Halifax Regional Municipality Community Access Plan for Municipally Owned Arenas

Halifax Regional Municipality Community Access Plan for Municipally Owned Arenas

Council Leadership and Commitment Regional Council took a leadership role by: a) Approving the Short Term Arena Strategy (4Pad Arena) January 2009 including the Community Access Plan for initiation at the BMO Centre b) Approving the Long Term Arena Strategy in August 2012 including the initiation of the Community Access Plan at all Municipally owned arenas

What is the CAP? Policy document approved by Regional Council in August 2012. Created in order to ensure fair and equitable access to municipal sport and recreation infrastructure, by gender, sport, historically underserved groups, and emerging sport groups.

What will we do during this session? This session will walk you through the fundamental aspects of the Plan, and will highlight the Ice Allocation Policy as a key deliverable and example, of how equitable facility scheduling can change access and opportunities for all citizens.

BMO Centre and Nustadia Recreation PARTNERSHIP The original document was created through a partnership with the Halifax Regional Municipality and was established as the guiding document for the new HRM 4 Pad Arena Complex. NRI acknowledged this partnership as well as reflect the concerns and needs of the community in order to create / provide an exceptional sports / recreation experience.

Background Prime Time Short Term Arena Strategy never intended to satisfy all Prime Time asks Long Term Arena Strategy does not propose additional sheets to the indoor ice inventory Cannot meet all Prime Time wants/requests and still operate fiscally sustainable facilities Non prime time users are required at all arena facilities for financial sustainability

Importance of Equity Throughout Short Term Arena (4Pad) analysis, equity issues were discussed with Council. Confirmation of ongoing issues throughout LTAS process. Inequitable access to ice for new and underserviced sports Female hockey (girls and women) Ringette Figure skating Sledge Hockey

Importance of Equity Responsibility to serve all segments of our population Appropriate usage of municipal assets

CAP - Ice Allocation Policy Evolution of the CAP First, it was specifically a BMO Centre policy At that time, it was not a Regional policy Status quo decision making at existing facilities Individual arena operators allocate ice as per past practices Then, April 1 2013, CAP became a Regional Policy

Why Ice Allocation Policy Existing practices of ice allocation is no longer appropriate Grandfathering of hours Giving priority to youth Which sports get preference? Gender inequities Underserviced groups Which youth get preference?

Ice Allocation Policy How it will work Annual review of registered participants per organization Proportionate allocation between sports, groups, including gender, disabled, etc Standard of Fair Play: Use national sport org. recommended hours per athlete level (need vs want) Equity among adult groups, including prime time

Ice Allocation Policy Annually, ice time not needed must be returned to each facility to reassign not sold by individual user groups Role of Pricing Differentiates prime & non-prime Groups outside HRM pay full rate Adult / private users pay full rate, subsidizing youth / affiliated

Ice Allocation Policy Youth / Affiliated Users: Minor hockey Figure skating Ringette Sledge Hockey High school hockey

Ice Allocation Policy Guidelines for allocation No less than 50% to affiliated No more than 15% for public programming No more than 35% organized adult programs

Prime Time Ice Allocation Target Adult Affiliate 15% 85%

MC Spryfield Hfx Forum Devonshire Centennial SMBCC 4Pad Lebrun SSS Gray Bowles Sportsplex CH Place Eastern Shore 2010 Regular Season Adult Prime Time Analysis: Male vs Female Female Male 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Regional Ice Allocation Policy Why do municipalities steer away from developing region wide ice allocation policies? Controversial Challenges the status quo

Ltas 2012

Table 13: Access in minutes per Participant 2011/2012 # of Participants # of Ice Minutes Per Hours Participant Eastern Shore Hockey 357 37 10.4 Cole Harbour Hockey 697 106 15.2 Dartmouth Whalers 911 142 15.6 Bedford Minor Hockey 962 129 13.5 TASA Minor Hockey 995 109.5 11.0 Halifax Hawkes Hockey 979 108 11.0 Chebucto Minor Hockey 564 52.5 9.3 Sackville Minor Hockey 839 97 11.5 Total 5,465 684 Average 12.0

Eastern Shore Ringette 31 2 6.4 Cole Harbour Ringette 179 14 7.8 Dartmouth Ringette 124 12 9.6 Sackville Ringette 142 10 7.0 Bedford Ringette 183 15 8.1 HSM Ringette 159 14 8.8 Chebucto Ringette 162 11 6.7 Total 980 78 Average 7.8 Shearwater Skate Club 132 20 15.0 Dartmouth Skate Club 274 21 7.0 Sackville Skate Club 299 16.5 5.0 Bedford Skate Club 223 14.5 6.0 St. Margaret s Skate Club 280 18 6.0 Halifax Skate Club 191 9 5.0 Dalhousie Skate Club 17 6 3.5 Total 1,416 105 Average 7.4 Speed Skating Unconfirmed

Why Regional Ice Allocation Policy Why do municipalities adopt region wide ice allocation policies? Ethical Legal Logistical

Why do they NOT? Staff are people too, and the push-back can be very hard on sensitive people It s a difficult cultural and paradigm shift You get taken off Christmas Card lists Push back from traditional user groups is awkward and unpleasant

Community Access Policy Priorities and Guiding Principles Fairness and Equity Inclusivity Financial Sustainability Environmental Sustainability Regional Facility Successful implementation can only be if achieved when the CAP is applied with a rational, consistent and common sense approach.

CAP within a facility Able to incorporate consistency Able to address the underlying Moral/Ethical Issues Able to avoid the Legal-reality CAP had advantages in a new facility Our size allows us to handle Logistics No history Expectation preceded implementation

Allocations Annual review of registered participants per organization Proportionate allocation between sports, groups Gender and other considerations Standard of Fair Play (NSO recommendation hours per athlete) Equity among adults, even in prime time

How to! 1. Communicate with current clients. Send clients a letter indicating that they should apply for their preferred and next choice hours by the deadline in the document (pg 8) 1. Individual facilities will attempt to schedule all request, following the protocol outlined. 2. GM s and Schedulers will meet as a group to resolve any potential conflicts etc PRIOR to final responses to clients 3. Regular scheduling and contractual arrangements for regular season take place at each facility

Potential Push-Back from Clients Fear of losing of primetime hours Remember who built this facility Worried about being displaced by a policy decision Resistance to being told where to play Taking business elsewhere

Dates and Deadlines Regular Season Affiliates Jan 31 User groups provide actual registered numbers of users from the previous year based on the SOFP to be applied to requests March 31 June 31 Management advises all associations of whether or not their requests meet the SOFP formula Notification to user groups of allocated ice for upcoming regular season August 15 Review of the formula and allocations, and possible additions or reductions will take place in preparation for final disbursement of hours

Dates and Deadlines Regular Season January 31 Adult teams and leagues will provide a detailed list of number of registered participants (from the previous year) and the required ice time for the upcoming season June 31 Fair and equitable distribution of ice time (based on assumption of 14 players per team) among Adult groups

All other requests: In order to proportionally divide the allocated ice times for other requests: 1. All other requests will be provided to management in a timely manner and will be prioritized in an equitable ands fair manner as management determines. 2. Gender equity will be a priority in determining the allocation of ice to other users.

Q and A