Quote:
Originally Posted by thistleclub
As Ernst & Young projects that a new private-public facility could be operating within four or five years, if we assume that FOC will be operational between now and 2024, that $50M bill for deferred maintenance will be borne by the City under both scenarios.
|
The deferred maintenance would not be undertaken at the current facility if an agreement is made on a new facility. The current facility would be "run to failure" with duct tape repairs. You aren't going to sink $50M in deferred capital maintenance for a facility which will close within 4 years. The only reason you do that is if you're sticking with the building for another 25 years.
Direct exeprt from the EY Report.
Capital investment, we understand, is imminently required to ensure the on-going useful life for the next 25 to 30 years.
In order to achieve the on-going operation of these facilities for the next 30 years, capital investment requirements previously discussed in Section 2.4 of this report have beenincorporated from 2019 – 2024.
You'll see the cap maintenance is required in 2019 to 2024 to extend the useful life by 30 years. If a new arena is ready in 2024, that money is not being spent.
Furthermore the report states
As lifecycle maintenance is not expected to greatly improve energy efficiency, the on-going municipal utility subsidy of $1.2 million has been assumed to remain over the forecast period.
So this lifecycle capital maintenance will NOT improve energy efficiency, and will NOT reduce the utility subsidy of $1.2M the City provides the operators. So when comparing keeping the old facility and undertaking capital maintenance(not capital improvements), the old facility will be less energy efficient and still require an operating subsidy from taxpayers, whereas the new facility would not.
Also if there is a new facility, my preference would be to 100% keep it downtown.