|
6. BELLTOWN
DOME IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING SHORTFALL MANQUE DE FONDS CONCERNANT LES AMÉLIORATIONS AU DÔME BELLTOWN |
Committee Recommendation
That Council approve that an additional $365,000
be added to the Belltown Dome Improvements project as part of the 2009 capital
budget to construct a 2100 square foot addition as described in this report.
Recommandation du Comité
Que le Conseil approuve qu’un montant supplémentaire de 365 000 $ soit versé au projet
relatif aux améliorations au Dôme Belltown dans le cadre du budget
d’immobilisations de 2009 afin de construire un rajout de 2100 pieds carrés,
tel qu’il est décrit dans le présent rapport.
Documentation
1. Deputy City Manager's report Community
and Protective Services, dated 24 September 2008 (ACS2008-CPS-PAR-0008).
2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 2 October
2008.
Community and Protective Services Committee
Comité des services communautaires et de protection
and Council / et au Conseil
24 September 2008 / le 24 septembre 2008
Submitted by/Soumis par:
Steve Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager/Directeur
municipal adjoint,
Community and Protective
Services/Services communautaires et de protection
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Aaron Burry, Director
Parks and
Recreation/Parcs et Loisir
(613)
580-2424 23666, Aaron.Burry@Ottawa.ca
SUBJECT:
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
manque de fonds concernant les améliorations au
dôme belltown |
That the Community and Protective Services
Committee recommend that Council approve that an additional $365,000 be added
to the Belltown Dome Improvements project as part of the 2009 capital budget to
construct a 2100 square foot addition as described in this report.
Que le Comité des
services communautaires et de protection recommande au Conseil d’approuver
qu’un montant supplémentaire de 365 000 $ soit versé au projet relatif aux
améliorations au Dôme Belltown dans le cadre du budget d’immobilisations de
2009 afin de construire un rajout de 2100 pieds carrés, tel qu’il est décrit
dans le présent rapport.
In July of 2006 Council approved
a budget of $825K to undertake improvements to the Belltown dome to prolong its
lifecycle and upgrade amenities for its users. Due to a delay in construction
and additional costs associated with the design and location of the proposed
addition to the Dome the original budget is insufficient. This report presents
options and provides a recommendation to address the budget shortfall.
Belltown Dome is a refrigerated
ice surface covered by an un-insulated metal dome roof. It was constructed
circa 1978 in the Britannia Woods community near Britannia beach and is known
for its unique geodesic appearance. The Dome’s sole ice surface (60x160’) is
smaller than a standard NHL (85X200’) ice surfaces. The provided amenities are
basic; two permanent change rooms, public washrooms and a cramped and poorly
located multi-purpose room. There is no lobby area and in order to provide
adequate change rooms two additional “temporary” exterior change areas are
added during the winter season. Due to the lack of insulation, the ice pad in
the facility is able to operate five months of the year compared to seven to
eleven months for all other arenas. During the spring and summer ball hockey
groups are the primary users of the facility.
As part of 2005 budget
deliberations in February 2005, a Motion was put forward to decommission
Belltown Dome at the end of the winter 2004/2005 season. The Motion was referred to the Health,
Recreation and Social Services Committee (HRSS) to evaluate options for the
future use of Belltown Dome. Parks and Recreation prepared an information
report for the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee (Ref No.: ACS2006-CPS-PAR-0010, 28 June
2006) that examined six different options for the Belltown Dome. These ranged
from a short-term minimal cost option (requiring a $55K investment to maintain
existing functions) through to replacement of the Belltown Dome with a new
arena at an alternative site ($12M). HRSS made a recommendation to Council to
support a long-term upgrade option that would extend the Dome’s lifecycle,
increase functionality and add additional programming space without
compromising future options for the facility. This included the replacement of
the ice plant condenser and the construction of a 2100 square foot addition to
the Dome to house two additional change rooms and a community space component.
In July of 2006 Council approved the recommendation from the Health, Recreation
and Social Services Committee and an $825K budget.
Given the recognized
architectural status of the Dome, providing additional amenities requires a
standalone addition that does not alter the integrity of the existing
building. A preliminary design,
presented at a consultation in December of 2007, raised concerns in the local
community because it would have resulted in the loss of park space on the south
side of the Dome and several mature trees. As a consequence, the Councillor
requested that staff consider other design options. Two alternative design
options partially located in the existing parking area for the Dome (one that
included the community space component and one which did not) were presented at
subsequent consultation in March 2008. There was general preference by those in
attendance for the option that partially located the addition in the parking
area (preserving both the park space and the mature trees) and which did not
include a community space component. A subsequent detailed cost analysis of the
two design alternatives revealed that the existing $825K budget is insufficient
and that an additional $155K would be required to complete the option without
the community space and $365K for the option with the community space.
|
Design Options |
2006 Original Design |
2008
Long-Term Upgrade –Recommended Option (including community space) |
2008 Long-Term Upgrade
–Option (no community space) |
|
Square Footage |
2100 sq. foot addition |
2100 sq. foot addition |
1700 sq foot addition |
|
Estimated Cost |
$990,000[1] |
$1,190,000 |
$980,000 |
|
Additional Funds Required |
$165,000 |
$365,000 |
$155,000 |
In its present configuration the functionality of the Belltown Dome is constrained by three factors:
¨ An un-insulated roof structure that limits the operational season of the ice surface to five months (November to March) and off season use primarily to the spring and fall
¨ A smaller than standard ice surface
¨ Only two permanent dressing rooms inside the building
Offsetting these constraints are; low operational costs (approximately $60K per year, or half of those of other stand alone City arenas), a competitive 76% utilization rate during prime time hours (1,174 hours in 2007-2008) as well as 498 hours of “slab” usage (for ball hockey between April and October) and, a cost recovery rate of 69% (slightly lower than average). The estimated service lifespan of the Dome is 40 years (10 more years) although with continuous lifecycle investments this could be extended.
In 2006 the decision to fund improvements to the Dome was based on the following:
¨ Significant demand for the Dome’s ice surface which is not expected to diminish in the future
¨ Cost to operate the facility is relatively low in relation to the benefits that it provides
¨ If the Dome were to be closed, it is unlikely a new arena would be built in this community
¨ Extends the lifecycle of the building
¨ Investment in the facility would still be of benefit if, in the future the arena function were to be eliminated and the building converted to indoor recreational space
¨ Eliminates the safety concerns and the annual operational costs associated with the use of trailers as change rooms
¨ Creates the opportunity to increase year round use of the facility by providing community space for programs associated with use of the arena (summer sports camps, after school programs, fitness programs)
In 2008 the same benefits could be realized however, the originally budgeted $825K is no longer sufficient to cover the costs of improvements. Construction costs alone have increased approximately 20%, in the intervening period.
The need to integrate the design of the addition with the Dome’s unique architecture and the proposed location which requires a reconfiguration of the parking lot have also resulted in increased costs. Offsetting these increases to a certain extent is the elimination of a $45K expense in the 2006 budget for the replacement of the ice condenser (Belltown has acquired a condenser from another facility).
In order to provide a context for the assessment of the funding requirements two investment options are presented:
These two investment options are summarized in the following table:
|
Option |
Cost Breakdown |
Advantages |
Disadvantages
|
|
1. Long-term Upgrade – with community space Construct 2100 sq. foot
addition with change rooms and community space |
¨
$10K for installation
of ice condenser ¨
$1,179K design and
construction ($365K additional funding required) ¨
Continuous life-cycle
expenses (average of $100K per year over the next ten years) |
¨
Allows the Dome to
continue to operate ¨
Addresses a major
shortcoming of the building ¨
Increases the safety
and quality of the experience of Dome users ¨
Will allow the
potential of the existing facility (ice and slab use) to be maximised ¨
Increases programming
and community use potential: after school programs, camps, fitness programs,
community activities |
¨
High cost to benefit
ratio ¨ Basic functions of the building remain the same ¨
Increased operation and life cycle costs |
|
2. Long-term Upgrade Option – without community space Construct 1700 sq. foot
addition with change rooms but no community space |
¨
$10K for installation
of ice condenser ¨
$968K design and
construction ($155K additional funding required) ¨
Continuous life-cycle
expenses (average of $100K per year over the next ten years) |
¨
Allows the Dome to
continue to operate ¨
Addresses a major
shortcoming of the building ¨
Increases the safety
and quality of the experience of Dome users |
¨
High cost to benefit
ratio ¨
Basic functions of the
building remain the same ¨
Increased operation
and life cycle costs |
The long-term upgrade option with community space is consistent with the option approved by Council in 2006. It provides opportunities to maximize the level of use of the existing facility without addressing its primary limitations. It requires $365,000 in additional funding to the existing $825,000 already committed in 2006.
While this option provides benefits to existing users (additional change rooms) and the opportunity to maximise the potential of the building in its existing form (extend programming through the use of the community space) it does not address two of the three primary limitations of the facility (un-insulated rink space and a smaller than standard ice surface). In addition, the benefits that it would provide come with a significant price tag and would be spent on a building that is estimated to have ten years remaining in its operational lifecycle.
The long-term upgrade option without community space is similar to the above option with the exception that it does not include the community space component. This reduces the square footage of the addition to 1700 square feet and limits the required increase to the existing $825,000 budget to $155,000. This option would increase the quality of the primary users experience, reduce annual operational expenses by eliminating the need to rent trailers and potentially increase operational revenues through an increased utilization rate.
The benefit to cost ratio is better than the option with community space, though still high within the context of the building’s lifecycle. This was the preferred option for the majority of residents of the adjacent community at the public consultation held in March of 2008.
On balance, staff has recommended the investment option, with community space, that provides the footprint and features of the original Council approved design with a configuration and orientation that responds to feedback received as part of the public consultations.
At the same, staff has been tasked to identify $100M in efficiency savings, including $15M for Leveraging Assets (Asset Rationalization). The Asset Rationalization review will be undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of City facilities (condition, viability, utilization) to make recommendations to Committee and Council, as part of the 2009 budget process, respecting facilities that may be decommissioned to realize the $15M in savings identified above.
The Belltown Dome will be included as part of that review.
Three public consultations were held to solicit input from the public to present design options.
Monday, October 1st 2007, Ron Kolbus Lakeside Gardens.
This consultation focused on selected community and sports groups and provided an opportunity to receive input regarding their needs. Comments were generally favourable towards the proposed improvements
Thursday November 15, 2007 F. J. MacDonald School.
Community consultation organised by the councillor to present a preliminary design option and receive comments from the community. Significant concerns were expressed by residents of the immediate community regarding the impact of the proposed addition on the park space on the south side of the Dome.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008 F. J. MacDonald Public School.
Community consultation organised by the Councillor to present a site analysis and alternative design concepts. Three alternative design options were presented with general community support shown for the design that did not include community space.
There is presently $825,000
committed to the Belltown Dome Improvements project. Approval of the report recommendation will add a $365,000 pressure to the 2009
capital budget for the Belltown Dome Improvements project. Parks & Recreation have calculated that
there will be an annual operating impact of $45,000 required in 2010.
Community and Protective Services, Parks and Recreation Branch to action any direction received as part of the consideration of this report.
BELLTOWN DOME IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING SHORTFALL
MANQUE DE
FONDS CONCERNANT LES AMÉLIORATIONS AU DÔME BELLTOWN
ACS2008-CPS-PAR-0008 BAY/BAIE (7)
Mr. Aaron Burry offered a summary of
the project. In order to build the
addition proposed that would connect it to the dome there is an additional
funding needed. There have also been
some minor revisions, which added additional costs. This is a Council approved project and the purpose is to say what
is presently needed to complete it.
Councillor Cullen commented that the
sticking point with the community, which will be voiced at the meeting, is the
community room. He would like staff to comment.
Mr. Burry responded saying that the
addition itself is not a huge cost item and the other issue is the lack of
community space in the ward. In order
to keep this asset there are certain basic things that need to be done in order
to function, a minimum amount of amenities.
The
Committee heard from the following list of delegations. A brief summary of their presentation is
listed within the minutes with the majority expressing similar sentiments and
concerns with regards to the report, those being:
1)
Belltown Dome is a unique structure and should be
kept as such.
2)
It was not meant as a hockey arena.
3)
The area is a quiet residential neighbourhood.
4)
The new community room is not needed and as it is
not staffed will be at risk of vandalism.
5)
The dome itself needs much work and best to
concentrate on that.
6)
There is a lack of parking as it is, adding a community
room will make it worse.
Delegations: (all opposed)
·
Penny
Sutherland, neighbourhood resident
·
Rebecca
Last, Belltown Neighbours Association
·
Tim
Hayes, neighbourhood resident
·
Gillian
Forsyth-Bose, neighbourhood resident
·
Ranjit
Bose, neighbourhood resident
·
Kurt
Turchan, Belltown Residents Association
Penny Sutherland, neighbourhood
resident, stated
that the Belltown Dome is a unique structure not only in Ottawa but also in all
of Canada. It was built in the late
1970’s as part of the neighbourhood improvement program. The residents formed a Committee and worked
with the City to plan the building and the funds of $2 million. It was constructed to serve as an ice rink
in winter and multi-purpose gymnasium in summer. Never intended for league hockey. It had originally used canvas, which has
been replaced with aluminium, which leaks.
It has been named one of the top 500 buildings in Canada. The new
proposed building would be unstaffed and is of great concern in light of the
crime wave in their community. It is in
the heart of a quiet residential community unlike many other hockey arenas or
community centres. It is more similar
to an outdoor rink. They would like it
restored to its original state.
Rebecca Last, Belltown Neighbours
Association, feels
that it would be a waste of $1.2 million to build an additional room. Rather, restore the Dome to its original
state and have it used as a small residential community facility. She as well is concerned with the possible
rise in youth crime.
Tim Hayes, neighbourhood resident, said that there are missing pieces
to this issue. The Community has asked
a variety of questions which have yet to be answered. They would like to know who the potential users would be of this
new additional space and for what purpose.
How much space would it receive since there are other facilities
nearby. The roof has been bandaged up
with duct tape in order to keep it going until 2018. At that time the dome would be removed. They consider the new
facility a large expenditure for no reason.
They are also surprised that no security audit has been done on the
Dome. They ask that the decision be
deferred.
Chair Deans advised the delegations
that if it were passed today it would go to the budget deliberations. Therefore the final decision would not be
made today.
Councillor Leadman coomented that
Mr. Hayes had mentioned that there are other community facilities available
such as the Ron Kolbus Centre as well as schools and so on. Are those facilities available to the public
for no cost?
Mr Hayes responded stating that he
could not speak to the McDonald School, but for the City-owned properties they
will be governed by the City cost policy, and that cost will vary according to
the group applying for its use.
Councillor Leadman asked staff to
answer the question on fees.
Mr. Burry stated that it is
dependent on who it is, and what you’re doing, and according to City policy
there will be a range of these things, so in some instances if it was
programming we were trying to encourage and support, then they are probably not
going to be paying for the space. If you are a commercial league that wants to
come in and use the room, then there will be commercial rates that will apply.
Councillor Leadman asks the size of
the additional room. Mr. Burry stated
that it would be about 500 square feet.
It’s basically to try and facilitate and make the Dome more useful than
it currently is. There is no space in that currently, so the intention was
again to create some space that will allow the Dome to be more functional
throughout the year.
In response to Councillor Leadman’s
question on the ice-skating Mr. Burry responded saying that it is basically a
refrigerated outdoor surface that has aluminium or a shell over the top of it.
It works very well in that capacity. He stated that what the project was
intended to do was giving the requirements around change rooms; those are the
constant concerns that they get as well as places to hold a pre-team meeting.
In terms of the summer, when the sun shines on the dome it’s unusually hot, so
we need some secondary area, which groups have requested, in terms of places to
even hold some form of a meeting, or if we were looking at this as a
programming location. The Dome is popular amongst women’s hockey and other
smaller leagues. The issue that repeatedly comes up is that there is no place
to change in the winter time and in the summer, there’s no places to allow that
allow for an additional 5-600 hours of what we’re looking at in terms of
programming space. There’s 500 hours in the summer ball hockey that happens out
of this location, so again it’s ball hockey groups in the summertime. There is free recreational skating at this
facility as well which would not change.
Councillor Feltmate noted that staff
raised parking, as an issue. Is the
City eliminating any parking spaces? Mr. Burry stated no and there is no
requested increase to parking, so they are not looking at that, and again, the
majority of the building, based on how its used we feel that it does not need
to be factored in.
Chair Deans asked a question
regarding this delegation’s presentation.
They had said there would be no staff programming this space, but she
has a similar situation in her ward at the Greenboro Pavillion, there’s no
staff onsite there but the Greenboro Community Association programs it. If the
community rooms were to go forward, wouldn’t the Ron Kolbus centre be
programming that space?
Mr. Burry responded in the
affirmative. In addition, depending on the community and how access is done,
there are also key agreements they enter into. The building is not “left open”
– there are typically staff on site and depending on what programming is
offered out of there, they would look at similar arrangements with whatever community
group they were dealing with.
Gillian Forsyth-Bose, neighbourhood
resident, stated that she lives opposite the Dome for
about 20 years now, and she wants to express her concerns about the amount of
traffic generated by the current programming at the Dome, and to express fears
that this may even get worse if an addition is added to the facility. The
current parking lot is completely inadequate to cope with the traffic generated
by the programming at the Belltown Dome. There are 28 spots as mentioned by a
neighbour and a hockey team typically has 15 players on its roster, 2 teams
playing at a time, makes about 30 vehicles, give or take. With changing teams
there are sometimes 30 cars cruising the neighbourhood looking for parking
spots, turning circling reversing, it becomes traffic chaos. There are 2
concerns here actually, one is the nuisance factor, living there, but more
importantly is the issue of safety. When the cars line both sides of the
street, there is a very narrow channel left in the middle of the road. This is
a neighbourhood without sidewalks, so cars parked on both sides leaves very
little space for pedestrians, cyclists, etc. The young hockey players
themselves are at risk when they get out of their cars, onto the congested
street. In winter, snow banks add to the constricted space. Staggering the
programming with half hour buffers between ice rentals could reduce congestion
and make the streets safer. The Dome was not designed for the density of
programming currently in operation. The proposed renovation will not alleviate
this situation, and in fact, adding a community room, will add to traffic. She
urges spending the money on a more viable project.
Kurt Turchan, Belltown Residents
Association, stated
that there are 6 delegations here, and part of the overall frustration is there
are many gaps and problems in the current plans. Therefore, this is being done
as one of the only recourses to bring it to the Committee’s attention. He
presented a petition of opposition to the current plans and has over 55 names
on it. When they observed City officials and contractors on the site, the
following day, he entered into a door-to-door petition since no one nearby knew
of the plans.
This is in contrast to the original
building committee when a neighbour chaired that process. He reads the
petition. The small park in front of
the Dome should remain unchanged. Any change or extension to the building or
additional buildings on the grounds of the existing park would affect the
park’s usage and appeal.
Upon presenting the petition to City
officials, they had their first meeting and there was unanimous opposition to
the plans in general, and to the community room in particular. Residents were
told other options would be presented, but the net result was only two very
similar designs; 1, the original, and the other slightly moved into parking
lot, bringing up more traffic issues. A majority has opposed the building plans
at each public meeting, and has called into question other factors like
parking, like the heritage issue, and safety, and in an effort to show this
majority view that brought this petition today, 55 people.
Ranjit Bose, neighbourhood resident lives close to the Dome. He said
that he has lived there with my family for 20 years and opposes the $1 million
expansion to the Dome. He would like to further request that the Dome move away
from the model of being just another skating rink in the City, and instead
return it to serving the Belltown community, as a local neighbourhood skating
rink, following the outdoor rink model, possibly with the structure standing as
it is now, possibly not. The outdoor rink model offers improved access for the
community, for people in our neighbourhood, whether children or adults, to go
there for the simple purpose of skating. There are many families in the
neighbourhood who are keen skaters, and would just love to use the rink next to
us for a simple recreational skate. An
outdoor rink model is an environmental option. The outdoor rink model is a cost
effective option for the City, in light of the City’s upcoming
asset-rationalization review to identify $100 million in efficiency savings, it
doesn’t appear to make a lot of sense to spend over $1 million on a facility
with limited life, that will not fit the City’s normal ice arena template. He
closed his remarks stating rather than spending time creating a personal
backyard rink he would love to have the opportunity to work with his friends
and fellow neighbours in the community to contribute to the upkeep and maintenance
of a Belltown community rink, and fostering the sense of community available at
the same time, reducing environmental impact, and saving a million dollars of
City money.
Coucnillor Feltmate asked the
delegate, what you’re suggesting is that the Dome be torn down, and that the
space be used as an outdoor rink?
Mr. Bose said that what he is
suggesting is that the Dome could stay as it is for now, potentially eventually
it will have to come down, but regardless if it comes down or remains up, if it
could follow the outdoor rink model which would be his preferred option.
Councillor Feltmate asked for staff
comment on that, as she understands, it’s a more expensive option as there are condensers as compared to an
outdoor rink which is just water.
Mr. Burry responded stating that in
terms of an outdoor rink, they would provide about $3500; the operating
expenses on this would be close to $100,000.
This is basically a refrigerated surface; it’s neither an arena, nor is
it an unrefrigerated outdoor rink, it’s really an intermediate facility, that’s
why it’s 2/3 size and why it is covered.
Mr. Turchan noted that there are
heritage considerations here. This dome was originally covered by canvas,
although there may have been a condenser in the early years, the arena, is
subject to the warming of fall and spring. It effectively is an outdoor rink.
One suggestion would be, put the canvas back up, take the condenser out, let it
function as an outdoor rink. The structure remains, and we get to be reminded of
this wonderful architecture from the Expo era, which is really the key heritage
value.
In response to Councillor Feltmate’s
question on parking Mr. Burry responded by saying that there is no opportunity
for additional parking, given the sewer design and everything else in that
area, so essentially, this is the parking that’s available and fits within the
building code. This is not going to see any increase in terms of that type of
programming. The City is adding some community space to make this available and
to enhance what is available; the other thing is to provide some spill out
meeting space. Currently what we are doing is providing some temp trailers on
the site, and that is not going to last, given what we are seeing with changes
coming forward. This whole proposal
and what was originally discussed two years ago was, if you are going to retain
this asset, you need to do some basic improvements to it, this is the basic
improvement around storage, access, washrooms, that should be done.
Councillor Leadman coomented that
the delegations say that over the course of a week, there are only 4 hours of
open recreational skating.
Mr. Burry doesn’t know off the top
of his head, but the City has about 200 hours altogether across the City in any
given week, therefore, those 4 hours would have been allocated based on the
usage and who’s coming out for that, and that point in time.
Councillor Feltmate asked if there
was a heritage designation for the Dome.
Mr. Burry stated that it is
recognized by the Canadian Architecture Association as one of the 500
recognized buildings in Canada, so it does have some historical and
architectural significance, and the proposed addition that has limited the
design or the impacts on the existing facilities, the proposed addition is a
completely separate building, which is linked to the existing building, through
the existing entranceways. It will provide access, but it is not affecting the
architectural status of the existing building.
Councillor Feltmate noted that the
roof itself appears to have repair issues. Is this in the funding envelope and
look at further preservation of the facility itself?
Mr. Burry said that some of the
expenditures have already been done, in terms of improvements; there are others
that will occur over time, based on this funding envelope. The key thing to
remember is the City is leaving the structure as it is, we are not trying to
improve it or substantially change it, to allow it to function within its
limitations.
The notion of the first report is
that this to extend the life, it is not to go another 40 or 50 years. We’ve
extended this over a 15 year period, at which time, another time and decision
point will come for Council, in terms of what sorts of investments will be
needed at that point. For example,
refrigeration units have been replaced, so that was part of this; now there are
other repairs scheduled. In addition, there’s a separate building to support
what is currently happening, where portable trailers are now brought onto the
site to try and support it, there’s a number of band aid measures, those would
be eliminated and using a permanent building to basically support that. Council
has approved a direction to put some basic investment into this.
In response to Councillor Feltmate’s
question on the petition Mr. Turchan stated that it really says, this is a very
small park space, let’s not add buildings to it, and let’s preserve the green
space, which the new buildings interfere with. Secondly, please involve us in
future changes; this came upon us, we found out well after budget was approved.
Councillor Feltmate said that she is
hearing complaints in her own community, the comment that the delegation made
regarding how you want to go back to what you had before, and unfortunately,
going back is not always an option. Our communities are expanding, our
resources for recreation space are very limited, and the City is looking for
ways of to maximize, and reutilize and acknowledge the growth in out
communities. She recognizes the need to preserve the Dome, but going back is
not an option.
Mr. Turchan stated that he doesn’t
think anyone could argue that we don’t need new facilities. One of the things
they are arguing is that maybe this $1 million is better spent going towards
installing a twin pad in a more commercial area, and leave this poor undersized
rink that’s leaking and constantly being barnacled, it’s like trying to flog a
dead horse. This will never be the project that the City needs for increased
hockey use.
Councillor Bédard asked if the
Belltown Association participated in all 3 meetings. It says that the meeting
on Thursday, November 15, there was considerable opposition to the park space
on the south side of the Dome, the proposed addition. Then on Tuesday March 25, they supported it, but did not include
the community space, which he presumed was the same thing. So, was it your
association, or were there others involved in not supporting this? Was there a
committee formed to try and work things out?
Mr. Turchan said that they were
consulted after they observed City officials in the park. At the two
consultations, they were cautioned clearly only to ask questions on the City
plans that were presented. Throughout the 2 consultations that they were
invited to, it did not feel like a true consultation, and was certainly not in
the spirit of the original Building Committee, chaired by a neighbour. They
were forced down a path to choose between 2 options, essentially identical, and
the concerns expressed today are trying to bring to light a number of flaws
that have never been properly addressed through consultation.
Councillor Qadri asked if the
current trailers on site are impacting the green space?
Mr. Burry said that they were at the
back of the building, so they are not impacting at the time of year that they
are brought in, which is typically for winter and is not aware of any other
impacts.
Chair Deans asked how this
single-ice facility transitioned from a local community space centered in a
residential neighbourhood that changed to more regional based. It may have happened 30 years ago but it seems that this
is really a planning issue because ice rinks today should be multi-rinks, not
one standalone rink, and they should have a zoning designation that sites them
in places where they have appropriate parking, and they should be more
efficient in terms of costs of operating, because they would be multi-surface rinks, in the same
building. What we have here is a very odd situation where you have a community
that’s going to be gaining community space, and they’re saying, no thanks! We
don’t see that very often. The issue is that they don’t feel it’s serving the
community where it’s sitting; it’s serving a big regional area that’s bringing
people in from other communities.
Mr. Burry responded by saying that
first of all it’s not really appropriate to compare this site to a fully
functional full size twin-pad arena; they are not in the same class, not the
same concept at all. The disadvantage from a planning perspective today of coming
forward with arena operations, because of the design, because of how this
operates, this is actually one of the most efficient and least-costly surfaces
in the City. That is a problem, from our perspective. Secondly, when you look
at an existing life cycle issue, and we do have proposals coming in from
companies coming in which actually talk about building something that doesn’t
look a lot different than the Belltown Dome. Today, in a new construction
world, would be $4-$5 million. When you look at the kind of investment, again,
and this is what the original strategy, the original discussion was, what kind
of minimal investment could you do, and still get a pretty reasonable value in
return. The City has run out locations inside the greenbelt.
The City is more and more dependent
on the inner City, between a rock and a hard place, in terms of an existing
facilities that were built during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, according to a code
and a standard that today makes it very difficult to do. That is a general
sense around this particular project, and it was again to expand the life of
it, to deal with some of those growing and emerging issues, in the most cost
effective way.
Councillor Cullen thanks the
delegations and the Committee for hearing this issue. Unfortunately it started off on the wrong foot by not including
the community representatives and residents in the consultation process. As the ward councillor he began the ball
rolling on meetings with the City staff and the envelope on the original approval
of 2006 is fast closing. After more
detailed design there is inflation and added features, which needed
consideration. This is a well-used
facility with over 37 groups using it.
There are traffic problems yes but this is an enhancement to an important
existing facility.
Councillor Holmes commented that
this is one of the more inexpensive run facilities and is in favour of the
report and it is an efficient way of using money.
That the Community and Protective Services
Committee recommend that Council approve that an additional $365,000 be added
to the Belltown Dome Improvements project as part of the 2009 capital budget to
construct a 2100 square foot addition as described in this report.
CARRIED