WS Item 3Multipurpose Facility Project Briefing
Project Briefing Purpose
History of the Multipurpose Facility
Funding Considerations
Public/Private Partnerships
Next Steps
History
Council established Multipurpose Facility as priority during June 23, 2008 retreat
Project fund created in FY 2009 CIP to begin funding project
History
Should the City renovate an existing facility such as the Gateway Church and how much would that cost?
Would new construction be a better option?
If the City Chose to construct a facility, where would it be or where could it be located?
What types of uses would the facility include?
Would those uses change based on whether or not the facility is in a renovated building or in a newly-constructed building?
How much would it cost to operate such a facility?
Could we partner with a private entity on the operations?
Several questions arose during priority designation:
Gateway Church Facility
History of Gateway Church Analysis
Gateway Church Facility
Latest appraised value of Gateway Facility is $8,400,000
Cost to City would be close to $10,150,000 with MEP Improvements
Renovation costs not included in these amounts
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
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 feasibility study for the project
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
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
Feasibility Study
Question 12 of Citizen Survey
What are the two most important facilities for inclusion in a multipurpose facility?
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
Feasibility Study
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
Funding Considerations
Funding Considerations
Citizen willingness to pay additional taxes to support a multipurpose facility
BRS Citizen Survey
71% would pay more in property taxes
City-wide Citizen Survey
61.3% would pay increased property taxes for a multipurpose facility
Funding Considerations
Operations Costs
BRS Citizen Survey
51% believe facility should be operated mostly from user fees
28% believe facility should be operated mostly from taxes
Public/Private Partnership
Option to offset operations costs
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
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
Next Steps
Draft of BRS Feasibility Study will be presented at January 25, 2011 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
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
Questions?
Contact Chris Tribble
817-748-8021