The majority of residents are on board with the MD of Bonnyville creating an outdoor recreation park.
During a presentation by Stephen Slawuta of RC Strategies + PERC, the company hired to conduct a feasibility study on the project, numbers pertaining to whether or not the public was in favour of an outdoor recreation park, what they would like it to include, and the rough cost were shared with the municipality.
”We’ve gone through the process of doing the research and engagement, and we’ve come up with a draft site program. The next step for us is to review and refine that site program, and then take it to an open house, which is scheduled for May 6,” explained Slawuta during an MD council committee meeting on Wednesday, April 17. “That will be an opportunity for us to share the site program and some of the other potential impacts and benefits of the project, as well as the research findings.”
What they found
In order to ensure they had all of their bases covered, RC Strategies met with stakeholders, conducted a survey, and hosted open houses in order to gather information from the public.
“We wanted to make sure that we could gather feedback from residents and stakeholders in a variety of different ways,” noted Slawuta.
They decided to send out coded postcards that instructed residents in and surrounding the MD of Bonnyville to fill out a survey. Those who didn’t receive a code could also take part.
Slawuta said, “There was a really good level of response here. Over 400 responses for a very specific type of project that we’re asking about, I find, is really quite strong. That leaves us a really good margin of error. I think we can trust the data that we got quite a bit.”
In addition to the survey, stakeholder meetings with recreation and non-recreation groups, as well as a public open house, were held.
Roughly 40 to 50 residents took part in the open house, providing feedback and asking questions.
In terms of the survey, Slawuta explained how they used the coded responses to gather their information to present to council.
The first question asked residents to list the different types of facilities and spaces currently available, and whether they’re sufficient in the Bonnyville area.
“Generally in the responses, there wasn’t anything that strongly stuck out. But, there were a number of different types of spaces that over 25 per cent, or a quarter of your residents, indicated weren’t sufficiently provided in the area,” Slawuta noted.
Camping, day-use or picnic and barbecue areas, paved trails, and an outdoor amphitheater or performance space were listed as some of the top items.
“To me, that does tell a little bit of a story that there’s some demand for new outdoor recreation spaces,” added Slawuta.
When it came to whether or not respondents supported the project, over 50 per cent were either very much or somewhat on board, while 28 per cent weren’t in favour, and six per cent were unsure.
Those who were supportive of the recreation park were then asked why.
In some cases, those who filled out the survey felt that the park would expand what’s available, have an economic spin-off, or would provide local sports organizations with the opportunity to grow.
“People were looking at benefits that weren’t necessarily related to the capacity of spaces, which I thought was interesting as well,” Slawuta expressed.
For those that weren’t in favour, about half felt the MD should focus their resources elsewhere.
Residents were also asked to rank their top priorities for the site.
Slawuta said, “We asked them to help identify some space-type priorities. We gave them a list of different types of spaces, amenities, or facilities that could be included on the site, and they could pick up to five that they think should be towards the top of the list.”
The number one amenity people wanted to see, with 60 per cent in support, was a day-use, picnic, or barbecue area.
A paved loop trail, camping, playground, outdoor amphitheater, ball diamonds, soccer, football, and rugby fields, and pickleball courts were also listed.
“It’s a little bit surprising to me that the spaces that came out on top were those more spontaneous and less program-based spaces, things that they would go and do with their family on their own accord or more for passive recreation reasons,” emphasized Slawuta.
About 45 per cent of respondents noted they want the MD to keep the potential benefit the project could have on the area in mind when deciding whether or not to move forward, but also to consider operational costs and the impact it could have on other recreational facilities.
“Overall, people are mindful of a number of things that should be looked at as you, as decision-makers, consider the project as you move forward,” noted Slawuta.
When asked if their household would utilize the space, roughly 60 per cent answered yes, with 35 per cent not likely, and five per cent unsure.
Slawuta was surprised by the response they received in this area.
He said, “I thought the unsure would have been a little bit higher because we haven’t qualified as to what it is at this point, but roughly two-thirds indicated they would use the site.”
Keeping the Town of Bonnyville involved
MD of Bonnyville Reeve Greg Sawchuk felt the town should be involved along the way, because most respondents, 38 per cent, lived within a 15-minute drive of Bonnyville.
“I think they’re going to have to be included in the discussion, especially when you see the numbers in regards to respondents 15-minutes from the town. I would bet the support correlates directly across there,” he expressed.
The remaining surveyors were from within the MD but lived more than 15-minutes away from town (35 per cent), were residents of the Town of Bonnyville (16 per cent), had a home elsewhere (eight per cent), resided in Cold Lake (three per cent), or lived within the Village of Glendon (one per cent).
At the open house
Slawuta said that the open house provided feedback in terms of location, which hasn’t been decided at this point, use, and the importance of recreation in the MD.
Overall, he noted there was a “strong level of support for the project going ahead.“
“There were people that didn’t really know because we don’t know the costs yet, we don’t know exactly what’s on it, and they needed a bit more information before they could say yay or nay.”
What came out of stakeholder discussions?
“Some things that were prevalent from those discussions were that people recognize the benefits of developing a sort-of nature hub site. The one that we heard quite commonly was around economic benefits or bringing non-local spending to the area, the increased ability to attract tournaments to the area… and they talked about having a central gathering space. Right now, it was kind of common that it was disjointed where people were going for outdoor recreation. You have this major hub for indoor recreation… but not quite that same level of hub for outdoor space,” Slawuta detailed.
Users also want the space to be multi-purpose and multi-functional.
“It can’t just be focused on one user group, or one type of use. You need to have a diversity of offering,” he added.
They stressed the importance that the park not duplicate amenities that are already offered in the area, and gave their opinions on what they would and wouldn’t like to see.
“There were a lot of different opinions about an outdoor performance space,” noted Slawuta. “That ranked out quite highly (on the survey), but people we talked to in those stakeholder discussions, as well at the open house, had different opinions on that. Some thought it would be great to have a major outdoor event hosting band shelter-type space, but others felt that you already have that space sufficiently provided.”
Keeping within the MD’s financial window was key when discussing the services the outdoor recreation park will provide.
The concept
“This is really a first draft that’s going to require some refinement, particularly as we figure out the financial viability or realities of what may or may not be possible,” explained Slawuta.
Slawuta and his team created a three-phased approach to the recreation park.
He noted, it could be broken down even further, with a phase one A and B.
The first phase includes the construction of a baseball quad, softball/slo-pitch quad, fields used for soccer, rugby, and possibly football, pickleball courts, a destination playground, a building and gathering space, a day-use and barbecue area, loop trails, and 61 non-serviced campsites.
Phase two would see the construction of the remaining 61 serviced campsites, an outdoor event space, and a boarded outdoor rink.
“We’ve left a fair amount of space, and plotted some space on the site for other types of yet to be defined recreation community amenities that could be added later. We didn’t want to squeeze everything we possibly could on the site, we wanted to leave some flexibility in case 10 years down the road tennis takes off or disc golf becomes the big rage here locally,” he explained.
This is what Slawuta considered phase three.
“First draft, I expect we will need to go over a fair bit of refinement on this, but this is where we’ve landed right now,” he added.
Cost also a concern for council
In order to give the MD options, RC Strategies provided levels for each phase: basic, community, and performance.
Slawuta said, “Basic, not that it would be a poor level of quality, I want to make that clear, but it would be basic seeding with no irrigation. It would be more of a basic approach. Then we get into community, which would add some basic irrigation capacity to the site, a little bit of a higher quality of seeding, infield design, and things of that nature. Performance would be if you want the Cadillac of sites like this. It would be the top level of diamond and field quality.”
The draft concept of the project has a basic version of phase one coming in at around $18-million, a price tag that didn’t sit well with all of council.
“I think we do need to come up with a plan to consider… a phase that’s going to be realistic. The $20-million is going to scare everyone right off of the bat,” said Coun. Marc Jubinville.
On a community-level, the same phase would ring in at over $20-million, followed by a jump in cost up to $29-million for a performance-level project.
The second phase would be roughly $4-million regardless of the quality level.
Depending on which route the MD decides to go, the project with all of the current items included, could cost anywhere from $22-million to $33-million.
“This is class D, that’s a high level of costing, which is plus or minus 30 per cent. That could be a big swing,” noted Slawuta.
Certain items such as site mobilization, grading, stormwater management, site infrastructure, and roadway access weren’t included in the preliminary numbers.
According to Slawuta, there is an opportunity to save on costs in a few areas and the MD could “pick off some of the things that you think could be lowered quite significantly.”
“You would put the entire project out to tender for an engineer or architect, they would bring in their vendors and suppliers who are experienced in sports field development or infields… quite often in those cases in smaller communities, or even mid-sized urban areas, a lot of these costs get reduced through local creativity like bringing in local suppliers, utilizing volunteer labour by the different support groups, there’s a number of ways.”
In progress are the operational costs, which can’t be determined until council decides whether to include all of the amenities, or if they will allow sports groups to take responsibility for maintaining the fields they use.
“Operational analysis is something that’s in progress because we wanted to get the site program and concept refined a little bit more first before we dug into that. A couple of considerations that are important… is one way to reduce some of the operational costs would be to lease out some of the components and amenities of this site to the user groups,” noted Slawuta.
“Costing-wise, I don’t know if it is that far off. I know the football field in town, we were over $3-million on that, and $600,000 was just gravel,” said Sawchuk.
Slawuta agreed.
“It’s always a bit of a shock factor when we look at outdoor spaces because it is grass, shale, and fencing to us, but to develop it to a quality that’s going to fulfill the uses that we would like to have on that site potentially, it needs to be done right,” he said.
An open house is set for May 6 at the Shaw House.
RC Strategies will give a brief presentation about the project and their findings to the public before opening the floor for discussion.
The time of the event has yet to be released.
Sawchuk stated, “I think this could go to the public as-is for further comment, but I think this is going to be a bigger council conversation where we’re going to need some input from our locals.”
