Feasibility Study Report on Building Construction Project

Document Sample
Feasibility Study Report on Building Construction Project Powered By Docstoc
					FEASIBILITY STUDY and
BUILDING PROGRAMME
              FOR AN
INDOOR SOCCER
   FACILITY IN
  WHITEHORSE
 Phase 2 Final Report



                Prepared by:
          Luigi Zanasi Economist
   Malcolm Taggart — Research Northwest
      Kobayashi + Zedda Design Group


                   For:
    Whitehorse Minor Soccer Association
  www.yukonsoccer.yk.ca/indoor_soccer/index.html



              November 26, 2001
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                    i
November 26, 2001


Executive Summary
Phase 2 of the feasibility study for an indoor soccer centre in Whitehorse is designed to
build on the findings of the needs analysis of Phase 1.

Demand forecast:
Building on the demand forecasts of Phase 1 and using the experience of other
Canadian communities that have built an indoor soccer facility, this paper forecasts likely
demand for indoor soccer in Whitehorse. In every other community that has built an
indoor soccer centre, there has been a surge in the popularity of the sport. However,
Whitehorse already has a very high participation rate in youth indoor soccer compared to
its population. While there will likely be an increase in participation, it may not be as
dramatic as other communities. The adult demand for indoor soccer is likely to rise if a
centre is built.

Size of facility
This paper evaluates the options of a one-field, two-field or a three-field facility based on
the above demand forecasts and the experiences of other communities. A one-field
facility would be inadequate. Building a one-field facility would be a false economy as
adding a second field at a later date would be costlier than building two-fields at the
onset. There is a need for a two-field facility. The current demand would fill a two-field
facility almost full-time during the season. Doubling up the use of fields by younger
teams and slightly increasing the size of teams may accommodate some of the increase
in demand, but not necessarily all. A substantial increase in demand would require the
continued use of gym space for soccer even if a two-field facility were built.

Cost & fees
Phase 2 examines the effects of costs and fees on the popularity of the sport and
estimates the effect of different fee regimes on participation. Higher fees definitely
discourage participation. However, even when fees more than doubled following the
opening of the Red Deer centre, participation still increased (although not as much as
was expected).

Site analysis
This paper reviews and evaluates eleven different location options for an indoor soccer
facility in Whitehorse.

The best option is to build a new facility at the F.H. Collins site (which would be attached
to a new school once it is built). The area used for indoor soccer would not conflict with
land claims selections.

A potentially satisfactory second option, examined at the suggestion of City of
Whitehorse staff, is the Takhini Arena. A new indoor soccer pitch could be added and
the existing ice surface would eventually be converted from hockey to a second indoor
soccer pitch once the two new hockey arenas are built at the Multiplex. The City has
been planning to close one hockey arena once the new ones have been built.

Assuming decisions were made immediately it might be possible to have the building
open January 1, 2003. A more realistic schedule would delay the opening to September
2003.

Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                ii
November 26, 2001



Capital costs
A stand-alone new building would be about 5,179m2 or 56,000 square feet. Total cost
would be about $4,832,420 including all professional fees and GST.

Converting the ice surface to an indoor soccer pitch and adding an additional pitch to the
Takhini Arena would require 2,825m2 (30,505 sq. ft.) of new construction, costing
$3,026,000 including all professional fees and GST.

Operating costs
Under a reasonable operating cost and revenue scenario, operating an indoor soccer
centre would cost between $250,000 and $290,000 per year. Revenues — under a
conservative scenario — would amount to between $150,000 and $175,000 annually.
Revenue assumptions are based on an increase in registration fees to $100 per player,
and a modest increase to about 700 indoor soccer players from the current 600. In
addition, other sport users would pay fees of about $45,000 per year. Other revenues
are based on a similar facility in Whitehorse (i.e. the Takhini Arena). Under these
assumptions, revenues would cover about 60% of costs, higher than the City’s policy of
41% cost recovery. Even if other sports paid no user fees, the facility would nevertheless
more than meet the City’s 41% cost recovery policy. There is substantial scope for
increasing revenues beyond our estimates. Many centres, even those in smaller
communities, (e.g. Lethbridge AB and Prince Albert SK) actually operate at a profit.

Additional revenues are possible through using the centre for other sports during the
summer and for special events. The centre would have to raise an additional $100,000
per year in additional revenues to become self-sufficient.

Multi-use
Although it would be used primarily by soccer during the indoor season, the centre would
also function effectively as a multi-use facility. Schools would doubtless use the large
space during the day for a variety of physical education programs and possibly special
events. Other communities use their centres for a wide variety of other sports and
extensive other uses. The inclusion of a running track would allow use by everyone from
high-performance athletes in training to senior’s indoor walking programs. Summer use
could include roller hockey, indoor tennis, etc.. Because of the flexible nature of the
space, an indoor soccer facility could well be a substitute for the planned flexihall at the
Multiplex.


Recommendations

1. Construction should start on a two-field indoor soccer facility as soon as possible to
   meet current needs and free-up school gymnasium space for other sports.

2. The new facility should also incorporate space for: kitchen, lounge, concession and
   running track. The needs of other sports such as climbing should also be examined.

3. The preferred location would be the F.H. Collins site, with an eventual connection to
   the new high school.


Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                iii
November 26, 2001

4. Whitehorse Minor Soccer and other interested soccer groups should immediately
   begin discussions and negotiations with the City of Whitehorse and the Yukon
   Government Department of Education on building and operating the facility. The
   negotiations should cover the cost of constructing and operating the facility, as well
   as how it should be managed.

5. If built at the Takhini arena, the facility should be run by an independent organisation
   to allow the maximum use of volunteer labour and a lower cost to the City. If this
   option is chosen, the City should seriously consider advancing the construction of the
   two hockey arenas at the Multiplex site to accommodate both hockey and indoor
   soccer.




Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                    iv
November 26, 2001

Phase I Report Summary

Phase 1 is a needs analysis of indoor soccer and includes forecasts of facilities’ use and
needs.

   Based on the number of participants, soccer (indoor & outdoor) is now the most
    popular team sport in the Yukon.

   The popularity of indoor soccer is likely to increase even more, both because of
    demographic growth in the relevant age-sex groups and as a result of the ageing of
    current young soccer players.

   The phenomenal growth of minor indoor soccer has resulted in taking up almost all
    available suitable school gym space. Indoor soccer is also using gym space that is
    too small or otherwise unsuitable.

   The development of men’s, co-ed, women’s and masters’ leagues has been severely
    limited by the unavailability of suitably large gym space. All the larger gyms in
    Whitehorse are fully booked.

   The growth of indoor soccer has also put serious constraints on the growth of other
    sports that require large gymnasiums, such as basketball, volleyball, and floor
    hockey.

   In its current configuration, indoor soccer uses about 100 hours a week of school
    gymnasium time (almost one-third of the total scheduled use by non-school users in
    the suitable gyms). With the advent of adult leagues, this could easily go to 150
    hours.

   Given that current facilities are fully utilized, additional facilities for indoor soccer are
    clearly and unquestionably required to meet both current and future demand. Even if
    only current demand is considered, additional facilities for indoor soccer are clearly
    required.

   One indoor soccer court provides 49 hours of prime time per week: 5 hours per day
    on weekdays from 5:00PM to 10:00PM and 12 hours per day on weekends. Two
    courts would be sufficient to meet the current demand of 100 hours per week, but
    would not allow for growth. Growth could be accommodated either through a third
    court or using the freed-up gymnasium time.




Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                                                       v
November 26, 2001


Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... v
List of Figures .............................................................................................................. vi

   1      Introduction......................................................................................................... 1
       1.1 Phase 1 Conclusions ........................................................................................ 1
       1.2 Purpose of Phase 2........................................................................................... 2
       1.3 Outside Communities Consulted ....................................................................... 2

   2      Demand and Fees for Indoor Soccer................................................................. 4
       2.1 Summary of Phase 1 Analysis........................................................................... 4
       2.2 Participation and Demand Experience of Other Communities ........................... 4
         2.2.1 Grande Prairie, Alberta .............................................................................. 4
         2.2.2 Lethbridge, Alberta ..................................................................................... 5
         2.2.3 Medicine Hat, Alberta ................................................................................. 5
         2.2.4 St. Albert, Alberta ....................................................................................... 5
         2.2.5 Red Deer, Alberta ...................................................................................... 5
         2.2.6 Prince Albert, Saskatchewan ..................................................................... 6
         2.2.7 Yellowknife, NWT ....................................................................................... 6
       2.3 Current Whitehorse Fee Structure ..................................................................... 6
       2.4 Fees in Other Communities ............................................................................... 6
         2.4.1 Lethbridge .................................................................................................. 6
         2.4.2 Medicine Hat .............................................................................................. 7
         2.4.3 Red Deer ................................................................................................... 7
         2.4.4 Prince Albert .............................................................................................. 7
         2.4.5 Yellowknife ................................................................................................. 8
       2.5 Effects of Fee Changes on Demand.................................................................. 8

   3      Options for a Whitehorse Facility ...................................................................... 9
       3.1 Size ................................................................................................................... 9
         3.1.1 Experience of other communities ............................................................... 9
         3.1.2 Other uses for a soccer centre ................................................................. 10
         3.1.3 Facility size conclusions ........................................................................... 11
       3.2 Ancillary Facilities............................................................................................ 11
       3.3 Site/Location Options ...................................................................................... 12
         3.3.1 Evaluation criteria .................................................................................... 13
         3.3.2 Site evaluation matrix ............................................................................... 14
         3.3.3 Site evaluation discussion ........................................................................ 16
         3.3.4 Site specific issues ................................................................................... 16
         3.3.5 Site Layout Diagrams – FH Collins Option ................ Error! Bookmark not
         defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
         3.3.6 Site Layout Diagram – Takhini Arena Option............................................ 20
       3.4 Management Options ...................................................................................... 21
Prepared by         Luigi Zanasi Economist
                    Research Northwest
                    Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                                                vi
November 26, 2001

         3.4.1 Ownership options ................................................................................... 21

  4      Building Programme, Capital and Operating Costs ....................................... 22
      4.1 Building Programme........................................................................................ 22
        4.1.1 Stand-alone new facility ........................................................................... 22
        4.1.2 Takhini Arena expansion .......................................................................... 25
      4.2 Capital Costs................................................................................................... 25
        4.2.1 New construction option – preliminary project cost estimate .................... 26
        4.2.2 Takhini Arena expansion – preliminary project cost estimate ................... 26
      4.3 Workplan & Schedule ...................................................................................... 27
        4.3.1 Fast-track schedule .................................................................................. 27
        4.3.2 Realistic Schedule.................................................................................... 27
      4.4 Operating Costs .............................................................................................. 27
      4.5 Requirements for Self-sufficiency .................................................................... 29

  5      Recommendations............................................................................................ 31

  6      Appendices ....................................................................................................... 32
      6.1 List of Outside Contacts .................................................................................. 32
      6.2 Questionnaire Sent to Outside Communities ................................................... 33

List of Figures

Figure 1 Communities Consulted .................................................................................... 3
Figure 2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Size Facilities ............................. 11
Figure 3 Site Layout Diagram #1 – FH Collins Option .................... Error! Bookmark not
          defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 4 Site Layout Diagram #2 – FH Collins Option .................... Error! Bookmark not
          defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 5 Site Layout Diagram – Takhini Arena Option .................... Error! Bookmark not
          defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 6 Bubble Diagram of Building Programme .......................................................... 22
Figure 7 Programme Component Diagram .................................................................... 24




Prepared by        Luigi Zanasi Economist
                   Research Northwest
                   Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                    1
November 26, 2001




1 Introduction
This paper is the product of the second phase of a feasibility study for an indoor soccer
facility in Whitehorse.

1.1 Phase 1 Conclusions
Phase 1 of this two-part feasibility study for an indoor soccer facility in Whitehorse
identifies a clear and obvious need for additional indoor soccer facilities in Whitehorse.
Phase 1 is a needs analysis of indoor soccer and includes forecasts of facilities’ use and
needs. It analyses the current patterns of use in the school gyms used for soccer and
outlines issues and problems with that use. It also analyses the current demand for gym
space and the demographics of that demand, and provides forecasts of likely future
trends.

The conclusions of Phase I include:

   Based on the number of participants, soccer (indoor & outdoor) is now the most
    popular team sport in the Yukon.

   The popularity of indoor soccer is likely to increase even more, both because of
    demographic growth in the relevant age-sex groups and as a result of the ageing of
    current young soccer players.

   The phenomenal growth of minor indoor soccer has resulted in taking up almost all
    available suitable school gym space. Indoor soccer is also using gym space that is
    too small or otherwise unsuitable.

   The development of men’s, co-ed, women’s and masters’ leagues has been severely
    limited by the unavailability of suitably large gym space. All the larger gyms in
    Whitehorse are fully booked.

   The growth of indoor soccer has also put serious constraints on the growth of other
    sports that require large gymnasiums, such as basketball, volleyball, and floor
    hockey.

   In its current configuration, indoor soccer uses about 100 hours a week of school
    gymnasium time (almost one-third of the total scheduled use by non-school users in
    the suitable gyms). With the advent of adult leagues, this could easily go to 150
    hours.

   Given that current facilities are fully utilized, additional facilities for indoor soccer are
    clearly and unquestionably required to meet both current and future demand. Even if
    only current demand is considered, additional facilities for indoor soccer are clearly
    required.

   One indoor soccer court provides 49 hours of prime time per week: 5 hours per day
    on weekdays from 5:00PM to 10:00PM and 12 hours per day on weekends. Two
    courts would be sufficient to meet the current demand of 100 hours per week, but

Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                  2
November 26, 2001

    would not allow for growth. Growth could be accommodated either through a third
    court or using the freed-up gymnasium time.

1.2 Purpose of Phase 2
Phase 2 of the feasibility study is designed to build on the findings of the needs analysis
of Phase 1. Specifically, this paper will:

   build on the demand forecasts of Phase 1 using the experience of other Canadian
    communities that have built an indoor soccer facility.

   evaluate the options of a one-field, two-field or a three-field facility based on the
    above demand forecasts and the experiences of other communities, and assess the
    likely impact of each on school gym utilization and on other sports.

   examine the effects of costs and fees on the popularity of the sport and estimate the
    effect of different fee regimes on participation (based on fee structures and
    participation rates in other communities with soccer centres).

   review and evaluate location options for a soccer facility in Whitehorse. The options
    considered include:
         a stand-alone facility, either new or the renovation of an existing structure.
         integrating the soccer facility with the multiplex.
         attaching the facility to an existing school.
         incorporating the facility into the construction of a new high school.

   evaluate the likely capital costs of the construction of a soccer facility under the
    different location options.

   estimate the likely operating costs of a facility under the different location options as
    well as facility management options (City of Whitehorse, Department of Education or
    by a soccer association).

   estimate the requirements for self-sufficiency as demonstrated by the experience of
    other communities.

   produce a set of recommendations and a workplan for the development of an indoor
    soccer facility in Whitehorse.


1.3 Outside Communities Consulted
One focus of Phase 2 of this study has been to consult with western Canadian
communities of a size roughly comparable to Whitehorse who have built an indoor
soccer facility. Some other communities without a facility were also consulted. The
purpose was to gather information about their indoor soccer facilities and programs. The
Questionnaire used can be found in the Appendix of this report. The communities listed
in Figure 1 below have all provided information ranging from participation rates to
operating costs of facilities. The degree of detail was often less than wished for, but,
nevertheless, much useful information has been provided.


Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                                                        3
November 26, 2001




Figure 1 Communities Consulted
                                                        Indoor      Indoor   Size of      Year          Ownership & operation
Community                            1996
                                                        Soccer      Soccer   facility    opened
(Census Agglomeration)             Population
                                                        facility   program
Grande Prairie                       31,140               Yes         Yes    One-field     2000         Owned by the municipal
                                                                                                    government but administered by
                                                                                                          Soccer Association
Lethbridge (Alta.)                   63,053               Yes        Yes     Two-field   December    Lethbridge Soccer Association
                                                                                           1997
Medicine Hat (Alta.)                 56,570               Yes        Yes     One-field     1998        Stampede Board owns and
                                                                                                    operates with option to sell back
                                                                                                      to municipality. Rental fee is
                                                                                                    $40/hour per field for youth and
                                                                                                    $60/hour per field for adult use.
Red Deer (Alta.)                     60,075               Yes        Yes     Two-field   January      Owned and operated by the
                                                                                          2001        municipality. Fields must be
                                                                                                    shared with other users. Rental
                                                                                                    fee of $68/hour per field paid to
                                                                                                                  city.
St. Albert (Alta.)                   46,890            Planning      Yes       n/a
Prince Albert (Sask.)                41,706              Yes         Yes     One-field     1995           Soccer association in
                                                                                                      conjunction with gymnastics
                                                                                                    group and a service club. Soccer
                                                                                                    operates and has exclusive use
                                                                                                      of the one field in its share of
                                                                                                                building.
Yellowknife (NWT)                    17,275            Proposed      Yes       n/a




Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                               4
November 26, 2001



2 Demand and Fees for Indoor Soccer

2.1 Summary of Phase 1 Analysis

Phase 1 clearly demonstrated that participation in soccer — and particularly indoor
soccer — has soared in Whitehorse and the Yukon since the mid 1990s. The number of
registered participants in all forms of Yukon soccer rose from 1,159 in 1995/96 to 1,848
in 2000/01, an increase of 60% over 5 years. The growth in indoor soccer has been
phenomenal, with the number of players almost tripling over the past eight years. There
were over 600 registered participants in indoor soccer in Whitehorse in 2000/01
including nearly 450 playing on 50 teams in the minor soccer program.

The growth in participation has been particularly marked for girls. The number of girls
playing indoor soccer increased from 42 in 1995 to 131 in 2000. Participation rates —
the percentage of the total population of youth in each age group playing indoor soccer
— appear to be very high. Overall, 8.3% of the boys and girls aged 5 to 19 were playing
indoor soccer in 2000/01. The 10 to 14 age group has the highest participation rate —
15.1% of both sexes and 19.1% of boys.

A forecast of likely demand for indoor soccer was prepared in Phase 1 using a
demographic projection under three different migration scenarios. Standard assumptions
were made for birth and death rates. The demographic forecast pointed to the
conclusion that — even assuming that soccer does not continue to increase in popularity
— the demand for indoor soccer facilities is likely to increase. The slight decline in the
number of children wanting to play will be more than compensated for by an increase in
adult players. It is only if Whitehorse’s population declines that there will be a reduction
of demand. As the large number of today’s young soccer players reach adult age, the
percentage of the adult population wanting to play soccer is likely to increase
substantially. This points to an increased demand for adult indoor soccer, a demand that
needs larger playing spaces.


2.2 Participation and Demand Experience of Other Communities

In general, the experience of other communities shows that — even without a centre —
Whitehorse has very high youth participation rates for indoor soccer. Another general
lesson to be drawn from the figures given in the sections below is that participation
jumps after a centre is opened. Adult indoor soccer participation rates in particular seem
to respond tremendously to the building of a centre. Given the constraints faced by adult
and older youth players in gyms, this is not surprising. All of the communities below
quickly approached or reached full capacity of their centre shortly after opening it and
nearly all wish to or are planning to expand as soon as possible.

2.2.1 Grande Prairie, Alberta
Grande Prairie’s one field facility is a separate building owned by the city but
administered by soccer associations. Construction cost was $800,000. A number of
companies donated equipment. The centre was full to capacity in the first year and its

Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                               5
November 26, 2001

success has convinced the municipality to build two more pitches. There is a new
multiplex being developed at a high school and two additional indoor pitches will
constructed.

In 2000-01 there were 291 women playing, and one team was turned away. The men
had 180 players. More than 700 youth played last year. The soccer association would
like to expand this immediately to 1,000 but cannot because of lack of space. There are
1,600 players in outdoor soccer. Another sign of success is that Grande Prairie —
despite its small population — won five provincial soccer titles in 2001.

2.2.2 Lethbridge, Alberta
The Lethbridge Soccer Centre is a two-field facility that opened in December 1997. It
was built and is owned by the municipality but is operated entirely by the soccer
association. The centre has operated at a profit from the first season on, generating
revenue both through soccer, its restaurant and bar, and renting out the facility to a wide
variety of users.

The first indoor season saw the registration of 1,200 youth to play in the centre. In
addition there were 26 adult teams playing in 4 leagues. Unfortunately, no current
information on demand and participation has been provided as of this writing.

2.2.3 Medicine Hat, Alberta
The Medicine Hat Soccer Association plays indoor soccer in a one-field facility built as
part of a larger community centre and opened in 1998. The number of youth playing
indoor soccer jumped from approximately 200 in 1997/98 to 400 in 1998/99 and
increased to 475 for the 2000/01 season. The youth teams play 2 to 3 games per week.

On the adult side, the opening of the facility sparked an extraordinary boom in demand.
There was no organised adult indoor soccer in the community prior to 1998. There are
now approximately 250 adults registered and playing 1 to 2 games per week in the
facility. The facility is fully booked throughout the winter season.

2.2.4 St. Albert, Alberta
St. Albert does not have its own indoor soccer facility, but uses facilities in nearby
Edmonton. Its indoor program has grown substantially, from 800 youth in 1999 to 1,100
in 2000.

2.2.5 Red Deer, Alberta
Red Deer opened a two-field soccer facility as part of a larger community multiplex in
January 2001. Prior to the opening, the youth indoor soccer program had approximately
380 youth registered to play in the local gyms. There was also an active men’s indoor
soccer program playing in a space adapted to soccer in a local college. The facility is
now just beginning its first full indoor soccer season, and they have just over 500 youth
registered to play. The men’s league consists of 16 teams, largely unchanged from
previous years. They had anticipated more growth than that in both youth and men’s
soccer. Other adult leagues are also expected to begin play soon. One factor that may
have resulted in lower than expected demand is the substantial registration fees charged
(see section 2.4.3 below).


Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                    6
November 26, 2001

2.2.6 Prince Albert, Saskatchewan
The Prince Albert Soccer Association opened a one-field indoor soccer facility in a
converted warehouse in 1995. Indoor soccer was played prior to the opening of the
facility but the program was relatively small — 200 to 300 youth playing in the school
gyms and no adult indoor soccer at all. By the 2000/2001-winter season, 650 youth were
registered to play. The number of registered youth playing has now risen to 700 for the
current season. The soccer association has made it a priority not to turn away any youth
who wish to play. Because of the numbers now registered, regular league play has had
to be dropped from 3 games every 2 weeks from October to March to one game per
week.

The facility is also used on a regular basis by approximately 6 adult teams who are self-
organised rather than part of an association program. The adults are confined to the
late-night time slots as the association gives priority to its youth program. The facility is
fully booked every weekday evening from 5:30 till 11:30pm and all day and evening on
weekends.


2.2.7 Yellowknife, NWT
Yellowknife has an active and growing indoor soccer program that uses school gym
space. Registrations for the youth program have increased from approximately 440 in
1998/99 to almost 550 in 2000/01. Like Whitehorse, Yellowknife has found that lack of
suitable playing space is imposing constraints on the growth of the sport. The soccer
association is in the preliminary stage of examining option for an indoor soccer centre.



2.3 Current Whitehorse Fee Structure
Whitehorse Minor Soccer charges $60.00 per youth registration for the 2001-02 indoor
season. This is up from $40.00 last season but includes a tee shirt in the team colours
with the Whitehorse Minor Soccer logo. In the past uniforms were issued with a $15.00
deposit. There is a total cap of $150.00 in registration fees per family.

The minor soccer season consists of a maximum of 32 sessions (games and practices).
It usually comes to less than the maximum due to teams being bumped out of time slots
in school gyms for special events and school use.

Adult players in the co-ed league pay a $50.00 registration fee for the indoor season.


2.4 Fees in Other Communities
The fees charged by communities with soccer facilities tend to be higher than those in
Whitehorse, but vary quite widely in amount and in how they are structured.


2.4.1 Lethbridge
No information on Lethbridge’s fee structure has been provided as of this writing.



Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                  7
November 26, 2001

2.4.2 Medicine Hat
Medicine Hat charges fees on a sliding scale according to the age of the youth
registering. Fees start at $75.00 for the U6s, $95.00 for the U8s, $125.00 for the U10s
and $150.00 for the U12 to U18s. These fees will cover a season of approximately 30
games and 3 or 4 practices.

Adult players pay a registration fee of $95.00 that covers a season of approximately 20
games. The registration fees for both youth and adults have risen steadily over the past
few years as the rental charges for the facility have been rising.

2.4.3 Red Deer
Red Deer charges the highest registration fees of any of the communities consulted. For
youth over 12 years of age, the indoor season costs $230.00 for a total of 40 sessions
(mostly games but with some practice time as well). For 8 to 12 year olds, the fee is set
at $140.00 for 20 sessions while the 8 and under age bracket is charged $70.00 for 12
sessions over a half season.

The Red Deer soccer association must pay an hourly rental fee of $68.00 per field to use
the facility. And although it is called a soccer pavilion, it is very much a multi-use space.
There is considerable competition for prime time playing slots, and tennis, flag football
and lacrosse are among the other users of the two fields.

2.4.4 Prince Albert
Prince Albert charges $60.00 per youth as its basic registration fee. The fee has
remained constant for the past several years. But the association also charges a
refundable $35.00 ―volunteer bond‖ at registration. The bond is returned to the parent or
guardian at the end of the indoor season only if that person has performed a minimum of
4 hours of volunteer work for the association.

The volunteer bond system has been highly successful in making soccer more
affordable for low-income families and for promoting greater parental involvement in
general. It is not uncommon for parents to donate the bond and perform the volunteer
work as well. It appears to be a particularly valuable tool for associations that own their
own facilities. For example, volunteer work parties do much of the basic maintenance of
and upgrades to the Prince Albert facility.

As the adults playing indoor soccer are not organised by the association, they are simply
charged a rental fee for using the facility. That fee is set at $40.00 per hour.

The soccer association, as noted above, owns its facility in a converted warehouse that
is split with the gymnastics association and a service club. The soccer share of the
building’s operating costs amounts to approximately $25,000 per year. The three-way
ownership will be making its final loan repayments to the municipality in December and
will then own the building outright. On the income side, the association takes in $42,000
in registration fees, plus the donation of the volunteer bond by many of the parents and
guardians. In addition, the association netted approximately $12,500 last season hosting
a total of 7 tournaments, and makes miscellaneous income from sponsorships, selling
advertising in the facility, soft drink machines, and the concession stand.


Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                              8
November 26, 2001

2.4.5 Yellowknife
Yellowknife charges a $75.00 registration fee for the season that runs to approximately
28 games, 16 practices, and a tournament. The fee also includes a jersey.


2.5 Effects of Fee Changes on Demand
All of the soccer associations above — except Red Deer — believe that the fees they
charge have not had the effect of reducing the demand for indoor soccer. Even Medicine
Hat’s regular increases — forced on them by increasing rental fees for the facility —
have not reduced registration. And as they are at maximum (or near maximum) capacity,
there is no way of knowing if the increased fees have slowed the growth of demand.

Prince Albert’s fees are low and stable and demand has continued to grow. There
seems to be ample room for fee increases if needed — if they wish to expand to a
second field for example — but the association wishes to keep them as low as possible.

Because Red Deer is in its first full season in the new facility, the setting of new, much
higher fees caused some consternation. It is believed that the $230.00 fee for the 12 and
up players may have discouraged new registrations, although there was an increase
following the opening of the centre. The fee will almost certainly be set lower for next
season — likely to something a little under $200.00.




Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                     9
November 26, 2001



3 Options for a Whitehorse Facility
This section identifies and evaluates a number of options for an indoor soccer facility in
Whitehorse.

3.1 Size
The size options to be considered include:
 a one-field facility,
 a two-field facility, or
 a three-field facility.

Each field should be about 25 metres by 55 metres (1,375 m2 or 80’ by 180’).

Apart from the fields, the facility would need space for change rooms and showers,
public washrooms, bleachers, offices, and the required mechanical/electrical spaces.
Sufficient parking must also be provided. Additional space might be needed for ancillary
facilities discussed in Section 3.2.

The Phase 1 Need and Demand study has shown that, with current gym utilization by
indoor soccer in Whitehorse, a two-field facility would be used full-time on week-day
evenings and all day and evening on weekends (100 hours per week during the season).

One possible argument in favour of a one-field facility is that larger pitches could allow
larger teams and this could reduce the demand for a second pitch, albeit with less
playing time for individual players. In addition, fields could be divided in two to
accommodate younger players who do not need a full-size field, so two games could be
played simultaneously on one field.

Nevertheless, soccer coaches indicated that there is currently insufficient practice time,
especially for the ―rep teams‖. Further, the development of adult leagues has been
curbed by the lack of available gymnasium space and adult demand is anticipated to
grow substantially given proper playing facilities. And both the experience of other
communities and the possibilities of other uses for a facility — discussed in the following
two sections — clearly show the superiority of the two-field option.

The option of a three-field facility has been set aside for the present due to both cost
constraints and because the demand to fill such a space has not been clearly
demonstrated.

3.1.1 Experience of other communities
The experience of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan and Medicine Hat, Alberta — both with
one-field facilities —shows that a one-field facility may not be sufficient. The two
communities have slightly more players than Whitehorse, but lower participation rates
when compared with population size. Soccer representatives in both communities have
indicated that the one-field facility is not sufficient for their needs and that they continue
using school gyms. Both expressed regret in not anticipating the surge in demand that
followed the construction of their facilities.

Every community that built an indoor soccer facility has seen a surge in participation,
sometimes more than doubling their registrations. Even in Red Deer, where there was a
Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                 10
November 26, 2001

massive increase in fees when the new centre opened, participation nevertheless
increased by approximately 30%.

Whether demand in Whitehorse would expand to same extent that other communities
have experienced is difficult to establish. Whitehorse already has participation rates in
youth soccer equal to or greater than almost all these communities. But demand for
adult indoor soccer is expected to increase substantially due to both demographic shifts
and to the availability of proper playing space.


3.1.2 Other uses for a soccer centre
Although it is anticipated that soccer would fill the centre nearly entirely for weekday
evenings and all day and evenings on weekends during the indoor season (roughly from
October to March), this does not preclude the use of the facility by others.

Schools could be a major user of the large indoor space — for soccer or other games
and events — during the day. The sports that can be played on indoor soccer pitches
include lacrosse, floor hockey, touch football, etc.

Apart from use by schools as part of their physical education programs, other
communities have seen their centres used for everything from mini golf to seniors’ indoor
walking programs to roller-hockey during the summer and weekdays during the winter.
Special events of all kinds are also hosted in the centres.

The inclusion of a running track would allow use by everyone from high-performance
athletes in training to senior’s indoor walking programs. Summer use could include an
ultimate Frisbee and/or roller hockey season. Because of the flexible nature of the
space, an indoor soccer facility may well be a substitute for the planned flexihall at the
Multiplex.




Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                       11
November 26, 2001

3.1.3 Facility size conclusions
The following table presents the advantages and disadvantages of different sized
facilities.

Figure 2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Size Facilities
Size of Indoor
                                Advantages                              Disadvantages
Soccer facility
One pitch               Cheaper to build and operate             Would not meet all current
                                                                   needs
                                                                  Would require continued use
                                                                   of school gymnasiums
                                                                  No room for increased
                                                                   participation without using
                                                                   more gym time.
                                                                  Potentially more expensive in
                                                                   longer term if expansion
                                                                   required.
Two pitches             Would meet current soccer                More expensive to build and
                         needs and allow for other                 operate than a one-pitch
                         uses.                                     facility
                        Some room for expansion
                         (with ―doubling up‖ pitch use
                         for younger players, or larger
                         teams
                        Less expensive to build than
                         to build a one-field facility and
                         then add a second field at a
                         later date.
Three pitches           Would meet any conceivable               Most expensive option
                         expansion needs                          About 1/3 of it would be idle
                                                                   most of the time at current
                                                                   rates of use.

Given the advantages and disadvantages, as well as a possible expansion, it is obvious
that a two-field facility is the best choice at this time. A three-pitch facility would be
under-utilised, while a one-pitch facility would not meet current demand and would not
alleviate over-use of school gymnasiums. All the communities that have built one-pitch
facilities have immediately started planning for a second pitch.

3.2 Ancillary Facilities
Non-soccer facilities could be incorporated into the facility. Some may result in
generating additional revenue, or provide the potential for renting the space out for
special events or on-going activities during the off-season (summer). These spaces
include:
 Concession stand
    Area: 10m2
    The concession stand could generate additional revenues. For example, in the
    Takhini arena, it generates about between $5,000 and $6,000 in rental revenues.

Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                              12
November 26, 2001

    This amount could be increased if volunteers staffed the concession. Having the
    soccer association run it with paid staff would probably not generate much additional
    revenue.

   Restaurant/bar
    60m2
    A restaurant/bar area could generate revenues if it was leased out. It is extremely
    difficult to make money from a restaurant operation, and restaurants are a very high-
    risk business. However, Lethbridge and a number of centres in Calgary and
    Edmonton have successful restaurant/lounge operations. A bar might generate
    additional revenue. For planning purposes, we assume a triple net lease of $14.00
    per square foot per year, which would yield revenues of about $9,000 per year. A
    well-run restaurant could make more money than that.

   Kitchen
    20 m2
    A warm-up kitchen (as opposed to a full-scale restaurant preparation kitchen) could
    be incorporated in the facility. It would not generate any revenue by itself, but would
    make the facility more attractive to rent for events when food is served.

   Running track
    630m2
    A 210 metre long running track could be installed around the perimeter of the two
    pitches. Running tracks are used not only by runners, but also as a walking space for
    seniors in the daytime. It would also act as the warm up area for athletes before
    matches. The track could also be used as additional spectator space.


3.3 Site/Location Options
A number of different sites have been examined for a potential indoor soccer centre. The
locations formally evaluated include:
    1. FH Collins
    2. Multiplex
    3. Lots A-8 to A-10, Heney Subdivision (Between 3rd & 4th behind Westmark
        Klondike)
    4. Motorways
    5. YTG compound on Quartz Road
    6. South Access Road
    7. Across from KK on Alaska Highway
    8. Versluce Meadows – Porter Creek
    9. Takhini Arena
    10. Tlingit Road
    11. Kelly-Douglas Building

Each of these sites was evaluated using the following criteria.

    1.   Minimum lot size
    2.   Potential for outdoor fields
    3.   Land cost
    4.   Construction cost

Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                              13
November 26, 2001

    5.   Possibility of expansion
    6.   Location/accessibility/centrality
    7.   Access by public transit
    8.   Other revenue potential
    9.   Other Concerns


3.3.1 Evaluation criteria
This section discusses the evaluation criteria used in making site recommendations.

1. Meets minimum lot size for building and parking
 A site that is too small must be rejected. One hectare (10,000 m2) minimum is
   required for a two-pitch facility, including space for the building, parking lot and
   landscaping/buffer zones

2. Potential for outdoor fields
 Does the site allow for constructing new outdoor soccer fields? An international
   match regulation size soccer field is between 6,400m2 (100m by 64m) and 8,250m2
   (110m by 75m). With bleachers, circulation, etc, at least one hectare is needed for an
   outdoor field.
3. Land Cost
 Land cost may affect the viability of the project.
4. Construction Cost
 Absence of servicing would entail additional capital costs for sewer & water. Some
   sites, while they have access to sewer and water, might entail other costs.
5. Possibility of expansion
 Is the site large enough to build additional indoor soccer pitches?
6. Location/accessibility/centrality
 Is the site easy to get to? Is it central to most Whitehorse residents?
7. Access by public transit
 Are there transit routes that stop near it for players without access to a car?
8. Other revenue potential
 The viability of the project could depend on concession/bar revenues. Does the site
   allow this? Is there competition from nearby providers (stores, bars)?
9. Other concerns
   There might other site-specific concerns that could affect the use of a site as a
    soccer centre. Other concerns for four potentially viable sites (F.H. Collins,
    Motorways, YTG compound, and Takhini Arena) are discussed below.




Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                                                                    14
November 26, 2001



3.3.2 Site evaluation matrix
The following matrix presents the result of applying the evaluation criteria to the identified sites.

                         Minimum lot   Potential for                                         Possibility  Location/    Access by
                                    2                                     Construction                                               Other revenue
Potential sites        size (10,000m -   outdoor             Land Cost                           of      accessibility   public
                                                                             cost                                                      potential
                             1ha)         fields                                             expansion / centrality     transit

FH Collins                  26.6 ha             Good          Could be       Servicing         High         Good        Good       Alcohol sales may
                             Pass                             minimal      available, no                                             be hampered,
                                                                          additional costs                                          easier rental to
                                                                                                                                        schools
Multiplex              Fail, no space for       None          Could be       Servicing         None         Good         Fair       Low - City would
                           building or                        minimal      available, no                                           control concessions
                           additional                                     additional costs
                             parking

Between 3rd & 4th            3.6ha            Minimal,        Very high,    Servicing           Low       Excellent    Excellent         Good
behind Westmark                             possibly 1, at     privately  available, no
Klondike (lots A-8 &         Pass              most 2          owned,    additional costs
A-10)                                                          property
                                                             assessment
                                                                   at
                                                             $1,850,000
Motorways                    4.5 ha          Fair, one        Could be       Servicing          Low       Excellent    Excellent         Good
                             Pass           possible, at      minimal      available, no
                                              most 3                      additional costs



YTG compound on             10.0ha              Good         Medium –        Servicing         High         Good        Good             Good
Quartz Road                  Pass                            demolition    available, no
                                                               costs      additional costs
                                                                            other than
                                                                            demolition




Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                                                                   15
November 26, 2001


                         Minimum lot   Potential for                                        Possibility  Location/    Access by
                                    2                                   Construction                                               Other revenue
Potential sites        size (10,000m -   outdoor          Land Cost                             of      accessibility   public
                                                                           cost                                                      potential
                             1ha)         fields                                            expansion / centrality     transit

South Access                120ha+            Good         Could be         No site           High         Fair         Fair           Good
                                                           minimal        servicing,
                             Pass                                        would entail
                                                                        additional costs

Across from KK              30.4ha            Good         Could be     Major upgrade         High         Fair         Poor           Good
                                                           minimal      of site servicing
                             Pass                                            needed

Versluce Meadows –          ~4.5ha          Fair, one      Could be        Servicing           Low         Fair        Good            Good
Porter Creek                               possible, at    minimal        available,
                             Pass            most 3                      might need to
                                                                           pump up
                                                                            sewage
Takhini Arena                5ha+           Good, but      Could be        Lowest              Low         Good        Good        Excellent, bar &
                                           land would      minimal       construction                                             concession areas
                             Pass           have to be                  cost, offset by                                             already built
                                          obtained from                    higher
                                             Federal                      operating
                                           Government
Tlingit Road (Lot 16        11.2 ha           Good          Privately   Water & sewer         High         Fair         Poor             ??
Remainder)                                                  owned,      would have to
                             Pass                          $300,000     be extended to
                                                            property       property,
                                                           evaluation

Kelly Douglas                1.4ha            None         Very high,    Demolition of        None         Fair         Fair            Fair
Warehouse                                                   privately       current
                             Pass                           owned,         building,
                                                            property     unsuitable for
                                                          assessment        soccer
                                                                at        (columns)
                                                          $1,300,000

Prepared by     Luigi Zanasi Economist
                Research Northwest
                Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                16
November 26, 2001



3.3.3 Site evaluation discussion

Based on the above analysis, the ranking of the sites in terms of criteria is as follows:

1. FH Collins
   Other than cost, most suitable
2. Takhini Arena
   Lowest cost, but concerns about timing and access to federal land for outdoor fields;
   also this would require ensuring sufficient compensatory seating be designed into the
   twin arenas at the multiplex.

3. YTG compound on Quartz Road
   Very suitable, but concerns about cost to YTG.
4. Motorways
   Suitable, but concerns about waterfront planning. Limited space for outdoor soccer
   fields.
5. Versluce Meadows – Porter Creek
   Suitable, but not central and might entail higher costs to pump up sewage. Limited
   space for new outdoor soccer fields.
6. South Access Road
   Suitable, but there will be high costs to provide water and sewer.
7. Across from KK on Alaska Highway
   Suitable, but there will be high costs to upgrade servicing.
8. Tlingit Road (Marwell)
   Expensive land purchase & sewer & water extension, concerns about flood-plain
   construction
9. Lots A-8 to A-10, Heney Subdivision (behind Westmark Klondike)
   Very expensive and little room for outdoor fields
10. Kelly-Douglas Building
    Expensive to acquire and demolish building and there is no room for outdoor fields.
11. Multiplex
    Unsuitable – No room for soccer centre unless hockey arenas abandoned.


3.3.4 Site specific issues
As was mentioned above, the top four ranked sites raise other concerns:

1. F.H Collins
It is our understanding that the existing high school building is to be replaced in the next
few years. A new indoor soccer facility could be attached to the new school, so site
plans for the new school are required. Building on this site would require co-operation
with the Department of Education. This site has the advantage that it could be used
during the day by the school and the operating costs partially or fully covered by the
department of education.
Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                              17
November 26, 2001



It should be noted that selections under land claims are not an issue. The new soccer
centre would be attached to the new school and would only take up one hectare of land
away from the current First Nation land selections.

2. Takhini Arena
This option was brought to our attention by City of Whitehorse staff. The soccer
community was unaware of this option until shown it in an earlier draft of this report. This
site option would be to use the existing ice surface as one soccer pitch and build another
either on the side or behind the Arena. The City currently needs three ice surfaces to
meet demand. The City’s plan is to build two new hockey arenas at the Multiplex site
and abandon one of the two existing arenas. It is currently anticipated that the new
arenas will be built by 2006. Assumptions up to now have favoured abandoning the Stan
McCowan Arena in Porter Creek. However, according to City staff, this arena is cheaper
to operate than the Takhini Arena. Using the Takhini Arena as a soccer centre would
considerably reduce costs to the City. The hitch is that the ice surface could only
become available for soccer when at least one of the two arenas is built at the Multiplex
site. So indoor soccer would have only one pitch (built as an addition to the existing
building) until the new arena construction is completed.

As well, we understand that the Takhini arena is the only one with sufficient spectator
seating and that spectator seating is not planned at the Multiplex arenas. These plans
would have to be changed if the City wants to have at least one arena with spectator
seating.

Another possibility would be to fast-track the twin ice arena at the multiplex and address
the needs of hockey players sooner. Construction could begin in 2002. When the new
arenas open, the existing portion of the Takhini arena would be available for soccer.

Four ice hockey surfaces will be needed for the CWG in 2007. This could be
accommodated if hockey games would be scheduled in the Takhini Arena only for the
first week. During the second week of the games, the ice surface could be replaced by a
wooden floor and used for other sports.

3. YTG compound
The YTG compound is large, centrally located, and is currently not used for its best and
highest use. However, if this site were selected, the Yukon Government would have to
relocate its office and warehousing facilities elsewhere. Alternatively, if might be possible
to fit the soccer centre on the site in currently available space. Demolition could allow for
outdoor fields in the future.

4. Motorways
The motorways site is currently planned as a waterfront park. Therefore, the City’s
waterfront plan would have to be considerably modified if the site were used for an
indoor soccer centre.




Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report   18
November 26, 2001




 Figure 3 Site Layout
 Diagram #1 – FH Collins
 Option




Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report   19
November 26, 2001


 Figure 4 Site Layout Diagram #2 – FH Collins Option




Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report   20
November 26, 2001

3.3.5 Site Layout Diagram – Takhini Arena Option


Figure 5 Site Layout Diagram – Takhini Arena Option




Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                            21
November 26, 2001




3.4 Management Options
The basic question is who would manage the facility. There are essentially three options:

   Soccer Centre Association
   City of Whitehorse Parks and Recreation
   Yukon Government Department of Education (if the facility is built adjacent to a
    school)

Examples of the first two options are found across Western Canada.

Under the first option, a non-profit soccer centre association would manage the facility
using both paid and volunteer labour. The soccer association could be either an existing
one, such as Whitehorse Minor soccer or a new non-profit society established to
manage the facility. This is what is done in Lethbridge, Grande Prairie, and Prince
Albert. One example in Whitehorse is the Mount McIntyre Centre, which is owned and
managed by the Whitehorse Cross-Country Ski Club and the Whitehorse Curling Club.
Another is Softball Yukon, which manages the softball diamonds across the City. This
option does not preclude the City of Whitehorse naming some members to the board of
the organisation.

In the second option, the soccer centre would be managed in exactly the same way
hockey arenas are managed, where the City owns and runs the facilities and attempts to
recover 40 per cent of the cost from user fees. Red Deer, Medicine Hat and other
centres follow this model. It should be noted that municipally managed centres charge
rental fees to the soccer associations and that costs tend to be higher because of less
volunteer involvement.

In the third option, the indoor soccer facility would be managed in the same way school
gymnasiums are presently used. The school would have exclusive use during school
hours and the City would schedule its use after hours. Alternatively, soccer associations
could do the scheduling. The Department of Education would cover costs. There is a
precedent in Whitehorse: the gymnastics centre at Vanier Secondary school.

3.4.1 Ownership options
Ownership options are easier to deal with than management. The options for ownership
of the new soccer centre are:

   Soccer Association (either an existing one or a new one set up to own and manage
    the facility)
   City of Whitehorse (Parks and Recreation), like any other facility.
   Yukon Government (Education Department, only if the facility is attached to a school)

Selection of any of these options would not affect the decision on how the facility would
be managed. If the soccer association managed the facility, the City or the Yukon
Government could lease it to the association for a nominal fee.



Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                                        22
November 26, 2001



4 Building Programme, Capital and Operating Costs

4.1 Building Programme
The following preliminary building program presents the building size and space required
for a two-pitch soccer centre, with all the ancillary facilities described in Section 3.2
above.


4.1.1 Stand-alone new facility

Description               Room Title                Office Type            Circ.          Circ.     Area    Area
                                                                              2               2        2        2
                                                                            m              ft        m       ft
General
                          Lobby / Reception                                  3.0          32.4      30.0       324
                          Licensed Lounge           50 seats                 7.0          75.6      70.0       756
                          Concession / Storage                               1.5          16.2      15.0       162
                                                                                                   115.0     1,242
Administration
                          Admin. / Control Office Enclosed                   1.0          10.8      10.0      108
                          Admin. Office           Enclosed                   1.0          10.8      10.0      108
                          File / Office Room                                 1.0          10.8      10.0      108
                                                                                                    30.0      324
Main Components
                          Soccer Field #1                                 137.5          1485     1375.0    14850
                          Soccer Field #2                                 137.5          1485     1375.0    14850
                          Running Track                                    65.0           702       650.0    7020
                                                                                                  3,400.0   36,720
Support Areas
                          Viewing Bleachers         150 seats (x2)          18.0         194.4     180.0      1944
                          Public Washroom           3M/5F                    2.0          21.6      20.0       216
                          Change Rooms              4 rooms                 12.0         129.6     120.0      1296
                          Equipment Storage         2 rooms                  3.0          32.4      30.0       324
                          Serve / Prep. Kitchen                              1.5          16.2      15.0       162
                                                                                                   365.0     3,942
Service Areas
                          General Storage                                    2.0          21.6      20.0      216
                          Mechanical / Electrical                            3.0          32.4      50.0      540
                          Janitor                                            0.5           5.4       5.0       54
                                                                                                    75.0      810

Net Floor Areas *                                                         396.5          4282     3,985.0   43,038
Grossing Factor **                             0.2(Design Space)                                    797.0    8,608
Gross Area ***                                                                                    5,179.0   55,928
* Total of all usable space
** Includes non-usable space such as wall thickness, stairs, building circulation etc.
*** Total building area



Prepared by         Luigi Zanasi Economist
                    Research Northwest
                    Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report               23
November 26, 2001




                                                               Figure 6 Bubble Diagram of Building Programme




Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report   24
November 26, 2001



Figure 7 Programme Component Diagram




Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                                        25
November 26, 2001



4.1.2 Takhini Arena expansion

Description               Room Title                Office Type            Circ.         Circ.     Area     Area
                                                                              2              2        2         2
                                                                            m             ft        m        ft
General
                          Lobby / Reception                                   3.0          32.4     15.0      162
                          Licensed Lounge           50 seats                  0             0        0.0        0
                          Concession / Storage                                0             0        0.0        0
                                                                                                    15.0      162
Administration
                          Admin. / Control Office Enclosed                    0             0         0.0       0
                          Admin. Office           Enclosed                    0             0         0.0       0
                          File / Office Room                                  0             0         0.0       0
                                                                                                      0.0       0
Main Components
                          Soccer Field #1                                   137.5        1485.0   1375.0    14,850
                          Soccer Field #2                                     0             0         0.0        0
                          Running Track                                      65.0         702.0     650.0    7,020
                                                                                                  2,025.0   21,870
Support Areas
                          Viewing Bleachers         Use existing              0             0                    0
                          Public Washroom           3M/5F                     2.0          21.6     20.0       216
                          Change Rooms              4 rooms                   6.0          64.8     60.0       648
                          Equipment Storage         2 rooms                   1.5          16.2     15.0       162
                          Serve / Prep. Kitchen                               0             0        0.0         0
                                                                                                    95.0     1,026
Service Areas
                          General Storage                                     2.0          21.6     10.0      108
                          Mechanical / Electrical                             3.0          32.4     20.0      216
                          Janitor                                             0.5           5.4      5.0       54
                                                                                                    35.0      378

Net Floor Areas *                                                           220.5        2381.0   2,170.0   23,436
Grossing Factor **                             0.2(Design Space)                                    434.0    4,687
Gross Area ***                                                                                    2,825.0   30,505
* Total of all usable space
** Includes non-usable space such as wall thickness, stairs, building circulation etc.
*** Total building area



4.2 Capital Costs
Capital costs are based on the above program, and include construction costs only. It is
assumed that it will not be necessary to buy land for the project.

Different capital costs are presented for the new construction and the Takhini Arena
options, as construction costs per m2 are likely to be higher in the Takhini Arena option.
Construction costs for a new building are estimated at $700.00 per m2 and at $800.00
per m2 for renovating and extending the Takhini Arena.
Prepared by         Luigi Zanasi Economist
                    Research Northwest
                    Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                         26
November 26, 2001

4.2.1 New construction option – preliminary project cost estimate
A.      Building Construction:
                                                2              2
        Proposed Area:                  5,179 m @ $700/m               $3,625,300
                                          Construction Sub-total:      $3,625,300

B.      Site Development:
        Servicing                       Allowance                        $100,000
        Landscaping:                    Allowance                          50,000
        Parking / Road Areas:           Allowance                         260,000
                                                        Sub- Total:     $ 360,050

C.      Construction Contingency: 10%                              =    $398,535

D.      Professional Fees / Permits

        Engineering / Design Fees:      10%                    =        $398,535
        Permits                         Allowance              =          50,000
                                                        Sub- Total:     $448,535

E.                                                      Sub- Total:    $4,832,420
F.      GST (if Applicable)                                               338,269

G.      Total Project Budget:                                          $5,170,689


4.2.2 Takhini Arena expansion – preliminary project cost estimate
A.      Building Construction:
                                                2              2
        Proposed Addition Area:         2,825m @ $800/m                $ 2,260,000
                                           Construction Sub-total:     $ 2,260,000

B.      Site Development:
        Servicing                       Allowance                          50,000
        Landscaping:                    Allowance                          50,000
        Parking / Road Areas:           Allowance                         120,000
                                                         Sub- Total:    $ 220,000

C.      Construction Contingency: 10%                              =     $248,000

D.      Professional Fees / Permits

        Engineering / Design Fees:      10%                    =        $248,000
        Permits                         Allowance              =           50,000
                                                         Sub- Total:    $ 298,000

E.                                                       Sub- Total:   $3,026,000
F.      GST (if Applicable)                                               211,820

G.     Total Project Budget:                                           $3,237,820
Prepared by Luigi Zanasi Economist
              Research Northwest
              Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                           27
November 26, 2001

4.3 Workplan & Schedule

The time required for designing and constructing the new facility makes it impossible to
have the new facility operating before January 1, 2003. This deadline would require a
go-ahead decision (at least for the design) by November 15, 2001.

A more realistic schedule would place the opening on September 1, 2003. The
milestones for each of these schedules are presented below:


4.3.1 Fast-track schedule

Date                                                Milestone
November 15, 2001                                   Go ahead decision
Nov. 15, 2001 - Dec 31,2001                         Schematic design
Jan. 1, 2002 – Feb. 15 2002                         Design development
Feb. 16, 2002 – May 15, 2002                        Construction documents
May 15, 2002 – Jun. 15, 2002                        Tender
June 15, 2002                                       Start construction
Jun. 15, 2002 – Dec. 31, 2002                       Construction
January 1, 2003                                     Opening


4.3.2 Realistic Schedule

Date                                                Milestone
Nov. 1 2001 – Dec 31, 2001                          Obtain funding
January 1, 2002                                     Design go ahead decision
Jan. 1, 2002 – Feb. 28, 2002                        Schematic design
Mar 1, 2002 – Apr. 30, 2002                         Design development
May 1, 2002 – Jul 30, 2002                          Construction documents
Jul. 1, 2002 – Jul. 30, 2002                        Tender
August 15, 2002                                     Start construction
Aug. 15, 2002 – Aug. 31, 2003                       Construction
Sep. 1, 2003 – Sep. 30, 2003                        Commissioning
October 1, 2003                                     Soccer Season starts.




4.4 Operating Costs
The following table presents a preliminary analysis of operating costs. Revenue
assumptions are based on average registration fees of $100 per soccer player, and a
modest increase to about 700 indoor soccer players from the current 600. It is also
assumed that other sport users will pay enough fees to directly fund one staff person,
about $44,000. Other revenues are based on a similar facility in Whitehorse (i.e. the
Takhini Arena). Some centres in other communities generate considerably more income,
but we do not yet have sufficient detail on how they generate it.

Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                       28
November 26, 2001

Cost assumptions are based mainly on the City expenditures on the Takhini Arena
(especially for the Takhini Arena Option) and on the Lethbridge centre where the Takhini
numbers seemed unreasonable (e.g. electricity costs – which are currently over
$100,000 annually because of the ice making plant). It should be noted that the
operating costs provide for a $135,000 payroll, of three full-time equivalent jobs at
$40,000 per year each plus 12% benefits. Both the Lethbridge Soccer Centre and
Takhini Arena have payrolls that exceed $150,000. So this set of operating costs
assumes some volunteer labour.

Under both scenarios, the centre would operate at a considerable deficit, about
$100,000. However, the revenues from a soccer centre would be considerably more
than the City’s policy of 41% cost recovery. In both options, the cost recovery ratio is
around 60%. Even if other sports did not use the facility and paid no user fees, (i.e. if
revenues were $44,000 less), cost recovery would be between 43% and 45%.

                            New Building     Takhini Arena
                                                               Cost Assumption
                              option            Option
REVENUES
Soccer User fees            $ 70,000.00     $ 70,000.00        700 players @ $100.00
Other sport user fees         44,800.00       44,800.00        Required to pay on FT staff
Concession Stand               5,500.00        5,500.00        Similar to Takhini arena
                                                                    2              2
Restaurant /bar                9,000.00        9,000.00        60m @ $150.00/m triple net rent
Advertising                   10,000.00       10,000.00        Similar to Takhini arena
                                                               Similar to Takhini arena, mezzanine
Rentals                        20,000.00       28,000.00
                                                               allows for more income in Arena

TOTAL REVENUE              $ 159,300.00 $ 167,300.00

EXPENSES
                                                               3 full time persons @ $40,000 +
Wages & Benefits              134,400.00     134,400.00
                                                               12% benefits
Office & telephone              5,000.00        5,000.00       Similar to Takhini & Lethbridge
Advertising                     2,000.00        2,000.00       Similar to Takhini arena
Insurance                       7,000.00        7,000.00       Similar to Lethbridge
Professional fees               5,000.00        5,000.00       Similar to Takhini & Lethbridge
Heat                           25,000.00       50,000.00       Similar to Lethbridge for new facility
Power                          40,000.00       40,000.00       Similar to Lethbridge
Property Taxes                      -               -
Water & Sewer                  10,000.00       10,000.00       Similar to Takhini arena
Maintenance and repairs        20,000.00       20,000.00       Similar to Takhini arena
Janitorial                      7,000.00        7,000.00       Similar to Takhini arena
Snow Removal                    1,500.00        1,500.00       Similar to Takhini arena

TOTAL EXPENSES                256,900.00     281,900.00

NET
                           $ (97,600.00) $ (114,600.00)
REVENUE/(DEFICIT)
Cost Recovery Ratio             62.0%           59.3%




Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                 29
November 26, 2001

4.5 Requirements for Self-sufficiency

The soccer centres in Prince Albert and Lethbridge manage to operate at a profit. Could
a Whitehorse soccer centre do the same?

In Prince Albert, total operating costs for their share of the converted warehouse facility
are about $25,000 per year, and they make extensive use of volunteer labour. Under
those conditions, a self-sufficient operation is not difficult. The fee structure creates an
incentive for parents to volunteer while making soccer more affordable to low income
families.

In Lethbridge, the Soccer Association gets considerably more revenue by renting out the
facility. Its revenues are over $500,000 per year versus its annual operating costs of
$365,000. They also use considerable volunteer labour.

To operate at a break-even basis, the Whitehorse centre would have to considerably
increase revenues compared to what is envisioned in Section 4.4 above. There is very
little that could be done to compress operating costs. It is very unlikely that a centre —
and especially a two-field centre — could be operated entirely by volunteer staff.

The scope for additional revenues during the winter months is rather limited, as the
centre would probably be used full time for indoor soccer. Nevertheless, the soccer
schedule could always be adjusted for special events requiring the space. During the
summer months, other sports could be played on the surface, and it would be relatively
easy to use the facility for special events. The special events that could use the facility in
Whitehorse are listed below.

Potential Special Events for Whitehorse
 Cadet Parade Training
 Canada Games Ceremonies
 Canada Games Events
 Fall Fair
 Farmers Market
 Frostbite Music Festival
 Fulda Dinner
 Graduation Ceremonies/Proms
 Remembrance Day Ceremony
 Rodeo
 Special Olympics
 Spruce Bog (craft sale)
 Story Telling Festival (rain location)


The following provides information on what other communities are using their indoor
soccer centres for:

Regular Winter Season Uses
 Arena Football                         (professional leagues)
 Baseball/Softball/Fastball             Calgary, Windsor

Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                             30
November 26, 2001

   Field Hockey                         Calgary, Langley, Kingston, Coliseum (Ottawa)
   Fitness Training                     Saskatoon
   Flag Football                        Gateway (Winnipeg), Coliseum (Ottawa), Windsor
   Golf Instruction                     Saskatoon, Coliseum (Ottawa)
   Lacrosse                             Langley, Coliseum (Ottawa), (professional leagues)
   Lawn Bowling (Seniors)/Bocce         Calgary, Saskatoon, Windsor
   Roller Skating                       Prince George
   Rugby                                Calgary, Kingston, Coliseum (Ottawa), Windsor
   School Phys-Ed                       Red Deer, Lethbridge
   Touch Football                       Kingston, Windsor
   Ultimate Frisbee                     Coliseum (Ottawa), Saskatoon
   Volleyball                           Saskatoon, Windsor
   Walking Club (Seniors)               Calgary, Saskatoon, Prince Albert
   Track and Field                      Coliseum (Ottawa), Windsor
   Latchkey Kids                        Windsor
   Futsal                               Windsor, Kingston
   Winter Art in the Park               Windsor
   Cricket
   Daycare
   Golf Driving Range
   Tennis

Regular Off-Season (Summer) Uses
 Inline or Roller Hockey      Edmonton, Lethbridge, Ancaster ON, Saskatoon,
                               Kingston, Windsor
 Ball Hockey                  Edmonton, Saskatoon, Kingston
 Baseball Spring Training     Lethbridge, Saskatoon, Kingston
 Lacrosse                     Edmonton, Saskatoon
 Gymnastics                   Saskatoon
 Indoor Soccer                Gateway (Winnipeg)
 Tennis

Special Events
 Archery Tournament                     Medicine Hat
 Banquets/Breakfasts                    Calgary, Saskatoon, Windsor
 Birthday Parties                       Langley, Prince George
 Dog and Cat Shows                      Calgary, Edmonton, Medicine Hat, Saskatoon
 Eight Ball/Pool Tournament             Calgary
 Equestrian Activities                  Medicine Hat
 Folkfest Pavilions                     Saskatoon
 Mormon New Year's Eve Party            Lethbridge
 Muslim Prayer Service                  Calgary
 Polka Fest                             Medicine Hat, Saskatoon
 Seminars/Conventions                   Calgary
 Trade Shows                            Calgary, Grande Prairie (Crystal Palace),
                                         Saskatoon, Windsor
   Weddings                             Saskatooon, Prince George, Windsor
   World Police/Fire Games              Calgary

Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                31
November 26, 2001



5 Recommendations

1. Construction should start on a two-field indoor soccer facility as soon as possible to
   meet current needs and free-up school gymnasium space for other sports.

2. The new facility should also incorporate space for: kitchen, lounge, concession and
   running track. The needs of other sports such as climbing should also be examined.

3. The preferred location would be the F.H. Collins site, with an eventual connection to
   the new high school.

4. Whitehorse Minor Soccer and other interested soccer groups should immediately
   begin discussions and negotiations with the City of Whitehorse and the Yukon
   Government Department of Education on building and operating the facility. The
   negotiations should cover the cost of constructing and operating the facility, as well
   as how it should be managed.

5. If built at the Takhini arena, the facility should be run by an independent organisation
   to allow the maximum use of volunteer labour and a lower cost to the City. If this
   option is chosen, the City should seriously consider advancing the construction of the
   two hockey arenas at the Multiplex site to accommodate both hockey and indoor
   soccer. Adequate seating would be required at the multiplex to compensate for the
   loss of the Takhini Arena seating.




Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                      32
November 26, 2001



6 Appendices

6.1 List of Outside Contacts

Bruce Primeau                    Lethbridge Soccer Centre
Steve Dudas                      Red Deer Centre Soccer Association
Anna Smith                       Medicine Hat Soccer Association
David Herbert                    Prince Albert Soccer Association
Sandi Aitken                     Aurora Minor Soccer League (Yellowknife)
Charlotte Mcrae                  Grande Prairie Minor Soccer and Women’s Soccer




Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                                  33
November 26, 2001




6.2 Questionnaire Sent to Outside Communities

Questions for other Communities
Whitehorse Minor Soccer is undertaking a feasibility study for an indoor soccer facility.
To see a copy of our recently completed needs analysis as well as other useful
information, please go to our web site at http://www.yukonsoccer.yk.ca/indoor_centre/ .

It would greatly assist us if we could rely on the experience of other communities, so we
are asking you a set of questions about indoor soccer facilities in your community. Thank
you for taking the time to respond to this set of questions. We will, of course, provide you
with a copy of the report as well as any other information that you might need in the
future. If you want us to keep any of this information confidential, please let us know and
we will make sure it is not divulged to anyone else. In answering this questionnaire,
please do not be limited by the boxes. They are only a guide. You can mail you answers,
fax them to (867) 633-4759, or email to minorsoccer@yknet.yk.ca.

Community: _______________________________________________

Contact Address:
Name
                    Street
                      City                                      Postal Code
              Telephone
                    Email

Questions about participation & players
How many indoor soccer players do you currently have? Can you provide us with
  information about previous years? The information need not be precise. Any
  information and estimates you could provide us would be useful.

Year                         Youth Players                                       Adults
                  No. of Players                   Games        No. of Players                 Games
                                      No. of       played                            No. of    played
                 No. of     No. of                             No. of   No. of
                                     Teams           per                             Teams       per
                 Boys       Girls                               Men     Women
                                                    week                                        week
2000-01
1999-00
1998-99
1997-98
1996-97



Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
   Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                 34
   November 26, 2001



   What rules do you play under? (e.g. how many players, team size, etc.)




   What fees do you currently charge for indoor soccer? How many games and
     practices does it cover? (e.g. $120 for 22 games & 8 practices)
       Youth:
       Adults:


   Have you changed your fees in the past few years? Has it had any effect on
     participation? If so, by how much?




   Other Comments




   Questions about Indoor Soccer facilities
   What facilities do you currently use for indoor soccer?

                                                        Comments

School Gyms

Dedicated Indoor Soccer facility

Other: ___________________________




   Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
                  Research Northwest
                  Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                        35
November 26, 2001

Are you planning to build an indoor soccer facility? At what stage are you? What
   kind of work have you done so far, and what are planning in the near future?




Could we obtain copies of any planning studies or reports you have done for indoor
  soccer facilities? (e.g. feasibility, market studies, etc.). We will be happy to pay
  for the cost of courier (collect). Please send them to:

                 Att: Luigi Zanasi
                 Whitehorse Minor Soccer
                 Sport Yukon Building
                 4061-4th Avenue
                 Whitehorse, YT Y1A 1H1

Questions about Indoor Soccer Centres (for those lucky and/or persistent enough to
  have them)

Can you briefly describe your facility and comment on its advantages and
  disadvantages?

Year opened:
Size of facility (total sq.ft. or m2):
Number & size of fields:
Stand alone or attached to other facility?:
Type of floor:
Construction cost & how was it financed:


Other spaces (e.g. office, running tracks, etc.):


Comments:




Prepared by      Luigi Zanasi Economist
                 Research Northwest
                 Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                         36
November 26, 2001

Did the construction of the centre result in greater participation in indoor soccer? If
   so, by how much?




Who manages the centre? (e.g. municipality, soccer association, separate entity) Do
  you have employees, and, if so, how many?




What do you do with your centre during the off-season (summer use)? Are there
  other uses during the winter?




Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group
Indoor Soccer Centre Feasibility Study: Phase 2 Final Report                              37
November 26, 2001

Could we obtain copies of your annual reports? Or financial information or
  financial statements on your facility including operating costs, sources of
  revenue, subsidies if any? Please send them to:
                Att: Luigi Zanasi
                Whitehorse Minor Soccer
                Sport Yukon Building
                4061-4th Avenue
                Whitehorse, YT Y1A 1H1

Or fill out the following to the best of your ability
                   Income                                                 Expenses
              Player Fees                                            Wages & Salaries
              Concessions                                                         Heat
      Grants & subsidies                                                        Power
        Rentals to others                                 Taxes & municipal utilities
               Advertising                                                   Insurance
Donations/sponsorships                                          Maintenance & repairs
                                                               Debt charges (Interest &
         Other Revenues
                                                                         Amortization)
                                                                    Office & telephone
                                                                      Professional fees
                                                                         Bank charges
                                                                            Advertising
                                                                       Other expenses


           Total Revenue                                               Total Expenses


Do you have any other comments or suggestions?




                             Thank you for your help!
Prepared by    Luigi Zanasi Economist
               Research Northwest
               Kobayashi Zedda Design Group

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Feasibility Study Report on Building Construction Project document sample