Loading...
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