Master Plan Deliverables

23
Master Plan City of Charlottetown Simmons Sport Centre Complex 2013-2022 KenDesRoches

description

1. Master Plan Deliverables. Project Requirements. RFP outlined key deliverables: Condition Assessment of the Simmons Complex; Assessment of utilization, user profiles and needs; A City-wide assessment of ice and/or outdoor pool needs was not within the brief/requirements for this project. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Master Plan Deliverables

Page 1: Master Plan Deliverables

Master Plan

City of CharlottetownSimmons Sport Centre Complex

2013

-202

2

KenDesRoches

Page 2: Master Plan Deliverables

1Master Plan Deliverables

Page 3: Master Plan Deliverables

Project RequirementsRFP outlined key deliverables:

Condition Assessment of the Simmons Complex;

Assessment of utilization, user profiles and needs;

• A City-wide assessment of ice and/or outdoor pool needs was not within the brief/requirements for this project.

1

2

Page 4: Master Plan Deliverables

Project Requirements

Establish vision for the future of the Complex based on: Assessment of community and user

needs via market research, extensive stakeholder and public consultations;

Projected demographic changes and trends in sports participation.

Establish short to medium-term (1-5 yrs.) and long-term (6-10 yrs.) strategic directions for development of the Complex inclusive of capital project priorities.

3

4

Page 5: Master Plan Deliverables

2 State of the Complex

Page 6: Master Plan Deliverables

2012 Condition Audit: The Arena Arena building generally well maintained (40

yrs. old);

Lacks many modern amenities that would be included in a new building;

With the same level of maintenance and equipment replacement, building systems should perform satisfactorily over the next 5 years +;

But, significant maintenance/repair issues exist (movement of the rink slab, building envelope issues).

Page 7: Master Plan Deliverables

2012 Condition Audit: The Arena Investment will maintain the facility at a

progressively lower (relative) level of quality compared to a state of the art efficient modern facility;

Significant Investment in facility as a single-pad venue should not be an option.

Page 8: Master Plan Deliverables

Pool and related systems in poor condition;

Exterior slab-on-grade outside the canteen and pool change rooms is extensively cracked;

Pool mechanical equipment is 38-years-old and should all be replaced;

Pool is beyond functional life; patching should not be an option; in-situ replacement of pool and mechanical system required.

2012 Condition Audit: The Pool

Page 9: Master Plan Deliverables

Wear of sports fields is worse in the normal high use areas. Some fields are operating at or over capacity (e.g. Simmons Main and Colonel Gray);

Fields appear to drain well with the exception of some localized water ponding;

The grass is in fair condition, with the best turf being on Simmons Main Field;

There are no changing or washroom facilities for the sports fields.

2012 Condition Audit: The Sports Fields

Page 10: Master Plan Deliverables

3 The Vision

Page 11: Master Plan Deliverables

Simmons as a Complex: Simmons Sport

Centre and fields considered part of a broader Community campus;

Functionally integrated into the activities and facilities of the surrounding schools;

Design options look holistically at the improved functionality of the entire campus.

Page 12: Master Plan Deliverables

What We HeardAlmost 50% of online respondents indicated they were little to moderately satisfied with the current Simmons facility (ranking from 3-5) .

Breakdown of Consultation Process:

Stage 1: Over 24 In‐depth Interviews w/ Key Stakeholders (e.g. User Groups)

Stage 2: Public Input Session to Guide Master Plan VisionOnline Public Survey (promoted on City website and via news release) – 69 Respondents

Stage 3: Public Meeting to Review Draft Master Plan (Option)

Advertised via hand delivered flyer to all households within 100 m.

Page 13: Master Plan Deliverables

What We Heard Wide range of needs/aspirations voiced; Yet, consensus on several key aspects of

future vision:

Enhance its community focus;

Maintain/enhance opportunities for active recreation and intensive field use (e.g. investing in artificial field turf); and

Expanding opportunities for passive recreation on-site.

12

3

Page 14: Master Plan Deliverables

What We HeardResult: Ambitious;

Somewhat conflicting (or at least challenges concept of complementarity);

Nevertheless clear.

Page 15: Master Plan Deliverables

4Concepts &Related Capital CostsPreamble:

An iterative process followed whereby a range of options responding to community vision are balanced with capital cost implications of the suite of desired changes.

The Result:A likely sustainable framework for long-term planning.

Page 16: Master Plan Deliverables

Option 1: Maintain Status Quo

Issues for ConsiderationShort-term costs provide a 1-5 year strategy for the improvement of the Complex in light of policy gap regarding future City-wide ice needs.

Doesn’t address changing community needs, long-term infrastructure planning or highest and best use for the site.

Costly price tag for ensuring status quo for next 10 yearsNegative cost-benefit ratio.

No new initiatives on-site; Maintenance/enhancement of

current facilities; Includes a rebuilt pool in-situ and

moderate capital enhancements to arena in years 1-5;

Does not address long-term viability of arena building (i.e. 10-15 years from now);

Does not offer realistic solution to long-term ice needs in City.

Page 17: Master Plan Deliverables

Short-term (1-5 yrs.) investment in required and desirable capital repairs and upgrades to arena and fields;

Pool rebuilt in-situ; Longer-term (6-10 years)

upgrades to existing arena to significantly extend useful life coupled with additional ice-pad (i.e. twinning).

Option 2: Traditional Recreation Footprint

Issues for ConsiderationMeets the needs of principal users – field sports and ice user groups best if facility twinned.

Outstanding policy & strategic questions as to merits of twinning arena (pending assessment of City-wide ice needs).

Cost of fully upgrading arena and add second pad is only marginally less expensive than the cost of building a new twin pad at Greenfield site ($14.4 M to $15 M).

Page 18: Master Plan Deliverables

Option 3: Investing in First Class Complex Emphasis on sports

infrastructure at community level;

New Pool in-situ; note in all scenarios, option for alternatives to finalize pool should be investigated (for example a wading pool/splash-pad structure);

Development of Simmons Main Field with artificial turf, appropriate fencing;

Arena decommissioned pursuant to a presumed future policy strategy of ice replacement in City; and

Multi-use community centre.

Page 19: Master Plan Deliverables

Option 3: Investing in First Class Complex

Issues for Consideration

Decommissioning of the arena must occur in the context of Council-approved strategies for facilities development and growth planning. Decommissioning arena is likely warranted in medium-term.

Invests in sports fields and meets significant community and school interest in field utilization. Opportunity for an alternative range of uses in a neighbourhood setting.

Synergy between intensive field use and passive recreation.

Investment in integrated trails and pick-up use sport courts; and

Network of active loops/trails and social spaces (gazebos).

Page 20: Master Plan Deliverables

Order of Magnitude Capital Costs (2013 $) by OptionLong Term Build-Out*

Development Area/Item Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

A1 Capital Upgrades to Existing Facilities and Infrastructure (Years 1 - 5) (all-in costs) - Arena $2,399,550 $2,399,550 $113,300 - Pool $961,500 $961,500 $961,500 - Fields $85,000 $85,000 -

A2Optional Long Term Upgrade to Arena**

$4,000,000 $4,000,000 -

B Arena Twinning (Allocation) - $8,000,000 -

B2 New Arena (Greenfield Location) (Optional) - - - - Single Pad*** - - $8,000,000 - Twin Pad*** - - $15,000,000C Conversion to Artificial Turf Field - - $1,500,000

D Multi-Use Centre

- Building (Allocation) - - $1,000,000 - External Development - - $432,500 - Multi-Use Court (x1) - $66,250

E Multi-use Trails/Walkway Connections - - $273,250

Sub-Total Construction Cost Estimate $7,446,050 $15,446,050 $4,346,800 Soft Costs (20%) Included Included $846,700 Grand Total $7,446,050 $15,446,050 $5,193,500

Short Term Costs (Years 1-5) $3,446,050 $3,446,050 $113,300

* Excludes decommissioning, demolition and off-site disposal costs as applicable** Estimate of additional CapEx to significantly extend service life and functional quality of arena *** Costs not reflected in construction estimates for Option 3

Page 21: Master Plan Deliverables

The 5-year Plan In the short-term (1-5 years), Option

1 represents an immediate actionable strategy focused on maintaining the status quo.

Option 3 (minimal costs years 1-5) only relevant if decommission of Simmons is planned.

We do not recommend adopting Option 3 for expediency in years 1-5 without making a policy decision on the future of Simmons Arena.

Arena should receive some $2.5 M minimum investment in the next 5 years if plan is to retain it for next 10 years.

5

Page 22: Master Plan Deliverables

The 5-year Plan The 5-year plan assumes arena is

retained, for which needed repairs and upgrades must be undertaken to extend its life, and improve its quality markedly in the short-term.

Minimum investment of $3.5 million estimated.

Further investment over the longer-term (totaling $4 million) could ensure its life for a further 20+ years (not recommended).

Page 23: Master Plan Deliverables

6The Longer-term Plan Options 2 and 3 represent the longer-term

plan for the development of Simmons;

Immediate Action: A decision between these two options will be dependent on the results of City-wide recreation planning exercise inclusive of an ice needs and open-air pool needs assessment;

Option 2 (retaining and twinning the arena over the longer-term) totals $12 million in additional investment over years 6-10 yrs.;

Option 3 achievable over the long-term at a cost of $5.1 million. However, cost of replacing decommissioned ice elsewhere in City should be recognized, but not ascribed to this project.