WS Item 3 AudioSOUTHLAKE
v
Multipurpose Facility
Project Briefing
Integrity
Innovation �_' k! dd
Accountability
Commitment
to Excellence
Teamwork
This is Alison Ortowski with the City Manager's office. For the next several minutes I will be
discussing the Multipurpose Facility project in this power point project briefing. For
questions about this presentation, please call Chris Tribble at 817 - 748 -8021.
1
Project Briefing Purpose
• History of the Multipurpose Facility
• Funding Considerations
• Public /Private Partnerships
• Next Steps
®SOUTHLAKE
The purpose of this briefing is to review the history of the actions behind bringing the
facility to fruition, the current considerations associated with the facility, and the next steps
involved with the project.
VA
History
0
Council established
Multipurpose Facility
as priority during
June 23, 2008 retreat
Project fund created
in FY 2009 CIP to
begin funding project
U SOUTHLAKE
City Council established a Multipurpose Facility as a priority during a discussion of facility
needs at the June Retreat on June 23, 2008. This prioritization was reflected in the Capital
Improvements Program (CIP) for FY 2009, where $2,000,000 was used to create a project
account for the construction of a recreational center, library, and senior center.
3
History
Several questions arose during priority designation:
1. Should the City renovate an 5. Would those uses change
existing facility such as the based on whether or not
Gateway Church and how the facility is in a
much would that cost? renovated building or in a
2. Would new construction be a newly- constructed
better option? building?
3. If the City chose to construct 6. How much would it cost
a facility, where would it be or to operate such a facility?
where could it be located? 7. Could we partner with a
4. What types of uses would the private entity on the
facility include? operations?
®SOUTHLAKE
Following the priority designation of this project, several questions arose, including
whether the city should renovate and existing facility such as Gateway Church, or construct
a new facility and the costs associated with each option. Should the City choose to
construct a facility, there are questions as to where it would be located, and what types of
uses the facility would. Finally, questions arose regarding how much it would cost to
operate such a facility and if there was the possibility to partner with a private entity on
operations.
El
Gateway
Church
Facility
History of Gateway Church Analysis
Date
Report
10/27/2008
Appraisal
$10,500,000
3/312009
Appraisal
$9,800,000
5/28/2009 MEP Improvements
$1,750,000
6117/2009
AVL
$1,600,000 to
Valuation
$2,400,000
®SOUTHLAKE
In order to answer some of these questions, efforts commenced in October 2008 to
examine the feasibility of buying and renovating the Gateway Church facility, located at
2121 E. Southlake Boulevard. Gateway had outgrown the space, was constructing a new
location elsewhere and the facility would soon be available for purchase. At that time, the
City commissioned Integra Realty Resources to conduct a market value appraisal of the
Gateway facility who reported an appraised value of $10,500,000. A follow -up market value
appraisal was conducted in March 2009, which listed the appraised value of the facility at
$9,800,000.
Examination of the Gateway facility continued in May 2009, when the City hired Telios
Corporation to perform a Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) Survey, which
revealed approximately $1.75 million in recommended improvements to the building's
heating and cooling systems. Additionally, the Apex Arts League conducted an analysis of
the building in June 2009 to determine the extent of the Audio, Video and Lighting (AVL)
equipment in the facility. This assessment placed the estimated dollar value of the AVL
equipment in the range of $1.6 million to $2.4 million, with the installation value of the
equipment priced at $500,000. This means that if the City were to purchase the equipment
for a new facility, it would cost an estimated half a million dollars to install that equipment.
The assessment also noted that additional trained staff would be necessary to operate the
AVL equipment.
5
Gateway Church Facility
• Latest appraised value of
Gateway Facility is
$9,800,000
• Cost to City would be
close to $11,550,000 with _
MEP Improvements
• Renovation costs not
included in these
amounts
®SOUTHLAKE �
Based on new considerations, including significant changes in the commercial real estate
market between October 2008 and March 2009, the second appraisal is likely more
accurate; therefore, at a minimum, the purchase (assuming the facility could be purchased
at the appraised value) and MEP improvements for this facility would cost the City
$11,550,000. However, these numbers do not include costs associated with renovating to
suit the change in use.
A
Constructing a New Facility
• City -owned property
off of Byron Nelson
considered (adjacent
to Senior Center)
— No costs to purchase;
land
— Adjacent to City use
— Drainage issues on site - -
- Location in neighborhood
may make location
undesirable
®SOUTHLAKE
In addition to the option of purchasing and renovating an existing facility, questions
remained about the feasibility of constructing a new facility. One site that was considered
at the outset was the city -owned property located off of Byron Nelson, adjacent to the
Senior Center. Some considerations that were discussed with this site:
-No costs associated with purchase of the land
-Adjacent to current city -use
-Drainage issues with the site
-Location possibly not feasible due to neighborhood setting
In tandem with these construction and design - related inquiries, discussions were also held
regarding the feasibility of public /private partnerships for this type of facility. Possibilities
for this type of partnership are explored later in this presentation.
By late 2009, the City had some information related to costs associated with the Gateway
facility. However, as discussions about the project continued, it became clear that there
were still many lingering questions.
7
History
• Multipurpose Facility
listed as #1 CIP priority
in August 2009
• In October 2009, the City
issued a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) for_
firms to conduct a im
feasibility study for the
project 7
U SOUTHLAKE
CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS
J PROGRAM (CIP)
hwb...Rrnm.
On August 3, 2009, the Multipurpose Facility was listed as the number one CIP priority
during a joint City Council, Parks and Recreation Board, and Southlake Parks and
Development Corporation meeting. Following this designation, discussions centered
around the best way answer some of those lingering questions and move the project
forward. The decision was made in late 2009 to utilize a portion of the sinking fund to
commission a feasibility study for the project.
9
Feasibility Study
• Barker Rinker Seacat (BRS) selected by a
staff and council committee to perform study
• Scope of services included:
• Analysis of potential uses for Gateway site
and a to -be- determined greenfield site
• A market analysis
• Citizen survey
• Meetings and workshops
®SOUTHLAKE
In October 2009, the City issued a request for qualifications to solicit firms to conduct the
study. Thirteen proposals were received and scored by staff, with the top three selected for
interviews in January 2010. A committee of staff (Ken Baker, Jim Blagg, Alison Ortowski
Bob Price, Chris Tribble) and City Council (Mayor John Terrell, Councilmember Virginia
Muzyka and Councilmember Laura Hill) recommended Barker Rinker Seacat (BRS) from the
field of interviewees and that firm was selected to conduct a study to analyze the
feasibility, associated costs and potential uses for both the Gateway site and a to -be-
determined greenfield site.
The scope of services included the identification of site and building opportunities and
constraints, an inventory of existing facility assets, a structural analysis, an environmental
assessment and a traffic analysis. The scope also included recommendations on possible
usage scenarios for the facility and whether the City should construct a new facility, or
purchase and renovate an existing facility, as well as the preparation of a cost benefit
analysis, project cost assessment, and a project timeline for both options. These efforts
were assisted with the completion of a market analysis, a citizen survey, and many
meetings and workshops.
9
Feasibility Study
• Market Analysis
— "The population of the City of Southlake...
is adequate to support a comprehensive
indoor recreation facility."
• Citizen Survey
— 1500 surveys mailed
— 499 surveys returned
®SOUTHLAKE
The market analysis looked at a number of local indicators including Southlake's population
(27,000) as well as the population of the secondary service area (87,500). Both of these
populations were analyzed in terms of age distribution and median household income. The
analysis also quantified the number of private and non - profit providers in the service area
who offer similar services. The summary in the analysis notes, "The population of the City
of Southlake ... is adequate to support a comprehensive indoor recreation facility."
Along with the market analysis, a citizen survey was conducted in April / May 2010. This
survey was designed to both inform the City about multipurpose facility preferences and
serve as the recreation survey that would inform the 2030 update of the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan.
Surveys were randomly mailed to 1500 households and 499 surveys were completed and
returned.
10
Feasibility Study
• Question 12 of Citizen
Multipurpose Community
Survey
Facility Citizen Survey Results
— What are the two
Senior Facility 16`1
most important
facilities for
Cultural Arts Most
Facility 42% Impor.=
inclusion in a
"2nc!MI �
multipurpose
Imporc�
Expanded Library 52%
f acility?
Recreation
Center 69%
0 100
Number Chosen
U SOUTHLAKE
To highlight, Question 12 in the survey asked residents to identify the two most important
facilities for inclusion in a multipurpose facility, with 68% identifying a recreation center,
52% identifying an expanded library, 42% identifying a cultural arts center, and 16%
identifying a Senior Center as the most important or second most important choice.
11
Feasibility Study
Meetings and
Workshops
— March 2, 2010
BRS and City staff met
with community
stakeholders
— July 20 and July 21, 2010
Workshops with city
officials and
representatives
SPIN Meeting with citizen
participation
®SOUTHLAKE
Public input was another large component of the commissioned feasibility study. BRS
conducted many meetings with Council, staff, community stakeholders, and citizens. The
first of these meetings took place on March 2, 2010, where BRS and City staff met with
seven groups representing youth, arts, senior, and recreation interests. This meeting
allowed these groups to specify their desires in a multipurpose facility.
Meetings continued on July 20, 2010 and July 21, 2010, where BRS held a number of
meetings and workshops with various city officials and public representatives. At these
meetings, the BRS team presented the findings from the citizen survey and the market
analysis, took comments from the present individuals, and then engaged in a card exercise
where the groups chose the different components of their ideal community center.
A SPIN meeting on July 21, 2010 concluded these meetings, where BRS gave a
presentation, took comments, and then had the citizens in attendance play a "dotocracy"
game, where each person placed seven dots (representing votes) on the seven of 22
possible components to the center which they most desired.
12
Feasibility Study
July 21, 2010 SPIN Meeting: Citizen Participation Results
I
Library
Theater 1
Gym 12
Indoor Pool 13
Indoor Track 13
Community Rooms 14
0 2 4 6 6 10 12 14 16
U SOUTHLAKE
The top selections were Community Rooms (14 votes), Indoor Track (13 votes), an Indoor
Leisure Pool (13 votes), a gymnasium (12 votes), a theater (11 votes), and a medium library
(11 votes).
13
Feasibility Study
• Meetings and Workshops (continued):
—August 2010
• Possible plans submitted to Council
• BRS asked by Council to review plans and
make changes
—January 2011
• BRS scheduled to present their draft report at
the January 25th City Council Meeting
®SOUTHLAKE �
Based on the feedback received at the various public meetings, BRS prepared possible
plans for a multipurpose center and presented them to City Council at a workshop in
August. These plans included proposals for both the purchase and renovation of the
Gateway Church building and the construction of a new campus entirely. City Council asked
BRS to make some changes to the plans presented and return with a revised plan.
Following the August 2010 meeting and additional discussions in October, BRS is scheduled
to present their draft report on the feasibility study at the January 25, 2011 City Council
Meeting.
City Council will be asked to consider the report as presented and discuss options to
proceed.
14
Funding Considerations
FY 2009
GF
$2 1 000,000
FY 2011
GF
$2,500,000
FY 2012*
GF
$3,500,000
FY 2013*
SPDC
$700,000
FY 2014*
SPDC
$1,000,000
FY 2015*
SPDC
$1,000,000
Total:*
$10,700,000
*Planned Funding
U SOUTHLAKE
Once the feasibility study is completed, City Council will have a good indication of the
amount of funding that will be needed for the project. To date, City Council has approved
$4,500,000 in funding for the project. This funding was allocated in the FY 2009 CIP
($2,000,000) and the FY 2011 CIP ($2,500,000).
In addition to $4,500,000 already set aside, the FY 2011 CIP 5 -year plan shows that
$10,700,000 in planned funding by 2015 after contributions from the General Fund (GF)
and Southlake Parks Development Corporation (SPDC) fund.
15
Once the feasibility study is completed, City Council will have a good indication of the
amount of funding that will be needed for the project. To date, City Council has approved
$4,500,000 in funding for the project. This funding was allocated in the FY 2009 CIP
($2,000,000) and the FY 2011 CIP ($2,500,000).
In addition to $4,500,000 already set aside, the FY 2011 CIP 5 -year plan shows that
$10,700,000 in planned funding by 2015 after contributions from the General Fund (GF)
and Southlake Parks Development Corporation (SPDC) fund.
15
Funding Considerations
• Citizen willingness to
Maxmium monthly amount
pay additional taxes to
households would pay in
Property Taxesto build a
support a multipurpose
Multipurpose Facility
facility
— BRS Citizen Survey
Nothing
• 71% would pay more in
19% $1 -$2
property taxes
29%
a% $344
— City -wide Citizen Survey
$5 -$6
• 61.3% would pay increased
21 ,, 0 011% . $7$$
12 �' $9 -$10
property taxes for a
multipurpose facility
Though there is CIP funding allocated toward the project, many surveys have taken place to
gauge the willingness of citizens to pay additional taxes to support the Multipurpose
Facility. As part of the survey conducted by BRS, 71% of respondents replied that they
would be willing to pay more in property taxes to construct a Multipurpose Facility,
whereas 29% would prefer not to pay more in property taxes to construct the facility.
These results are supported by the conclusions found in the 2009 city -wide citizen survey,
where 61.3% of responses favored increased property taxes in trade for a multipurpose
facility.
16
Funding Considerations
• Operations Costs
How respondents feel
— BRS Citizen Survey
Multipurpose Facility
operating costs should be
• 51% believe facility
funded
should be operated
mostly from user fees
Mostly User
• 28% believe facility
fees
16%
should be operated
Mostly
5% Taxes
mostly from taxes
51%
100% Taxes
— Public /Private
280
Partnership
Don't Know
• Option to offset
operations costs
In addition to construction funding, operational funding will also be needed. In the BRS
Citizen Survey, 51% of respondents felt that the operations cost of the new facility should
be borne by user fees, whereas 28% believed that operations should be financed using tax
dollars. A public /private partnership is another option for funding the operation of the
facility, as well.
17
Public /Private Partnership
• City partners with a private
organization to offset costs
involved with a multipurpose
facility
• Typical partnership agreement
— City pays to construct facility
— Private entity operates facility
while providing benefit back to
City
— Agreements negotiable in
every instance
®SOUTHLAKE
A
As mentioned earlier, discussions have been ongoing regarding the possibility of entering
into a public /private partnership to manage the operations of this type of facility. The City
could choose to pursue this type of partnership in order to offset some of the costs of
operation. In this scenario, the City enters into a partnership with another entity to
construct and /or operate the facility. Research suggests that most partnerships see the City
picking up most or the entire tab for constructing the facility, and the private entity taking
responsibility for operating the facility. This is not a steadfast rule, however, and the
specifics of each partnership vary greatly depending on the type of facility, and the
arrangement in place. Such agreements typically dictate the benefits that the City is
entitled to, when the City can reserve the facility, and discounts for residents, though this is
negotiable in each instance.
im
Public /Private Partnership
• Examples of Public /Private
Partnerships
— Partnering with YMCA to operate a
recreational type facility
— Partnering with arts - related group
to operate a performing arts type
facility
• Partnerships do not have to be
mutually exclusive
— Could partner with YMCA for
recreation, and CISD for
performing arts
®SOUTHLAKE
Examples of these types of arrangements could include a partnership with an entity such as
the YMCA to operate a recreational facility, or a partnership with an arts - related group to
operate a performing arts type facility. These partnerships do not need to be mutually
exclusive, however, as the City could partner with an organization to operate a
recreationally -based facility while partnering with an entity such as the Carroll Independent
School district to utilize their theater to provide arts -based events for the community as
well.
19
Next Steps
• Draft of BRS Feasibility
Study will be presented at
January 25, 2011 City
Council Work Session
• The purpose of this 0
briefing will be to aid
Council in their decision
as to how to move forward
with the facility
®SOUTHLAKE
A draft of the BRS Feasibility Study will be presented on January 25, 2011 at the City
Council Work Session. The purpose of this briefing will be to aid Council in their decision as
to how to move forward with the facility.
The draft report should provide information so that Council can begin to answer some of
those key questions that have surrounded the project from its inception.
20
Summary
• Council established Multipurpose
Facility as priority in June 2008
• Option to buy and renovate a facility vs.
constructing a new facility
• $4,500,000 currently available in CIP
• $10,700,000 projected to be available in
the CIP through FY 2015
®SOUTHLAKE
Council identified the Multipurpose Facility as a priority in June 2008. Many studies have
taken place to determine the best direction for the Multipurpose Facility, and the draft of
the BRS Feasibility Study will be presented to Council on January 25, 2011. $4,500,000 is
currently funded for this project, and $10,700,000 is projected to be funding in the CIP
through FY 2015.
21
SOUTHLAKE
Questions?
Contact Chris Tribble
Integrity
817- 748 -8021
Innovation
Accountability
Commitment
to Excellence
Teamwork
Thank you for your attention. Again, if you have questions about this presentation, please
call Chris Tribble at 817 - 748 -8021.
22