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
22 February 2003/le 22 février 2003
Submitted
by/Soumis par: Jocelyne St Jean,
General Manager/Directrice générale
Contact/Personne-ressource: Colleen Hendrick, Director/
Innovation,
Development and Partnerships
Directrice, Innovation, développement et
partenariats
Réjean Chartrand, Director, Strategic Delivery
Unit/Directeur de l’unité d’exécution
stratégique, 580-2424 ext./poste 21696,
Rejean.Chartrand@ottawa.ca
|
|
|
Ref N°: ACS2003-PEO-IDP-0004 |
SUBJECT: PUPLIC-PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP (P3) PROJECT FOR NEW INDOOR
SPORTSFIELD DOMES
OBJET: PROJET
DE PARTENARIAT PUBLIC-PRIVÉ (P3) POUR DES DÔMES DE TERRAINS DE SPORTS
INTÉRIEURS
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Health Recreation and Social Services Committee
recommend Council approve:
Que le Comité de la santé, des
loisirs et des services sociaux recommande au Conseil municipal :
1. d’autoriser
le personnel à demander des propositions relatives à la fourniture de deux
nouveaux dômes pour des terrains de sports intérieurs, un dans le district est
et l’autre dans le district sud.
2. d’approuver
que les dômes soient installés sur un terrain de sports existant à Hornet’s
Nest (est) et sur le terrain Minto du complexe sportif de Nepean (sud).
3. d’approuver
le cadre de la demande de propositions (DP) indiqué à l’annexe A.
In October 2002, City Council approved a report entitled Public Private Partnerships-Projects for Earliest Implementation, which recommended among other projects, the initiation of a P3 for domed/indoor playing facilities and outdoor playing facilities. In order to ensure indoor playing opportunities this fall, the dome proposals are being pursued immediately, with the outdoor fields 3P process to follow shortly. This will be the subject of a future Council report.
DISCUSSION
Recommendation 1
Soccer participation is on the rise in many communities while baseball is declining. Ontario has the highest participation numbers of individuals registered in soccer, with 352,692 registered indoor and outdoor players in the 1998/99 season. The Association estimates that well over one million Canadians are active soccer players surpassing for the first time ever the number of Canadians who are registered in ice hockey.
Emerging sports are also increasing the need for sports field facilities. For example, sports such as Ultimate Frisbee are growing in popularity, and as a result, additional pressure is being placed on the city’s existing inventory of outdoor sports fields. Ottawa is home to over 4,000 ultimate frisbee players, and like soccer associations, have had to limit their player registrations. Rugby, although a popular high school sport for many years in Ottawa, has seen a resurgence, with woman’s rugby growing at an accelerating rate.
Respondents to the City’s Facility Needs Study community survey indicated that 36% of residents use municipal soccer fields with suburban residents using these facilities more frequently. Soccer was tied for the third most popular activity, and it was stated by over 11% of respondents that access to suitable facilities was a barrier to their participation.
Presently, there are 145 full sized soccer fields and 148 mini-soccer fields in Ottawa. It is anticipated, that over the next 10years, in order to simply maintain the existing level of provision (that is inadequate by Provincially recommended standards) an additional 36 full sized soccer fields are needed and 37 new mini-soccer fields are required. These numbers do not include the existing and projected demand for use of fields by other sports users such as ultimate Frisbee, football and rugby.
The City’s inventory of recreational assets does not include any indoor sports fields. At present, private sector domes exist on the municipal property at Lansdowne Park (Central District) and on private property in Osgoode (Thunder Dome), (West District). Both universities have also recently erected domes for their clients and the general public. As a result, at minimum, the 3P initiative would see a covered Dome in each district.
A single new dome will create at minimum 98 hours weekly for seven (7) months of the year (2,744 hours/year). This capacity would be made available to not only soccer players, ultimate frisbee, rugby but could also accommodate non-traditional activities such as bocce, pétanque and indoor lawn bowling. Alternatively, a non-lit outdoor sports field typically allows for only 15 hours of use weekly for 5 months of the year (300 hours). An outdoor field can only be used until dusk and must be allowed to regenerate itself ideally 2 days a week. Our experience is that a maximum of two games can be played on each of five days per week in order to maintain the natural turf in playable condition.
Indoor facilities for sports such as these have many other benefits, making it possible for year round fitness, and allowing players to enhance their skills for better competitive play.
Recommendation 2
The approach being proposed consists of inviting proposals to erect seasonal domes on two city sites; Hornet’s Nest on Bearbrook Road, although owned by the National Capital Commission, is leased under a long-term agreement to the City and the City owned Minto field at the Nepean Sportsplex. The selection of these two sites is based largely on two objectives; first, both the central and west districts already have domes, and an equitable distribution would require one in the east and one in the south. Secondly, there has already been interest shown by a number of proponents for these two sites.
Proponents will be invited to replace the existing natural turf on one of the fields at Hornet’s Nest site to an artificial turf and with Minto’s existing artificial turf, dome both fields for use during the winter season. Although it will be part of the negotiations, city staff are hopeful that these initiatives will require a minimal capital contribution, if any, from the city, as the City contribution will be the land base for the developments. Market forces will determine the rate of fees to be paid by the users.
Presently, outdoor soccer users are charged relatively low user fees, in order to make such activity affordable for all. The outdoor program is deemed to be a core program, delivered by an infrastructure funded by the tax-base. The provision of indoor soccer during the winter months is regarded as an enhanced program, that would require outside funding source and be operated under a user-pay philosophy. As a result, the private-public partnership will not seek to subsidize user fees. This approach is comparable to the existing tennis opportunities found within the city. The City provides as a core service, outdoor tennis courts in our parks at no charge to the user and at a higher rate at tennis clubs. Indoor tennis is provided by tennis clubs at their expense during the winter season and accessed through a user pay fee.
Recommendation 3
It is recommended that a two stage process be initiated to select a successful proponent for each of the sites identified above. The first stage is a ‘Request for Proposal’ and the second a negotiation with the selected proponent from the RFP process. The framework for the RFP is outlined in Attachment A. A report on the findings of the process will be forwarded to City Council prior to any agreement being concluded.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
Sports users from across the City, including rural residents will have access to the new indoor fields.
The Gloucester Soccer Association was consulted as they presently have an agreement with the former City of Gloucester for exclusive use of the Hornet’s Nest Fields, during the summer season. The Association was supportive of changing the turf on one field and the placement of a dome for the winter season.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial implications related to the approval of this report, however once negotiations are underway with the successful proponent(s), any financial impact to the City will be subject to City Council approval.
Attachment A – Request for Proposal Framework
Following Council approval, the Strategic Delivery Unit will proceed with development and issuance of the Request for Proposal.
Appendix A
The rapidly increasing popularity of a number of sports such as soccer and ultimate frisbee, as an example, and the impressive increase in population over the past few years have created significant pressures on the need for additional outside playing facilities. Equally important is the need for domed/indoor playing facilities to allow for winter access. Implicit with these facilities is the need for artificial turf.
There has been significant interest shown by the private sector and local associations to partner with the city to advance the construction of these types of facilities and it is recommended that this project proceed as a public-private partnership. The process has been designed to offer the potential partners the opportunity to bring forth innovative solutions, which meet the City’s overall objectives.
The selection process will consist of two stages:
Stage 1 – Request for Proposal (RFP): The objectives of the RFP are to:
This process will validate the feasibility of the concept from a financial, operational and “fit” perspective. The evaluation will take into consideration the amount of risk retained by the City and the value of the facility to the City’s overall programming ability on that site.
Generally the city will evaluate the responses based on the following elements:
3. Business and Financial Plans
4. Design, Development and Construction Plans
5. Operations and Maintenance Plans
7. Value Added Elements
· Other services to be provided and their impact on the City services or communities to be served
· Scope of the project
· Goals, Objectives and Principles of the P3
· Description of City of Ottawa Available sites
· Instructions to proponents
· Proponent proposed concept
· Proponent proposed design, development and construction plans, including planning process and timing
· Proponent proposed management, operations, maintenance plans, including service levels, performance standards, customer care, capital renewals, branding, community communication (users and neighbors)
· Proponent proposed business plan, including business relationships, payment mechanism, ownership structure, expected commitments from the City, etc.
· Evaluation and selection process
· General Conditions
As a result of this RFP process, staff will make a recommendation to Committee and Council on the private sector partner(s) recommended to pass on to Stage 2. It is also possible, however, that following the evaluation of the proposals, no respondents are recommended to proceed to the next stage.
A negotiation framework, including a public consultation component, will also be recommended at that time.
Stage 2 – Negotiations and Final Agreement: The purpose of this phase is to formalize the agreement with the respondents.
The City is seeking partners who will provide the best value solution in a manner that recognizes the importance of fitting that solution within the community within which they operate. They will operate the facility in a way that reflects the image of the City and provide a quality service to the users. They will support the City on issues management and by being responsive to the City’s needs, adjusting to an environment that may change over the course of the partnership. The partner will also seek to provide value-added services during the term of the agreement, continuing to apply best practices in this area of activity.