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. 11 22
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. 33 44
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).
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.
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
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
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.
What We Heard Almost 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 Vision Online 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.
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. 11 22 33
What We Heard Result: Ambitious; Somewhat conflicting (or at least challenges concept of complementarity); Nevertheless clear.
4 Concepts & Related Capital Costs Preamble: 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.
Option 1: Maintain Status Quo Issues for Consideration Short-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. Doesnt 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 years Negative 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.
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 Consideration Meets 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).
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.
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).
Order of Magnitude Capital Costs (2013 $) by Option Long Term Build-Out* Development Area/Item Option 1Option 2Option 3 A1 Capital Upgrades to Existing Facilities and Infrastructure (Years 1 - 5) (all-in costs) - Arena $2,399,550 $113,300 - Pool $961,500 - Fields $85,000 - A2 Optional Long Term Upgrade to Arena** $4,000,000 - B Arena Twinning (Allocation) -$8,000,000- B2 New Arena (Greenfield Location) (Optional) --- - Single Pad*** -- $8,000,000 - Twin Pad*** --$15,000,000 C 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 $846,700 Grand Total $7,446,050$15,446,050$5,193,500 Short Term Costs (Years 1-5) $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
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
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).
6 The 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.