Ice Rink Proposal

SERVICES

·         Core indoor services considered were an ice surface with change rooms, concession area, and stadium seating.  Highly desirable services included non-ice (conversion) event hosting, and fitness facilities (particarly for altitude aerobic training).  Consideration of a swimming pool was discouraged as expensive and labor intensive.  This is borne out in a review of a comparable multi-use (rink and pool) facility currently operating in Grand Forks¹.

CATCHMENT AREA

The catchment area was established as the Big White region of Area E.  The stakeholders include property owners, the Resort, and the RDKB.  Given distances, it was felt that the facility would provide little benefit to other area E communities.  The facility was considered to be a positive economic opportunity for all property owners in Big White regardless of their residential status.  Full time residents would appreciate the recreation and employment opportunities, particularly out of ski season.  Part time residents would benefit from increased personal use, and improved potential for 4 season rentals.

SITE LOCATION

It was generally agreed that strong consideration be given to establishing the site at or near Happy Valley Parking lot, and within walking distance of Lara's Gondola.  This area is described in the Big White zoning map at http://www.rdkb.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=18f_tjUhrUQ%3d&tabid=118 , and as pictured below.

RINK CONFIGURATION

Rink size could be one full size rink surface (large format), or two small rink format. 

1.       Large format (NHL size of 85 × 200 ft = 26 × 61 m; Intl. size 30 × 61 m = 98 × 200 ft).  I doubt the latter is popular in this area and could be a selling feature as a preseason or training camp for international teams.  ²

2.       Small format (2 smaller sheets).³ 

Parking; per current RDKB zoning should require One space per 30 m2 of gross floor area or one space for every four potential players or participants (at capacity), whichever is greater.  Assuming the facility footage is twice the area of an NHL rink, this would require 85 parking spots.  Higher rates for mixed commercial use would likely raise this to 100.  Happy Valley currently has over one thousand spots.  Real requirements would likely be considerably less because seasonal clients can be served by the Gondola at hundreds per hour.  There is ample free parking in Happy Valley during the off season.

FUNDING     It was felt that most taxpayers would prefer a model based on early ROI (debt financing with an early build) rather than deferred  (accumulating a capital fund reserve before build).  For comparable facility funding analysis, the Grand Forks Arena (excluding pool) costs local taxpayers about $250,000 annually.  This would represent a 5% tax increase after capital investments.

REFERENDUM PROCESS

This was explained as likely to be a two step process.  Step one would be an Alternative Approval Process (see http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/gov_structure/community_charter/governance/alternative_approval_process.htm) where taxpayers could vote on the facility and be given an opportunity to be heard.  If 10% of the electoral constituency (Big White propterty owners) vote "NO" to the idea, the propsal is defeated.  It was concensus that the proposal should be well developed before formal this vote.   Unless 10% of registered owners actively voted against the proposal (often done by mail), it could be brought to referendum by the area Rep (Bill Baird) with limited further consultation.  The referendum itself would be a two step process, initially approval in priniciple to confirm support for the increased tax costs by voters involved.  This is needed to secure goverment funds for any specific proposal, and would not need to be repeated with proposal revisions.  The second step would be another refendum to consider a specific proposal to include financial projections.  Both petition questions could be on the same ballot.  For a list of qualificaitons for eligible voters see http://mybigwhite.com/government/rdkb/election-rules/eligibility/.

SUBLET POTENTIAL    It was felt that the new rec site could provide a logical home for related public services, notably firefighting, and medical (transport and acute treatment).

Firefighting;  Given the high previous volunteer support the Big White Fire Department has provided for the residents and community, and given the benefit of highly trained emergency personel in house, consideration for joint occupancy will be discussed with Chief Weddell (BWFD http://www.bigwhitefire.com/personnel.html ).

Medical;    On site medical service and transport at the rec location would offer substantial improvement to the first aid center currently staffed by Canadian Ski Patrol Association (CSPS http://www.csps.ca/eng/index.php3 ) currently operates from the "Ski Patrol" hut.  The BC Ambualance Service (http://www.csps.ca/eng/index.php3) operates a service during the ski season during the same period (under direction of the Armstrong Station).  More information on longstanding requests for the West Kootenay Regional Hospital Board for better facilities (given our $200,000 annual tax burden for hospitals out of our referral area), are found at http://mybigwhite.com/community-board/conversation-on-health.

1    COST ANALYSIS OF THE GRAND FORKS COMBINED ICE RINK AND POOL

Comparable facilities in the area include Grand Forks Rec Complex (see http://www.rdkb.com/Services/RecreationCulture/GrandForks/GrandForksAquaticCentreandArena.aspx ) and the Castlegar Rec Center ( see http://www.rdck.bc.ca/community/recreation/castlegar/meeting_facilities.html).  This public facility is funded by From a review of the respective service budgets (see aquatic budget at    http://www.rdkb.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=G3Gwln6Et4Q%3d&tabid=75 ; rink budget at http://www.rdkb.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=rPjGg2SXOjo%3d&tabid=75 ).  Currently each component (aquatic and arena) have an annual budget of approximately $400,000.  Local municipal taxes pay about 60% of these costs (with a substantially lower real tax base than Big White).  The balance of costs is recovered from user fees and community contribution.  It was recognized that the demographic of Big White would likely have high demand for recreation services during the ski season.  Given the infrastructure asset mix of the Resort, potential for destination sports during the off season is also high.  This includes team training, high altitude conditioning, curling bonspiels, and summer hockey camps.  This was recognized as an attractive financial argument for financial benefits to property owners interested in rentals during the 7 month off ski season.

2     Conversations with area hockey camps confirm one sheet should service about 100 skaters when combined with dryland training in a “summer hockey camp” scenario.  Most come with parents as singles.  Aside from ice, you’d need a large flat dryland area, and a fitness training area indoors.  Programs cost around $100 per day, and economic benefit to local commercial interests (accomodations and food) should double this.  That is an potential local economic of $100,000 per week.

3    Two half sheets with mixed or various use.   A comparable self funded facility is Excellent Ice (see http://www.excellentice.com ).  This facility runs 14 hours per day with 10 kids per side.  This means a program with 100 kids could expect 20% ice time (about 3 hours per day).