Road to new St. Catharines puck place just got a little rockier

[hockey123]

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/A...aspx?e=2610309
Road to new St. Catharines puck place just got a little rockier
Posted By DOUG HEROD

Challenges await those hoping to build a new puck palace in St. Catharines without dipping into taxpayers' pockets.
In a recently completed report, consultants Deloitte concluded it is unlikely the city will be able to find a private partner to fully buy into the project.
That's largely because projections show the proposed 5,500-capacity spectator facility, roughly estimated to cost a minimum $45 million to build, will operate at an annual loss.
Adding to arena proponents' woes is that the three sites studied by Deloitte all had some fairly significant drawbacks. The city's spectator facility task force is scheduled to meet June 8 to discuss the report.
Creative solutions from committee members will, no doubt, be much appreciated.
That said, any suggestion that involves the spending of local taxpayer money would be politically unwelcome.
St. Catharines city council made that clear when it agreed in late 2008 to investigate the feasibility of a new arena through the formation of the task force.
"We can't pay for it with taxes," said arena booster Coun. Jeff Burch to the collective nods of his colleagues.
The hope was that a private partner could be enticed to build the arena on the premise that a return on investment could be made through the profitable operation of the facility.
There was always a feeling among the community's cynically minded -- as fine a group of people as you'll find anywhere -- that in painting this rosy picture, the city was living in la-la land. Feedback from the private sector over the past year-and-a-half has done little to shake that perception.
The main selling point to developers, in terms of generating revenue, was to be the facility's ability to attract money-making, non-hockey events, particularly concerts.
But Deloitte concluded competition from nearby cities would significantly impact St. Catharines' pursuit of these dollars.
It cited existing venues in Hamilton, Buffalo, Niagara Falls and Toronto, and noted they would compete for artists and events, which, in turn, creates competition "for the entertainment spending of consumers."
The limited ability to bring cash into the building appears to be a key reason the consultant projected that by its fifth year of existence the arena would be losing $464,000 a year, once capital reserves and management fees are factored in.
Based on this, Deloitte wrote, "it is unlikely that the proposed spectator arena would be able to support any level of debt obligation or be able to attract an equity investment of a material amount."
What would that material amount be, you ask? About $25 million.
And that's assuming the city could successfully tap into federal public-private-partnership money to cover 25%, or about $11.25 million, of the project cost. The remainder of the total would come from the city through stuff like land donation, servicing and redirected Stimers/Gatecliff arena money, none of which is supposed to involve new tax dollars.
Deloitte's bottom line: "The majority of capital, financing, operating, maintenance and design risks are assumed to remain with the City of St. Catharines; only construction risk is likely able to be transferred to a third party."
That's not what the city wanted to hear.
Then there are the difficulties finding a suitable downtown site.
The low-level parking lot is the city's preferred location. But "soil and other geotechnical issues" could "significantly" increase the cost of development there, said Deloitte.
Development staging is a problem if a new arena was to be built on the Gatecliff site. The Niagara IceDogs would have to play elsewhere for at least one season during construction. Some additional land would also have to be acquired.
The third site studied -- 68 Church St., where sits the police detachment -- also had problems, not the least of which is the fact it's the city's preferred location for the new Niagara Regional Police headquarters.
In summary, the proposed puck palace is unlikely to attract major private investment, is projected to lose money annually and may be in need of a site.
Task force members better bring their thinking caps to Tuesday's meeting.

[fishfan51]

No $$$$.
No Partners.
No Land.
Not feasable.

Bye Bye IceDogs.

[Phil Margonis]

brutal.....

[AlphaDog]

Adding to arena proponents' woes is that the three sites studied by Deloitte

'Would be nice to know what the 3 sites are.

That said, any suggestion that involves the spending of local taxpayer money would be politically unwelcome.

Umm, in contrast to the other unnecessary junk the city has wasted money on?? And what happened to that fed. gov't grant thingy that was supposedly available to for new projects?

The main selling point to developers, in terms of generating revenue, was to be the facility's ability to attract money-making, non-hockey events, particularly concerts.
But Deloitte concluded competition from nearby cities would significantly impact St. Catharines' pursuit of these dollars.
It cited existing venues in Hamilton, Buffalo, Niagara Falls and Toronto,

Count out Buffalo because most people don't own a passport and can't even get in to the states. Niagara Falls? ohh.. Niagara Falls has a 5500 seat arena that has concerts that we're competing with? I never knew that. Toronto? I don't think U2 or The Rolling Stones are going to be playing here in St. Kitts... we'd be going for smaller venues in our new building. Even Hamilton... they've got big Copps, but nothing in the 5K seat range that I know of. And a 5K seat building would service all of Niagara which has a combined population of almost half million people. For the size of the venue's we'd be looking at to host, and the population of the region, I think it would be a niche that could support the building's expenses.

Kitchener is the same distance to T.O. as us, and Windsor is right next to Detroit (as we are to Buffalo).. THEY manage. Oshawa, Mississauga, Brampton, are even closer to Toronto. THEY manage. Why is it that WE are somehow they only one that would loose all these venues to neighboring cities, when tons of other OHL towns have neighboring cities, and THEY have big rinks.

The limited ability to bring cash into the building appears to be a key reason the consultant projected that by its fifth year of existence the arena would be losing $464,000 a year, once capital reserves and management fees are factored in.

And how much does the Jack loose a year? There's no way the city can sit there and tell us that place is breaking even. If I'm going to have a building loosing 500k a year I'd rather it be a nice big shiny 5K seater than a 70yr old barn.

Development staging is a problem if a new arena was to be built on the Gatecliff site.

That's the worst site idea I've ever heard of. You'd have to level entire blocks just to put in parking for all the extra people going to the building.

The Niagara IceDogs would have to play elsewhere for at least one season during construction. Some additional land would also have to be acquired.

1yr = 3yrs when government builds anything.

The third site studied -- 68 Church St., where sits the police detachment -- also had problems, not the least of which is the fact it's the city's preferred location for the new Niagara Regional Police headquarters.

!?!? Maybe my mental picture is off... but that isn't that place FAR too small to put up a hockey rink???

If smaller towns like Sarnia, Sudbury, Sault St. Marie, Oshawa, can all operate 5000+ seat rinks, and we can't... maybe the city's money would be better spent by firing all our city staff and louring in people from those other cities who already operate a mid-sized rink.

Or maybe this article IS true, and St. Catharines is the only city in North America that has close-proximity competition, and therefore can't have a mid-sized hockey rink (and as I said above, I don't believe Toronto and Buffalo, or even Hamilton provide competition for the type of venues we'd be looking at anyway)

[three dog night]

I also do not see what competion Hamilton ,Toronto and Buffalo bring lot of people do not like going to those cities unless they have too and I cannot see an operating loss that big other cities seem to manage. Has for taxpayers the city wil find other ways to nail them with or without an arena i herard earlier in an report that the arena will have a strong basic attendance support for the Icedogs and I am sure the city can use it for the different festivals that go on in the city

[slamr]

This is the kind of report I was expecting.
From what I had read earlier in the paper, the city had asked that the consultant NOT sugarcoat the assessment. Well...that's what we got.
There was not one bit in there that was positive. Everything was negative and gave reasons not to build this thing. There was nothing, at least nothing stated in Herod's article, that gave reasons why we need this building.
This is so typical of how we do things around here. The negatives will always outweigh the positives and that makes for an easy out.
Alpha is right...the Jack is a very old building that needs to be replaced...whether you like it or not. It can't live on forever so this project can't be ignored. They have to do something...anything...to make it happen, even if it has to hurt a little.
I'm trying to be patient with the process that we must go through, but it just pisses me off with the constant barrage of negativity around here. I'm just so sick of it!
OK...I'm done for now. Better stop before I say something I will truly regret.

[hockey123]

Here is an older article with some other possible ways to get this done.

Love the comment at the bottom by buildnow.

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/A...aspx?e=2482931

[AlphaDog]

Originally Posted by slamr

This is the kind of report I was expecting.
From what I had read earlier in the paper, the city had asked that the consultant NOT sugarcoat the assessment. Well...that's what we got.

I am happy they put it bluntly, no matter what the review's outcome. It would have been even worse for them not to point something out, only to be stuck in a bad situation after it's been built. I just disagree with the report altogether though. I never heard of anyone *I* know being polled, asking stuff like "If a band/act that you might enjoy seeing live came to the area, what would be the likelyhood you'd go to see it, if it were in A: Hamilton, B: Toronto, C: Buffalo, D: Niagara (then have 3 columns for Very Likely, Somewhat Likely, Not Likely). I don't know what public they polled to get their claims that "competition" would keep people from attending local venues. What other 5-6K seat buildings are around? Maybe something in Buffalo (but that town isn't competition), and what... Hersey Center in Mississauga? We'd be servicing everything this side of Hamilton all the way to the border.

There was not one bit in there that was positive. Everything was negative and gave reasons not to build this thing. There was nothing, at least nothing stated in Herod's article, that gave reasons why we need this building.

Yah I can't see a new building now. There's no way city councillors are going go vote for a new building, after a.. what.. $50-80K report cautioned against it. It would be political suicide. If for any reason it didn't work out, the public would be crying "the massively expensive report said NOT to do it and you did it and it failed - get them out of office!"

So unless it's done privately or with lots of external gov't funding, I can't see it happening. All the other OHL smaller cities and even towns can do it, yet we can't figure out. If a city with 90,000 people can run a 5000 seat rink and a city of 130,000 and 400,000+ in the region can't... someone really needs to take a good look at who the hell is running things when it comes to our money.

Ok - so where do we go from here? How about removing Rex Stimers ('sorry Rex) and doing what Peterborough did - expand the one side up high. Maybe even put a small multi level parking lot under it with an entrance to the arena expansion. Although working within an existing structure and customizing it would be way more expensive in cost/seat then just building it new from the get-go. And parking would be even worse for games, with 5000 people instead of 3145.

I had always hoped on the lower-lot site myself...

The reason the people in this city realize we NEED a mid-sized building is simple ignorance - they have no idea what we're missing because we've never HAD one. Kinda like being born blind opposed to losing your sight.

[AlphaDog]

We should keep in mind though, that the basis of these "experts'" report is that it won't be feasible because we can't get other venues outside of hockey.

THAT notion is severely flawed.

In order to pull in the population of the region, they have to make it at the lower-lot site. From the Falls and Ft. Erie it's QEW->406 and you're at the front entrance. For Beamsville, Jordan, Lincoln, etc.. it's QEW->406 and you're at the front entrance. For Welland, Port Colbourne, Thorold, Fonthill, etc.. it's 406 and you're at the front entrance. That location would make it MUCH better for people who want to go to a venue but don't know.. say.. Hamilton roads, or Toronto roads, or don't have a passport (or just don't want) to go to Buffalo. It would be highway straight to an exit into the parking lot.

How many other say.. 3000-6000 (mid size) seat arenas are there between here and the other side of the Burlington Skyway? The service area for a new rink here would be HUGE and the location more convenient to out of towners than ANY other building I know of.

Is Toilette telling us that bands wouldn't want to add another date to their tours to make more money, and add a date in Niagara??

If their basis on the building being successful or not is primarily on an inability to attract venues to it because of all the other 5000 seat arenas close to this half a million person area giving it competition, then they need to get off their meds, and the city should be demanding a refund for their incompetence.

What they should have done is get on the horn, call up all the other arena operators of similar sized rinks in similar sized cities, AND FIND OUT HOW THEY DO IT.

[Dog Party]

It really seems like we have only one or two more years left of IceDogs hockey. Lets enjoy it while we have it.

Once the Dogs move, we should be able to throw away our computers because we will have paid for a new library. And we can all drive there because like 98% of the residents of St. Catharines, we will never use those bike lanes we all paid for that screwed up traffic in this city.