MULTI-PURPOSE
SPORT DEVELOPMENT
AND
TRAINING FACILITY
·
DmA Planning & Management Services were
retained by the City to undertake a feasibility study to:
(1)
Assess the market for an indoor track and field
training facility and,
(2)
Recommend an appropriate approach to providing such
a facility in Ottawa.
·
The process included the review of relevant trends
in the field; preparation of a community profile and consultation; review of
similar facilities across the country; preparation of a market profile and
service direction and finally, the development of a facility concept, business
plan and implementation plan
The majority of
indoor track and field facilities are provided by or in partnership with
Universities or other non-municipal providers (i.e. Canadian Forces Bases,
and/or is a legacy from hosting international competitions such as Commonwealth Games). Most major
centers have indoor facilities; Halifax, Moncton, Quebec City, Sherbrooke,
Montreal, Kingston, Toronto, London, Windsor, Petawawa, Thunder Bay, Winnipeg,
Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Calgary.
Ottawa Profile-
There is an
outdoor track at the Terry Fox Athletic Centre.
There are several outdoor recreational tracks in
varied conditions on school board property.
There are indoor recreational tracks at (3) the
YM-YWCA and at the Ottawa Athletic Club.
A private company rents a portion of the indoor
field under a “bubble” at Lansdowne Park where teams lay down a portable roll
track. This is not accessible to
wheelchair athletes.
The local track and field market includes 300-400
athletes, with the number of wheelchair athletes increasing.
The large number of recreational runners would not
necessarily use an indoor facility unless it is close to their work or home location.
Corporate Mandates – Economic Development
Key economic drivers in a city include “Quality of
Life” for residents and visitors to the City. Such a facility would support the
City’s economic development goals as well as “Provision of unique space” which
would be capable of attracting and supporting major events.
The “Creation of unique facility or service” that
attracts attention and provides a marketing potential could also be fulfilled
by this type of facility.
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 and/or
track and field and an indoor soccer field at the center of the track. Rather
than continue, knowing the results were going to be negative, a different approach
was examined and evaluated; 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 and 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 operator. §
Athletes have maximum access. §
The amount of time to train, 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. |
(*based on original concept of track and field. See Report Rec.)
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: |
§
Reduced capital costs for the City. §
Annual operating cost required from the
City. |
Limitations: |
§
Not a City facility. No corporate
visibility, access §
Will be governed
by an agreement. Other cities have indicated that there are pressures over
time: reduced access, increased fees to users etc. Recommendations |
1. If
the City pursues a stand-alone facility, the most appropriate site (of those
evaluated) are sites 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. Confirming
appropriate partners
4. Confirming
facility components
5. Confirming
capital costs and capital funding commitments
6. Confirming
operating and service structure
7. Capital
and operating budget approvals
8. Design,
tendering and development