district to ensure heritage park facilities are safe and ... to ensure heritage park facilities are...

of 2

DATE: August 26, 2015 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

District to Ensure Heritage Park Facilities are Safe and Well Managed

Mission, B.C. – In December 2014, the District gave notice to the Mission Heritage Association (MHA) that it would not be renewing its agreement with the MHA to maintain the facilities at the Fraser River Heritage Park. The agreement is scheduled to lapse at the end of 2015, and since Council was aware that it would require modification if it was to be renewed, it did its due diligence by advising the MHA a year in advance that the agreement would not be renewed in its current form, if at all.

After this time, more problems arose with the management of the Park. Finally, in April 2015, Mayor and Council announced that the District would, at the end of the year, be concluding its Park maintenance agreement with the MHA. This decision was made due to increasing concerns regarding how the Park and its building projects were being managed – concerns which were brought to the MHA’s attention in earlier communications. At a closed meeting in August 2015, Council received several troubling expert evaluations and departmental reports on the MHA’s management of the Park. In the interests of accountability and transparency, Council has chosen to make this information publically available. It is important that the citizens of Mission understand the changes that are happening in one of our city’s most valued public spaces.

As the attached documents indicate in greater detail, the MHA – directly or through its own contractors – has undertaken several different renovation and construction projects in the Park without always adhering to building code requirements, budgetary restrictions, or project planning mandates. Council has been greatly concerned with the safety, legal, and financial problems that could occur as a result, and therefore felt that it was imperative for the District to take over Park management. Several of the key problem areas are identified below, with more detail available in the attachments:

• The relocation of the caretaker’s suite to the space above the concession was done without installing code-compliant fire separation. For many years, the District has been endeavouring to rectify similar issues in the area over the Blackberry Kitchen, but with no satisfactory result. Moreover, the BBQ and fryer were located below the suite and the fryer in the concession was not equipped with adequate ventilation or fire suppression equipment. Even more alarmingly, a caretaker has been living in this space, despite these safety issues.

• There are numerous safety and financial concerns with the expansion of the Blackberry Kitchen. Its foundation has potentially been compromised because the cutting of the basement wall significantly exceeded the cut in the District-approved drawings, and additional work was done without a permit. The current electrical, wiring, and architectural problems that exist due to the MHA’s mishandling will cost the District $300,000 of taxpayer money to rectify, and this is in addition to the estimated $100,000 required to install new equipment for the kitchen.

• The construction of the Clayburn building did not follow the approved structural drawings. The resulting safety and construction problems must be rectified by the District since the MHA had insufficient funds to complete the project. $150,000 taxpayer dollars are now required to bring this building and the caretaker’s suite up to code.

• Despite instructions to not occupy the Clayburn building, an MHA employee has been using it for storage of his personal vehicles and maybe to perform mechanical work unrelated to his position at the Park. This compounds existing liability concerns.

• There have been allegations of problems regarding workplace harassment in the Park that are currently under investigation by WorkSafe BC.

of 2

• An invoice submitted by an MHA contractor for the installation of weather guard on all Park buildings significantly exceeds (by over $40,000) the commitment the District made to this project.

• The Observatory was an exciting potential project. Unfortunately, however, serious problems have compromised it. For example, the construction of the Observatory proceeded without the required drawings and permits in place. Moreover, professional consultants have demonstrated that the MHA’s business plan for the Observatory is inadequately developed. The construction and operation costs are drastically underestimated while the revenue estimates are unrealistically high. The plan does not take into account important details regarding the timing and structure of school visits, necessary employee/volunteer numbers, advanced computing requirements, and the need for ongoing program development. The location itself is also problematic, as the Fraser Valley Astronomers Society (FVAS) had earlier indicated to the MHA. At this point, the FVAS has withdrawn their support for the Observatory project because they take issue with some aspects of the business plan and cannot commit to contributing the amount of technical assistance and volunteer support the MHA had anticipated. When taken together into consideration, all of these concerns make the Observatory project untenable. Council will be considering how to best re-purpose the current building for optimal public use.

Council’s priority is to ensure that, firstly, the Park’s facilities are safe and convenient for the public, and secondly, that they are managed responsibly. Taking into consideration these serious problems, Council decided that the best option at this time is for the District to take over the management of the Park. Please be assured that the Park’s activities will continue as usual, and that this space will continue to be a safe and enjoyable public resource.

-30-

For additional information contact:

Randy Hawes, Mayor Media Inquiries: 604.820.3702 Ron Poole, Chief Administrative Officer 604.820.3704 Pam Alexis, Councillor Carol Hamilton, Councillor Jim Hinds, Councillor Rhett Nicholson, Councillor Danny Plecas, Councillor Jenny Stevens, Councillor Appendices Attached: Appendix 1 – Fraser River Heritage Park – Blackberry Kitchen Appendix 2 – Fraser River Heritage Park – Clayburn Building Completion Appendix 3 – Fraser River Heritage Park – Observatory Project Appendix 4 – Fraser River Heritage Park – Washroom / Concession / Caretaker’s Suite

Parks, Recreation and Culture

Staff Report to Council

STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 1 of 5

DATE: August 17, 2015

TO: Mayor and Council

FROM: Maureen Sinclair, Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture

SUBJECT: Fraser River Heritage Park – Blackberry Kitchen ATTACHMENT: Appendix A - Report from VancouverRestaurants.ca

The purpose of this report is to provide information to Council related to renovations to the Blackberry Kitchen / Norma Kenney House project at Fraser River Heritage Park. This report is provided for information purposes only. No staff recommendation accompanies this report and Council action is not required.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to provide information to Council related to renovations to the Blackberry Kitchen / Norma Kenney House project at Fraser River Heritage Park.

BACKGROUND: On April 7, 2015, Council approved 17 specific actions related to the ongoing future operations of Fraser River Heritage Park. The report includes two specific items related to the Blackberry Kitchen:

“Negotiate a new five-year lease with Kela Kitchen Inc. the current restaurant operators” and

“That up to $74,500 (Financial Stabilization Funding) be authorized to complete the review and design of the Blackberry Kitchen expansion, undertake a review of the Observatory Business Plan and cover siding costs for the Blackberry Kitchen”.

This report is provided as an update on the Blackberry Kitchen issues.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: The expansion of the Blackberry Kitchen was initiated by the Mission Heritage Association (MHA) with the hope that the expansion would be completed by November 2014. The construction stalled due to insufficient funds. Council subsequently requested that no further work be undertaken until a full assessment could be made of the work completed to-date, the outstanding work, and a review of the overall project. Of additional concern was the lack of detailed drawings for the electrical, mechanical, ventilation as well as architectural details for the entire building.

Vancouver Restaurants.ca was retained as consultants by the District of Mission to review the project and to provide recommendations on how to proceed. The Consultant has reviewed the Norma Kenney House and conducted a full review of Fire and Building Code related issues. A summary of the issues identified by the Consultant is included as Appendix A.

In order to attain code compliance, a number of specific recommendations have been made by the Consultant.

• The Blackberry Kitchen extension is too close to the washroom / caretaker’s building and the

APPENDIX 1


above ground portion of the building will need to be cut back by 8 feet. By cutting back the building this will allow for proper fire separation, better pedestrian flow and a more rational kitchen to dining room ratio. The basement portion of the addition can be retained in its current configuration.

• The roof joists are too low and the overhead clearance in the new kitchen is insufficient to install proper ducting for the kitchen hood and venting systems. The Consultant is proposing to alter the configuration of the joists in order to obtain additional clearance, rather than removing and replacing the roof.

• The upstairs cannot be adequately separated to ensure full fire separation and the Consultant is proposing to remove the upper floor and open the main floor all the way to the upper ceiling, retaining the dormers for better light in the restaurant. There is sufficient downstairs space to accommodate the office and staff areas from the second floor and relocate them to the basement.

• The deck on the southeast corner of the building is structurally inadequate and will be removed in order to provide a proper fire exiting from the basement.

• The building does not have a furnace and requires the oven to be on in the kitchen in order to provide some heat to the building during winter months. A proper HVAC system needs to be installed.

There are a number of other lesser issues which can be resolved during the proposed renovation to the building. The Consultant will be working on the drawings and the preliminary costs to renovate the building and develop the larger kitchen space.

In addition, staff has been working with the current restaurant owners and a local real estate agent to draft the terms of a future lease. Issues that need to be addressed include completion and fit up of the kitchen, the monthly lease rates and / or profit sharing arrangements, any common area costs, construction timing, etc.

The work being contemplated at the Blackberry Kitchen will enable the current or any other restaurant to operate in this location successfully and safely. The location at Fraser River Heritage Park is unique within the valley and will offer the community a restaurant experience like no other. Moving ahead, a new lease will need to be secured so that a tenant that can continue to operate at Fraser River Heritage Park.

COUNCIL GOALS/OBJECTIVES: This report supports Council’s decision to transition Fraser River Heritage Park to a municipal operation and to ensure that all buildings are completed to Code (Fire and Building) in order to ensure the safety of staff, volunteers and park users.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: This report is provided as an interim report and the financial implications are still being assessed.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: This report to Council is provided in order to provide an update on the status of the Blackberry Kitchen review and lease discussions with the Kela Kitchen Inc.


SIGN-OFFS:

Maureen Sinclair, Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture

Comment from Chief Administrative Officer: Reviewed


Appendix A Blue Octopus Holdings Inc RestaurantConstruction.ca 238, 17750 56 AVE SURREY B.C V3S1K4 TO: THE DISTRICT OF MISSION RE: THE BLACKBERRY KITCHEN PROJECT

7650 GRAND STREET 7494 MARY STREET MISSION B.C V2V 3T3 MISSION B.C V2V 6Y9

ATTN: MAUREEN SINCLAIR director Thank you for contacting RestaurantConstruction.ca / Blue Octopus Inc. for the Blackberry Kitchen Project. Upon review of the premises, we must point out the following code violations:

1. THE ADDITION

• Constructed too close to the adjacent building / not constructed with fire rated materials.

• Current interior washroom layout / washroom sizing not to code. • Current wiring / lighting installed not to code. • Roof truss system impedes primary goal of restaurant hood, too low, not strong

enough, not rated. • Fire exits, doors are impeded by roof overhang, no emergency lighting. • Structural bearing wall cut open without engineering or bracing installed. • Addition was constructed with a shell only permit and no site review was done. • This space should not be occupied or used for storage.

2. EXTERIOR PATIO WEST SIDE

• Roof cover not to code, insufficient slope, structurally unsound • Deck impedes on only exit from lower floor, fire hazard.

3. WEST SIDE STAIR WELL

• Does not meet rise/run stair code • Does not meet requirements for egress.

4. SECOND STORY

• Changes in use and size of building, change code requirements. • Upper floor requires fire separation and legal fire exit if to be used for any purpose. • Fire rating the second story is not feasible in an old log cabin (requires structural

modification)


5. BASEMENT LOG CABIN

• Currently has no exits that meet fire regulations. • Currently being used for food prep and storage without proper food safe

requirements being met. • Structural wall between old and new basement has been severely degraded with a

large non-engineered hole cut into it. No bracing or framing has been installed to support the load of the log wall above.

6. LOG CABIN

• Current building is not rated for restaurant occupancy. • Cooking is being performed under a non-rated hood assembly that does not meet fire

code. • Ventilation system is gravely in adequate and poses a severe fire hazard. • Ventilation fan is not rated for grease; a spark from the armature could ignite the

grease in the ducting. • Ducting is a series of WOOD boxes, highly flammable, extremely inadequate /

dangerous. • There is no fire suppression or automatic shut down or fire dampers. If a fire were to

start in the hood, the hood fan would actually spread the flames to the exterior roof overhang at the front door which happens to be the main fire exit for patrons in the restaurant.

Thank you. Karey Bobyk Owner RestaurantConstruction.ca







SUBJECT: Fraser River Heritage Park - Clayburn Building Completion

The purpose of this report is to provide information to Council related to completion of the Clayburn Building. This report is provided for information purposes only. No staff recommendation accompanies this report and Council action is not required.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to provide information to Council related to completion of the Clayburn Building.

BACKGROUND: On April 7, 2015, Council approved 17 specific actions related to the ongoing future operations of Heritage Park. One of the actions agreed to by Council included $175,000 in funding to complete renovations to the Clayburn Building and the washroom/caretakers building. This report is provided as a follow-up to that directive related to work at the Clayburn Building.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: The construction of the Clayburn building was initiated by the Mission Heritage Association (MHA) with partial funding from the Western Diversification Fund and the District of Mission. The construction stalled due to lack of sufficient funding and Council asked that no further work be done by MHA on the building as there was growing concern regarding the lack of required inspections. Although construction drawings were submitted and approved for construction purposes, the drawings were not being followed in all cases.

Based on subsequent resolutions from Council, the District of Mission assumed responsibility for the building and authorized renovations to the public washrooms located at the rear of the Clayburn building. It should be noted that there were a number of deficiencies in the work done by MHA, including problems with the ceiling diaphragm, plumbing, framing and electrical work. These were all corrected in the washroom area and the work has been inspected and approved.

Although the washrooms are now complete, they are currently closed and cannot be used until the ceiling diaphragm is correctly installed throughout the rest of the building. (The structural engineer permitted the washrooms to be opened for one day only, Canada Day, in recognition of this extraordinary situation.) The engineer provided a directive stating that the building should not be used for ongoing activities until the ceiling diaphragm was completed in all parts of the building. The directive from the engineer was provided to the Manager of Fraser River Heritage Park and the President of the Association. The MHA were subsequently advised by the Director of Development Services to remove their equipment and cease using the building until the life safety issues have been resolved.

APPENDIX 2


Staff has issued a single source Purchase Order to Mitech Services to complete the work at the Clayburn building. (Parks and Recreation staff asked that the purchase be direct awarded to Mitech as the contractor has significant experience in the building, having recently completed the public washrooms.) There are still a number of issues with the building that may result in work needing to be re-done as the previous contractor failed to follow the approved construction drawings which were issued for construction and approved by the District of Mission Building Department. In particular, the electrical inspector and the structural engineer have both indicated concerns with work completed to-date in the staff lunch room.

COUNCIL GOALS/OBJECTIVES: This report supports Council’s decision to transition Fraser River Heritage Park to a municipal operation and to ensure that all buildings are completed to Code (Fire and Building) in order to ensure the safety of staff, volunteer and park users.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no additional financial implications associated with this report as staff believes that there are sufficient funds to complete the work on this building based on funding previously committed to the Park project.

COMMUNICATION: This report has been discussed with the Director of Development Services as well as the Manager of Finance.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: This report to Council is provided in order to advise them that work at the Clayburn building will proceed as soon as the contractor can schedule his staff.

SIGN-OFFS:









SUBJECT: Fraser River Heritage Park - Observatory Project ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A - Review by Rocky Blondin

Appendix B - McIntosh and Associates Review Appendix C - Review by Dave Heyes, Manager of Forestry Business

The purpose of this report is to provide information to Council related to the business cases for the proposed observatory under construction at Fraser River Heritage Park. This report is provided for information purposes only. No staff recommendation accompanies this report and Council action is not required.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to provide information to Council related to the business cases for the proposed observatory under construction at Fraser River Heritage Park.

BACKGROUND: On April 7, 2015, Council approved 17 specific actions related to the ongoing future operations of Fraser River Heritage Park. Action 16 directed staff to undertake a review of the business cases for the proposed observatory. This report is provided in response to that request from Council.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: Attached for Council’s consideration are three separate documents related to three independent reviews of the business cases provided by Brian Antonson, President of the Mission Heritage Association (MHA) and the lead on the observatory project.

The business case reviews completed by Lisa McIntosh of the Lower Mainland Museum Educators (Appendix A) and Dave Heyes of the Mission Forestry Department (Appendix B) were completed based solely on the business cases provided by the MHA. The analysis completed by Rocky Blondin (Appendix C) was developed based upon a review of the business cases as well as discussions held with Brian Antonson, Lloyd Rash, Louise Lacerte (Past-President of the Rotary Club of Mission - Sunrise Club), as well as an earlier conversation with the then interim District of Mission Chief Administrative Officer, Glen Robertson. Mr. Blondin has also visited the site and inspected the building with Mr. Antonson and Mr. Rash.

COUNCIL GOALS/OBJECTIVES: This report supports Council’s decision to transition Fraser River Heritage Park to a broader more community oriented model that responds to the needs of the community.

APPENDIX 3


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: This report is provided for information only. There are no direct financial implications associated with this report.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: This report to Council is provided in order to give additional insight into the operational model proposed for the Fraser River Heritage Park Observatory Project.

SIGN-OFFS:



Mission Rotary Observatory at Fraser River

Heritage Park -

Project Review Report

Bruce R. (Rocky) Blondin AScT

Aug 24, 2015

APPENDIX A

About the author Bruce R. (Rocky) Blondin is an electrical and controls engineering technologist by trade. Previously he

worked as the design lead and project manager for the electrical and controls on several major

international observatory projects including:

Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT), Atacama Desert, Chile

Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT), currently under construction, Mauna Kea, Hawaii

European Extremely Large Telescope (E-ELT), Cerro Armazones, Chile

Work on these observatory projects included technical review of proposed systems, studies on the

effects of communication signals on adjacent radio telescopes, and electrical and control system

design and project management.

He has over ten years of experience in a wide range of industrial projects with a specialization in

electrical and control systems for commercial entertainment and industrial applications. This review

is undertaken as an independent party and does not represent the views of his current or previous

employers.

Statement of Scope This report is intended to evaluate the technical and operational requirements of the construction

and operation of the Rotary Observatory as presented in the business plan and technical details

provided by the Project Team via the District of Mission staff.

The report evaluates and makes recommendations where applicable on the detail and completion of

the following:

Estimated construction requirements to complete an operating facility

Technical requirements and limitations of the chosen observing equipment and other ancillary

equipment

Business plan review and commentary based on benchmark organizations

Operational requirements of the proposed facility and infrastructure

Exclusion of Scope In order to limit the extent and duration of this review, the evaluation does not extend to the

following:

Detailing of the costs identified as omitted from the initial business plan

Completion of missing information or details in the proposal

Recommendation on final project outcomes

Definition of terminology

Optical Telescope: an astronomical instrument which gathers and focuses light, primarily from the

visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum

Radio Telescope: an astronomical instrument consisting of a radio receiver and an antenna system

that is used to detect radio-frequency radiation emitted by extraterrestrial sources

Project team: the key members of the team working on this project (Brian Antonson, Lloyd Rash) as

listed by Brian Antonson.

ROaFRHP: Abbreviation of Rotary Observatory at Fraser River Heritage Park

MHS: Mission Heritage Society

MRO: Maintenance Repair and Operations

HVAC: Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning

IT: Information Technology - computer and communication equipment and software required to

receive, transmit and store data (PC’s, servers & networks)

Current Construction Status A meeting was held on July 19, 2015 with the Project Team to inspect and audit the current state of

construction. A walk-through of the facility was performed and a review of the engineered

information (construction drawings) was completed.

The current state of the construction project was as follows:

- The main building completed to ‘lock-up’ with rough utilities provisioned in the foundation

- Limited progress on finish of the interior

- Exterior walls framed, but have no insulation or drywall

- No interior walls

- No interior utility installation performed

- Electrical, plumbing, sewer, others (HVAC ducting and plumbing, etc)

- Foundation perimeter complete, but main slab within has not been started (no

reinforcing steel or concrete)

- Stairs to the roof-top constructed to a half-story

- No windows, doors or any other building envelope details complete

- Utilities are roughed-in to stub-ups inside the foundation. This includes the following:

- Plumbing, sewer, electrical

Construction Completion The project proposal suggests that completion of the construction of the building will cost an

“estimated $100,000.” This value is low based on the current state of construction. There is no

provision for the capital cost of several building systems which are potentially costly. The following is

a list of some of the major areas missing from the business and construction plan, and an attempt

where possible to estimate costs for each area.

Road and parking infrastructure While there are no formal plans detailed in the proposal, the Project Team described a plan to

improve the lane adjacent to the building and add a turnaround and parking for buses used to

transport students. There is no cost appended to this requirement in the budget. Currently, the

construction cost of 100m of local road is estimated to cost $250,000 to $320,000 in the Vancouver

area ($2,500 to $3,200/metre)2.

The proposed operation will require parking and necessary infrastructure per local building codes.

The parking lot already in place at FRHP could be utilized but no details are provided for existing

utilization by the other buildings, businesses and activities at the park and the potential for sharing

that parking area. Additional parking spaces could be required pending detailed assessment. This

would normally be addressed in the building permit review process but no building permit was issued

for construction of the current building. Analysis of these details are excluded from the scope of this

report per the exclusion of scope statement above.

Electrical System There are no details for any electrical system inside the building. The electrical system currently

consists of the main service connection. This connection is 120/220VAC and a 600 Amp service. The

size was derived from a best-guess - no electrical power budget analysis has been performed. The

service size is substantial and likely adequate, but cannot be confirmed without a list of loads in the

building.

To complete the electrical system for construction, the following efforts are required:

- Engineering (including schematics, power budgets, and stamped, approved design)

- Hardware (main panel, lighting, wire, junction boxes, outlets, switches, conduit, wire tray)

- Installation (including mounting, wiring, termination and power up testing)

It is not possible to derive an accurate estimate for the cost associated with the above requirements

as there is little information in the project plan to reference and budget against. Details on number of

circuits, lights, quantity/size and location of loads are required in order to estimate the costs

associated. The costs required for electrical as part of new building construction are rolled into the

estimated completion costs listed below.

HVAC System An HVAC system is required for controlling the climate of the building. Observing enclosures typically

take great strides to control the temperature of the environment surrounding the main telescope.

This is to manage and minimize the effects of temperature-related distortion on the light being

gathered. While the main telescope at the ROaFRHP is mounted on the roof and opening the small

enclosure will equalize the temperature in the immediate area around the telescope, the temperature

on the roof of the building will be elevated greatly due to the sun on any clear day required for

observing. After the sun sets, the thermal mass of the building will take time to cool. In other

observatories, the building is provisioned to vent to atmosphere and exchange the air in the facility

quickly to equalize the temperature inside and outside. There is very little provision for ventilation

and no plans for an HVAC system. This can be problematic for effective viewing if there is a large

temperature differential between the outside air temperature and the air around the telescope4.

Per best practices, the building will require a large HVAC capacity in the prime summer observing

months as a substantial building temperature gradient can adversely effect the prime telescope. As

well, it will be necessary to maintain a comfortable environment for visitors. Further to this, the

internal heat-load will be elevated due to the following elements:

- TV’s, computers, projectors

- Inflatable planetarium (see page 11)

- Human generated heat loading

For a building of this size with the additional heat-loading per the items above, the HVAC system will

likely cost in the order of $50,000 and up1. A detailed analysis of all the factors are required to

determine a precise spec and subsequent cost for the HVAC system. This is also rolled-up into the

estimated completion cost value below.

Plumbing This building will require plumbing installation. The requirements for this utility are not above

average so the median value of $6/sq. ft. could be used for a budgetary cost of $15,0001. This item is

rolled-up in the estimated completion cost value below.

Interior finishing The interior walls require framing; the exterior walls require insulation and drywall after the utilities

have been installed and any interior windows and displays also are still outstanding. This item is

rolled-up in the estimated completion cost value below. However, any additional items that are

non-standard for commercial building construction (theatre equipment, glass cases for displays, etc.)

are not included and should be in addition to that dollar value.

Telescope and Enclosure Installation There is no provision for erection services of the main telescope or enclosure. These would require at

a minimum a crane service to deliver the large, heavy assemblies to the roof-top location.

Building Security There is no provision for installation and monitoring of a building security system or service. The

expense of the equipment and remote location of the building would normally require a standard

security service to ensure reduced insurance rates and adequate protection against vandalism and

robbery.

Construction Completion Cost Summary The building as constructed is approximately 2500sq. ft. of Gross Livable Area as defined by industry

standards2. Using the figure of ~$200 per sq. ft. for office buildings and schools & colleges yields a

total construction budget of ~$500,000. Deducting the $140,000 already allocated to the current

state of construction it can be reasoned that a more accurate budgetary figure of $360,000 is

remaining to deliver a completed commercial facility up to local building codes and regulations with

proper permitting. This value is independent of the funding sources (gifts in kinds, donations, grants,

etc).

The remaining cost also does not include omitted scope such as the upgraded lane ($250,000+), extra

parking, any additional interior or exterior finishes that are above standard commercial construction

practice, and any other property improvements at FRHP required as a result of the observatory

construction project.

Technical Review The observatory itself as proposed is a mid-level technical system requiring a degree of technical

expertise to design, commission and operate. The following is a high-level overview of the technical

requirements and statements surrounding limitations of the main proposed systems.

Prime Optical Telescope An optical telescope observes in the visible light spectrum and as such, requires a clear path to the

object(s) under observation. Clouds, adjacent lights and other intrusions into the viewing space

obscure the telescope’s ability to ‘see’. Most commercial observatories are installed in remote

locations with limited cloud cover, little to no adjacent light pollution and other considerations that

enable unobstructed viewing.

The Project Team indicated that the Prime Telescope is not a key component of the commercial

viability of the observatory for the main revenue generating activity - field trips. This is a valid

assumption as daytime observations are not common. As such, while the weather at the location may

not be conducive to year-round observing, the Prime Telescope will be a static attraction as part of

the astronomical tour and leveraged where possible.

The street light mitigation action is a positive step in addressing local light pollution and would be

beneficial to effective observing at the park. However, that alone will not alleviate all light pollution in

an urban setting and close to a major highway and industrial area.

Also, as noted in the HVAC requirements section, the temperature gradient issue presented by the

installation of the telescope on the building rooftop will likely introduce challenges to effective use of

the Prime Telescope at night. The existing installation as proposed does not conform to best practices

for telescope installations4.

Radio Telescope(s) Radio telescopes observe in the radio frequency portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. They are

typically located far from population centers or reside in “radio quiet zones” where use of electronics

that transmit or receive in the frequencies being observed is prohibited by law. Radio telescopes are

set to detect radio frequency signals at extremely low amplitudes. Common electronic devices such

as cell phones, WiFi signals, portable (cordless) telephones, satellites, hand-held radios and many

others transmit in the same range and would interfere with viewing. To perform radio astronomy in

the proposed location at FRHP, detailed analysis and research on local sources of radio emissions in

the immediate area would need to be performed to ensure adequate ability to operate.

It is the recommendation of this report that radio telescopes would not be suited for use at the

ROaFRHP for the reasons cited above.

Deck Telescopes and Binoculars The equipment listed and proposed would achieve the intended functionality - with the only

reservation that the temperature gradient challenge for the Prime Telescope could potentially be

present for all observing equipment on the roof-top deck. There is no other apparent technical

limitations to the equipment as listed.

Outside Technology The Sky camera and Weather Station equipment budget is only for the capital cost for the hardware.

There is no provision for cabling, burial of the cable and conduit which will easily double the cost of

the proposed systems.

Mission Control System A review of the proposal and discussion with the Project Team produced the following summary of

the Mission Control System:

Twenty laptop computers connected directly and independently to twenty, 24” monitors to display

various sources of astronomical facts, information and videos - primarily derived from the Internet. All

behind tempered glass sheets.

Assessing the value of the proposed Mission Control System is subjective. Subsequently, this report

will assess the system proposal at face-value and identify scope shortcomings to deliver the system as

proposed.

To achieve the intended deliverable, the system budget and specification is missing the following

elements:

- Cables to connect the laptops to the monitors

- Mounting hardware for each monitor

- Installation provision for tempered glass (framing, slides for access to monitors for

maintenance etc)

- Provision for IT infrastructure to monitor user access or coordinate the information being

displayed

The Project Team indicated the laptops will not be public facing, so IT security risk will be low. It will

take a concerted effort by a volunteer or employee to ensure that 20 separate computers are

functioning properly and displaying the correct and pertinent information. There are more technically

appropriate ways to deliver the intended functionality - using a central server PC with video hardware

to present the data from one workstation on many monitors - but would come with increased

hardware, software, maintenance and support cost offset by ease of use and management.

IT Requirements The IT sophistication of the observatory as proposed is relatively low. Each technical center is

proposed to be operated from an independent laptop. This includes recording from the Prime

Telescope and administrative functions like printing pictures of observations. This is a

non-conventional approach to an IT deployment in a commercial environment. Typically, a central

server would be utilized to perform the resource-intensive functions like video recording and

infotainment management as proposed in the Mission Control System. The laptops would be

provisioned by that central server to administer user access, security, file permissions, backups etc. as

part of a local domain-controlled network.

Regardless of the proposed low level of sophistication, IT installation, setup and support is a necessary

function for a system that is relied on for effective delivery of technical content to paying customers.

As such, technical failures will need fairly urgent attention or the quality of content delivery will be

compromised to the multiple classes of field trips daily that are intended to visit the facility.

The existing solution is non-scalable and limited to the capabilities of the hardware budgeted for.

There is no budget or provision for physical network infrastructure ; there is provision for a WiFi

network. This is not common in critical network connected environments - even today with

high-speed WiFi and 4G cell connections.

The specifications of a laptop as budgeted are low. A review of the observation recording equipment

(Mallincam) specifications has technical requirements that are not accommodated well by

off-the-shelf personal laptop computers.

It is the recommendation of this report that the IT requirements as presented are incomplete and not

up to the standards required to operate a commercial venture as planned.

Indoor Inflatable Planetarium The indoor inflatable planetarium proposed is a main feature of the educational programming on

offer. Each class will spend a portion of their tour inside this system taking in a presentation of the

stars. The Project Team indicated this purchase is low on the list of items and won’t likely be installed

or acquired until the necessary funding is made available later in the project. The loss of this item

from the program would subtract substantial value from it.

Operationally, the device will be another heat source inside the building which will drive up the size

requirements of the HVAC system. There is also a concern that an inflatable dome could stand up to

the rigors of 60 young users per day. It is quite likely to require substantial maintenance and repair to

keep in operation.

The planetarium at the Okanagan Science Centre (referenced in the next section) is a permanent

structure of similar size and would be more suitable to the volume of visitors proposed by the

ROaFRHP but would come with a larger capital cost accordingly.

Business Plan Review and Commentary

Benchmark Organizations In order to give a frame of reference to the operational requirements for a facility and operation of

this nature, an effort to identify organizations to benchmark was undertaken. After a brief search, the

following was determined:

- The North Okanagan region was chosen as a comparable catchment and population base to

compare against the Fraser Valley

- Specifically Vernon BC was identified as a comparable city to Mission BC

- Kelowna and Abbotsford are adjacent large population centers to draw from

- Vernon and Mission are similar in population and amenities

In Vernon, there are two operations that offer programs and services similar to those proposed by the

MHS for the ROaFRHP.

1) Okanagan Science Center (OSC)

2) Allan Brooks Nature Center (ABNC)

A brief review of the two operations above and meeting with staff of the OSC produced the following

findings and recommendations to amend the business plan as presented for review in this report.

Revenue Both of the facilities above offer field trips to students in the surrounding area. Both facilities charge

approximately $5/student for the field trip programs they offer. The OSC averages 2 field trip classes

per day, 4 days per week during the school year. The statistics for field trip levels to the ABNC were

not readily available.

Based on these benchmarks, the expected field trip revenue in the business plan is overstated by

double given the assumed $10/child fee. Further to this, the OSC is a comprehensive science center

and has astronomy as one offering, along with a list of other program offerings to achieve the field

trip usage levels as stated. It is the recommendation of this report to reduce the expected number of

field trip visits substantially to estimate the potential revenue of these activities. More business

development research would be necessary to determine a precise value and is omitted from the

scope of this report per the excluded scope.

The listed revenue associated with visits that are not field trip related are limited and potentially

understated in the proposal. The value of an observatory for hobbyist astronomers and the general

public could be higher than forecasted. This report does not intend to develop that business case, but

recommends that further development could yield better revenue projections for that portion of the

operation.

The revenue in the ROaFRHP proposal listed as “gift shop revenue” has no associated cost of goods.

The expense for the associated goods is missing from the list of expenses in the budget plan which

results in overstatement of the potential bottom-line effect.

Staffing Based on the staffing levels of the two benchmark organizations and scaling their operations against

the proposed ROaFRHP, this report recommends that the minimum staffing to operate the facility

would be:

1 x full-time operations manager

2 x part-time operation staff

4 x on-call program coordinators to deliver the educational programs (paid positions)

A substantial volunteer base would still be required to deliver the programs as proposed - both of the

organizations above utilize volunteers for their respective program offerings. It was the experience of

the benchmark program operators that volunteers can supplement paid staff, but cannot be relied on

for a paid offering of educational programs due to the relative commitment of paid positions vs

volunteer.

Further to this, a bookkeeper or accountant would be required to perform the financial duties of

running a commercial operation with revenues and expenses as listed. These services would likely

need to be contracted at market rates unless a volunteer donation was explicitly identified and

committed to providing this service long-term.

MRO Budget The included operations budget of $1,000/month ($12,000 annually) is extremely low relative to what

would be normal for a building and operation similar to the proposal. Based on references from the

benchmark operations, the repair and maintenance budget alone would be in the order of $3,000 to

$5,000 monthly for a facility that handles the proposed volume of public visits. This does not include

utilities and supplies which would be in addition to this cost. Janitorial costs alone would lie in the

$600-800/month range based on the benchmark indicators.

Production of literature, marketing material and other consumables would be derived from this

budget item. There would be cost associated with producing any materials for the programming

offered.

No detailed information was acquired from the benchmark operations with respect to costs of

operation for a direct comparison. However, there are some items worth examining as

underestimated or omitted from the current proposal that would be encapsulated in the estimated

$1,000/month operation budget figure to substantiate the projected discrepancy from the proposed

value to what is more realistic.

Utilities The following monthly cost of electricity for one-half of the feed provisioned in the proposal would be

as follows:

Primary electrical feed = 220VAC / 600A

220VAC * 300A = ~66kW (no correction for power factor assumed)

66kW * 8H of operation/day = 528kWh / day

528kWh * 20 operating days / month = 10,560kWh / month

10,560 kWh * $0.1037 / kWh^ = $1,095/month in electricity charges

(^based on current BC Hydro commercial rates)

While these rough calculations are based on a series of assumptions, the effect is apparent: the

electricity alone for the proposed operation could easily exceed $1,000/month. This estimated value

excludes other utilities (water, sewer, natural gas) which would be in addition.

Insurance It would be prudent for the MHS or other operator of this facility to budget for liability and contents

insurance for the equipment and risk associated with operating a commercial enterprise. A risk

assessment would identify the associated risks and then a market-priced quote for the necessary

insurance would be required to determine these annual operating costs.

IT Maintenance Services The IT infrastructure required to operate a facility with the technical equipment included will require

contracted (or internal) IT maintenance services. A website would be required, user maintenance,

software and hardware installation and support including a phone system, the computing and

networking hardware, a Point Of Sale terminal for customer transactions, and internet service

provision. None of this is addressed in the proposal and are all additional operating expenses.

Summary While the bulk of the points listed above are primarily the limitations of the proposal presented, the

intent of this review was to identify those shortcomings and list them for District of Mission staff,

council, the Mission Heritage Society and the Rotary Club to digest and determine the feasibility of the

Rotary Observatory at Fraser River Heritage Park. The items identified above are not exhaustive -

simply a review of the major items proposed and review of other items that were overlooked or

underestimated.

On a technical level, there are several areas where the systems and equipment proposed is not

capable, or else limited in capability to deliver the intended function. The radio telescopes will not

work at the proposed site. The prime telescope may have some limitations surrounding its operation.

The IT equipment proposed is lacking sophistication and would pose operational challenges.

The business case for the project revolves primarily around revenue generated by field trips from

schools. The revenue estimates require more analysis as the research of benchmark organizations

and other inputs point to a substantial reduction in revenue projections.

Capital costs for construction and equipping of the observatory are also not forecasted accurately. A

recurring theme in the proposal is the identification of the capital costs related to purchasing

equipment, but no provision for the cost to install, maintain and operate many of these systems.

Further to this, proper permitting and approvals were foregone and are necessary for any project of

this nature. Finally, the total construction cost estimate is low relative to industry guidelines. Use of

industry best practices3 would yield more accurate cost estimates and can assist the stakeholders in

better understanding the total scope and size of the project being undertaken.

As shown in detail above, the operating forecast for the observatory is also lacking in several areas.

The MRO budget should be 3 to 5 times higher than listed. As well, in order to successfully operate

the facility, a small group of paid staff is normally required for other similar operations. These

changes will potentially drive the cost of operation up more than an order of magnitude relative to

the currently proposed $1,000/month.

This report makes no recommendations with respect to the final disposition of the project. It is purely

to provide more insight into the proposal and provide the decision makers with an improved

perspective to make an informed decision.

References (1): Justin Apprill - US Engineering - Mechanical Budgetary Estimating January 2013:

http://www.buildersassociation.org/docs/Education/Estimating%20Academy/Mechanical%20Budgeta

ry%20Estimating%20January%202013.pdf

(2): Altus Group - Construction Cost Guide:

http://www.altusgroup.com/media/1160/costguide_2014_web.pdf

(3): Guide To Cost Predictability in Construction:

http://www.cca-acc.com/pdfs/en/CCA/Guide_to_Cost_Predictability.pdf

(4): Beating the Seeing: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-equipment/beating-the-seeing/


APPENDIX B McIntosh and Associates July 15, 2015 Dear Ms. Sinclair Thank you for sending me the business plan for the Rotary Observatory under construction at Fraser River Heritage Park. I congratulate the group in bringing their vision of the Observatory to life. It is an exciting project and one that will inspire future generation of stargazers.

My comments on the business plan are based on my 25+ years of experience as an educator working in museums (I use the term ‘museum’ very broadly and include everything from a ‘traditional” museum to parks and even observatories). My past experience includes program development, volunteer and staff training, administration as well as academic experience (PhD in education and an instructor in UBC’s Master of Museum Education program). I have also been involved extensively with the local museum community through the Lower Mainland Museum Educators and BC Field Trips. My work with these two organisations has been motived by a belief that as a community of museum educators it is critical that we support each other in our own professional development and work together to improve the learning experiences we offer to our various audiences. If we are successful in this we will all benefit from increased visitor numbers and a healthier museum community. My current role as Director of Learning at the HR MacMillan Space Centre also provide some unique insights specific to the plans at the Rotary Observatory.

The attached document provides an overview of some of the issues that will affect school field trip numbers. I apologize in advance if I am raising issues that have already been considered by the group who developed the business plan. I do think a revision of the projections for field trip numbers is required. Prior to doing this it would be worthwhile to address two questions: 1) when will programming begin? (Year 1 programming numbers will be affected by the introduction of the new curriculum – see point 1 on the attached); and, 2) is it possible to accommodate two classes at one time? (see point 6).

If you have any further questions please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

Lisa McIntosh, PhD.


Review of the Rotary Observatory at Fraser Heritage Park Business Plan 2015

The Rotary Observatory is an exciting project and will contribute to helping the public develop a greater appreciation for the night sky. While the target of 5000 students in the first year may be feasible (especially if the Observatory is opened before the new school curriculum is adopted) I feel that the doubling of school visits from year 1 to year 2 is very optimistic. Although there is a relatively large target market of students in the catchment area, in reality the number is much smaller as not every teacher will take a class on a field trip. I would recommend that the projections for field trip visits in year 1 and year 2 be revised based on the introduction of a new science curriculum and operational trends and issues related to field trips. The following describes some of the issues that will affect field trip numbers as well as some suggestions on how to mitigate impact.

1) New science curriculum and the target school audience

Teachers use field trips for a variety of reasons, one of which is enhancing what they are teaching in the classroom. A strong connection to the curriculum will make a field trip more attractive and will ease the planning process for the teacher as they will need to justify why they are taking students on the trip. Last year the BC Ministry of Education released the draft of a new K – 12 curriculum (https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca). This curriculum reflects a new approach to the process of teaching in the classroom and has revised the specific content that teachers need to address. The Earth and space science components are particularly affected in the new curriculum (https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum). The Rotary Observatory business plan projections for field trip visits are based on visits primarily from grades 3, 6 and 9, grades where there are strong connections between Observatory programming and the current science curriculum. With the new curriculum the grades with the strongest curriculum connection are grade 6 (overall scale, structure and age of the Universe), grade 8 (optics and the visible light spectrum), with minor components in grade 5 (Sun and Moon), and grade 1 (appearance of Moon and stars at night, local weather patterns, visible light). There may be potential for field trips to support the new grade 9 curriculum with its focus on the electromagnetic spectrum. The curricula for grades 10 – 12 have not been released in draft form.

While the new curriculum is presented in a draft stage and the Ministry of Education has not yet announced a date for which teachers must adopt the new curriculum, teachers have begun to use it in their classrooms. I anticipate that in this coming school year (2015/16) we will have some teachers using the new curriculum while others will continue to teach from the current curriculum. The phasing out of the current curriculum will probably take place over the next few school years. Having the potential for teachers visiting who may be teaching from either the current or new curriculum does present a unique challenge for those facilitating field trips. For example currently grade 4 students study visible light (a potential topic for a visit to an observatory) with the new curriculum this is now in grade 1 with a more in depth focus in grade 8. This would require an organization to have three different programs about light for three very different audiences.


On a more positive note, there is more flexibility in the new curriculum and this could provide teachers with the latitude to use a content area such as astronomy to achieve their science objectives. This may provide interesting opportunities for the Observatory in the future.

Recommendation: Assuming that Observatory programming would not begin until 2016/17 school year when the new curriculum will likely be adopted by most teachers I would suggest revising field trip numbers based on grade 6 and grade 8 as the primary audience. Programming could also be developed for grade 5 that focuses on the Sun and Moon.

2) Typical pattern of school field trips: number of visits per month

For most field trip venues there is a fairly predictable pattern of school visits. These patterns reflect the types of activities taking place within schools during the year. In reviewing the possible days listed in Schedule E I would suggest that in addition to lowering overall numbers, the following months be reviewed.

September: Field trip numbers in September are often very low. This is not a surprise when you consider what is happening in the schools during this month. During the first week at school elementary students may not yet be with their new homeroom teacher.

Teachers use the first month of school to get to know their students. Part of this process helps teachers to determine how their new class might respond to and behave on a field trip. I would suggest not planning on any field trips in September and adding them gradually into the first half of October with visit numbers become more consistent and busy following Thanksgiving.

November: Also consider what other activities may be taking place within the schools that will affect the number of field trips that visit the Observatory. November has a public holiday (November 11) and schools often hold school-wide ceremonies that would mean a teacher could not take students out of school on that day.

March: The majority of school districts are now taking a two-week spring break in March. Consider decreasing the number of visits planned.

June: The last week of school is often dedicated to end of year activities (sports days) and teachers might not do field trips. I would decrease the number of field trips in June.

Recommendation: Review and revise the possible days for field trips in some of the months (Schedule E) to better reflect events and processes that are commonly taking place in schools.

3) Program timing and structure

The anticipated 2.5 hour long program offered at 9 am – 11:30 am and 12:00 pm – 2:30 pm will need to be flexible as a number of schools have a different bell structure. In a quick look at school schedules in the target areas I found elementary schools with schedules that run from 8:30 – 2:20; 8:45 – 2:30 and 9:00 am – 3:30. In addition to this travel time from the schools as well as time at the site to organize students and let them use the washroom


before the program begins will also need to be considered. Schools often require that students start and end their day on the school grounds so the bus/parent drivers would need to return them to school before the end of the school day.

The variability in school start/end times will affect program start times and may result in only being able to offer one program/day not the anticipated two programs. There may be other ways to fit two classes into a day to help achieve revenue targets (see point (6) below).

Recommendation: Review programming timing and develop strategies to alter the timing and approach to accommodate the desired two classes per day.

4) Transportation for field trips

One of the biggest challenges for teachers when planning field trips is transportation. Busses are expensive and parent drivers take time to organize. A few issues teachers consider when organizing transportation:

Parent drivers:

• Availability: are families in a situation where one parent is available during the day to drive students and are parents willing to drive more than just their child?

• If driving children under 9 years old all children must be in a booster seat. This makes driving other children more complicated as booster seats need to be brought to school (unless the school has a supply of booster seats) and put into cars.

School busses:

Costs: they are expensive.

Capacity: as a school bus can fit at least two classes, teachers often look to bring two classes to a field trip site at the same time. The Observatory programming will be more attractive as a field trip site if they can accommodate two classes at the same time.

Timing: school busses are only available after they drop children off in the morning and need to be available to pick them up from schools at the end of the school day. This will affect the timing of the programming at the Observatory.

Transit: Teachers (often only the very brave ones) will use transit for field trips. Transit becomes more attractive during Trans Link’s initiative during the first week of October when students ride for free.

Recommendation: Transportation issues may have more of an influence on field trip numbers than originally anticipated. Considerations of how many classes can be at once may help to mitigate this. If programming targets students under 9 years of age (booster seat required) consider lower participation rates if teachers are relying on parent drivers.


5) Field trips for elementary students vs middle / high school students

Because of the way classes are scheduled in middle / high school, when a middle / high school teacher takes a class on a field trip for one subject the students will miss other classes and cause disruptions to other teachers. As a result of this field trips for middle / high school students are less likely to be booked unless the field trip site can accommodate the entire grade cohort at the same time. This ensures that all of the students have the same field trip experience and there is minimal disruption to other courses they are taking.

Recommendation: If programming is developed for grade 8 and 9 students consider ways to accommodate multiple classes at the same time or decrease the number of classes projected to visit.

6) Program development

In reviewing the business plan there appears to be no resources dedicated to program development, program supplies and volunteer training and management. These elements are as critical to the long-term success and growth of the Observatory as providing telescopes for people to look through.

Program development: Particularly with the introduction of the new curriculum it is critical that the educational program developed supports an inquiry-based teaching approach and content that is age and curriculum appropriate. Program supplies budget will be needed (this may be minor but needs to be included). A well-developed and executed program will help ensure a teacher brings her/his class back in future years.

In designing the program consider if there is a way for two classes to participate at the same time. In looking at the components at the Observatory (portable planetarium, telescopes, Mission Control) it seems that there may be opportunities for one class to start at the Observatory and the other to start in the portable planetarium. This is only feasible if there is enough physical separation so noise is not an issue and if there is enough volunteer support to facilitate two classes at once.

Volunteer training: Avocational astronomers with a passion and knowledge for the subject matter are invaluable in facilitating programs but not everyone has the inherent qualities of a great educator, particularly one who can interact well with groups of children. Volunteers will need to be trained in a number of areas such as working with children (there are some important risk management issues that need to be addressed as well as understanding how to best work with children of different ages and learning styles); theoretical background for inquiry-based learning; and, program objectives and how they reinforce the specific curriculum.

Recommendation: Work with educators with an expertise in developing programming for non-classroom settings to develop programming specific to the intended audience. Part of this program development should include training of volunteers to facilitate the program. In program development consider ways to accommodate two classes at once. Include a small annual budget for materials to support the programs.


7) Potential volatility of the public school system

Although schools are an important market for programs there are a number of factors that can seriously affect field trip visits. For example, the teacher job action that took place last year had a serious impact on all museums that rely on field trips as part of their operating revenue. Field trip visits are usually one of the first casualties during a volatile labour year. The current contract between the BCTF and the government extends to 2019 so there is some time to diversity programming.

Recommend: Diversify the income stream by marketing programing to Independent schools and look at developing programming that meets the needs of other groups (e.g. cubs and guides) as soon as possible.

Note: The gift shop revenue assumes that each child will spend $4. It might be worthwhile reviewing this assumption based on demographics of the target areas (do families have money for children to buy something in the gift store?) and considerations to the time needed for 30 children to pay for something (this will affect the 2.5 hours dedicated to the visit, particularly if school busses are used to transport the students).

APPENDIX C

Forestry Staff Report to Council


DATE: May 19, 2015

TO: Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture

FROM: Dave Heyes, Manager of Forestry Business SUBJECT: Fraser River Heritage Park – Observatory Project

The purpose of this document is to provide Council with input related to the Business Plan developed in support of the Fraser River Heritage Park Observatory project.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this document is to provide Council with input related to the Business Plan developed in support of the Fraser River Heritage Park Observatory project.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: Here is a summary of my comments regarding the Business Plan for the Observatory. Most of the comments are regarding the financial projections; however, I have included some other comments as well.

There are four areas of the financial projections that concern me:

1. Capacity

2. Souvenir Sales

3. Ability to use Volunteers

4. Expenses

1. Capacity The proposal assumes a 179 day school year and that every day would be booked with 2 trips/day after the first year for a total of 380 tours/year x 30 students x $10/student = $107,400. I believe to achieve this 100% capacity after such a short period of time is unreasonable. Additionally, as we discussed, school funding for these types of things are on the decrease not increase. There are 188 schools in the catchment area meaning that there would need to be a busload of students from 2 of these schools every day from September through to June in order to meet projections. It seems unlikely that many trips would be scheduled in September and around Christmas making this level of utilization unreasonable. More research and documented commitment would be required to reduce my skepticism.

2. Souvenir Sales It is estimated in the proposal that each student on the trip would spend $4 in the Gift Shop, yet there doesn’t seem to be any costs associated with the gift shop for the souvenirs. Therefore, unless the Gift shop items are donated, there must be a cost added to the proposal to account for the purchase of these items.


The estimated revenue from the Gift shop is $50,000/year based on every student spending $4. I assume that parents who are spending $10 to send their children on this trip are not prepared to spend another $4 for the gift shop and I am sure that they would not even know in advance that an additional $4 is needed.

3. Volunteers The proposed revenue & expense statement presumes volunteers operating in all positions. Having paid staff would change the numbers significantly. The operating days for year 2 are 179 class days at a minimum of 5 hours, 150 viewing nights, 48 meeting days. This would require a significant volunteer effort. There is nothing documented in the proposal to indicate the size of the pool from which they have to draw so it is difficult to determine whether or not this is reasonable; however, I would expect there would need to be a very large group to draw from or at least a few who are committed who will end up doing all the work.

4. Expenses There is an estimated number of $1000/month for utilities, supplies, cleaning, maintenance etc. This seems like they could budget a few more dollars but I am not sure that they are too far out. The one item I don’t see addressed is a line item for security which may be covered off elsewhere. Given that there is $200,000 + equipment to be projected, I would consider this a necessary expense.

I also am unable to comment on the price of the equipment.

Other I checked the website for the GMS Observatory located next to the Space Centre in Vancouver. It seems that they are open from 8 p.m. to midnight Saturday only at this time. The space centre does offer school programs during the day but they all seem to be in theatres connected to the planetarium, not the observatory. It would seem, as we discussed, that the observatory is used only during the evenings.

Summary Based on the information provided I would be very skeptical of the proposed utilization (and other assumptions) and, therefore, the projected revenues. If the Mission Heritage Association is able to come up with firm commitments from the various school districts, (and perhaps, if there is such a large demand, some funding for capital) then perhaps the numbers could be revisited. I have not called the Vancouver planetarium to verify their experience with classrooms.







SUBJECT: Fraser River Heritage Park – Washroom / Concession / Caretaker’s Suite

The purpose of this report is to provide information to Council related to renovations to the concession/washroom/caretaker’s suite building at Fraser River Heritage Park. This report is provided for information purposes only. No staff recommendation accompanies this report and Council action is not required.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to provide information to Council related to renovations to the concession/washroom/caretaker’s suite building at Heritage Park.

BACKGROUND: On April 7, 2015, Council approved 17 specific actions related to the ongoing future operations of Heritage Park. One of the actions agreed to by Council included $175,000 in funding to complete renovations to the Clayburn Building and the washroom/caretakers building. This report is provided as a follow-up to that directive related to work at the concession/washroom/caretaker’s building.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: The renovations to the concession/washroom/caretaker’s building were initiated by the Mission Heritage Association. The goal of the renovation was to relocate the caretaker’s suite which was previously built over the Blackberry Kitchen. The District of Mission had advised the Mission Heritage Association (MHA) that this location was problematic due to the potential of fire as the unit was located over a commercial kitchen. The second element of the project was to create an accessible washroom.

Unfortunately, the caretaker’s suite remains non-compliant to code as the MHA’s contractor did not ensure proper fire separation between the caretaker’s suite, the concession and the public washrooms on the ground floor of the structure. The MHA has further complicated the situation by allowing the caretaker to occupy the suite despite these life safety issues. The second concern related to the caretaker’s suite stems from the fact that the concession operators are using the space under the caretaker’s deck as the sheltered space for the BBQ. Given these concerns, the MHA have been given an order by the Fire Department to remove the fryer from the concession, to move the BBQ from under the deck at the caretaker’s suite, and to relocate the cooking area away from the log structure.

While the immediate life safety issues can be alleviated by way of process changes, over the longer term the fire separation issues need to be resolved or the suite above would need to be re-purposed. Staff believes that the presence of the caretaker in the park has merit and feels that the fire separations should be improved in order to allow the residential suite to be used. Completion of the accessible washroom is also important to the overall operation of the Park.

APPENDIX 4


A Request for Proposals (RFP) will be sent out shortly seeking a qualified contractor to complete the unfinished accessible washroom on the main floor and to install the Fire and BC Building Codes’ required separation between the concession / washroom spaces and the dwelling unit above. The budget estimate to complete this work is $55,000. Staff believes that there are sufficient funds to complete the work on this building based on funding previously committed to the Park project.

COUNCIL GOALS/OBJECTIVES: This report supports Council’s decision to transition Fraser River Heritage Park to a municipal operation and to ensure that all buildings are completed to Code (Fire and Building) in order to ensure the safety of staff, volunteers and park users.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no additional financial implications associated with this report.

COMMUNICATION: The Fire Chief was consulted on the content of this report.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: This report to Council is provided in order to advise them that work at the concession / washroom / caretaker’s building will proceed as soon as a suitable contractor is retained but that the immediate life safety issues will be resolved in the short term.

SIGN-OFFS:



district to ensure heritage park facilities are safe and ... to ensure heritage park facilities are...

Documents