Report to/Rapport
au:
Health, Recreation
and Social Services Committee
Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services
sociaux
and Council/et au Conseil
14 January 2002/le 14 janvier 2002
Submitted
by/Soumis par: Dick Stewart, General
Manager/Directeur général
Contact/Personne-ressource: Josée Hélie, Program Manager, Planning and
Development
Innovation,
Development and Partnerships
Gestionnaire, / Planification et développement
Innovation, développement et partenariat
|
|
|
Ref N°: ACS2002-PEO-IDP-0003 |
SUBJECT: Multipurpose
Sport Development and Training Facility
OBJET: Installation d'entraÎnement et de
perfectionnement sportif À usages multiples
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That
the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee recommend Council:
Que le Comité de la santé, des
loisirs et des services sociaux recommande au Conseil municipal :
4. d’approuver, dans le cadre de l’élaboration du plan d’affaires, un processus de participation du public qui s’appuie sur le dialogue établi lors de la phase antérieure et sur une collaboration étroite entre les groupes sportifs.
In 2001, the Department was asked to undertake a feasibility study for an indoor track and field study. Given the time constraints and a wish to be cost effective, the Department prepared Terms of Reference for a high level study for such a facility in order to determine its viability and potential costs.
Recommendation 1
The consulting firm of DMA Planning & Consulting Services were engaged to prepare the feasibility study and delivered their report to staff in October 2001. The full report has been circulated under separate cover to Committee members and the Executive Summary is contained in Annex A of this report.
Recommendation 2
As stated earlier, this study began as a facility that would provide primarily an indoor training and possibly, space to host competitions for the track and field community. As the study progressed and validation of the need confirmed, it became apparent that while taking into consideration the number of users to be served, the cost associated with such a facility (with or without partners) and the mandate of the Department, justification and support for such a facility could prove to be extremely limited. As a result, the scope of the investigation was broadened to include areas of program-delivery deficiency (and as a result, infrastructure deficiency) in the Department and new initiatives being developed at the national and provincial sport governing bodies.
The multi-purpose development and training facility would encompass not only the track and field community (both able-bodied and disabled), but also an array of other sports users that could include rugby, soccer, rowing, basketball, volleyball etc. The facility would become the center for sports skill development, from the early introductory level to the advanced, provide the venue and equipment for training and conditioning for a variety of sports that have many common requirements and capitalize on the new opportunity being offered to establish Regional sport development centers for coaching excellence. Additionally, opportunities also abound for use by variety of different clients, from those simply wishing to maintain a healthy lifestyle through physical activity to use by clients requiring rehabilitation from health problems and/traumas.
It is therefore recommended that rather than further define primarily an indoor track and field facility, that the project be broadened to include a multi-disciplinary facility, accommodating a variety of sports users and individuals pursuing a healthy lifestyle.
Recommendation 3
The feasibility study provides base information for such a facility concept and rationale, but prior to making any decision, additional details are required. It is therefore being recommended that a business plan be undertaken, providing specifics in the following areas:
(a) Financial Partnership Opportunities
The project intent is to establish a facility with substantial funding emanating from both the public sectors (federal and provincial i.e. national sport bodies) and the private/corporate sectors. Investigation must be pursued to determine the funds available for such a project, which in turn will assist in the determination of groups to be accommodated.
(b) Existing Models
The business plan would include a review of other similar facilities throughout North America and beyond to confirm the validity of such a concept, appropriate mix of users and spaces, operating and management scenarios being used etc. Review of past experiences, successes and concerns will assist the City in preparing a successful City of Ottawa model.
(c) Capital and Operating requirements
The preparation of a budget will detail the capital funding requirements from all partners, as well as the operating costs implications for the City and other partners.
(d) Facility and Program Plan
Depending on funding opportunities and the determination of sport disciplines that can easily co-exist and flourish, the layout and space requirements will be identified and detailed. Furthermore, a plan will be prepared presenting how each group will access and interact with one-another, the spaces and programs to be offered, private sector components etc.
The intent is to complete the business plan in time for the 2003 budget discussions.
Recommendation 4
Throughout the development of the initial feasibility study, an extremely productive dialogue has been established with an array of sports community representatives and individuals. It is proposed that their close involvement and participation continue into this phase, working with these groups and any others expressing interest.
Two public meetings (July 26th and November 22nd) were held throughout this study, as well as a series of interviews with stakeholders. Both meetings were advertised in the Ottawa Citizen, the Sun and Le Droit. The consultant’s final report was presented at the November, 2001 public meeting, where those in attendance (approximately 55) expressed support for a new Multipurpose Sport Development and Training Facility.
Discussions developed concerning the specifics of the proposed project such as which groups can and cannot be accommodated, the details of the track etc. Answers to those questions will be part of the business plan being proposed.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Costs associated with the detailing of the business are to be comprehended in the Department’s 2002 budget submission.
ATTACHMENT
Annex A: Consultant’s Study Executive Summary
Peoples Services Department will be responsible for the implementation of the Business Plan.
Annex A-Executive Summary
MULTI-PURPOSE
SPORT DEVELOPMENT and TRAINING FACILITY
The City of Ottawa contracted with dmA Planning & Management Services to undertake a feasibility study for a multi-purpose sport development and training facility. The study assesses the market for an indoor track and field training facility and recommends an appropriate approach to providing such a facility in Ottawa.
The process included:
§ A review of relevant trends;
§ Preparation of a community profile;
§ A review of similar facilities across the country;
§ Preparation of a market profile and service direction;
§ Consultation; and
§ The development of a facility concept, business plan and implementation plan.
The majority of indoor track and field facilities are currently provided by, or in partnership with, Universities or other non-municipal providers (i.e. Canadian Forces Bases, or a legacy from hosting international competitions such as Commonwealth Games). There is some indication that larger municipalities are now beginning to provide these facilities independently.
Most major centers have indoor facilities, including Halifax, Moncton, Quebec City, Seabrook, Montreal, Kingston, Toronto, London, Windsor, Petawawa, Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Calgary.
The City has a large number of recreational runners but it is unclear whether they would use this facility on a day-to-day basis, particularly if it were not close to their work or home location.
Two key economic drivers in support of such a facility are:
Such a facility would support the City’s economic development goals as well as providing marketing potential.
The new City’s service delivery model for recreation supports the integration of services and promotes a continuum of service from introductory, intermediate and advanced skill development and competition. Priority programs to be funded from the tax base are the introductory and general skill development end of the continuum. The advanced /competitive programs would receive less tax support and would be funded through partnerships.
It became quite clear that a business case analysis would not support a stand-alone facility for solely track and field, nor for one combined with an indoor soccer field at the center of the track. Instead, the approach taken was to examine and evaluate a Multi-Sport Development and Training Facility.
The National Sport Centre-Ontario (NSCO) is part of a network of multi-sport development and service centers across Canada. These centers are designed to contribute toward enhanced training environments for current and potential high performance athletes and coaches. While these centers are service networks and not facility-specific, there may be an opportunity to combine the services of such a center within a Sport Development Facility.
The market for a sport training and development facility involves the entire spectrum of service delivery, including:
§ All levels of sport development and training;
§ Opportunities for coaching development;
§ Participation by the health maintenance sector; and
§ The rehabilitation market and recreational programming.
The market includes the advanced athlete in a variety of sports and the City’s core service market, i.e. children’s camps, coaching development training, skill development workshops, school use etc.
|
City Capital Cost: |
Estimate $25-$30 Million |
|
City Net Operating Costs: |
Estimate $590,000 annually |
|
Preferred sites: |
Terry Fox Athletic Facility adjacent to the Outdoor Track or Ben Franklin Park |
|
Benefits: |
§ Prestige, highly visible. §
The City has full control as sole owner and § Athletes have maximum access. § The amount of training time, opportunity to reduce capital and operating costs with partnerships with other sport governing bodies, private sector service providers, selling of naming rights etc |
|
Limitations: |
City assumes most of the capital and operating costs. |
|
City Capital Cost: |
To be negotiated; could range between $10-13 Million |
|
City Net Operating Costs: |
None. The University is solely responsible. |
|
Site: |
Carleton University Campus |
|
Benefits: |
§ Annual operating cost required from the City. |
|
Limitations: |
|
1. If the City pursues a stand-alone facility, the most appropriate site (of those evaluated) is adjacent to the Terry Fox Athletic Centre or the Ben Franklin Park site.
2. The City should develop, in partnership with others as appropriate and available, a multi-purpose sport training and development center to respond to the needs and interest of a wide range of compatible sports. Further, this facility should support in its services and partnerships, the development of coaching excellence, integration of wellness initiatives, and opportunities for athlete training at the introductory, intermediate and advanced training levels.
3. Before proceeding with the development of a multipurpose sport development and training center, the City should review the space needs of all major indoor sport groups to confirm space requirements.
4. The City should meet with Carleton University to determine the degree to which the directions of both organizations can be accommodated in one center.
5. City Staff and Elected Officials should initiate discussions with potential significant partners at the local, provincial and national levels, to identify funding and operating partner opportunities.
1. Review of Feasibility Study by Committee and City Council.
2. Confirmation of service delivery approach.
3. Confirmation of appropriate partners.
4. Confirmation of facility components.
5. Confirmation of capital costs and capital funding commitments.
6. Confirming operating and service structure.
7. Approval of capital and operating budgets.
8. Design, tendering and development.