MINNEDOSA & DISTRICT RECREATION CENTRE FEASIBILITY STUDY · MINNEDOSA & DISTRICT RECREATION CENTRE FEASIBILITY STUDY June 2014. ... service canteen and community lounge and ... Prepare

AMINNEDOSA + DISTRICT RECREATION CENTRE 2014

MINNEDOSA & DISTRICTRECREATION CENTREFEASIBILITY STUDY

June 2014

Acknowledgements

The consultants would like to acknowledge and thank Mayor Ray Orr, members of the council steering committee, Rick Saler and Frank Taylor, Ken Jenkins, CAO, Chris Yuen, Assistant CAO, MREC Co-Chairs Jon Lewis and Scott Burgess for their support and assistance in the preparation of this report. In addition, we would like to thank the community stakeholders and organization representatives who participated in meetings and focus groups for their generous contribution of time and expertise.

J.Harper

Steering Committee

Ray Orr Mayor, Town of MinnedosaRick Saler Councilor Frank Taylor CouncilorKen Jenkins CAO, Town of Minnedosa

Project Advisors

Scott Burgess MRECJon Lewis MREC

Project Planning Team

Jack Harper Principal J. Harper & associates

Vanessa Jukes Report Design, Mapping and Graphics Scatliff+Miller+Murray Inc.

Disclaimer: This report was prepared by J. Harper & associates for the Town of Minnedosa, (the client). Disclosure of any information contained in this report is the sole responsibility of the client. The materials, observations and recommendations in this report refl ect J. Harper & associates’ best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. The content and opinions contained in this report are based on information and materials provided by the client and so its accuracy and completeness is dependant on same. Any use that a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. J. Harper & associates accepts no responsibility or liability for the contents of this report or any damages, if any, suffered or allegedly suffered by a third party as a result of decisions made, actions based or reliance placed on this report. J. Harper & associates takes no credit for creating precedent images found in this document except where indicated. Some images were acquired from various sources that outwardly claim to be “public domain”, and as such no copyrighted images are included with our knowledge. These images are included solely for the client’s information and are not intended for public use.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I Introduction 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................. 1 1.2 Study Scope and Objectives................................................... 2 1.3 Planning Process .................................................................... 3

II Context and Background 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................. 4 2.2 Need for and Benefi ts of Recreation and Leisure ................... 5

2.3 History of the Minnedosa Arena.............................................. 7 2.4 Current Condition Assessment ............................................... 8

III Building Program, Priorities and Financial Implications 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................... 10

3.2 Site and Development Options ..............................................11 3.3 Facility Components, Priorities and Building Program.......... 12

3.4 Summary Building Program and Construction Costing ........ 19

IV Recommendations for Going Forward 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................... 22

4.2 Phase 1 - Arena Development Costs.................................... 22 4.3 Funding Targets and Sources for Phase 1 - Arena Development ............................................. 23 4.4 Capital Cost Implications of

Phase 1 - Arena Development.............................................. 26

V Governance, Management and Operation Costs 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................... 28

5.2 Concept and Vision ............................................................... 28 5.3 Governance, Operation and Management ........................... 28

5.4 Indoor Arena Operating Costs .............................................. 29

VI Implementation Process, Timing and Strategies 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................... 33

6.2 Implementation Process and Timing ..................................... 33

Bibliography ........................................................................................... 35

1MINNEDOSA + DISTRICT RECREATION CENTRE 2014

I INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

In 2009, a process was initiated to develop a regional event centre that would meet local demand for recreation and fi tness as well as accommodate regional special events and attractions. The facility was proposed to house two arenas, ten dressing rooms, a fi tness centre, walking track, classroom, meeting and multi-purpose rooms, a full service canteen and community lounge and social space. The indoor facility was proposed to be build on the MREC site adjacent to the agricultural society grounds and athletic fi elds so that it would serve fi eld and site users during the summer months.

In 2013, a feasibility study concluded that due to changing economic and market conditions, such a centre would not be viable over the long-term and the report recommended that the development of a more modest multiplex facility be examined. A two-step approach to developing the facility based on the economic capacity of the community was proposed.

The fi rst step was to replace the 67 year old Minnedosa Arena and develop a basic arena designed for, and located on a site with the capacity to add future phases. The arena was intended to primarily serve the indoor ice needs of the Town of Minnedosa and surrounding municipalities. The second phase of development recommended adding in components that included a fi tness studio, walking track and community social gathering spaces as resources allowed. These added amenities were intended to provide new recreation opportunities for non-ice using residents and create a focus for community recreation activities in the Town. This approach was suggested so that a much needed arena replacement could proceed once basic funding was secured, followed by the addition of other recreation amenities on a priority basis as additional funding became available.

The MREC facility was proposed to serve as a regional centre for sport, recreation and special events. A Minnedosa and District Recreation Centre would be developed to primarily serve residents of the Town of Minnedosa and its surrounding municipal and corporate partners within the district.


1.2 STUDY SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the feasibility study is to re-examine the rationale for an indoor arena/recreation centre facility in Minnedosa and ensure the components and scale of the facility are appropriate to economically meet the long-term recreation needs of the community. The study also outlines operational assumptions and policies, business planning principles and implementation strategies to guide and manage its development.

The scope of the feasibility study focuses on the development of a multi-use facility that when fully completed, would house activity components that include an indoor arena, fi tness centre, walking area, social gathering space and operational support space. In this regard, the primary objectives of the planning process are to:

Clarify the vision, goals, role and function of a proposed multiplex 1. facility and describe the operating policies under which it will function.

Examine and confi rm the need for and fi nancial implications 2. of each of the activity components proposed for the district recreation centre to serve a wide variety of recreation needs.

Review the demographic, economic and social profi le of the 3. community and the implications of future trends on viability of the proposed centre.

Develop an appropriate building program outlining the scope 4. and scale of each component and the magnitude of cost should phase in of components over time be necessary.

Provide a schematic (Phase 1) that refl ects the scale of each 5. component and the spatial relationships between the components that will serve to guide the conceptual and architectural design of the facility.

Prepare a business plan and capital funding strategy based on 6. the capacity of the community to complete the proposed building program and fund its operation over the long-term.


1.3 PLANNING PROCESS

The planning process was guided by a steering committee appointed by council that provided input into policy related matters, insight on issues affecting the plan and feedback on options and strategies designed to move the plan forward. Community consultation involved meetings with MREC and other community stakeholders to determine their issues, gather user information and identify needs. Data collection and analysis involved the following:

review of all planning documents• program and arena user data• a review of archival information and current condition of the • Minnedosa Arenaan analysis of comparable area development, operations and • fi nancingan analysis of fi nancial and tax information •

Following is a report on the fi ndings related to the development of a Minnedosa and District Recreation Centre.


II CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND

2.1 INTRODUCTION

In June 2009, the Minnedosa Regional Event Centre (MREC) Committee was formed, in part, to examine all options and opportunities to replace the Town’s aging arena and fi ll the need for more diverse recreation services. It was proposed that an event centre to serve the region would provide both renewed recreation facilities and economic development opportunities that would benefi t the community as a whole. As planning proceeded over the past four years, both the regional market and economic circumstances changed to a point where the predicted viability of a major regional event centre could no longer be justifi ed. The need to replace the sixty-seven year old Minnedosa Arena however remains a critical challenge for the community.

The Minnedosa Arena has continued to deteriorate to a point where retrofi tting or repair no longer appear to be practical. The challenge for the Town of Minnedosa is to generate the necessary public and fi nancial support to build a new Minnedosa and District Recreation Centre.

Recreation facilities, parks and programs provide social, environmental and economic benefi ts to users and non-users alike and contribute to both community and social development. Arenas are part of the cultural fabric of Canadian communities.

Courtesy: danharperphoto.com


courtesy of Alberta Recreation & Parks Association

2.2 NEED FOR AND BENEFITS OF RECREATION AND LEISURE

Over the past two decades a great deal of research has focused on the benefi ts of recreation and parks for participants and communities. The “benefi ts movement” as it has been described, was largely driven by a need to reposition local government parks and recreation service delivery systems to articulate the personal, social, economic, environmental benefi ts and outcomes associated with recreation participation and use of parks.

Studies in Ontario (Harper, 2008) and Alberta (Harper, 2007) on “The Use and Benefi ts of Local Government Recreation and Parks Services” concluded that:

Leisure (55%) is signifi cantly more important to people than • work (31%), representing a dramatic shift in attitudes over the past decade.82% of respondents used local government recreation and • parks services over the past twelve months.97% of respondents reported they received benefi ts from local • parks and recreation, including those who reported they don’t directly use the services.Next to family and friends, the public relies most on local • governments for recreation services.Recreation and park use is spread equally across all gender • and age groups.

These studies also confi rmed that the public believes recreation is an essential service that contributes to public good. Its fi ndings demonstrate that recreation and parks services:

Improve social cohesion and improve quality of life 89%• Contribute to health and well-being 93%• Ensure children and youth live healthy lifestyles 96% • Foster childhood development 94%• Serve as an antidote to crime 77%• Contribute to the quality of the environment 93%•

This evidence supports the premise that parks and open space provide many values for users and non-users alike. Parks provide a sense of place in the community, allowing for escape, contemplation, discovery, access to nature, interpretive education and recreation. They also function as areas for water retention, wildlife habitat, shelterbelts, respite from the heat and provide relief from urban form by serving as buffers between residential and industrial areas. Parks enhance community aesthetics, increase property values and improve the image and livability of communities.


Recreation through physical activity, social engagement and artistic expression provides opportunities for people to improve their health and wellness, socialize and interact with others, learn new skills, have fun and fi nd balance in their lives. Research has shown that regular physical activity results in improved physical and mental health, reduces health care costs, provides positive lifestyle choices for youth at risk, contributes to independent living among older adults and develops improved self-image. Sport and recreation events, festivals and visual and performing arts exhibits and performances provide opportunities for self-expression and social interaction, create a sense of community and are a source of civic pride (Harper, 2008).

In recent years, there has been an emphasis on integrated community sustainability planning. The acknowledged pillars of sustainability include environmental, economic, social and cultural dimensions and each represents important considerations in holistic integrated community sustainability planning. Recreation, parks, culture, heritage and tourism are viewed as essential components that contribute directly or indirectly to each of the dimensions of community sustainability. The supply and availability of diverse recreation facilities are key contributors to and indicators of sustainable communities.

The jurisdictional basis for recreation service provision is spelled out in the National Recreation Statement (1987) that identifi es the role and responsibility of each level of government. The federal government has long recognized the primacy of the provinces in the fi eld of recreation and provincial enabling legislation provides the authority and framework for local government recreation and parks service delivery in Manitoba.

In the National Recreation Statement (1987), local governments were identifi ed as the lead agency with primary responsibility for ensuring the direct delivery of recreation services. Local governments were described as best positioned to “ensure the availability of the broadest range of recreation opportunities for every individual and group consistent with available community resources.”

Local governments strive to develop programs and services that ensure all residents have access to, and share equally in, the benefi ts associated with recreation participation. Increasingly, recreation is viewed as an essential local government service. The costs associated with delivering recreation services are viewed as an investment in social, cultural, environmental and economic development of the community and its citizens.



Many of the major facilities in communities across Canada were developed by local governments in the mid 1960’s and are now aging and nearing the end of their lifecycle. Federal and provincial governments have recognized this problem and over the past fi ve years have contributed funding through a number of programs including the Building Canada/Manitoba Fund.

A new National Recreation Framework (2014) is nearing completion and this document identifi es the issues and priorities related to recreation development. Among the critical issues is the need for a Pan Canadian strategy regarding aging recreation infrastructure but new funding and support programs have yet to be defi ned. Local governments therefore, have the primary responsibility for recreation facility development and in small communities, replacement of major recreation facilities requires broad community support and commitment.

2.3 HISTORY OF THE MINNEDOSA ARENA

The Minnedosa Arena is a 29,925 square foot building housing an undersized 83’x180’ ice surface, four dressing rooms, seating for approximately 1,000 and a viewing lobby and canteen. The building was constructed in 1947 as a natural ice surface. A concrete fl oor, artifi cial ice surface and front lobby/viewing area were added at a later date.

It was commonly believed that the Minnedosa Arena was a recycled military building or airplane hanger moved to Minnedosa in 1947 from CFB Portage and converted into an arena. According to reports of the day (Minnedosa Tribune), the arena was constructed over a period of fi ve months from August to December 1947 by a combination of local and Winnipeg contractors at a total cost of $34,800.

There are many parallels with the development of the old arena and the new facilities proposed in Minnedosa. The 1947 project was initiated by the Minnedosa and District Community and Rink Association who planned to build a 130’ x 210’ building to house an 85’ x 180’ skating area. The building was to be built with a lumber roof and rubberized covering, steel beams and corrugated siding.

Minnedosa Tribune 1947


The project was delayed many times by the supply of materials, availability of a contractor, bad weather and limited funding. Building materials were in short supply following the Second World War and what was available was needed for housing. As a result, salvage material was sought to build the arena. Steel was found at a farm in Hartney District, re-sawed timbers from a barn for studding was purchased from a farm in the Clanwilliam District and 450 sheets of siding were secured through the War Assets Corporation. The site was excavated by local contractors and the fi ve spans of steel were fi nally raised using a drag line system by Maple Leaf Construction from Winnipeg. A local carpenter agreed to fi nish the construction once the steel was up. The Tribune reported that “Ten feet was left at the rear of the building which was sloped and rip-rapped thus saving a concrete wall.”

The local organizing committee raised $22,300 but needed an additional $12,500 to complete the waiting room and basement dressing rooms. The Tribune reported “ A ramp will lead from the ice to the basement in which will be placed the furnace room and two large dressing rooms. To get to the dressing rooms, the players will not need to pass through the crowd as in many rinks.” The committee proposed that Council pass a $12,500 money by-law and on September 24, 1947, ratepayers approved the referendum by 92% with 506 in favour and 27 opposed.

Construction of the arena began in late August with the erection of the steel beams that was completed on September 18th and 1,400 residents attended the offi cial opening of the building on December 22nd, 1947 hosted by Mayor Clark. The building was praised for its great lighting and sound system and “it could hardly be said to be a poor seat in the rink.” (Source: Minnedosa Tribune, May, 1946 through Dec. 22, 1947).

2.4 CURRENT CONDITION ASSESSMENT

In 2013 Associated Engineering conducted a current condition assessment to examine the building and environmental conditions. Its structural assessment was limited to a “walkthrough” that identifi ed a number of code and environmental defi ciencies. To conduct more extensive assessments would require destructive physical analysis. The arena ice surface is undersized (Illustration #1) and the dressing rooms, spectator facilities and player amenities are also substandard based on modern arena standards. The building appears to be well past its life expectancy and engineering reports (Associated Engineering, 2013) confi rm that substantial work is required to upgrade and retrofi t the building to meet modern standards. There are also substantial areas of deferred maintenance throughout the building and retrofi tting or repairs to the building no longer appear to be economically practical. As indicated in the previous feasibility assessment (Harper, 2013) if retrofi tting the arena is contemplated a comprehensive mechanical, electrical, environmental, structural and building envelope assessment would be required.


Illus

trat

ion

1. M

inne

dosa

Are

na L

ayou

t (S

ourc

e: A

ssoc

iate

d E

ngin

eerin

g, 2

013)


III BUILDING PROGRAM, PRIORITIES AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Recommendations in the Minnedosa Regional Event Centre Feasibility Study (2013) proposed a scaled down, phased in version of the MREC facility. The report identifi ed that the immediate priority was to proceed with the replacement of the existing sixty-seven year old Minnedosa arena followed by the addition of a fi tness studio and community social spaces if, and as, funding became available.

Rationale

There is a strong justifi cation for replacing an aging arena that has served the community for sixty-seven years and continues to be an important source of recreation for participants and spectators providing 1,500 hours of use to approximately 250 - 300 users annually. The absence of an arena in the community would present a hardship for participants who would have to travel to fi nd ice in other communities to continue to participate.

In addition, residents and local businesses have stepped forward and contributed approximately $1 million to support the new district recreation centre and the Town of Minnnedosa and surrounding municipalities have supported its planning and development through both cash and in-kind contributions.

Recommendation #1New Minnedosa and District Recreation Centre

That the Town Of Minnedosa construct a new district recreation centre to replace the aging Minnedosa Arena and provide expanded recreation opportunities for the Town of Minnedosa and surrounding district.

Minnedosa District Arena


3.2 SITE AND DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

There are several options regarding the development and site for a new recreation centre in the Town of Minnedosa. With respect to development three possible options exist. One is to retrofi t the existing arena, a second is to rebuild it on the site of the existing arena and a third is to relocate it to a new site. The most likely site for relocation is on 6th Ave. N.W. adjacent to the agricultural society grounds and athletic fi elds.

Site development considerations include variables such as parking, space for expansion, proximity to residents, noise factors, ancillary and compatible spin off uses, site access and circulation, site servicing and development costs.

Rationale:

While there are pros and cons regarding each of the sites mentioned above, the MREC site offers the best location because of its access, parking, room to build in phases, site servicing and potential for spin off uses by other site and fi eld users.

Retrofi tting an existing 67 year old facility would require extensive redevelopment and there are unknowns about the current condition of the arena that render this option cost prohibitive. The most practical approach is to construct a new indoor facility on a site that has been developed over the past few years to accommodate an integrated indoor and outdoor recreation complex thereby creating a one-stop integrated recreation facility.

Recommendation #2Site and Development Options

That the existing Minnedosa Arena be decommissioned and replaced with a new Minnedosa and District Recreation Centre located on the grounds designated for the construction of the MREC centre on 6th Ave. N.W.

Preferred Development Site


3.3 FACILITY COMPONENTS, PRIORITIES AND BUILDING PROGRAM

The objective of developing a Minnedosa and District Recreation Centre is to meet a broader range of recreation needs and serve more than just indoor ice users. It is also planned as a regional facility to serve residents living in surrounding communities. Due to the high cost of development, the planned facility may need to be developed in phases if fundraising targets are not met in the short term.

If that were the case, there are three components that could be built in two or three distinct phases. The three components are an indoor arena, a fi tness centre and a community lounge / multi-purpose centre.

Priorities for Development

The resource implications for the development of a major indoor recreation facility in the Town of Minnedosa are signifi cant. While the surrounding municipalities have committed to making a contribution to the capital campaign, any shortfall between a local fund raising goal and end project costs would fall to the Town of Minnedosa.

The three components would occupy a total of total of 45,675 square feet of space at an estimated cost of development of $12.2 million (rounded). Development of the recreation complex in phases may be the most economical way to move forward, spreading the capital costs over a longer period of time as funding becomes available. Based on the urgency to replace the existing arena, the priority would be to develop the arena component followed by the addition of a fi tness studio and community lounge / MPR gathering spaces.

Phase I – Indoor Arena: A Critical Community Resource

The fi rst phase of development is proposed to be a 36,246 square foot indoor arena to replace the 67 year old Minnedosa Arena (see section 2.4 - Current Condition Assessment, p. 8). As indicated, there is an urgent need to replace the old arena or current users could be without a convenient indoor ice facility to serve their needs.

Phase II – Fitness Studio, Walking Track and Community Lounge

The fi tness facilities and community lounge spaces are lower priorities because the co-op fi tness centre is a successful operation in an acceptable facility that should continue to be available over the mid-term future. The community lounge and MPR spaces are seen as complimentary to the development of an overall complex rather than “stand-alone” recreation amenities that are in high demand. They do however play an important role, providing community recreation opportunities and social gathering spaces for non-ice users.


Following is a more detailed description of the components.

3.3.1 Arena Component

The proposed arena component is planned as a modern, up-to-date replacement for the existing Minnedosa Arena providing “regulation” size ice surface and industry standard amenities for both participants and spectators.

The current Minnedosa Arena has an 83’x180’ ice surface with a 4,389 square foot lobby and seating for 1,000 spectators. The four dressing rooms vary in size with dressing room 1 providing 361 square feet, dressing room 4 with 432 square feet and 340 square feet in the women’s dressing room. The referees’ room is 144 square feet and there is approximately 194 square feet for team storage.

The proposed new arena would have a regulation ice surface of 85’x 200’ with 500 square feet dressing rooms, 200 square feet offi cials’ room, 400 square feet of storage and seating for approximately 900 spectators.

If a walking track could be economically incorporated into the new arena design, it should be included in the phase one building program to avoid the cost of a dedicated / purpose built walking track at a later date. If dedicated space is required and it exceeds the funding available for phase one, it should be developed when phase two proceeds.

Design Considerations

The design and construction of the arena component should consider he following principles and guidelines:

Design-Build or Construction Management process for • the project

Design for and construct on a site that will allow for • additional facility components/phases in the future.

If practical, design the walking track area into the new • arena as part of the fi rst phase. This assumes it can be incorporated into the design with minimal or no additional cost. If dedicated space for the walking area is required, it may need to be delayed until the fi tness and community lounge component is completed in phase II.

The lobby / viewing area should be an open area with • no permanent bleacher seating. This will allow for the design of the space to incorporate passive recreation activities and facilitate drop in use for seniors, youth and summer programming. These areas and the dressing rooms should be located and designed for easy and secure access for outdoor fi eld users and the public.

Altona Arena

Team Storage

Dressing Rooms


Design considerations should include incorporation of • in-kind contributions such as the Bomber seats if it is practical and cost effective to do so.

Locate the new recreation facilities on the MREC site • so that the indoor washrooms, change rooms, meeting spaces and concession will serve summer fi eld and Ag Society users.

Ensure Leed Design and low maintenance focus to • achieve operating cost effi ciencies.

Space Allocation and Capacity 31,518ft2 Activity Space

Hockey regulating bodies recommend that indoor arenas in North America be 85’ wide and 200’ long and that is the standard that modern new arenas have been based on. If cost of construction is prohibitive, communities have sometimes compromised on the length and opted for 185’ ice surfaces.

The same is true of other spaces in an indoor arena where the size of dressing rooms varies from one arena to the next, although 500 square foot dressing rooms are the recommended standard and are large enough to accommodate up to 20 adult players with their equipment. It would be ideal to have six full dressing rooms but fi ve will accommodate four teams during ice changeover and one would serve as a dedicated female change room.

3.3.2 Fitness Studio and Walking Track

The Minnedosa Fitness Co-op currently operates a 1,160 square foot facility that is adequate to serve its current membership but has a very small entrance area, administration space, storage and washroom/change area. Additional space is required for the convenience of its members, to provide more fl exibility and to attract new participants and members.

The fi tness component of the proposed Minnedosa and District Recreation Centre is intended to provide a larger fi tness studio and improved amenities such as change rooms, washrooms and access to a walking track and MPR room. Integrating these facilities into a year round recreation facility has the potential to increase and better serve the membership as well as create “spin off” uses of the fi tness facilities. Incorporating the fi tness facilities adjacent to a year round walking track will improve services and adjacent summer and winter sport programs would have access to cross training facilities not now available in a convenient location.

Co-op Fitness Centre



It is intended that the Minnedosa Fitness Centre Co-operative Inc. would manage and operate the new fi tness facilities on a leased basis to avoid duplication and unnecessary competition within a relatively small fi tness market. As planning and design proceeds, the Minnedosa Fitness Centre Co-operative Inc. should be consulted regarding the planned design specifi cations and any proposed lease arrangement.

The fi tness centre would have access to three key components of the building including a fi tness studio for cardio-resistance training, the MPR room for aerobic related activity that would be booked and shared with other program users, and a walking track. The MPR room would be part of the community lounge spaces but accessible to the fi tness centre for scheduled activities. Following is a description of the fi tness spaces.

A. Fitness Studio (Cardio-Resistance Training)

The cardio-resistance training area proposed in the centre would replace the existing facility at the Co-op fi tness centre but it would be slightly larger with better circulation space and ancillary amenities. This space is an extremely popular component of fi tness facilities and allows for individualized workouts and either personal trainer or instructor led programs.

Purpose and Function

The space would provide for cardio development, weight training, bodybuilding and weight lifting. Each of these activities has specifi c program considerations and equipment requirements including:

Personal training• Group exercise- instructor led• Circuit training• Free weight lifting• Body shaping•

Design Considerations

The space should be developed to provide adequate space for stretching, instruction and an appropriate number of machines and weights. The space would be designed with a minimum ceiling height of 12ft, electrical outlets, insulation and sound attenuation on walls, good illumination and with an air exchange capacity of 8 to 12 exchanges per hour. The fl ooring should be rubber based resistant surface. There should be mirrors along one wall, recessed water fountains and a good centrally controlled sound system. The space should be located near the shower / locker room with both day use and permanent lockers available




Equipment requirements include:

This space would house a weight training area with multi-station variable resistance (cable) machines and cardiovascular equipment including:

Treadmills • Recumbent bicycles • Regular bicycles • Elliptical trainers • Rowing machines•

Space Allocation and Capacity 1,500ft2

The general standard for this type of space requires approximately 25ft2 per person. With 1,500 ft2 of activity space the area would be able to accommodate up to 50-60 people but this would be dependent on the type of activity planned for the area and the actual numbers and arrangement of exercise equipment.

B. Indoor Walking Track 3,000ft2

The walking track is a key component of the district recreation centre and it provides for an activity that is in high demand. Over the past decade, as the population has aged and interest in team sport participation has declined, walking, hiking and cycling have risen to the top of the list of favourite recreation activities. In many communities walking clubs have formed and mall walking areas have been provided. Indoor walking areas have also become an important revenue stream for recreation and wellness facilities.

The design, length and confi guration of the track will depend on the layout of adjacent spaces. The objective is to incorporate the walking track into the phase I arena design rather than creating dedicated, purpose built space. If it can be incorporated into the design utilizing circulation space, it would dramatically reduce the cost of the track area. Should it require dedicated space, the plan allows up to 3,000 square feet of additional space that could encompass an area around the arena and/or phase II facilities when they are developed.

The walking track should have a vulcanized rubber surface with a textured top and fabric bottom at least 5/16’ thick and designed to provide for optimum balance of traction, energy absorption and support.

Virden Walking Track

Killarney Walking Track


C. Storage 500ft2

Wellness facilities have high demand for storage for specialized equipment and program materials. If different user groups make use of the space, dedicated storage space or lockers may also be required.

D. Locker / Showers 1,000ft2

Well designed and ventilated shower and locker facilities are important to the user experience and including sauna and/or steam room enclosures enhances the wellness facilities.

Total Space Requirement 6,000ft2

3.3.3 Community Lounge / Multi-Purpose Spaces

The addition of a community lounge and multi-purpose spaces is planned to serve as a community meeting place where people can gather for informal social activities and special events as well as scheduled fi tness programs. The purpose of this lounge/activity space is not to compete with other informal social spaces in the community but rather to provide new opportunities that compliment current recreation programs for community residents. Design of the space should include a variety of fl oor and table games (chess, shuffl eboard and checkers) as well as a coffee/snack area. The space is proposed to serve non-ice users and provide something for everyone in a new Minnedosa and District Recreation Complex.

The MPR space is also designed to compliment fi tness centre programs as described below. In addition, it can serve as both a youth and senior drop in space, community meetings space, and staging area for on-ice related activities.

Community Lounge/Multi-Purpose Space For Fitness Programs

The multi-purpose room/community lounge would accommodate group fi tness activities on a booked and scheduled basis including:

Aerobics classes• Pilates and yoga• Combative sport area• Zumba and dance• Stretch classes• Low impact aerobics and movement to music•

Community Lounge

Multipurpose Space


Space Allocation and Capacity 2,000ft2

The standard space requirement for aerobic classes is a minimum of 50ft2 per person. Therefore the capacity of a 2,000 square foot MPR room used for fi tness classes would be 30-40 persons. The space is larger than typically required for fi tness related classes so it could be designed with dividers to host other community activities on a shared basis.

Assistance in programming the space would be provided by the Minnedosa District Recreation Commission that might also relocate their offi ces to the new facility should adequate space be made available.

3.4 SUMMARY BUILDING PROGRAM AND CONSTRUCTION COSTING

Table 3.1 provides detailed information regarding the space allocation for the program and activity areas and all ancillary and support spaces. The costs (Source: Bockstael Construction Ltd.) associated with each space are construction only costs and are provided on a component by component basis. The cost estimates of each space and component is helpful if it becomes necessary to fi nd economies in the development of the facility.



Lobby/Concession/Viewing (4,500 ft2 now)

1.15 Lobby/Concession 3,000 225 $675,000

1.16 Concession Storage 150 200 $30,000

1.17 Washrooms (M/F/D) 700 250 $175,000

1.18 Skate Sharpening 80 225 $18,000

1.19 Ent./Control/Ticket 80 200 $16,000

1.20 Offi ce/Support Space 200 200 $40,000

Net 4,210

Gross @15% 632 200 $126,300

Sub-Total 36,246 $7,276,770

2 Fitness Centre2.1 Fitness Studio Existing 1160 1,500 250 $375,000

2.2 Storage 500 225 $112,500

2.3 Locker/Shower 2@500 1,000 325 $325,000

2.4 Walking Track 3,000 250 $750,000

Net 6,000

Gross @15% 900 250 $225,000

Sub-Total 6,900 $1,787,500

3 Community Lounge/MRP3.1 Multi-Purpose Space 2,000 200 $400,000

3.2 Storage 200 200 $40,000

Net 2,200

Gross@ 15% 330 200 $66,000

Sub-Total 2,530 $506,000TOTAL 45,676 (Ave= $209) $9,570,270

Facility/Component Space Area (ft2) Unit Cost Cost

1. Arena Enclosure1.1 Ice Surface 85’X200’ 17,000 185 $3,145,000

1.2 Dressing/Shower(Cap=20) 5@500 ea 3,000 285 $855,000

1.3 Offi cials Room (cap = 6) 1@200 200 285 $57,000

1.4 Players Benches 2@144 288 185 $53,280

1.5 Penalty Boxes 2@42 84 185 $15,540

1.6 Time Keeper 1@36 36 185 $6,660

1.7 Team/Eqpt. Storage 20x20 400 200 $80,000

1.8 First Aid 150 185 $27,750

1.10 Spectator Seating 3,000 185 $555,000

Net 24,308

Gross @15% 3646 200 $729,240

Service Area & Maintenance1.11 Ice Resurfacer 500 185 $92,500

1.12 Ice Plant/Workshop 1,000 185 $185,000

1.13 Mechanical/Electrical 500 185 $92,500

1.14 Storage/Mtce 1,000 185 $185,000

Net 3,000

Gross @15% 450 185 $83,250

Table 3.1 Proposed Building Plan and Construction Costs

(* Source: Bockstael Construction Ltd. )


Capital Cost Analysis

Many factors affect the end cost of construction of a major recreation facility. At this stage in the planning process it is diffi cult to predict with accuracy how factors such as material costs, construction delays and infl ation, site conditions, quality of materials and fi nal design specifi cations will impact the fi nal cost. For this reason, the following cost estimates refl ect the magnitude of cost of each component. Once site conditions have been determined, design is completed and a construction schedule established, more precise costs can be confi rmed. In addition, as time goes by costs should be adjusted for annual infl ation.

It is possible however, to prepare a magnitude of cost for development based on comparable facilities or cost of construction experiences in other projects. Table 3.1 above provides an estimate of the construction costs of a 45,676 square foot recreation facility (Bockestael Construction, April 11, 2014) based on industry “going rate” pricing.

In addition to the cost of construction there are additional “soft costs” that can add up to an additional 25-30% of the actual construction. These costs are outlined in Table 3.2 that follows.

Table 3.2 Capital Cost Summary

Facility/Component Capital Cost

1. Arena Enclosure (36,245 ft2)

Construction Cost $7,276,770

Land N/C

Equipment (Misc) Allowance $250,000

Site Servicing/Development $250,000

Contingency @ 5% $363,838

Fees @ 8% $582,141

GST @ 5% $436,137

Financing @ 2% $150,000

Sub Total Arena $9,308,8862. Fitness Centre / Track (6,900 ft2)

Construction Cost $1,787,500

Land N/C

Equipment (Misc.) Allowance 50,000

Site Servicing/Development N/A

Contingency @ 5% 89,375

Fees @ 8% 143,000

GST @ 5% 103,493

Financing @ 2% 35,000

Sub Total Fitness Centre $2,208,3683. Community Lounge / MPR (2,530 ft2)

Construction Cost $506,000

Land N/C

Equipment (Misc) $25,000

Site Servicing/Development N/A

Contingency @ 5% 25,300

Fees @ 8% 40,408

GST @ 5% 29,835

Financing @2% $10,000

Sub Total Lounge/MPR $636,543Total (45,675 Ft2) $12,153,797

(Source: Bockstael Construction, based on 2014 dollars)


IV DEVELOPMENT COST, FUNDING SOURCES AND TAX IMPLICATIONS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The recommended approach for the development of the district recreation centre is to expedite the project by phasing in its development as capital funding allows. It is assumed that it may take time to assemble the $12.2 million necessary to complete all three components of the building and the fi rst priority is to complete the arena component. With that in mind, section four of the report provides analysis of the capital cost of phase one, sets out fundraising targets and calculates the impact of phase one costs on taxpayers based on the amount of debenture needed to complete funding of the project.

4.2 PHASE I – ARENA DEVELOPMENT COSTS

The cost of construction and associated soft costs (Table 4.1) for the proposed arena development in Minnedosa is approximately $9.3 million dollars or $256 per square foot in 2014 dollars. As a point of comparison, the capital cost estimate, adjusted for infl ation, for the 92,000 square feet for MREC (Tower Engineering, 2011) was $265/ sq. ft. for construction and soft costs in 2014 dollars.

Table 4.1 Cost of Phase 1 - Arena Development

Facility/Component Capital Cost Cost / ft2

Arena Enclosure 36,246 ft2

Construction Cost $7,276,770 $201/ft2

Land N/C

Equipment (Misc) Allowance $250,000

Site Servicing/Development $250,000

Contingency @ 5% $363,838

Fees @ 8% $582,141

GST @ 5% $436,137

Financing @ 2% $150,000

Total Arena Cost $9,308,886 $256/ft2


Hanscomb, a well respected quantity survey company, publishes an annual guide to capital costing (Yardsticks for Costing, 2012) that estimates the construction costs of a recreation centre with an arena to be between $204.97 and $250.52 per square foot not including land and most soft costs.

There are numerous examples of indoor arenas that have been constructed at costs lower than those outlined above but in most cases, this has been accomplished through signifi cant in-kind contributions, local sweat equity and economies in design.

4.3 FUNDING TARGETS AND SOURCES FOR PHASE I - ARENA DEVELOPMENT

The development of community recreation facilities in Manitoba in recent years has relied heavily on grants and contributions from senior levels of government through infrastructure programs such as the Building Canada/Manitoba grant programs. However, the major portion of the costs of recreation infrastructure improvements has been provided by local governments and community fundraising campaigns. The norm across Manitoba is for the local contribution to be approximately 70% of the total costs (Table 4.2) with the provincial and federal government contributions at approximately 30%.

Typical funding sources for public recreation infrastructure are from the three levels of government and local community fundraising drives involving individual and corporate contributions. Following is a description of the current government funding programs and potential campaign targets for a renewed local fundraising drive in Minnedosa.

Federal Government Grant Programs

As of May 2014, there do not appear to be any direct federal government recreation infrastructure funding programs available on a cost shared basis for local governments. The federal government did announce that the criteria for the Community Improvement Fund that includes the indexed Gas Tax Fund and the incremental GST Rebate for Municipalities has been expanded to include recreation, culture, tourism and sport. In Minnedosa, gas tax funding is relatively small and is currently committed to other infrastructure projects.

The limited availability of federal infrastructure funding for recreation seriously impacts the feasibility of major capital projects and puts more of the responsibility on local governments that have limited fl exibility and resources from which to draw.


Provincial Grants

The availability of funding from the Building Manitoba Fund has been an important source of support for communities building recreation facilities. Typically, the provincial grants have been part of a matching federal contribution to projects. Past contributions provide a perspective on which to base a request to the Building Manitoba Fund for support and to formulate a target budget. A request of between two and three million dollars would be within the range of grants approved to date.

However, the lack of federal infrastructure funding is a factor Minnedosa could raise with the Province to see if there are other funding sources available to fi ll the void this leaves.

Table 4.2 Prov. / Federal Contribution to Recreation Infrastructure

Project Year Total Cost Provincial $ Federal

Dauphin Arena / Pool 95 & 09 $14,515,055 $2,081,316 $2,081,316

Russell Arena 2010 $9,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000

Virden Multiplex 2010 $17,500,000 $2,725,000 $2,725,000

Swan River Pool 2010 $12,900,000 $2,900,000 $2,400,000

Portage PCU Centre 2010 $43,766,699 $5,033,333 $5,033,333

Rivers 2010 $7,600,000 $850,000 $800,000

Southdale C.C. 2011 $7,926,064 $2,000,000 $2,000,000

TOTAL $113,000,000 $18,089,649 $17,039,649(Source: Municipal Leader, Winter 2012)

Local Government Support

The Town of Minnedosa is prepared to support the development of a new recreation centre and has an arena reserve fund with $1,015,880.78 (03/31/14) set aside that could be used to fund the development of the phase I arena. In addition, council has discussed a borrowing by-law to fund a reasonable short fall between all grants and contributions and the end cost of construction. Approval of such a by-law would be required from the Manitoba Municipal Board and the approval process involves a public information and consultation requirement.

In addition, the RM of Minto, RM of Odanah and RM of Saskatchewan have supported the project and committed approximately $130,000 to the capital campaign.


Local Fund Raising Campaign

During the planning of the MREC facility, the local organizing committee mounted a capital campaign that as of March 2104, had an accumulated balance of $879,372, pledges of an additional $193,309 and in-kind contributions valued at $210,000. These contributions were received from approximately 200 individual and corporate donors and it is diffi cult to estimate how many additional voluntary contributions might be expected. Uncertainty about the project may have stalled contributions but the expectation is that when an announcement to proceed with the project is made, new donors will come forward.

This level of community support is also an important factor when applying to the Building Manitoba Fund for a contribution. It illustrates to the Province that community residents and businesses are prepared to share in the costs of developing community facilities.

Proposed Fund Raising Goals

It is diffi cult to accurately and realistically predict funding contributions for government, business and individuals. Past experience can serve as a guide and the documented need, demand and support for the facility is essential to a successful fundraising campaign. The justifi cation for replacing a 67 year old facility that is an important source of recreation in the community and provides 1,500 hours of use to approximately 250 users is self evident. Nonetheless, there is competition for government funding from many worthy projects and businesses and individuals make choices about the community projects they are willing to support.

Assembling $9.3 million to develop phase one of the facility will present a challenge. Table 4.3 sets out targets for each of the potential contributing sectors. The facility will be owned and operated by the Town of Minnedosa and should any of the target contributions fall short, the fi nancial responsibility will fall to the Town and its taxpayers to make up the difference.

Table 4.3 Summary of Funding, Targets and Sources

Source Contribution

Federal Government $0

Provincial Government $3,000,000

Town Arena Reserve Fund (03/31/14)

$1,015,880

MREC Fundraising To Date (03/28/14)

$879,372

MREC Receivables/Pledges $193,309

New Community Fundraising Goal

$600,000

Sub Total $5,688,561

Municipal Debenture $3,611,439

TOTAL $9,300,000


4.4 CAPITAL COST IMPLICATIONS OF PHASE I ARENA DEVELOPMENT

The funding sources and targets outlined in table 4.3 would require that the Town of Minnedosa debenture $3.6 million in order to fund the phase one arena component of the Minnedosa and District Recreation Centre. If the capital campaign is more successful in other sectors it would reduce the size of the debenture.

Assumptions: (Based on 2014 data provided by the Town of Minnedosa)

The total Town budget for 2014 including school expenses is 1. $4,457,350.56.

The total cost of Recreation Services is estimated to be $367,832.92. 2. (The Town of Minnedosa reduced its annual contribution to the MREC reserve from $300,000 to $100,000 in 2014 with the likelihood of a similar scenario in 2015).

Mill Rate Information: 3.

2014 F & R Mill Rate 13.298 2014 General Municipal Mill Rate 23.042 2014 Local Improvement Mill Rate .238 2014 Sewer & Water Mill Rate 0.000

Value of 1 mill=$111,090,390

Assuming the average assessed value of a home in Minnedosa is 4. $172,500 based on an average increase in residential assessment in 2014 of 15%.

Using the formulas: $367,832.92/111,090,390 = 3.31 mill rate for 5. recreation for 2014. Based on the assumption that the average value of a home in 2014 is $172,500 the current cost of municipal parks and recreation services paid through taxes equals $256.94 for 2014.

($172,500 @ .45=$77,625 portioned assessment X 3.31 = $256.94)

Table 4.4 Tax Implication of Cost of Phase I – Arena Development

$1 M of debenture @ 20 year term @ 4.5% interest rate would cost $80,000

$80,000 = 80,000 /111090390 = .72 mills of tax rate

.72 x $77,625 = $55.89 per million on a home assessed @ $172,500

Cost to Fund $3.6 Million Debenture=$201.04




Table 4.5 calculates the cost of various levels of debenture on residential property owners in Minnedosa. If the entire $3.6 million was required as a debenture, the fi nancial implications for a residential property with an assessed value of $172,500 would be an annual tax increase of $201.04.

Table 4.5 Cost to Fund Debenture

Amount of Debenture

Cost per Million

Tax Increase on $150,000 Home

$1,000,000 $55.89/M $55.89

$2,000,000 $55.89/M $111.78

$3,000,000 $55.89/M $167.67

$3,600,000 $55.89/M $201.04


V GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION COSTS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The viability and sustainability of the Minnedosa and District Recreation Centre depends greatly on the governance model, management policies, creative programming and marketing strategies employed in the operation of the centre. In addition, the long-term operation of the centre relies on consistent demand for winter indoor ice and a vibrant public skating, hockey and ice use program.

The section that follows deals primarily with the governance and fi nancial implications of the phase one arena component of the centre. When the second phase is completed, the fi nancial implications, management and operating policies would need to be reviewed.

5.2 CONCEPT AND VISION

The vision for the Minnedosa and District Recreation Centre is to maintain existing supply of indoor ice and serve residents of the Town of Minnedosa and surrounding district with a mix of recreation programs that increase the diversity of available recreation opportunities.

5.3 GOVERNANCE, OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT

The facility would be owned by the Town of Minnedosa and operated by a facility manager reporting to the CEO of the Town and staff who would be Town employees. Staff at the recreation centre would also be responsible for the operation of the outdoor grounds, fi elds and pitches.

The intent is to house the offi ces of the Minnedosa District Recreation Commission at the centre in exchange for marketing and program support particularly related to non-ice activities.


Arena Operating Assumptions and Policies

It is assumed that the indoor arena component of the facility would operate on the following basis:

Season Oct. 1st through April 15th•

Prime Time 4:00-10:00pm M-F and 8:00-10:00pm Sat/Sun•

Priority for use of the arena:•

Public Skating1. Minor Hockey2. High School3. Local Adult Leagues4. Non-resident Users5.

The arena washrooms and change areas would be available to • all user groups of the site at no charge.

The concession would be available to summer users, but the • user groups would be required to staff it as they have a limited number of events.

To minimize the impact on ice users (minor hockey) it may be necessary to involve minor hockey in the operation of the canteen and coordinate its participation with summer fi eld users.

5.4 INDOOR ARENA OPERATING COSTS

Predicting the expenses and revenues of a facility yet to be built is premature until all of the design, program and operating policies are confi rmed. It is possible to predict a magnitude of costs for an arena of this scope and scale based on experiences in facilities of a similar size and quality. The predicted operating costs and revenues outlined in this section assume that the following policies would govern its use.

Rates and fees for minor hockey $85, adult $100 and non-• residents $125/hr

Summer ice use (if requested) would be available at a cost plus • recovery rate.

All fee wavers will be presented to council for approval.•

Concession could be leased to Minor Hockey for nominal fee.•

The fi tness centre (if developed) will pay a lease fee equal to its • lease costs at the current location ($15,000).

Operating hours: minimum 5:00am - 11:00pm (prefer 24hr • access)

Walking area/track free of charge•


Based on these assumptions, the proposed 36,246 square foot indoor arena component of the centre would cost approximately $263,000 or $7.25 per square foot to operate.

Table 5.1 Operating Expenses

Cost Centre $ Amount

Wages & Benefi ts (2.5 FTE +PT) 90,000

Wages – Concession* TBD

Offi ce Equipment & Supplies 1,500

Telephone/Internet 3,500

Training and Development 1,000

Marketing and Promotion 1,500

Accounting N/A

Janitorial Supplies 3,000

Utilities Hydro/Gas 40,000

Fuel 2,500

Water 7,000

Equipment 5,000

Repairs / Maintenance 8,000

Ice Plant Maintenance 2,500

Zamboni Maintenance/Operation 3,500

Snow Clearing

Miscellaneous 1,500

Property Tax / Utility Taxes 2,500

Insurance 35,000

Start Up Costs 30,000

Reserve Fund 25,000

TOTAL $263,000

(*Assumes concession operated by Minor Hockey)

Revenue Assumptions

The projected revenues would depend primarily on local policies and practices governing access, use, costs and subsidy. Table 5.2 below represents a realistic revenue projection based on the following set of assumptions:

The Town of Minnedosa would provide a contribution to the • arena operation equal to the net cost of operation and therefore, no amount is included in Table 5.2.

The arena operating on a six-month ice season generates • 1350 hours of rental ice during prime time and it will be rented primarily to local arena user groups at approximately 70% of the 1350 hours per year of prime time capacity at a rate of $85 per hour. There will also be some ice sold or programmed during non prime time.


Rental to non-resident groups at a rate of $125/hr for • approximately 80 hours could generate additional revenue.

Any summer ice will only be offered on a cost recovery basis • (i.e. there will be no net revenue, but also no net additional operating cost).

There will be a total of fi ve tournaments (one per team) included • in the minor hockey ice rental allotment.

There will be dry fl oor regular rentals of approximately $8,000 • per year.

All casual drop-in use (e.g. walking track, public skating) would • be charged at the same cost per visit/use.

To achieve this level of revenue, the facility must be programmed, • marketed and presented as a user friendly, fun venue to visit for public skating, special events and non-resident uses.

Table 5.2 Operating Revenue Forecast

Revenue Centre Projected Revenue

Municipal Grant TBD

Ice rental (70% of 1,350 hrs @$85) $80,000

Non-resident/adult (80 @ $125) $10,000

Public Skating (4x24x30x$4.00) $11,500

Tournaments N/A

Ice Based Programmed Events $5,000

Dry Floor Regular Rentals $8,000

Dry Floor Special Events (net) $5,000

Walking Track (If Developed) $6,000

Concession lease N/A

Skate Sharpening Lease (6 mo’s) $2,000

Building Advertising $4,000

Miscellaneous $10,000

TOTAL $141,500

Analysis

Based on the assumptions and projections above, the proposed 36,246 square foot indoor arena component of the centre would cost approximately $263,000 to operate or $7.25 per square foot. The programs and use of the facility would generate $141,500 in revenue for a net operating cost of $121,500 (Table 5.3) or a 54% recovery rate.


Table 5.3 Net Cost of Operation

Minnedosa Arena Cost / ft2 Recovery Rate

Expenses $263,000 $7.25/ft2

Revenue $141,500 53.8%

Net Cost ($121,500) 46.2%

The City of Winnipeg operates 15 indoor arenas (5@6 mo., 6@8 mo. and 4@12 mo. operations) that on average cost $280,000 per year to operate and provide an average of 1,177 user hours per year (2010). This translates into a $237 per hour cost of operation and on average they achieve a 56% recovery rate on operations. This is a typical cost recovery rate in arenas located in urban centres.

Table 5.4 provides an analysis of the comparative operating costs of eight facilities of various sizes in the region and they operate at a cost of between $4.86 and $11.89 per square foot.

Table 5.4 Analysis of Comparative Operating Cost Scenarios 2011-2012

Facility Space Components Expenses Revenue Net Cost Cost/ft2

1. 46,531 Arena/Curl $226,500 $175,000 ($51,000) $4.86/ft2

2. 80,000 Arena/Hall $694,500 $451,000 ($243,500) $8.60/ft2

3. 65,000 Arena / Hall $690,950 $381,467 ($309,483) $10.63/ft2

4. 173,000 Twin Arena $1,529,657 $767,201 ($762,474) $8.67/ft2

5. 57,000 Arena Complex $438,468 $331,730 ($106,738) $7.69/ft2

6. 75,000 Curling/Arena $428,600 $206,985 ($221,615) $5.71/ft2

7. 42,640 Regional Arena $507,000 $295,313 ($211,687) $11.89/ft2

8. 25,000 Comm. Arena $207,470 $79,946 ($132,524) $8.29/ft2

The analysis of costs and revenue for the arena component of the centre suggest that the net cost of operation will be approximately $100,000 annually unless marketing and programs produce additional or new revenue sources.


VI IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS, TIMING AND STRATEGIES

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The Minnedosa and District Recreation Centre Feasibility Study recommends that if there is a clear indication the Town can achieve its funding goals, it should proceed with the phase one arena component of the project, decommission the Minnedosa Arena and develop the new facility on the MREC site.

6.2 IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS AND TIMING

Developing a strategy to move forward with the project presents a logistical challenge because all of the partners (government, donors and sponsors) in the process like to have some assurance the project will succeed and are reluctant to be the fi rst to commit until other partners have declared their support. With this “catch twenty-two” situation in mind, the following sequence is proposed:

1. Province of ManitobaThe fi rst step is to prepare a formal request for funding from the Building Manitoba Fund that would include information from the 2013 feasibility assessment of the MREC project and a copy of the Minnedosa and District Recreation Centre Feasibility Study. The request to the Province should highlight the fundraising success to date, willingness of the surrounding RM’s to contribute to the project and the planned borrowing by-law and current contribution of the Town of Minnedosa to the project.

The proposal to the Province should also identify the need for a federal government contribution and further explore the availability, feasibility and timing of federal support.

2. Town of MinnedosaOnce the Province has signaled its intent to make a contribution to the project, the next step is to move forward with the municipal borrowing by-law proposal. The amount of borrowing to be proposed would be based on the difference between the current funds raised plus proposed senior government grants and an estimate of the amount of additional local fundraising that could be generated.

The by-law would require approval from the Manitoba Municipal Board and part of that process involves informing residents and receiving their feedback on the proposal. This would provide an opportunity for the municipality to consult with the public about the value and benefi ts of the project as well as the cost and implications of a decision to either proceed or abandon the project.


3. Local Fundraising Drive

Once there is an indication of the willingness of the Province to support the project and the borrowing by-law has been dealt with, the next step would be to re-start the local fundraising campaign. When there is more certainty about the project it is assumed local interest can be renewed and a campaign to attract individual contributions and corporate partnerships could begin.

4. Construction Process

When the funding sources have been confi rmed and the project moves closer to reality, the next step is to begin the detailed planning and development process. There are a number of building options to consider including a design-build or construction management process. Each of these options have advantages and disadvantages and the Town should examine its options and then develop a project RFP and call for competitive proposals from qualifi ed companies.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Associated Engineering. (2013). Minnedosa arena assessment. Winnipeg, MB. April 12.

City of Winnipeg. (2013). Operating budget for recreation services. Winnipeg, Mb.

Harper, J. (2013). Minnedosa regional event centre feasibility study. Minnedosa, Mb. December.

Harper, J. & Godbey, G. (2007). In Alberta, recreation and parks matter. Alberta Recreation and Parks Association. Edmonton, AB.

Harper, J. & Godbey, G. (2008). The use and benefi ts of local government recreation and parks services - An Ontario perspective. Parks and Recreation Ontario. Toronto, On.

Interprovincial Sport and Recreation Council. (1998). National Recreation Statement. Quebec, Quebec. September.

ISRC and CPRA. (2014). Draft for consultation: Pathways to wellbeing – A national framework for recreation in Canada. Toronto, On.

Minnedosa Tribune. (May, 1946 - Dec. 25, 1947). Minnedosa, MB.

Municipal Leader. (2012). Manitoba’s recreation centres – worth the hefty price tags. Association of Manitoba Municipalities. Winnipeg. MB. Winter.

MINNEDOSA & DISTRICT RECREATION CENTRE FEASIBILITY STUDY · MINNEDOSA & DISTRICT RECREATION CENTRE FEASIBILITY STUDY June 2014. ... service canteen and community lounge and ... Prepare

Documents