icesaver.org

ICE SKATING FOR THE YOUTH OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA
AND SURROUNDING AREAS

6 June 2009

by Fred Culick, Owner
Pasadena Ice Skating Center, Inc.

In April, 1997, Councilman Sid Tyler and I met, at my request, to discuss the possibility of the City helping with construction of a new ice rink in Pasadena. Lud Renick and his wife had been partners with my wife and me in designing, constructing and managing the present Pasadena Ice Skating Center (PISC) which opened in October, 1976. We had had no general contractor. Lud had handled business matters of the project, and I had supervised development of the facility.

We are currently operating under the second renewal option of a 25 year lease which expires in October, 2011. The Convention Center where we are located has always been our de facto landlord, acting in behalf of the City. It was always a good relationship until 1999, when the Center wanted our space for expansion of their convention space. After both we and the Center had searched for nearly two years for a new location for an Ice rink, the President of the Center lost patience and began his own effort to force us out.

He was unable (due to the Center’s lack of financial resources) to buy out our lease, or even to help us financially in any way to vacate the premises. He offered to let us leave, but we had to bear the costs.(!) Then his efforts to find us in default failed, after costing us more than $100,000 in legal fees. Our business at the rink forever suffered due to Center’s inability to support us in our efforts to ease parking problems for customers. Our funds for maintenance were therefore seriously reduced.

We continued discussions with others in the City, including several Council members, to try to work out a new agreement to build a new rink. Our primary proposal was intended to provide the City with a new facility at as low a cost as possible, based on a public/private joint venture. Our idea, originated with and was (is still) supported by an IRS ruling obtained for ice rinks by a group in New York. We proposed that we form a non-profit group (as a 501-c(3) entity) to construct an ice rink on City land, using funds provided by a special City bond issue. The group would then operate the facility and pay off the bonded debt from income. At that time the facility would become property of the City who would be free to choose any operator they wished.

The great advantages of having the development done by private enterprise would be the speed of construction; the reduced cost, which is known by broad experience to be 15-20%  less than the cost when development is done by a municipality; and PISC would bring to the project the experience, and understanding, well-known nationally in the ice skating community, as well as the best-informed national consultants, when required. A bond counsel in San Francisco, who had previously performed services for Pasadena, assured me that the legal arrangement would work.

Pasadena City Staff decided otherwise, and development of the new ice rink became the responsibility of the Department of New Projects in 2004. PISC offered the only questioning and ultimately dissenting voice. Our well-justified concerns, even at that time, have unfortunately turned out to be true.

Staff finally chose an inexperienced (though personable and eager to cooperate with us) architect. As far as we know, this firm (as well as the Pasadena Staff) had no experience designing ice rinks. (See below, p.5, Item 3 regarding the situation with the Valencia rink.) That implies, among other things, that during the design process, nobody in the City or in the contracted design firm, had detailed, first hand experience with the myriad of details, and practical knowledge required to make a project of this sort successful. PISC was invited, and did, attend weekly summary meetings, from September 2005 to June 2006.

The process started well. The City Project Manager ran meetings efficiently, usually with brief summary documentation. Unfortunately, as design progressed, and details became issues, there were increasing instances of Staff insisting on decisions contrary to the long experience of PISC participants. In June 2006, when final drawings were presumably being prepared, and my repeated requests for estimates of cost were ignored, communications from the City people ceased. Incidentally, PISC's never received requested (and on one occasion actually promised) electronic copies of drawings; our last copy of paper drawings is nearly two years old, not surprisingly, out of date.

In September 2006 the City Directors of the Departments of New Projects, and Buildings asked me to meet with them. They informed me that the cost of the rink was over-budget  (Council had approved $16.9M), but couldn't (or wouldn’t ) say how by much. So their decision was to re-design. At the time, costs of construction were rising at more than 15% per year. Incidentally, PISC’s estimate for a twin rink had been $10M in 2002, not including site preparation, but including $1M. reserve.

In a short meeting with PISC a few days later, the City provided limited details. We asked why, to save costs, they didn’t plan a single surface rink, rather than a double-surface facility. Their answer, without full explanation, was that that change would save little money. That unsupported and unexplained claim was made in the 15 December 2008 Council meeting. I still believe that a proper assessment of possibilities had not been done. The City’s and the architect’s shared inexperience and unwillingness to seek knowledgeable help was apparent.

Following those events, I tried once again to convince the City that they should seek knowledgeable consultants. I meant-and they understood-more than the occasional telephone calls that the Project Manager placed. Nothing happened. The City Manager seemed totally removed. All from the City seemed to stop listening to PISC’s suggestions of that sort, and they paid little attention to our advice concerning design details. For example, the Assistant Manager of the Pasadena rink, who for years has been involved in rink operations in a number of locations, including San Francisco, provided a list of more than 50 errors (not just slips of the pencil) on the 'final' drawings. His efforts were never recognized.

A summary of major Project milestones in the period September 2005 to May 2009 tells the sad story.

September 2005: Architect chosen and the design process begins. PISC is included in weekly 3-hour Project progress meetings.

June 2006:  Apparently Staff realizes that projected costs are high. Little of substance is accomplished for nearly three months (at a time when construction costs generally are increasing at the rate 15-20% per year.)

September 2006: PISC is informed that the rink will be redesigned according to City’s ideas. The process begins and proceeds with (apparently) no firm ideas or goals clearly defined. Council approves funds for redesign. PISC is included in periodic (not weekly) project review meetings.

October 2007:  Ice Rink Project released for public bidding process.

January 2008: On the day that bids would be opened, the City Manager requested that I meet with her and three others immediately before the bids were opened. (It was the first time ever that the City Manager had discussed the rink project, or met with PISC. Her opening remark was: "Do you have any questions?")

Bids were opened in a separate location; the City Manager was not present. The process required perhaps 30 minutes. Three bids were received, the lowest having been subsequently withdrawn. The two remaining are about 30% and 38 % above Council’s approved budget. Incidentally, there has never been discussion by Council, or anybody publicly, about the consequences of increasing world-wide construction costs since budget approval was given in 2005. In fact, so far as I know, Staff has never shared a detailed budget breakdown with anybody outside their immediate group.

March 2008:  Council accepts Staff’s recommendation to execute a second re-design process, and approves (without being given a budget or any reasons for expecting success) an additional $500,000(!) for the ice rink project. That amount should be compared with the TOTAL amount since the beginning (September 2005) of something over $1.3 M. (see the 15 December Council Meeting). Seems strange.  There are no discussions or questions of Staff’s recommendations-or any estimates of Staff's expectations.

PISC was not invited to participate in the second re-design process, but was twice informed of progress, both times at our request. Our help was no longer needed-especially, I guess, if we insisted on trying to understand what was going on! Actually, the re-designed structure incorporated many changes requested earlier by PISC, since they are standard practice in the industry, and do lower the construction cost relative to the first design.

Polar Ice, Inc.came to Pasadena in August, 2008, having been enlisted by the Buildings Department to review the ice rink project. It's the strangest Project Review exercise I've ever been part of or witnessed. The Project Manager had not bothered to confirm who could be present. Both the Manager and Assistant Manager of the ice rink had long-scheduled commitments. Even the City's Project Manager had a conflict (!) and was absent. But he forwarded to me an agenda two hours before the meeting. One of the agenda items was "marketing", a subject (in fact not even the word!) that had never been discussed in our meetings, and I think is outside the area of designing etc. new buildings. I didn't understand what was going on until Polar Ice was chosen by the Public Works Department, a month later, to operate the new facility. That seems an odd move by the Public works department, since operations seems usually to be the responsibility of a different department in the City.

The report of their review of the ice rink project in Pasadena came to us several weeks later; except for the encounter I described above, Polar Ice had never contacted PISC concerning the present ice rink. And the report contained sections titled "Target Market",  and "Marketing and Sales". It's not a good report, and seemed to be totally discounted by the Director of Public Works in a meeting with PISC.

In September I had lunch with the Project Manager and the architect. Once again I requested a full design review by a small group of outside experts. I sensed that the architect favored a review, but the PM emphatically did not. After some heated discussion (the architect was silent throughout) the PM finally agreed to look at an outline of a review I should provide him.

(I had previously learned that such a design review was apparently a practice foreign to  Pasadena Staff although it is widespread practice in virtually all engineering activities I am aware of. An assistant to the person in charge of new projects in the City had admitted when asked on another occasion, that he had never attended such a review. It seemed to me that being open with details of procedures, in this case the entire design of the rink, had not been the usual practice by Pasadena Staff.)

The suggested outline I submitted two days later was rejected three weeks later by the PM. (I had to ask several times before I received his answer.)

In its meeting of December 15 2008, Council approved an additional $100K. for further re-design of the interior configuration. The changes had been suggested by Polar Ice, Inc with whom Staff was now working (since September 2008), apparently in hopes that a new operator would bring new income to offset the increasing cost of construction. (At least one of the new significant changes I had already recommended in my September lunch mentioned above.)

PISC was now entirely out of the picture. No information has been provided concerning the financial arrangements between City and Polar Ice, nor should they be provided for any reason until public discussion takes place. PISC had agreed long ago to accept a $360,000 loan from the City, to help with the expense of moving from the Convention Center to the new rink. The annual fee to PISC for operating the new rink is presently scheduled for $60,000 per year ($100,000 actual fee minus $ 40,000 repayment of the loan to PISC.)

 My wife and I have promised to donate to youth activities at the new ice rink 50% of the income we receive (after taxes!) from rink operations. Our decision was made known to the City and Council more than two years ago. 

The Ice Rink Project was released again for public bidding in February (March ?) 2009. Eight bids were received, ranging from $17.8M. to $21M. ( roughly 6% to 13% above the budgeted amount I referred to above.) Presumably these submissions will be considered in the 22 June meeting of the Council.

I believe that the most generous characterization of the City’s (I mean both Staff and City Council) performance during the entire process is ‘flawed’, particularly since 2005. A few of the obvious questions are:

1) WHY did the City Manager and Staff choose from the beginning not to take advantage of the experience of the group that not only built and has operated the present Pasadena rink for 35 years, but has nation-wide connections with rink constructors and operators? According to my recollection, the Staff member who had never attended a standard Project Design Review informed the PISC Manager (Mike Paikin) in 2004 or ‘05 that our (PISC) experience would have no bearing on the details of the Memorandum of Understanding, or on the Management Agreement. In other words, PISC experience did not matter. WHY? It seems a strange posture for people who really know nothing about ice rinks.

In my opinion, the attitude and actions of the Staff have generally reflected that attitude. And it's an odd way to try to run a City. Incidentally, my experience has been similar to those of others I have since spoken with. I think there is a culture problem!

Incidentally, after extended negotiations, PISC returned their signed copies of the MOU, in December 2006. The City never responded or informed PISC of their action. That absence of communications with us seemed to PISC to demonstrate a serious failure to negotiate in good faith on the part of the City.

2) Given that nobody in the City Staff or Council has any experience with ice rinks or ice sports, WHY didn’t the City enlist the help of an external consultant to provide regular services, formulating the overall program. At least one has long been available at the cost of expenses only.  (Although he works in Dallas, TX, the Executive Director of the Ice Skating Institute, owns a home in La Canada. He briefly managed the Pasadena Ice Rink when he was employed by Ice Capades, c.1978)

3) WHY didn’t the City enlist external help in choosing an architect? The one chosen has been very conscientious and cooperative, but since this is only his second rink project (and the first did not require him to have knowledge of ice rinks, according to the owner of the rink, which is in Valencia.) This decision quite likely had much to do subsequently with the high projected cost of the Pasadena Rink, due to various design decisions. An important consequence has been that the architect’s staff (who do all of the detailed work) simply don’t know the business for this specialized facility. Therefore, bidders cannot be assured that some unintentional glitch is not hidden somewhere deep in the plans-only to show up during construction. Hence the cushion provided by a swollen (15-20%) estimated cost. Bidders, after all, are not unaware of conditions in the City. 

Another factor is that the architect chose as his consultant, who presumably helped with special ice rink problems, a firm known for operating ice rinks, but not for design or construction.(Canlan). (See the Canlan website.) By the way, there are examples of newly constructed rinks simply not making good ice, with potentially disastrous effects on business. One case occurred just before the present Pasadena rink was constructed; the facility eventually went out of business.

These comments summarize only a few small bits of the problem. Much more information is available, including a full set of emails documenting all I have written, and more.

To maintain this project, and build a new ice rink in Pasadena is, I believe, an important goal. The main reasons are the benefits for youth and younger people. More than 90% of the users of the Pasadena Ice Rink are younger than college age. We presently have more than 500 students taking skating instruction in PISC. The number fluctuates with season and year (there are always more during an Olympic year) and we are limited by the size of the rink. We have registered as many as 600 students. And public skating is considerable as well, particularly on weekends.

Competitive figure skating at lower amateur levels is significant. Last year’s US Senior Lady’s Gold Medalist, Marai Nagasu, first learned her skating in Pasadena, but later moved to the Burbank rink and other locations to skate on larger surfaces. One Olympic Gold Medalist (Peggy Fleming) began her career in Pasadena; more recently (2004) Sasha Cohen, US Olympics Senior Women's  Silver Olympics Medalist also began skating in our rink. For more than two decades, partly because of its beautiful large windows, the Pasadena rink has been host to practically all US Olympic Champions for commercials and occasional exhibitions.

Youth ice hockey has always been present, now with about 100 registered participants younger than 15 years. Again, the smaller size of the rink has discouraged growth. The Pasadena Ice Hockey Club has operated continuously for several decades. The 1976 US Olympic goalie grew up in Pasadena, and his father (Dr. Jim Warden, who was also my coach of the Caltech hockey club, 1972-1983) was instrumental in founding the Pasadena Hockey Club.

Wherever it is made available, ice skating is popular among youth. Based on my own personal experience, and many years of coaching, I believe an important reason is that when mastered, the ability to skate gives a young person special confidence flowing from personal possession of a distinguishing skill.

I believe that there are solid reasons and justifications for building a new rink in Pasadena, and for carrying out the project properly. A few suggestions:

1) In 1999 PISC proposed a project to construct a new facility on City-provided land. Financing was to be done with a bond issue, the funds being made available to a group of responsible and knowledgeable people outside the City structure, so that experience with ice rinks would control important design decisions, and subsequently would supervise choice of builders. I believe that the proposal remains sound, and with suitable modifications, could be put on place, perhaps taking advantage of the design work started in the past four years. It holds promise of significant cost savings compared with the City's first plan.

2) The whole project would be administered and controlled by a non-profit entity. Proceeds from operations would be used to pay off the bonds, and the facility would eventually become property of the City. How this legal arrangement would be worked out I do not know. The obviously large advantages are that the cost would be much reduced. And after continuous review of the design by competent, experienced people, construction would proceed with dispatch.

3) I think that the City should be responsible for site preparation, access, permits, etc. There are many details which I am not competent to cover. I believe that this is a wonderful opportunity for a public/private cooperative project. But it is crucially important that the City authorities (elected or otherwise) not be put in positions where they must make decisions that they are unprepared and unqualified to make.

                                                                     F. E. C. Culick

One specific observation: Apparently the Council Members do not have enough time (individually) to understand what they are dealing with. I strongly recommend viewing film of the Council Meetings available on the City’s website. Look for the Council’s hour 00:51-1:51 spent on the Ice Rink, 15 December Meeting, to get a taste of the unsatisfactory situation. I think that Council relies on Staff 's unsupported declarations entirely too much when questions are raised, and no probing explanations are then requested. Click here to go to the city council page.