Northcrest Arena replacement report

To: Members of the Committee of the Whole

From: Ken Doherty

Meeting Date: September

Subject: Report CSNew Arena Complex

Purpose

A report to provide an update on the approval on the next steps for a replacem

Recommendations

That Council approve the recommendationSeptember 22, 2014 of the Director of Community

a) That a presentation from the Manager of Facilities & Special Projects on the results of the Expression of Interest for a new arena complex

b) That discussions be continue

organizations:

i. Fleming College ii. Trent University iii. Buckingham Sports Properties Companyiv. Peterborough Sportsv. Canadian Hockey Enterprises vi. Kawartha Trent Synchro Clubvii. Trent Swim Club

to determine the specific terms of a partnership and its viabilitPeterborough;

c) That in addition to a twin pad, the feasibility of the following complementary

facilities as part of a new arena complexproject:

Members of the Committee of the Whole

Ken Doherty, Director of Community Services

September 22, 2014

CSD14-020 New Arena Complex Next Steps

an update on the process for a new arena complex and toapproval on the next steps for a replacement facility for Northcrest Arena.

approve the recommendations outlined in Report CSD14-020of the Director of Community Services as follows:

presentation from the Manager of Facilities & Special Projects on the results of the Expression of Interest for a new arena complex be received;

continued with the following public and private sector

Buckingham Sports Properties Company Peterborough Sports Consortium Canadian Hockey Enterprises Kawartha Trent Synchro Club

to determine the specific terms of a partnership and its viability for the City of

That in addition to a twin pad, the feasibility of the following complementary facilities as part of a new arena complex be investigated in the first phase of the

complex and to seek ent facility for Northcrest Arena.

20, dated

presentation from the Manager of Facilities & Special Projects on the be received;

public and private sector

y for the City of

That in addition to a twin pad, the feasibility of the following complementary in the first phase of the

Report CSD14-020 New Arena Complex Next Steps Page 2

i. Small practice ice surface (e.g., 100 x 50); ii. Goalie/shooting ice training lane (e.g., 50 x 25); iii. Elevated running track above one ice surface; iv. Off-ice training centre; v. Sport office space; vi. Multi-purpose and meeting facilities; vii. Commercial facilities to support the operating plan, and

d) That an analysis of a 25-metre competitive pool, in the first phase of the arena complex development, be conducted to fully determine the extent of community need and understand the impact of this feature on the capital and operating budgets for the new arena complex;

e) That an OHL facility to replace the Memorial Centre, a gymnastics facility to

replace the existing Kawartha Gymnastics Club and an indoor fieldhouse not be included at this time;

f) That potential community arena sites to be further investigated at this time be

Fleming College (two sites) and Trent University and g) That a report with a recommended plan that identifies the partnership, location,

building program, capital financing strategy and business case for the new arena complex be prepared for Council consideration in 2015.

Budget and Financial Implications

The continuing cost of the development plan can be accommodated within the uncommitted balance of $63,000 of the approved 2012 Business EvaluationNeeds Assessment Capital Budget (reference #6-4.14). The future plan will include the elements of a replacement facility for Northcrest Arena and a capital cost plan. The capital project cost of a new arena complex was estimated at $27,000,000 (with land provided at no cost) in the Arena Needs Analysis study. This will be funded through future development charges at $9.9 million and $17.1 million funded from other partners, sources of revenue and City funds. One of the potential complementary features beyond the twin pad arena could be a competitive pool, which is referenced in recommendation d). By including a competitive pool, the anticipated cost of the complex will increase by an estimated $13.5 million. It is anticipated that $3.1 million of the cost would be funded by development charges and that the balance of costs, $10.4 million, will require further investigation in terms of partnerships, sponsorships and grants.


The arena complex and the complementary elements that may make up the replacement facility for Northcrest Arena will be a major capital expense that will have to compete with a number of other municipal capital priorities in future capital budgets.

Background

On January 27, 2014, City Council received the Arena Needs Assessment Study that investigated the use and functionality of existing arena facilities and determined the specific needs of community ice users currently and in the next 20 years. The study established community arena requirements moving forward, should the Northcrest Arena close. This arena, which is actively used during the hockey season, is a single pad that possesses aging infrastructure throughout the building. The Needs Assessment identified that additional ice surfaces are required above a single pad to meet the needs of hockey and other ice users today and in the future. The ice surface at Northcrest Arena was reconfigured in 2013 with a temporary ice pad to extend the use of the arena. The facility has a number of other issues that would require substantial capital funds to continue to operate. The major elements of the facility that require attention include:

Outside wall deterioration of the concrete blocks due to water infiltration The roof and lighting system is aged and needs replacement Refrigeration compressor is original (1967) and should be replaced

Northcrest also possesses inadequate public viewing areas, insufficient team change rooms (both in terms of size and quantity), inadequate ice and environmental conditions and limited accessibility for persons with a disability. Staff is not recommending further investment in Northcrest Arena and recommends that municipal resources be put into a new arena complex. Previous Council Direction Council approved a follow up report to the Arena Needs Assessment Study on March 10, 2014. It included the following recommendations:

That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report CSD14-002, dated March 10, 2014 of the Director of Community Services as follows:

a) That a Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) be issued to seek potential partners and sites for the replacement of the Northcrest Arena facility and to seek other community facility needs and resources available;

b) That a report be prepared for Councils consideration with the results of the RFEI and a recommendation as to which option(s) warrant further study; and


c) That Staff engage in a centralized/coordinated booking system with

adjoining communities to identify and organize prime time ice availability.

The March 17, 2014 Council meeting received public delegations on the arena complex project. Following delegations, Staff heard that the process should not be limited to just a twin pad arena facility. Staff understood that contemplation of other complementary facilities should be considered for inclusion into the new arena complex. The Expression of Interest (EOI) process sought input and submissions from others who wished to expand the building scope of the twin pad complex. Staff is currently working on developing an ice allocation policy, a pre-cursor of a coordinated booking system, referenced in recommendation c) from the March 10, 2014 Council meeting. When this policy is complete and approved, Staff will meet with adjoining communities to continue dialogue on the feasibility of a coordinated booking system. The purpose of this report is to update Council on the results of the EOI process and to identify a short list of options for further consideration and investigation.

Expression of Interest Submissions An EOI document was issued by the City on March 28, 2014 and closed on May 15, 2014. The document sought potential partner options for land, facility development, and operations. The EOI specifications from the issued document are included in Appendix A of this report. A total of 16 submissions were received. Section 7.1 of the EOI indicated that the process was not seeking submissions from general contractors or builders as it was too premature in the process to consider hiring construction companies (see Appendix A). Of the 16 received, two proposals were from builders and they were set aside. Staff then reviewed the 14 remaining proposals to determine the nature of each submission in order to better understand its potential. The submissions were then grouped into five categories and included: 1. Public Sector Partners (3) who are offering land and other facility development

potential 2. Private sector partners (3) who are offering a variety of options to design, build,

finance and operate a new arena complex; 3. Program partners (4) who are offering recommendations for complementary

facility elements and capital funding that will enhance the new arena complex; 4. Land offers (2) from developers; and 5. Sponsorship/Naming proposals (2) from consultants who are offering their

services for a fee to develop a sponsorship/naming program as part of an asset valuation project.

The listing and summary of all submissions is contained in Appendix B.


A Steering Committee was formed with the Director of Community Services, the Director of Corporate Services, the Manager of the Arenas Division and the Manager of Facilities & Special Projects. A sub-committee of this group met with each of the 14 Proponents to discuss their submission in greater detail. The meetings attempted to clarify the proposals and explore each proponents interest in partnering with the City. Each proponent has something to offer the City in the arena development. A review took place to determine potential best fit for this project. Public Sector Partners (3) Three public sector partners submitted proposals to partner with the City. Each submission offered land on which the facility could be located. The public sector partners also expressed an interest to partner in varying ways for facility components, funding and operations, depending on the facility constructed. The three proposals were received from Fleming College, Trent University and Hiawatha First Nation. Partnership with any one of these institutions could result in additional use by their constituent groups of the facilities constructed. Fleming College provided two options of land on their Sutherland Campus. The first was adjacent to the Sport and Wellness Centre in the location of the current farmhouse. This location is 13 acres. The second location was further south and included 19 acres with the potential to expand. The second location is not within the City of Peterborough but is in the Township of Cavan Monaghan, bordering the City limits. Trent University offered land on the east bank of the university property. This site is 15-20 acres and is sited at the location of their maintenance shed off Nassau Mills and Pioneer Roads. Hiawatha First Nation submitted a proposal that offered a large tract of land to locate an arena on Hiawatha Line, just north of the village of Hiawatha. Fleming College and Trent University have both land and other partner elements within Peterborough that may work for a new arena complex. Further discussion with these two institutions is recommended to identify what the arrangements could be for each site and the benefits to the City for a new arena complex. Hiawatha First Nation was enthusiastic about a partnership with the City and saw a great deal of benefit locating the arena in Hiawatha for their residents. Unfortunately, the distance from the City, the unavailability of city services (water and sanitary) and the lack of natural gas (although there are some discussions about bringing it to the village in future) was a setback for this potential partner. Staff are not recommending further discussions with this proponent. Private Sector Partners (3) There were three submissions from Proponents who offered a private-public sector partnership. They included Buckingham Sports Properties, Colautti Group (with Canlan Ice Sports) and Peterborough Sports Consortium (with Nustadia Recreation). Each


submission offered some comparable elements to their submission which included any or all of the following:

a) Design Build the arena using the expertise of the private sector company from other similar facilities they are (or have been) involved with;

b) Finance the arena up front with the City paying down the loan over a multi-year scenario;

c) Operate the arena with their own workforce that would work with City staff to determine allocations and other use requirements.

Buckingham Sports Properties Company (BSPC) is a private sector operator who currently owns and operates five arena properties in and around Toronto. The company is self-financing. BSPC seeks to work with the City to construct the type of facility the users want and they are open to public input into design. They indicated that the business models for the two facilities are extreme opposites. Should they design-build-finance-operate, they are seeking a long term lease with the City in order to pay down the investment. Staff recommends further discussions with this proponent based upon their success at other sites. Next steps include a review of the detailed agreements with other communities, attempt to define what a relationship would look like with the City, the cost implications for Peterborough, and determine the feasibility of a private-public sector partnership with BSPC. Colautti Group (CG) proposed a public-private partnership with the City and included Canlan Ice Sports and Cannon Design (an architectural firm). CG is a contractor who provides civil construction services to the Ottawa area. Their proposal included a twin pad, indoor field house, and the potential for a hotel and convention centre. They carried out discussions with Fleming College and identified Fleming as a potential location. CG would like to tie in academic opportunities in the new development with the College. At this point, Fleming has not committed to any private sector partner. The City would be entering into an agreement with CG; however, they have not undertaken a similar project such as this in any other community. They would utilize their other partners (Canlan and Cannon) to provide experience for a specific arena development project. Staff are not recommending continued discussions with this proponent. Peterborough Sports Consortium (PSC) is also offering a private-sector partner option for the City. The Consortium includes the Peterborough Petes, Peterborough Lakers (Junior and Senior), Nustadia Recreation, and Sport Kawartha. The Consortium is not incorporated; however, members of the group indicated they may undertake a formal association if they moved to the next level of consideration. Nustadia Recreation has experience in Ontario and other parts of Canada building and operating arena facilities. PSC proposed a three phase development that would start with the twin pad and ancillary facilities followed by the development of an event arena (OHL facility) and convention centre for phase two, and finished with an indoor playing fieldhouse in phase three. PSC indicated that Morrow Park is the best site to undertake this facility development; however, they also suggested they would consider other sites offered by the City. Staff are recommending further discussions with this proponent.


Program Partners (4) The EOI received four program partner submissions. These proponents are recommending facility features and capital funding to support building features over and above the twin pad facility. Their submissions are summarized as follows: Canadian Hockey Enterprises (CHE) provided a submission recommending additional practice facilities to enhance the arena complex that includes: (i) a small practice ice surface 100 x 50 and (ii) a goalie/shooting training lane 50 x 25. CHE would like programming rights to the facility on the training rink and goalie shooting pad during the year and exclusive use of the twin pads during summertime, as they have currently used over the past two decades. This partner may assist the City to realize additional revenues for the operations of the facility, particularly in the off season. CHE have also requested office space in the new complex and would be a tenant of the space. They are prepared to provide a capital contribution of $175,000 depending on the level of commitment to the facilities and partner options. CHE wants to have the right to adjust (lower or raise) this capital contribution based on final approvals and recommendations. CHE is seeking a minimum ten-year term and the right to have exterior building signage promoting their company. Staff are recommending further discussions with this proponent to understand the financial viability of the facilities and partnership recommended by CHE.

Kawartha Gymnastics Club (KGC) is presently renting the Bicentennial Building at Morrow Park to undertake their activities. KGC are seeking a permanent gym facility of approximately 15,000 ft in the new arena complex. The nearest other gymnastics facility is outside of the City of Peterborough on Lansdowne Street West. The KGC has seen their participation rates increase by 74% over the last five years. The Club also indicated a new facility would positively increase the number of participants. KGC is prepared to commit $25,000 up front and an additional $100,000 over a 10-year time frame for a total capital commitment of $125,000. For their capital contribution, they are seeking exclusive use of the gymnastics facility but would rent the facility out to other community users. Staff are not recommending a gymnastics facility in the first phase of development and believes it should be considered in a future phase, if warranted, following the completion of a Recreation Master Plan proposed for 2015.

Trent Swim Club and Kawartha Trent Synchro Club (2 separate swim clubs) are seeking a competitive pool as part of the new arena complex. Each club has seen their allocations at existing pool facilities diminish over the last five years but their attendance numbers have increased and they now have waiting lists. They are seeking a 25-metre, eight lane pool and indicate their participation numbers would increase by a minimum of 120% with a competition pool. Peterborough does not possess this type of facility and the closest similar facility would be located in Belleville. Together, these two clubs are committing a minimum of $1,020,000 capital contribution and have requested additional time to canvass the community to increase their capital contribution for a competitive pool. For their capital contribution, they are seeking: (i) use of the pool in early mornings (before 7:30 am) and after school hours; (ii) approximately 5-6 swim meet weekends annually, and (iii) the opportunity for one of their major funders to have the pool named after them. Further analysis is warranted to determine the viability of a pool


option in the first phase of the arena complex development. Should Council not support the competitive pool investigation in first phase, the Staff recommendation will have to be revised to remove: Item b) vi. and vii; Item d) in the recommendations and these items added to the subsequent phase of arena complex development in Item d) of the Staff recommendation.

Land Offers (2) The EOI received two direct land offer proposals from developers Activa and Ellas Holdings. Following the discussion phase with the proponents, Ellas Holdings withdrew their proposal from EOI consideration. Activa, the second developers proposal, possesses two parcels of land in the northern section of the City north of Cumberland Avenue and west of Heritage Trail. Additional review of the Activa properties is contained in this report under Land Options. Sponsorship/Naming Proposals (2) There were two proposals that provided services for a fee that would help define the sponsorship potential for naming rights and sponsorship of the new arena complex. Submissions from Front Row Marketing and The Partnership Group would assist the City in defining the value of naming rights and could potentially bring in revenues that may support a capital or operating program. There appeared to be great possibilities with sponsorship and naming opportunities with a new facility. Staff believes it is too premature to consider moving forward on a proponent for these types of services until the new arena partners are defined, the site is selected, and Council has made a decision to move forward on a new facility. Future Partnership Development The EOI received interest from 14 proponents and they have been reviewed by City staff. The information provided identified partner options. In order to determine the final mix of partners that could ideally work with the City to site, construct, and fund and potentially operate a new arena complex, detailed discussions must happen with a short list of candidates. Chart 1 identifies the recommended proponents for additional discussions on this project. These discussions would happen in the fall of 2014 with a report back to Council in first quarter of 2015. By 2015, Staff will have worked through the details of a partner mix and site for the new arena for Council consideration.

Chart 1: Proposed Short List of Partner Options for Further Investigation (in no order of priority)

# Proponent Element

1 Fleming College Public Sector Partner 2 Trent University Public Sector Partner 3 Buckingham Sports Properties Company Private Sector Partner 4 Peterborough Sports Consortium Private Sector Partner 5 Canadian Hockey Enterprises Program Partner 6 Kawartha Trent Synchro Club and Trent Swim

Club Program Partners


Complementary Facilities The Arena Needs Assessment Study and the EOI process identified a number of other elements that could be considered complementary facilities in a new arena complex. Following discussions with all the parties, the facilities recommended for further investigation, to establish viability for construction and operations, includes the following: i. Small practice ice surface (e.g., 100 x 50) this was recommended by

Canadian Hockey Enterprises as a way to support practices for single teams, or undertake specialized skill training, without tying up a full sheet ice surface. This may be attractive to younger house league teams and the representative / all star teams for training. The Needs Assessment identified 2.5 ice pads are required now for ice users. This option and the goalie/shooting training lane in (ii) may address community needs without constructing another full sized ice surface.

ii. Goalie/shooting training lane (e.g., 50 x 25) as above, this would permit specialized shooting and goal keeping training without tying up a full sheet ice surface.

iii. Elevated running track above one ice surface popular in other arenas in the

province, this adds an opportunity for cardio warm up for players pre-game and would eliminate running in the arena hallways, on the facility stairs or in and around the parking lot. A running track may also provide additional programming opportunities for individual running and walking groups beyond just hockey users.

iv. Off-ice training centre this would be an off-ice training room that could

accommodate a full team for both cardio and strength training as part of their hockey development program. It may also result in a commercial opportunity to rent this space to a sports trainer for additional programming.

v. Sport office space identified in both the needs analysis study and the EOI, there

are groups who are prepared to pay rent for an office(s) in the new arena complex.

vi. Multi-purpose and meeting facilities to support sport groups, tournaments, special events.

vii. Commercial facilities - that could include, but may not be limited to, a restaurant,

sports equipment shop, sports therapy clinic, etc.

viii. A competitive 25-metre pool the largest of the complementary facilities, it would support the two competitive swim clubs and potentially other community users. This facility requires a full investigation as the cost to construct a pool with a twin pad ice surface is estimated at an additional $13.5 million, which would bring the arena and aquatic complex facility to just over $40 million. The capital financing of the pool construction, beyond the contribution of the users, is uncertain. A greater understanding is required of what other users would support a


pool facility for operating revenue beyond the competitive swim clubs. A pool with an arena has operating efficiencies. The reclaimed waste heat from the arena refrigeration system can provide heating to the air and domestic cold water for the pool. Energy efficiencies have to be fully analyzed in terms of understanding the reductions to operating costs of the pool. The commitment of the aquatic clubs to raise a minimum of $1,020,000 is a significant capital commitment and warrants further investigation in this complementary facility.

OHL Facility

Community interest has been expressed for a replacement facility for the Peterborough Memorial Centre (PMC) in conjunction with the community arena replacing Northcrest. User groups have recommended a new, larger OHL facility with modern features to support the Peterborough Petes, the Lakers and other special events and activities. The EOI process focused on the community arena needs to replace Northcrest Arena but invited a broad range of submissions from interested parties. The EOI Proponents who referenced a replacement facility for the PMC indicated it was a community priority however identified it in a later phase of development following the community arena project. Staff concurs and recommends it not be considered in the immediate work to define the first phase of the arena project. The 2003 renovations to the PMC were planned to accommodate 20 additional years for facility use. The debenture balance on the renovations will be $6.75 million by December 31, 2014. The debenture for this project will be paid down in nine years by July 2023. Staff recommends that a separate and full review of a replacement facility for the PMC take place in the near future that identifies the specific needs of the Petes and the Lakers, the expansion to seating and other support amenities that will ensure a new facility will meet future needs of all parties. Land Options

Staff took a broad approach in considering land options for a new arena complex following Councils verbal direction on March 17, 2014. The ideal site was defined as a minimum of 15-20 acres, on serviceable land, with relatively flat grades. Larger sites were preferred over smaller sites so that in future years, additional construction could be phased in to expand the complex to support future growth. A team was formed and included the Manager of Facilities and Special Projects, the Manager of Arenas, the Manager of Transportation, and the Urban Design Planner. A criterion of 15 factors was used to evaluate the merits of each site with a total score out of 210 marks. The scoring tool was applied to the following sites (displayed in alphabetical order):

Activa Holidings North Activa Holdings South Canadian Canoe Museum


Fleming North Fleming South Hiawatha Site Kinsmen Arena Northcrest Arena Trent University

Morrow Park Reviewed but Removed from Consideration Morrow Park was also considered as it could be a viable site for consideration of a new arena complex. The property is large, has excellent road access, is fully serviced and can offer expansion in future phases of development. However, the City and the Peterborough Agricultural Society are currently seeking an interpretation of the 1983 Morrow Park Transfer Agreement. The outcome of that proceeding will give direction to both the Agricultural Society and the City about their respective rights and obligations concerning the use of the grounds and buildings at Morrow Park. A development of this scale would likely impact the Societys use of Morrow Park. It is not currently known when the legal issues between the City and the Society will be resolved. In addition, constructing a community arena complex on the park side of the site is not consistent with the recommendations of the Morrow Park Master Plan (CSAD11-011), which reflected the development of a park-based plan to accommodate the Agricultural Society, rather than a facility-based plan. Council approved the following 2011 resolution on the Morrow Park Master Plan:

That Council approve the recommendations outlined in Report CSAD11-011 dated December 5, 2011, of the Director of Community Services, as follows: a) That a presentation on the Morrow Park Master Plan Design Study from

Brown and Storey Architects Inc. be received for information; b) That the Morrow Park Master Plan Design Study be adopted to serve as a

guide for future planning and budgetary decisions; c) That Phase 1 of the Morrow Park Master Plan Design Study be approved,

pending the annual budget approval process. Should Council wish staff to undertake further investigation of Morrow Park for a new community arena complex, it will have to amend Staff Recommendation f) of this report to include Morrow Park. The Morrow Park Master Plan will also have to be revisited by Council.


In future, Council may consider a replacement event facility for the PMC in Morrow Park. The obstacles presented in 2014 to locate the community arena complex on park property may be resolved when an OHL event facility is ready for construction. Given the pending proceeding that aims to resolve the interpretation of the Morrow Park Transfer Agreement, and the fact that the Morrow Park Master plan does not include a facility on the Park Street side within the park, and the fact that Morrow Park would be the most appropriate location for an OHL facility in the future, Staff recommend Morrow Park not be considered a viable site for the replacement of Northcrest Arena.

Nine Sites Reviewed and Considered The scoring outcomes for each site are included in Appendix C. The location maps are included in Appendix D. The key elements of the sites are described as follows: Activa (Scores: 128.6 out of 210 and 127.6 out of 210) this developer has two sites located north of Cumberland Avenue. The first site, Activa North, is 20 acres and immediately west of the Heritage Trail subdivision. The second site, Activa South, is further west and is 63 acres. The two sites are currently land-locked. There are no road connections at present and Staff did not support locating an arena complex where the access to the facility would be from Heritage Trail, a residential road. Although there would be alternative access at some time in the future, the timing and cost for this would not see a completion of the new arena complex by 2017. These two properties are not serviced, although services are available for connection in the vicinity. The cost of the property, the servicing of these locations and the construction of a properly sized access road are reasons neither of these two sites are recommended for further investigation for the arena complex at this time. Canadian Canoe Museum (Score: 98 out of 210) the Museum has publicly declared their interest to move from their current site on Monaghan Road to a site in the central area with water access. Staff added this location to the review list due to its proximity to the Evinrude Centre. This site does not meet the preferred size of 15-20 acres but it could include a twin pad with some minor complementary facilities. The property has higher costs in terms of existing building removals and site clean up. The site was not in the top five due to the size of the property and its limitations for future phased expansion. This site is not recommended for further investigation for the arena complex. Hiawatha (Score: 129 out of 210) this location is included in 198 acres of property that is part of the Hiawatha First Nation reserve lands. Hiawatha is prepared to commit 15-20 acres for a twin pad complex and an additional five acres for expansion at a future period. Although Hiawatha scored in the top five, the location of the property is the greatest disadvantage of the site. It is not serviced for city water and sewer and does not currently possess natural gas (although there are some discussions about bringing it to the village in future). This site is not recommended for further investigation for an arena complex.


Kinsmen Arena (Score: 125 out of 210) This site has some challenges. The Peterborough Utilities water reservoir bisects the site. In a discussion with the water utility staff, they indicated that before the Kinsmen water reservoir can be decommissioned, a new south-west reservoir must be constructed. This is proposed for the approximate timeframe of 2025. The Parkway connection to Medical Drive will also impact a portion of the property. What remains is the ability to add a twin pad arena and parking lot extension on the existing ball and soccer fields. There would not be enough space to contain additional complementary facilities under one roof for building efficiencies. The ball diamond is actively used by softball and the soccer field is used by soccer and lacrosse. Both facilities would be impacted and would have to be relocated. Currently, the City does not possess suitable property to move these features elsewhere. This impact would add additional costs to the project. Staff is not recommending this site for further investigation for an arena complex. Fleming College (Score: 134/210 and 165.6/210) offered two locations on their Sutherland Campus (Fleming North and Fleming South). The sites both have potential depending upon the final mix of features contained within the twin pad development. The north site, at 13 acres, could build upon the Sport & Wellness Centre, Bowers Park and the Fleming College existing parking lots. The south site at 19+ acres also has college parking lots that could be shared during peak arena use (evenings and weekends). Fleming College students will use the arena complex during non-peak times bringing operating revenues to the facility. The other elements of a partnership with the College are yet to be worked out. Additional discussions with Fleming are recommended to work out specific details on a proposed partnership. Northcrest Arena (Score: 81 of 210) This site is not ideal for a twin pad and complementary facilities as it is too small. It could contain a stacked arena if the corner property (at Water and Marina Boulevard) was acquired and parking was developed on the adjacent park ball diamond. The forested area behind the arena has some environmental sensitivity with protected bird species and may not be developed. The site does not have good drainage and water often pools at the existing building (which has affected the walls of the arena). It may be difficult, with a larger arena footprint, to address stormwater control on such a small site. Staff is not recommending this site for further investigation for an arena complex. Trent University (Score: 152.6 out of 210) has offered a property of 15 acres but indicated it could expand to 20 acres depending on the development and need of the City. The site is located at the corner of Nassau Mills and Pioneer Roads. The land is level however there would be a need to determine servicing capacity and its costs along the east bank. Trent students will use the arena complex during non-peak times bringing operating revenues to the facility. Trent also indicated their interest to use other multi-purpose facilities in the arena complex for their institutional needs. Staff recommend further investigation take place on this site and partner.


The top three arena complex sites and the staff recommendation are as follows:

#

Site

Score out of 210

Recommendation

1 Fleming South 165.6 Continue site investigation 2 Trent University 152.6 Continue site investigation 3 Fleming North 134.0 Continue site investigation

Potential for Complex to be Operated by Private Sector As previously mentioned, there has been interest expressed by some private sector companies in operating the proposed arena complex. Private sector operations will be explored with all other opportunities proposed to the City. Staff is not suggesting, at this time, that the new arena facility be operated by a third-party. The business case for the new arena facility will include information on all potential operating costs including in-house wages versus private sector operated. Next Steps Should Council approve the recommendations, Staff will meet with the proponents in Chart 1 to investigate the conditions of a partnership and its implications for the City. Sites will be further analyzed in terms of their feasibility for both the arena complex and complementary facilities. A financial plan for capital construction and facility operations will be investigated. Final partner(s), a facility plan, location and business case will be prepared. It is Staffs objective to bring information back to Council by end of first quarter of 2015 for consideration. Should Council support a plan to move forward on a proposed replacement for Northcrest Arena, the ideal situation would be to commence design of the facility starting in the fall of 2015 and have construction completed in time for a Fall 2017 opening date. This timeline is aggressive and will depend largely on Councils support of the plan and the funding available to undertake this initiative.

Summary The Staff report recommends the primary focus of the next phase of work be on the development of a final partnership, a location, a building program, a capital funding strategy, and an operating plan for the new arena complex for Councils consideration. The Northcrest Arena building is well past its life expectancy and is on borrowed time. Ideally, designs for a replacement facility should be underway in 2015 to open a new facility in 2017. This timeline will ensure that community ice users are not displaced should failure of any of the major components of Northcrest Arena result in a closure of the building.


Submitted by,

Ken Doherty, Director Mary Gallop, Manager Community Services Department Facilities & Special Projects

Contact Name: Mary Gallop Manager, Facilities and Special Projects Phone: 705-742-7777, ext 1828 Toll Free: 1-855-738-3755, ext 1828 Fax: 705-876-4615 E-mail: [email protected] Attachments: Appendix A EOI Terms Appendix B Listing of All EOI Submissions Appendix C Scoring of the Proposed Arena Sites Appendix D Locations of the Proposed Arena Sites


APPENDIX A: EOI TERMS

7.0 EOI Details/Specifications

7.1 Background Northcrest Arena is a single pad ice surface, located at 100 Marina Boulevard, in Peterborough, Ontario. The facility opened in 1967 and has now reached its maximum life cycle. The City is not interested in refurbishing the arena to extend its life, but will develop a new, larger facility to meet a broader sector of community needs. A needs assessment for a replacement facility was recently completed and is included as Attachment 1.

To ensure the development of the new facility meets community needs, the City is seeking EOI submissions from interested parties who can assist in the definition and development of the facility. The intent would be to have the first phase of the new complex operational within three years.

This is not an RFP and the City is not seeking submissions from project managers, architects, engineers, or general contractors, to design or construct a facility. The design process is premature at this stage and there is a great deal of unknowns that must be clarified through this EOI, and prior to going to the marketplace for project design and construction.

7.2 Phased Development The City is replacing Northcrest Arena with a twin-pad arena complex that may be further expanded in additional phases. The first phase will include two ice pads, 12 change rooms, public washrooms, mechanical and maintenance space and administrative offices.

The City is attempting to determine what other complementary facilities could be included in the first phase of development, and what facilities could be constructed in future phases.

7.3 Scope of EOI The City is undertaking the development of a new arena complex that will replace the existing Northcrest Arena. This EOI is an opportunity for community groups, public sector agencies, developers, community partners and other public and private agencies/individuals to convey their interest in this project and how they could be a part of the initiative.

The EOI process will help the City:

a. Determine if there are other viable options for land where the new facility could be situated on, other than the municipalities own land holdings;

b. Identify community sport and recreation groups who can demonstrate their need for facilities in a tangible way and identify what resources they can


contribute, for operating and capital, towards other complementary facilities, in addition to an arena facility;

c. Identify if there are other feasible commercial partners who can bring a financing solution to the development of the project, which includes bringing capital and/or operating resources to the project, in exchange for such things as:

Naming rights; and/or Facility or programming space; and/or Development rights as part of a private-public sector partnership.

While the EOI process opens the door for discussion of options with other potential partners, this EOI does not tie the Citys hands to any one submission.

7.4 Specific Requirements There are three primary needs the City is investigating in this EOI. Respondents interested in making a submission are asked to respond to one or more of the following items, as applicable.

7.4.1 Interest in Offer of Land The City is seeking to explore site opportunities, as an alternative to existing municipal properties, to determine the best site for a new arena complex. City-owned property is being evaluated by staff; the City is seeking a large, unencumbered tract of land that could be compared with existing City properties to determine the best site for a new facility. The ideal site would be serviceable, with good road frontage, and be 15-20 acres in size, or larger, to allow for future expansion.

Landowners that possess a suitable property that would be available for sale or long term lease to the City for a new Arena complex should include the following details in their submission:

a. Location, or address of the property; b. Size of the property; c. Current Zoning; d. Survey or aerial map, if available; e. Access points; f. Description of property in its current state; g. Former uses of property; h. Appraised value; i. Sale price, or lease price and lease term; and j. Other details that may be pertinent, including, but not limited to, history of

soil conditions; environmental assessment, if done, etc.

The City will consider all options for land in determining the best fit for a new facility.


7.4.2 Interest in Usage of Additional Facility Components

The City will be constructing a minimum of two community ice pads in the first phase of development, to meet the demands identified in the Arena Needs Assessment Study. A number of other features were identified that included, but are not limited to, multipurpose space, meeting rooms, training space, indoor track, gymnasium, referee rooms, offices and storage for sport groups, pro shop, food services, aquatic centre, auditorium, field house, trade show space, etc.

In developing partnerships, the City is seeking input from community organizations on the additional features that could be included in a facility. Your submissions should identify:

a. Description of the facility element that could be included with a twin pad arena;

b. The need for this facility element; c. The number of potential users, where they are using facilities presently

and why there is a need to obtain additional facilities; d. Extent of the need number of hours required weekly, seasonally; e. Impact on the group who will use the facilities can the membership

numbers and the fees of your organization be expanded? f. Special events that could take place that have a community economic

impact and the description or extent of the impact; g. Capacity to pay for the rental of facilities include payments made on an

hourly or daily basis, as applicable; and h. Capacity to Contribute to Capital if yes, what value?

It is incumbent on the Respondent to provide as much information as possible to be considered part of facility development in the first or subsequent phase(s) of development.

7.4.3 Interest in Partnership Development This is a broad category that may include any number of options for development, where the organization would form a partnership with the City, including the potential for one or more additional partners. Some elements may include, but not be limited to:

a. Financial Contribution to the capital construction of the facility; b. Naming Rights for a financial contribution; c. Interest in Facility as a Commercial Opportunity for operations or food

services, merchandise or retail rights, etc.; d. Private-Public Partnership to construct and operate the centre; e. Land and usage rights; and f. Other - this category is not limited. If there is a new way of doing

business that should be considered, or an opportunity that is not identified in this item, Respondents should identify and clarify the opportunity in their submission for consideration and clarify the expertise they possess to undertake a partnership with the City.


7.5 Obligations

There will be no award based on the EOI. However, Respondents should note that the City reserves the right to:

a. Select a short list of Respondents for further clarification; b. Enter into exclusive negotiations with one or more selected

Respondent(s); c. Request more detailed information leading to final Respondent(s)

selection/negotiation; d. Extend the EOI selection process timeline; or e. Take no action.

7.6 Estimated EOI Timetable The schedule of key events in this EOI process is summarized herein:

ITEM DATE

EOI issue date March 28, 2014

Deadline for Respondent questions May 7, 2014 before NOON

EOI Closing Date and Time May 15, 2014 before 3:00:00 p.m.

EOI Review Period May 9 August 1, 2014

Report to Council - Draft September 2014

Development of Agreements October 2014 January 2015

Final Recommendations to Council February April 2015


APPENDIX B: LISTING OF ALL EOI SUBMISSIONS

# Potential Public Sector Partners

1 Fleming College offering two potential properties on the Sutherland Campus for the facility and other potential partnership benefits.

2 Hiawatha First Nation offering property in Hiawatha to construct the arena complex and other potential partnership benefits

3 Trent University offering land on the east bank of Trent University and other potential partnership benefits.

# Potential Private Sector Partners Design-Build-Finance-Operate

4 Buckingham Sports Properties Company 5 Colautti Group 6 Peterborough Sports Consortium # Potential Program Partners

7 Canadian Hockey Enterprises (CHE) offering a capital contribution of $175,000 depending on the level of commitment to the facilities and partner options and seeking a minimum five year term.

8 Kawartha Gymnastics Club (KGC) is prepared to commit $25,000 up front and an additional $100,000 over a 10-year time frame for a total capital commitment of $125,000 should the City construct a new gymnastics facility in the arena complex.

9 10

Kawartha Trent Synchro Club and Trent Swim Club - these two clubs are committing a minimum of $1,020,000 capital contribution should the City construct a new competitive pool as part of the arena complex.

# Strictly Land Offers

11 Activa offering two properties for sale in the north end of Peterborough. 12 Ellas Holdings proposal withdrawn from consideration by Proponent during EOI

process. # Sponsorship/Naming Proposals Naming/Sponsorship Asset Valuation

13 Front Row Marketing 14 The Partnership Group # Disqualified

15 Ball Construction general contractor offering to design-build the arena complex 16 Havelock Metal contractor/supplier offering to provide materials for the arena

complex.

Summary7.0EOI Details/Specifications7.1Background7.2Phased Development7.3Scope of EOI7.4Specific Requirements7.5Obligations7.6Estimated EOI Timetable

Documents

Northcrest Arena replacement report