Brent Sjoberg On Stadium Concept

As Greg mentioned, I didn’t get to attend yesterday’s press conference about the stadium concept design. And despite all the information that’s available on the city’s website, reginarevitalization.ca, I still had questions. So I phoned up Brent Sjoberg, Deputy City Manager & CFO and the main guy on this stadium project, and he took some time to answer them.

I don’t have time to transcribe this so Brent said it’s okay for me to post the audio here. I took out a little bit of irrelevant chit chat at the front and end but other than that, this is the complete interview.

Stuff we discuss:
• What was it that was launched yesterday, exactly?
• What will the design competition look like and over what time frame will it happen?
• Why are they going with such finished-looking drawings going into the competition?
• Why are they releasing these images to the public? And might these not create misconceptions in the public?
• Did the province’s requirement that the stadium be “roof ready” change the kind of Public Private Partnership that the city could pursue?

There’s more, but those are roughly the kinds of questions I asked.

Download the full stadium concept interview with Brent Sjoberg. (10.9MB mp3)

Oh, a note about some acronyms that were getting thrown around…. “P3” refers at one point to P3 Architecture, a local architectural firm (they did the work on the 13th Ave Safeway redevelopment) and then later it refers to a Public Private Partnership.

Then we also discuss the difference between a “DBF P3”, which refers to a Design Build Finance P3, the kind the city is going with on the stadium project, and a “DBFM P3″, which refers to a Design Build Finance Maintain P3. In a DBFM P3, the company contracted to build the facility would also be responsible for its long-term maintenance. In the DBF P3 the city is going with, the company hired for the stadium replacement will design it and build it but, in our case, the Regina Exhibition Association Ltd will be in charge of the maintenance and operations.

Author: Paul Dechene

Paul Dechene is 5’10” tall and he was born in a place. He’s not there now. He’s sitting in front of his computer writing his bio for this blog. He has a song stuck in his head. It’s “Girl From Ipanema”, thanks for asking.

You can follow Paul on Twitter at @pauldechene and get live updates during city council meetings and other city events at @PDcityhall.

9 thoughts on “Brent Sjoberg On Stadium Concept”

  1. How so?

    At the National Infrastructure Summit, the P3 experts were adamant that a DBFM P3 is the best way to ensure that the consultant you hire builds for the long term and doesn’t just get in and get out and build something shabby. And when the question of Regina going with a DBF on the stadium, the panelist (who’s name and title I’m totally blanking on right now but suffice to say he was a bigshot P3 braniac) insisted that this may not be the best plan.

    Anyway, at the NIS, there seemed to be two camps where the stadium P3 is concerned, the anti-P3 camp who was all “you might get really screwed” and the pro-P3 camp who were all “if you don’t include the Maintenance in the P3 you’re going to get screwed.”

    So… I’m curious to hear your take. Because I’m all “I don’t know what to think about P3s” anymore beyond “these P3s sure do sound too good to be true.”

  2. who’s – contraction of who is/was/has
    whose – possessive
    Sorry; I digress.
    As I understand it, and this is drawing on information I pulled together several years ago, the DBFM P3 led to problems with control and ownership of the building; the maintenance entity, it was said, limited the access to and use of the building by the entity which had commissioned the building in the first place. At the time I was concerned with P3, that problem, rather than a quick build and exit, with the possibility of corner-cutting and no accountability,was seen as the overriding concern. Now, it could easily be that the P3 world has changed in the last 9 or so years. Check with CUPE.

  3. CUPE is the very last source for reliable information on P3’s. Given that their business is supplying labour not through any competitive process but rather through a legal monopoly, how do you think they would feel about any process where long term maintenance is competitive. Sole sourced procurement is a recipe for overpaying at best and corruption at worst.

    A DBFM never transfers any sort of ownership.

    For this project I think including the maintenance or not is a push. Including the maintenance would give the city better cost certainty over the project lifecycle, but given the location at Evaraz there is an experienced operator already the exact site.

  4. I already made my disclaimers above.
    As long as the ownership and access remains in the hands of the entity that authorized the building, there should be no problem. And CUPE is a source of information, biased or otherwise, rather like PD is.

  5. These DB whatever shit, has to stop! Fuck !.. if typing hurts, recite your point to somebody that can type & will keep it honest.
    I’m not pointing out PD or its commenters,( yes are glorious CoR uses these terms as well, way too bloody often), per se, but could this lacadazial form of trying to describe an important issue,come down to texting & not typing the whole word and fairly important words now in this current shape of municipal politics?

    I took Mavis Beacon to the 2 finger level.

  6. You know what, Ron? I’m trying to reduce every key phrase used on the dog blog to an acronym. That way, this website will become as impenetrable as a Masonic text.

Comments are closed.