Belfast Waterfront and Ulster Halls Board 23 November 2005
From Nigov
C385
Community and Recreation Committee
Wednesday, 23rd November, 2005
MEETING OF BELFAST WATERFRONT AND ULSTER HALLS BOARD
Members present: Councillor Stalford (Chairman); the Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor Convery); and Councillors Austin, Ekin, Empey, Kirkpatrick, Lavery, McGimpsey, Mhic Giolla Mhín, O’Reilly and Rodway.
In attendance:
- Mr. M. Elder, Director of Community and Recreation;
- Mr. T. Husbands, Managing Director;
- Mr. P. Falls, Manager (Ulster Hall);
- Mr. S. Glynn, Finance and Administration Manager;
- Mr. M. Irvine, Operations Manager;
- Mr. J. Kerr, Technical Services Manager; and
- Mr. J. Heaney, Committee Administrator.
Apology
An apology for inability to attend was reported from Councillor Crozier.
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting of 26th October, which had been printed and circulated, were taken as read and signed as correct.
Construction of Waterfront Hall – Main Auditorium Stage Elevators, Overheads Suspensions and Associated Control Systems
(Mr. M. Stanley, Project Manager, Development Department, and Mr. J. Walsh, Principal Solicitor, attended in connection with this item).
The Board was reminded that, at its meeting on 26th October, it had considered a report in relation to the level of operational difficulties being experienced with the stage elevators, overhead suspensions and associated control systems in the main auditorium. The Board noted, at that time, that 75% of the events held in the Waterfront Hall involved the utilisation of the stage elevators, and that all of them involved the use of overhead suspensions. A draft report from consultants, Theatre Project Consultants, had highlighted the poor conditions of the equipment and had provided details of potential replacement costs, which had been estimated between £1.2m and £1.8m, dependant on the replacement option which might be adopted.
It was reported that Mr. O. Leigers, Theatre Projects Consultant, was in attendance to provide an update on the current status and condition of the equipment and he was admitted to the meeting and welcomed by the Chairman.
Mr. Leigers highlighted the problems associated with the control systems, stage elevators and overhead suspensions and indicated that, in his view, it would be more cost-effective to provide new equipment, rather than attempt to rectify the defects. He then outlined the various recommendations in respect of the type and quantity of replacement equipment required and the options which were available to the Board, a copy of which is set out hereunder:
SUMMARY OF OPTIONS AND COSTS (exc. fees and other costs)
Area Option Cost
Stage Elevators 1 £ 225,000
2 £ 325,000
3 £ 400,000
Overhead Suspensions 4 £ 75,000 (+ decommissioning)
5 £ 600,000
6 £1,200,000
A prolonged discussion ensued, during which several Members expressed concern regarding the period of time which had been taken to establish that the equipment had not worked properly in the first instance and that the matter had not been brought to the attention of the Board until the previous month.
In response, the Project Manager reported that the consultants employed by the Council during the construction of the Waterfront Hall had indicated that there were minor defects only in the equipment and that these were capable of being rectified. However, it had been only within the last six months that the full extent of the problems associated with the elevators and suspension equipment had become known.
The Principal Solicitor indicated that there were several issues to be examined and there were a number of parties against whom legal action might be taken in order to obtain redress. However, he suggested that more work was required to establish the most appropriate course of action and he undertook to report to a further meeting of the Board in this regard. He pointed out that any possible legal action would not be adversely affected by the choice of options which the Board might adopt.
After further discussion, during which several Members suggested that it would be beneficial if an investigation were carried out as to how the present situation arose, it was
Moved by the Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor Convery),
Seconded by Councillor Rodway, and
Resolved - That the Board adopt options 3 and 5, as set out in the minute, this being the most cost-effective course of action to be undertaken, and agrees that the Director of Community and Recreation, in consultation with the Chairman (Councillor Stalford), take appropriate steps to appoint an Officer of relevant standing to carry out an investigation as to how the situation had developed whereby the elevators and suspension equipment had never operated effectively and why it had taken eight and a half years to confirm this information.
Revenue Outturn Reports
Waterfront Hall
The Managing Director submitted for the Board’s consideration a report providing an overview of the revenue budget position for the period from 1st April till 31st September, 2005. A copy of the report, with the exception of the appendix referred to therein, is set out hereunder:
“Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this report is to provide Members with an overview of the revenue budget position of the Waterfront Hall for the six-month period ended 30th September 2005, and with an overview forecast of the revenue budget position of the Waterfront Hall for the year ending 31st March 2006.
Background
The financial performance against revenue estimates is reported to the Board of the Waterfront Hall on a quarterly basis. The second quarter report includes a detailed analysis of income and expenditure heads, comparing period budget and period actual. In addition, the report also includes the projected year-end financial position based on forecast income and expenditure levels for the remaining six months of the year.
Summary Position
Table 1 below summarises the operating position for the period 1st April 2005 – 30th September 2005. The operating cost for the period was £997k which was £1k less than the budgeted operating cost for the period.
C Community and Recreation (Belfast Waterfront and
388 Ulster Halls Board), Wednesday, 23rd November, 2005
Table 1 - Summary of Operating Cost 1st April 2005 – 30th September 2005
Period
Budget
£ Period
Actual
£
Variance
£
INCOME 952k 1,226k +274k EXPENDITURE 1,950k 2,223k +273k OPERATING COST 998k 997k -1k
Table 2 below summarises the forecast year-end position based on predicted income and expenditure levels for the remaining six months of the financial year at the current time.
These predictions forecast an operating cost of £2,009k, which is £10k above the budgeted cost. It is hoped, however, that further hire income will be generated over the remaining period in order to bring the final year-end operating cost in line with the original budget forecast.
Table 2 - Summary of Forecast Operating Cost 1st April 2005 – 31st March 2006
Year Budget £ Year Forecast £ Year Variance £ INCOME 2,018k 2,429k +411k EXPENDITURE 4,017k 4,438k +421k OPERATING COST 1,999k 2,009k +10k . A detailed analysis of the income and expenditure heads has been attached as Appendix A. The following paragraphs provide comment on the major income and expenditure variances in the year-end outturn.
Income
Ticket sales for the year for Waterfront Hall promotions are forecast at £728k (£303k above budget) while entertainment expenses relating to Waterfront Hall promotions are forecast at £557k (£242k above budget), resulting in a margin of £171k, or 24%, as compared to the budgeted margin of £110k (26%). The margin from the six-month position is £93k against a budget of £46k.
Income from Entertainment hires by external promoters are forecast to be above budget by £74k at the year end, a figure that directly reflects the successful implementation to date of the recommendations contained in the Waterfront Hall’s Strategic Review exercise. Business hires are expected to be below budget by £20k by the end of the year, trading in a highly competitive local and national market, and regrettably not assisted by the adverse publicity arising from the civil disturbances during the late summer.
However, it should indeed be noted that total Hire income for the Hall has seen significant growth over the last few years:
2002/03 Actual 2003/04 Actual 2004/05 Actual 2005/06 Budget Forecast £767k £1,014k £1,232k £1,306k
Box Office commission received is forecast to be £31k above budget for the year 2005/06 at £151k. This figure reflects a higher volume of business from Entertainment hire where tickets are sold on behalf of external promoters by the Waterfront Hall Box Office. The increase in this figure may also reflect a higher quality of programme and therefore higher ticket cost for shows and entertainment at the venue.
Expenditure
Employee costs are projected to be £1,695k, which is £117k above the budgeted figure of £1,578k. This is due to additional overtime work and casual staff costs incurred as a direct result of the increased occupancy of the Main Auditorium and Studio during the year, i.e., all additional employee costs were incurred within the Operations Section of the Hall. These additional costs were recouped by the higher Fees and Charges figures, as reflected in the income side of the Accounts.
Premises costs are forecast to be a fairly modest £34k above the budget of £1,356k for the year ending 2005/06 at £1,390k. Of the six sub-types of expenditure contained within this budget heading, four are generally considered to be outside the day-to-day control of the Waterfront Hall, viz., Rates (£460k), Security (£162k), Cleaning (£154k) and Insurance (£116k). Taken together, these four expenses account for 66% of the total Premises budget for the year. Fuel and Electricity costs have been greatly reduced from previous years and, despite a much higher level of activity during the year, the predicted actual costs are more or less in line with the 2005/06 budget.
Supplies and Services expenditure is forecast to be £307k above budget. This figure relates mainly to Entertainment hire fees being above budget by £242k which, as explained under the income heading, corresponds to the higher than budgeted ticket sales of £728k. The remainder is due to additional expenditure of £76k on Box Office Commission, as the Budget for 2005/06 had been prepared on the assumption that the existing Box Office system would have been replaced during the year. However, due to an extended period of assessment by the Arts Council Lottery Fund of the Hall’s application for support funding for this project, the new Box Office system could not be procured. It is hoped that this process will be completed by the New Year in order to procure and implement a new system during next summer.
Actual Establishment costs during 2005/06 of £399k are expected to be below the budget of £436k by £36k at the year-end. This is made up of projected underspends of £30K in Marketing costs and £5k in Postage and Telephone costs.
Conclusions
This report provides an analysis of the revenue position of the Waterfront Hall for the first half of the financial year 2005/06. During the period, income was above budget by £274k while expenditure was above the estimate for the period by a similar amount, resulting in an operating cost of £997k which was exactly on budget.
This report also provides an analysis of the operating position forecast of the Waterfront Hall for the year ending 31st March 2006. The year-end outturn statement shows a forecast operating cost for the Waterfront Hall for 2005/06 of £2,009k, which is a modest £10k above the budgeted cost of £1,999k.
It should be noted that, taken in conjunction with the Ulster Hall’s year-end forecast, the Waterfront and Ulster Halls Section is predicting to be £4k within budget.
Action required by Members
Members are asked to note the contents of the report.”
After discussion, during which the Finance and Administration Manager answered a number of questions in relation to the various components of the revenue outcome projections, the Board noted the contents of the report.
Ulster Hall
The Board considered a report providing an overview of the revenue budget position of the Ulster Hall for the period from 1st April till 30th September, 2005. A copy of the report, with the exception of the appendix referred to therein, is set out hereunder:
“Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this report is to provide Members with an overview of the revenue budget position of the Ulster Hall for the six-month period ended 30th September 2005, and with an overview forecast of the revenue budget position for the year ending 31st March 2006.
Background
The financial performance of the Ulster Hall against revenue estimates is reported to the Board of the Waterfront and Ulster Halls on a quarterly basis. The second quarter report includes a detailed analysis of income and expenditure heads, comparing period budget and period actual figures. In addition, the report also includes the projected year-end financial position based on forecast income and expenditure levels for the remaining six months of the year.
Summary Position
Table 1 below summarises the operating position of the Hall for the period 1st April 2005 – 30th September 2005. The net operating cost for the period was £179k which was £40k below the budgeted operating cost for the period of £219k.
Table 1 - Summary of Operating Cost 1st April 2005 – 30th September 2005
Period
Budget
£ Period
Actual
£
Variance
£
INCOME 64k 41k - 23k EXPENDITURE 283k 220k - 63k OPERATING COST 219k 179k - 40k
Table 2 below summarises the forecast year-end position based on predicted income and expenditure levels for the remaining six months of the financial year. These predictions forecast a net operating cost of £423k, which is £14k below the budgeted operating cost of £437k.
C Community and Recreation (Belfast Waterfront and
392 Ulster Halls Board), Wednesday, 23rd November, 2005
Table 2 - Summary of Forecast Operating Cost 1st April 2005 – 31st March 2006
Year Budget
£ Year
Forecast
£ Year
Variance £ INCOME 129k 128k -1k EXPENDITURE 566k 551k -15k OPERATING COST 437k 423k -14k . A detailed analysis of the income and expenditure heads has been attached as Appendix A. The following paragraphs provide comment on the major income and expenditure variances in the year-end outturn.
Income
The income for the year reflects the fact that the Ulster Hall closed for major refurbishment from mid-May until mid-October 2005. Prior to the closure of the Hall in May, Entertainment Hire income of some £29k had been received. It is expected that further income of approximately £87k will be received during the remaining six months of the year.
Expenditure
Employee costs are projected to be £256k, which is £2k above the budgeted figure of £254k.
Premises costs are forecast to be £27k below budget for the year ending March 2006.This amount is made up mainly of savings in Fuel and Electricity costs (£18k), Rates (£7k) and Insurance (£6k).
Supplies and Services expenditure is forecast to be £4k below budget. This figure is due to savings of £11k on Materials and Equipment and additional expenditure of £5k on Other Hired Services.
The only major difference expected to occur between the budgeted and actual Establishment costs during 2005/06 is an apportionment of the salary costs of the Managing Director of the Waterfront Hall. This relates specifically to work carried out by the Managing Director in respect of Phase One and Phase Two of the Ulster Hall refurbishment programme.
Community and Recreation (Belfast Waterfront and C
Ulster Halls Board), Wednesday, 23rd November, 2005 393
Conclusions
This report provides an analysis of the revenue position of the Ulster Hall for the first half of the financial year 2005/2006. During the period, income was below budget by £26k while expenditure was £63k below the estimate for the period, resulting in an operating cost of £179k which was £40k below the budgeted operating cost of £219k.
This report also provides an analysis of the forecast operating position of the Ulster Hall for the year ending 31st March 2006. The year-end outturn statement shows a forecast operating cost for the Ulster Hall for 2005/2006 of £423k, which is £14k less than the budgeted operating cost of £437k.
Action required by Members
Members are asked to note the contents of the report.”
After discussion, the Board noted the contents of the foregoing report.
Proposed Changes to Working Shift Patterns at the Ulster Hall
The Board was informed that the post of Stage Technician at the Ulster Hall and Group Theatre included currently duties which required the post holder to be in attendance at the Group Theatre on Sundays in order to facilitate the entry of theatre companies. Accordingly, the shift pattern for the post was currently Sunday to Thursday. However, since the Group Theatre had now closed, the Managing Director pointed out that there is no longer a requirement for a Stage Technician to be present on Sundays. He recommended that, in order to better serve the technical requirements of future Ulster Hall events, the shift pattern of the post of Stage Technician be changed to a Tuesday to Saturday.
After discussion, the Board adopted the recommendation.
Events Co-ordinator Post – Fixed Term Contract
The Operations Manager reminded the Board that, subsequent to the appointment of the Events Co-ordinator at the Waterfront Hall to the post of Special Olympic Projects Officer for an eight-month period, an internal recruitment exercise had been undertaken and as a result of which only one application had been received. Following the interview process, the applicant had been appointed to the post of Events Co-ordinator on a secondment basis. However, the successful applicant had applied also for a permanent position within the Waterfront Hall and had been successful in achieving the position. Accordingly, the seconded post of Event Co-ordinator would become vacant with effect from 1st January, 2006.
The Operations Manager suggested since the previous recruitment exercise had attracted only one internal applicant, that the position should now be advertised externally on a fixed-term contract basis.
The Board approved the external recruitment exercise for the position of Events Co-ordinator on a fixed-term contract of a period of seven months.
THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE UNDERNOTED ITEM IN PURSUANCE OF THE POWERS DELEGATED TO IT BY THE COUNCIL AT ITS MEETING ON 5th JULY, 1995
Progress Report
The Managing Director submitted for the attention of the Board a Progress Report, copies of which had previously been circulated, in relation to the operation of the Belfast Waterfront and Ulster Halls.
The report provided information in relation to the management of the venues and the staging and outcomes of events thereat under the undernoted headings:
- Operations
- Ulster Hall
- Catering
- Events Promotion and Conference and Business Sales
- Sponsorship
- Corporate Clubs and Services
The Managing Director pointed out that a major Conference, the Annual British Council of Shopping Centres and Exhibitions, which had attracted 2000 delegates to the City, had taken place recently and had utilised both the Waterfront Hall and St. George’s Market. The Conference had involved high profile speakers including Stewart Roe, Chief Executive, Marks and Spencers, Sir Tom Farmer, founder of Quick fit and Senator George Mitchell. He stated that, although the event had proved highly successful, it had been disrupted by a required evacuation from the Waterfront Hall on the last day of the Conference. As a result, the delegates had been unable to return to the Waterfront Hall. Therefore, the final session of the Conference had been transferred to the Ulster Hall where it had been completed successfully. He reported that, despite the interruption, the feedback from the Conference organisers and delegates had been extremely positive and appreciative of the efforts of the staff at both the Waterfront and Ulster Halls.
Exhibition Hall
The Managing Director reminded the Board that, at its meeting on 31st August, he had been authorised to commission an independent economic appraisal/feasibility study to assess the potential for the inclusion of an exhibition hall on one or two floors of the Development Site 2 Building at Lanyon Place.
He reported that submissions to carry out this work had been received from three consultancy firms. Following a detailed analysis, it had been decided to award the contract for the work to BDO Stoy Hayward. The consultants were expected to complete their review in December and a report in this regard would be presented to the Board for its consideration at a further meeting.
The Board noted the information which had been provided.
Chairman
