers. An alternative would have been to create greater openness with semi-high dividers and experiment with loge seating. Facility planning and pre-opening emphasizes the value of having a management expert (such as the future operator of the venue) provide input to the decision-making process. Back of House is well sized.
2.4 Hershey Centre, Mississauga, Ontario
Reason Selected for Visit:
Significant community level access. Non-downtown location.
Regionally significant site (access at major interchange). On-site parking. Location within sphere of Toronto market place – implications for competition. Example of incremental build-out of campus.
Key findings of relevance to the application to the Charlottetown market place:
Although opened in 1996 as an event centre with second practice pad, the facility is relevant for several features:
Sierra Planning and Management and Planning Sierra
June 2017
8 City of Charlottetown Multi-Use Facility Task Force Facility Tour
o The gradual build-up of community recreation uses on-site serving the City of Mississauga and regionally beyond the City. o These uses include a 4-pad arena, and a full-size soccer pitch field house. o Additional soccer and ice arena facilities across Matheson Blvd East (Iceland). Mississauga Sportzone opened in 2007 and is a 200,000 sq. ft. expansion, which includes a full size FIFA indoor artificial soccer field, a gymnastics centre, triple gymnasium, fitness centre, and meeting rooms. In addition, there are two outdoor artificial turf fields that are also domed in the winter. Hershey Centre has over 140 event days per annum. Operationally the relationship with the City of Mississauga works well – the City focusing its control and management on community access to the facilities while SMG manages the building operations the entire complex of assets. SMG focuses its marketing and programming role on the events market for the main 5,000 seat spectator bowl. Hershey Centre has used its experience and longevity to develop markets for event days – such as in the sport of boxing, and other more niche sporting markets. Normal design realities for a building of this age: lack of point of sale opportunities throughout the bowl and the foyers, limited concourse area and lack of storage space.
Additional background information related to each of these facilities is included in Appendix B.
Sierra Planning and Management and Planning Sierra
June 2017
Appendix A: Tour Itinerary
Multi-use Sport and Entertainment Task Force (City of Charlottetown)
Site Visit Itinerary May 16th – May 18th, 2017
May 16th, 2017 4:51 p.m. Arrive at Ottawa International Airport Flight AC8627 Drive from Ottawa to Kingston 8:00 p.m. Dinner @ Casa Domenic. 35 Brock St., Kingston, ph: (613) 542-0870 (http://casadomenico.com/menu.html) Check into Delta Hotel Kingston Waterfront (confirmation M-94TAQU2, address: 1 Johnson Street, Kingston, ON ph: 613-549-8100)
May 17th, 2017 7:30 a.m. Breakfast at Hotel (Buffet included with package) Rogers K-Rock Centre, Kingston 9:00 a.m. Tour Rogers K-Rock Centre (1 The Tragically Hip Way, Kingston, ON) led by Lynn Carlotto, General Manager 11:00 a.m. Drive to Oshawa 1:00 p.m. Lunch @ Fionn MacCool’s, 214 Ritson Road North, Oshawa; Ph: 905-576-9565 (http://www.fionnmaccools.com/food-menu/) 3:00 p.m. Tribute Communities Centre (99 Athol St. East, Oshawa) led by Vince Vella, Director of Operations accompanied by Ron Diskey and Stephanie Sinnott – City of Oshawa
5:00 p.m. Drive to Toronto Tribute Communities Centre, Oshawa 6:00 p.m. Check into Hyatt Regency Toronto (Confirmation 24519259; address: 370 King Street West, Toronto, ON ph: 416-343-1234) Dinner (location TBC)
May 18th, 2017 8:00 a.m. Breakfast at Hotel (breakfast included with package) 9:00 a.m. Leave for St. Catharines 10:30 a.m. Tour Meridian Centre, 1 IceDogs Way, St. Catharines, ON led by Ken Noakes, General Manager 12:30 p.m. Lunch @ Green Lotus Meridian Centre, St. Catharines 55 St. Paul Street, St. Catharines, ON, ph: 289-362-1311 (www.greenlotusthai.ca/menu.html) Unscheduled Time Drive to Pearson International Airport 9:20 p.m. Departure from Toronto International Airport flight AC1708
206 Laird Drive, Suite 200, Toronto, Ontario M4G 3W4 ph: (416) 363-4443 | fax: 1-866-895-5925 I www.sierraplan.com
Appendix B: Facility Background
K-Rock Centres (2007)
General Information:
. 6,700 seat sports and entertainment venue . 5,200 Arena Seats . Home to the Kingston Frontenacs (OHL) . Located Downtown Kingston . Owned by the City of Kingston . Managed by SMG . Cost: $43 million . K-Rock 105.7 purchased naming rights in 2008 . August, 2013 the centre was officially renamed the Rogers K-Rock Centre after Rogers Communications purchased the radio station in 2009
Issues/Themes Shaping Development
1. Opportunity for Downtown Urban Regeneration. The City’s “North Block” identified for major transition with higher density residential and commercial uses. Significant underutilized land, some dereliction, major sites such as police station located on prime redevelopment lands. Concept was one of major public investment (such as an event centre) stimulating regeneration. 2. Arguments over location were typical – the constraints of tight downtown sites versus the flexibility of non-downtown sites. 3. Major Council discussion and disagreement over the merits of downtown location. 4. Parking sufficiency was at the heart of discussions. 5. OHL franchise sagging in attendance. 6. Capital costs were kept broadly in line with expectations – slight overage required. 7. Year 1 NOI was significantly in deficit. 8. Venue has grown into a significant operation in financial terms. 9. North Block – Regeneration occuring: http://www.thewhig.com/2016/01/01/downtown-kingston-how-high-is-too-high
https://www.cityofkingston.ca/documents/10180/490265/Block4_DesignGuidelines.pdf/176b1602- f8ef-43fd-9f02-93cf483c3839
Tour Contact: Lynn Carlotto / General Manager 1 Tragically Hip Way, Kingston, ON Ph: 613-650-5079 email: [email protected]
206 Laird Drive, Suite 200, Toronto, Ontario M4G 3W4 ph: (416) 363-4443 | fax: 1-866-895-5925 I www.sierraplan.com K - ROCK CENTRE Page | 2
Operational Results - 2013
. Net Income (post year-end adjustments) $730,551. . New management agreement (2013-2017). . $700,000 Net Income from Operations financial guarantee from the operator. . Net Operating Income in excess of the guaranteed amount of $700,000 is shared (per operator agreement) at 62.5% for the City and 37.5% for SMG. . In 2012 (previous operator agreement) fees paid to SMG appear to be 2/3 to City and 1/3 to SMG. . Under the terms of the facility’s new management agreement, SMG Canada ULC is paid 37.5% of the annual surplus in excess of $700,000 up to $900,000 and 30% in excess of $900,000. The amount recognized in the financial statements is $11,457 for year ending December 31, 2013.
Unofficial Operational Results – 2015
. Anticipated that the net income would be $577,000, which was short of the $700,000 target. SMG would have had to reach into pocket to cover difference. . Foreign exchange rate is a problem . Hosted 96 events in 2015, 18% lower than budget . Event revenues fell by 16 percent, with attendance at 209,000 – 19% lower than projected . Council approved 2016 Budget with projected budget $550,000, leaving SMG to cover $150,000 to meet guaranteed income.
206 Laird Drive, Suite 200, Toronto, Ontario M4G 3W4 ph: (416) 363-4443 | fax: 1-866-895-5925 I www.sierraplan.com Tribute Communities Centre (Formerly known as GM Centre (2006))
General Information:
. Opened 2005 . Located Downtown Oshawa . 6,400 event seating . 5,400 hockey seating . Home to the Oshawa Generals . Home for ALL (Arena Lacrosse League) . Cost: $45 million
Issues/Themes Shaping Development
1. Oshawa Civic Auditorium built 1964. 2. 3,625 seats (4025 standing). 3. Low floor to roof truss height constrained capacity of facility for sports and non-sports events. 4. Studies undertaken in early 2000s for major renovation and retrofit, including assessment of the potential to raise the roof. 5. Council subsequently decided to develop new sports and entertainment centre, opened in 2006. 6. Civic Auditorium demolished in 2010.
Oshawa is also home to the Legends Centre (1661 Harmony Rd. N)
. 4-pad arena . leisure pool with lazy river and waterslide . fitness centre and indoor track . an outdoor accessible playground and a splash pad . home to branches of the Oshawa Senior Citizens Centres and the Oshawa Public Libraries. . Virtual tour http://www.gotyoulooking.com/1legends/mht.html
Tour Contact Jay Laxton, Director of Operations Tribute Communities Centre, Spectra Venue Management 99 Athol Street East, Oshawa, ON Ph: 905.438.8881 ext. 138 Email: [email protected]
206 Laird Drive, Suite 200, Toronto, Ontario M4G 3W4 ph: (416) 363-4443 | fax: 1-866-895-5925 I www.sierraplan.com Meridian Centre – St. Catharines (2014)
General Information . Spectator Arena – 5,300 seats . Events Seating – 6,000 . 160,000 sq.ft. . Located Downtown St. Catharine’s . Cost: $50 million . Home to Niagara Ice Dogs (OHL)
Issues/Themes Shaping Development
1. Replaced Jack Gatecliff Arena (2,800 seats, 3145 standing), built 1936. 2. Original facility named the Garden City Arena (to 1996). In 1996, this facility plus the adjacent Rex Stimers Arena (800 seats) were combined into a single facility. 3. Lengthy period of consideration leading to decision in 2011 to build new. 4. Plans for new event centre tied to downtown renewal. 5. Choice of site was important to plans for downtown improvement. 6. Seat count was a major discussion – because the market is influenced by events market in Hamilton Region as well as cross- border in Buffalo.
Tour Contact Ken Noakes, Regional General Manager SMG, Meridian Centre 1 IceDogs Way, St. Catharines, ON L2R 0B3 ph: 905-684-8400 ext: 6363 | Mobile: 289-968-5367
206 Laird Drive, Suite 200, Toronto, Ontario M4G 3W4 ph: (416) 363-4443 | fax: 1-866-895-5925 I www.sierraplan.com APPENDIX C: DESIGN FUNCTIONALITIES
Amphitheatre Major Trade Shows Graduations, religious sssemblies, Major trade and product shows, heavy memorials / Remembrance Day, rallies, equipment shows, single or double arena award ceremonies. floors.
Trade Shows: Heavy Equipment Conferences Major trade and product shows, heavy Can be done in conjunction with trade equipment shows, single or double arena shows, full or half‐banquet, plenary floors. sessions.
Concerts: End Stage Concerts: Centre Stage
End stage, maximum capacity. Centre stage, maximum seating.
Concerts: Half House Lecture / Presentation
Used only when other local venues too Half house configuration, more intimate. small or already booked.
Rodeo / Agricultural Fair Tournaments
Hockey, ringette, figure skating, curling, lacrosse, basketball, volleyball.