COMS-061-09 Tennis Strategy

Transcription

The Corporation of the
TOWN OF MILTON
Report to:
Chair & Members of the Community Services Standing Committee
From:
Jennifer Reynolds, Director of Community Services
Date:
October 13, 2009
Report No.
COMS-061-09
Subject:
Tennis Strategy
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the Tennis Strategy ( 2009) as prepared by Monteith
Brown Planning Consultants in association with The JF
Group and Roth Associates be approved in principle;
AND THAT the Tennis Strategy be used in the planning of
tennis facilities for the Town of Milton, subject to annual
approval of Capital and Operating Budgets and Forecast;
AND THAT the Community Services Department work
collaboratively with the Milton Tennis Club and the
Nassagaweya
Tennis
Club
to
address
the
recommendations as outlined within the Tennis Strategy.
Executive Summary
The development of a Tennis Strategy is in response to an action plan as
recommended within the Community Services Master Plan (December 2008). The
strategy examines current trends, demographics, facilities inventory and provides
direction regarding new and existing tennis court development and redevelopment, both
at the neighbourhood level and for club facilities.
The Milton Tennis Club (MTC) and the Nassagaweya Tennis Club (NTC) play a
significant role in promoting interest in the sport of tennis and were consulted for their
input into the development of the tennis strategy.
TOWN OF MILTON
Report No.COMS-061-09
Page No. 2
REPORT
Background
Monteith Brown Planning Consultants in association with The JF Group and Roth
Associates were engaged to prepare a Tennis Strategy to guide and direct tennis
programs, services and facility development / redevelopment through to the year 2018.
There are currently 20 municipal tennis courts within the Town of Milton being Bronte
Meadows Park (2), Kinsmen Park (1) Rotary Park (2), MTC (8), NTC (3) and Bishop
Reding Secondary School (4 – limited access).
Through the use of information surveys, base information was obtained from each of the
tennis clubs. Subsequent steering committee meetings were held with each club to
review the information and discuss short term and long term planning needs. The most
recent correspondence from the two clubs is attached as Schedule C – Nassagaweya
Tennis Club and Schedule D – Milton Tennis Club.
Discussion
In accordance with the study terms of reference, a wide range of issues were examined
including but not limited to the following:
Tennis Trends
The demand for tennis in North America has remained stable and is on the increase for
growing communities such as the Town of Milton since the greatest participation
increases are being generated by a young adult population.
A key observation of the Tennis Strategy indicates “Tennis participation in Milton is
healthy and the demographics projects for the municipality suggest that the Town’s
tennis community is likely to remain strong for the foreseeable future “.
Emerging Trends
The study identifies new tennis based initiatives that the municipality should track for
future consideration:
TOWN OF MILTON
•
•
•
•
•
Page No. 3
Platform Tennis – outdoor cold weather play on a lit / heated platform
approximately ¼ the size of a regular tennis court
Beach Tennis – a combination of tennis, beach volleyball and badminton
utilizing specialized paddles
Wheelchair tennis- played on a regular tennis surface using standard tennis
rules with the exception of that a two ball bounce is permitted
Transitional Tennis- the use of modified slower foam balls being played on a
shortened court depth
Pickleball- played on a badminton size court with lower nets, modified
perforated plastic ball with wood paddles
Facility Inventory and Development – Municipal
Site inspections of the three municipally owned tennis courts, Kinsmen Park, Bronte
Meadows Park and Rotary Park were conducted and assessed as their state of repair /
disrepair. Costing and associated timelines for court rejuvenation was prepared.
For future planning consideration, the study recommends the Town’s current provision
level of 1 tennis court per 10,000 new residents be utilized. With this in mind, a total of 8
new courts are being recommended over the next 10 years. These facilities are to be
constructed in future District or Community-level parks and in locations that provide
good spatial distribution within the community.
Facility Inventory and Development- Tennis Clubs
Town staff and the consultant conducted site inspections of both the MTC and NTC, to
inventory and assess their state of repair / disrepair.
NTC
The courts, which were originally built in or around 1980, are showing signs of wear and
tear and are unpredictably plagued periodically by depressions and sink holes on the
playing surface due to an unstable sub- base. The perimeter fencing has been modified
with wood boards to keep balls from running out of play and the chain link mesh is
showing 70% surface rust. The clubhouse is old and in constant state of decline and the
adjoining municipally used portion of the building is currently only suitable for storage.
In summary, the study recommends that the NTC remain in its current location and that
the facility be rebuilt to eliminate the ongoing court settlement problems and undesirable
TOWN OF MILTON
Page No. 4
court orientation. The study further suggests “a fourth court be considered for
construction provided it is used as a multi-purpose space or complementary use (e.g.
rebound wall, stretching area, etc.) to provide the NTC with long–term flexibility in
making use of the space while attaining efficiencies in the capital cost of construction.”
MTC
The MTC courts are considered high quality and well utilized. However, over the past
year, significant heaving of perimeter fencing line posts and court net posts has
occurred. In addition, settlement problems are being experienced between the interface
of the playing surface and the grading beam which was installed in the original
construction, in anticipation of a future tennis bubble. Due to normal wear and tear,
resurfacing of the courts with a colour-coat is required.
In summary, the study does not recommend that additional courts be constructed within
this facility but rather that a sufficient block of land be set aside as part of the
Community Park design to accommodate an additional 4 courts for future club growth.
Indoor Tennis
As both clubs have expressed an interest in accessing a year round indoor tennis
facility, the need and financial implications of doing so was included in the tennis
strategy terms of reference and has been addressed with the final report. A business
plan was prepared for the MTC given their facility has a grade beam already in place to
accommodate a bubble structure.
After examining user demand, costs, benefits and the criteria required for a successful
year round facility, the study recommends that the Town not participate in a partnership
for a bubble at this time until the Town’s population has increased to a level where an
adequate number of indoor players are available to support a bubble facility. The
projected timeline where an indoor tennis facility would be viable is after 2016.
The study further recommends that the Town work collaboratively with the tennis clubs
toward the promotion of outdoor and indoor tennis.
Mr. Todd Brown and Mr. Anand Desai from the firm Monteith Brown Planning
Consultants will be in attendance on the October 13th, 2009 to present the highlights of
the Tennis Strategy.
TOWN OF MILTON
Page No. 5
Relationship to the Strategic Plan
Goal – Well managed growth, well planned space
Direction – Encourage the development of public facilities in appropriate locations at the
right time to meet the needs of present and future residents
Goal – A responsible, cost effective and accountable local government
Direction – Ensure that fiscally responsible Operating and Capital budgets are
established and maintained on a yearly basis
Financial Impact
The Tennis Strategy provides a detailed outline of the estimated costs for
implementation based on its recommendations. Subject to Council approval of the study
recommendations in principle, the annual and 10 year capital budget will be updated to
reflect the study’s recommendations to ensure a coordinated and timely implementation
of tennis facilities is achieved.
Through the Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RlnC) Program in Ontario, the Town
has received two thirds funding approval from the Federal and Provincial Governments
toward the NTC redevelopment which has an estimated project cost of 2.9 million
dollars.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Reynolds,
Director, Community Services
If you have any questions on the content of this report: John Bryant, Manager, Parks and Open
Space, EXT.2160
Attachments:
Schedule A - Tennis Strategy - Final Report ( September 2009)
Schedule B – Tennis Strategy Council Presentation
Schedule C – Nassagaweya Tennis Club Comments
Schedule D – Milton Tennis Club Comments
CAO Approval: _________________________
Town of Milton TENNIS STRATEGY Final Report October 5, 2009 Prepared by: in association with roth associates
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1 Terms of Reference .............................................................................................................. 1 Findings from the Community Services Master Plan ........................................................... 2 SECTION 2: TRENDS IN TENNIS 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 4 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 4 North American Participation Trends .................................................................................. 4 Strategies in Marketing/Promoting Tennis ........................................................................ 13 Emerging Trends in Tennis Sports ...................................................................................... 16 Summary of Trends ............................................................................................................ 22 SECTION 4: CONSULTATION WITH TENNIS CLUBS 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 24 Service Delivery Model ....................................................................................................... 24 Partnership Opportunities .................................................................................................. 26 Facility Funding and Cost Trends ........................................................................................ 27 Potential Opportunities for the Future .............................................................................. 28 Agreements with Local Tennis Clubs .................................................................................. 29 SECTION 5: COMMUNITY DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 32 Historical and Projected Population Figures ...................................................................... 32 Demographic Age Composition .......................................................................................... 33 Ethnicity .............................................................................................................................. 34 Household Income and Education ..................................................................................... 34 SECTION 6: FACILITY INVENTORY 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 37 Nassagaweya Tennis Club .................................................................................................. 37 Milton Tennis Club.............................................................................................................. 39 Bronte Meadows Park ........................................................................................................ 41 Rotary Park ......................................................................................................................... 43 Kinsmen Park ...................................................................................................................... 45 SECTION 7: ASSESSMENT OF COURT NEEDS 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 47 The Need for Additional Tennis Courts .............................................................................. 47 The Need for Casual & Drop‐In Courts ............................................................................... 49 The Need for Outdoor Competitive & Club Courts ............................................................ 57 The Need for Indoor Tennis Courts .................................................................................... 63 Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates i SECTION 8: BUSINESS PLAN – INDOOR TENNIS FACILITY 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 66 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 66 Research‐based Inputs ....................................................................................................... 66 Testing the Proposal with the Alternative Service Delivery Model ................................... 73 Relationship Options .......................................................................................................... 74 Indoor Tennis Market Analysis ........................................................................................... 74 Indoor Facility ‐ Financial Estimates ................................................................................... 80 Observations, Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................... 83 Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Town of Milton has undertaken this Tennis Strategy to guide and direct the provision of tennis programs, services and facilities to the year 2018, in order to address the local demand for tennis among current and future residents of Milton. There are currently 20 tennis courts in Milton, 11 of which are under the purview of local tennis clubs, 5 are casual/no fee courts located in neighbourhood parks, and 4 are located at Bishop Reding Secondary School (note: the status of availability is pending for the latter as there are indications that the courts may be decommissioned by the local school board). Trends in tennis participation vary greatly across North America, as well as within individual municipalities and even between neighbourhoods. National and provincial tennis organizations are targeting developmental tennis programs and new forms of the sport to reach a broader market and bolster participation in the sport. In Ontario, participation in tennis is rising among younger adults (i.e. those between 25 and 34), which is an age segment that will constitute a significant proportion of Milton’s population. To address local tennis needs, the Tennis Strategy advances the following directions. 1) A total of 8 new tennis courts are required over the ten year period, to address existing distribution and service levels established the Community Services Master Plan: •
Four new tennis courts, which are of club‐quality but intended to remain casual/no fee, courts should be placed at a new park preferably serving District or Community‐level needs in the Sherwood Secondary Plan Area (preferably in the Scott or Harrison neighbourhoods). It is envisioned that these tennis courts will be transferred over to a club operation once demand for organized tennis is sufficient enough in the area to warrant this course of action. The capital cost of these courts is estimated to be $818,260 (2009 dollars) plus associated ongoing operational costs. •
Two new multi‐use courts with tennis capabilities across a minimum of two parks in the Bristol Secondary Plan Area. At least one court with tennis capabilities should be provided as part of Coates Neighbourhood Park, while the Clarke community is also deemed a plausible location. The Town should also evaluate its existing multi‐use courts located within the Bristol Survey and evaluate their ability to accommodate tennis capabilities. The combined capital cost of these courts is estimated to be $271,590 plus associated ongoing operational costs. •
Two new multi‐use courts with tennis capabilities across a minimum of two parks in the Boyne (Phase 3) Secondary Plan Area in line with the development of this community. Additional multi‐use courts with tennis capabilities will likely be required based upon spatial distribution of this community. The combined capital cost of these courts is estimated to be $162,960 plus associated ongoing operational costs. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates iii
2) With regard to the existing supply of tennis courts distributed across various municipal parks, for the most part these facilities are tired and in need of rejuvenation. The following is recommended for these facilities: •
Kinsmen Park – rejuvenate these courts in the short to medium‐term (i.e. prior to 2013) and provide a pod for two tennis courts and a separate pod for one multi‐use court; lighting standards should be removed from these courts. The capital cost of this action is estimated to be $208,700. •
Bronte Meadows Park – rejuvenate these courts in the medium‐term (i.e. prior to 2015) and provide a pod for two tennis courts and a separate pod for one multi‐use court. The capital cost of this action is estimated to be $187,460 (2009 dollars). •
Rotary Park – maintain these courts according to the municipality’s schedule. 3) With regard to outdoor club courts, it will be important for the Town to be a facilitator of high quality tennis surfaces and provide local tennis clubs with the internal capacity to grow their programs by implementing the following recommendations: • The Nassagaweya Tennis Club courts are deemed to be operationally unsustainable in their present form, due to the excessive maintenance required to keep them at a high level of quality because of issues pertaining to the instability of the subsoil. It is recommended that while the Town significantly reduce its operational commitment to the entire site, it should provide the NTC with every opportunity to grow its membership and become self sufficient. The existing tennis courts should be removed and reconstructed, with sufficient land for a fourth tennis court also being left for a possible future expansion (i.e. the fourth court should be considered at a future time when membership is sufficient enough to warrant it). The capital cost associated with redevelopment of the courts is estimated to range between $243,520 and $264,420, depending upon where the redeveloped courts are situated, while an additional cost of $1.3 million to $1.9 million would be associated with constructing a new clubhouse. • The Milton Tennis Club courts are of high quality and while they are well utilized, investment in additional new courts is not recommended at the present location until membership levels are at a point where demand pressures become acute. Instead, sufficient land capable of accommodating four courts should be set aside to the south of existing courts and two temporary ‘rebound boards’ should be developed for both club and public use. The Milton Tennis Club should be offered the first priority to assume the four courts recommended at an alternative location, which are intended to be casual/no fee courts for the shorter‐term until a time at which interest is expressed in converting these courts over for club use. 4) With regard to an all‐weather tennis facility (e.g. bubble), the capital cost of such a facility at the Milton Tennis Club location is estimated to be in excess of $500,000 with operational costs projected to range from $190,000 to $225,000 between years one and ten of Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates iv
operation, exclusive of debt servicing. Net profits will depend upon the financing scenario implemented, however, it is virtually assured that a net operating loss will be incurred during the short‐term as it is not anticipated that the local participation base is sufficient enough at present, thus reliance would be placed upon population growth to increase indoor tennis participation to a sustainable level. As such, municipal involvement in the provision of an all‐weather facility is not recommended unless the following criteria can be achieved: •
The Town receives commitment from both Milton tennis clubs that they will work collaboratively towards elevating local interest in indoor tennis. •
The clubs provide the Town with agreeable assurances and guarantees regarding their ability to attract an adequate number of indoor players to a Milton tennis bubble. •
That in the absence of assurances that the clubs could successfully execute the strategies to attract sufficient indoor tennis players, the Town would not consider participating in a partnership for the bubble at this time. Once Milton’s population grows sufficiently to produce an adequate number of indoor tennis players to support the indoor operation – likely not until sometime after 2016 – that the Town be amenable to re‐evaluating a partnership for the provision of year round tennis. •
The municipality be assured that the club has the ability to secure the services of an appropriately qualified Pro/Manager. •
The Milton Tennis Club prepare a detailed business plan demonstrating its understanding of operating an indoor tennis facility. •
The Town require the Milton Tennis Club to contribute annually to a capital reserve account for the specific purpose of repairing and/or replacing components of the indoor facility. •
The Milton Tennis Club undertake fundraising campaigns to: (1) generate funds that can be contributed to the project to reduce the loan amount; and (2) generate funds to be held in a working capital account to offset cash shortfalls that could occur the first few years of operations. •
The Town require the Milton Tennis Club to maintain a working capital account with a minimum balance equal to approximately 50% of the club’s total annual cost obligations. •
The Town evaluate the merits and drawbacks of a relationship with the Milton Tennis Club by applying the combination of processes and requirements included in Town of Milton Policy 107 and the alternative service delivery model presented in the Community Services Master Plan. •
If the relationship with the Milton Tennis Club is deemed acceptable, that the Town consider providing financial assistance to the project utilizing one of the relationship options described in this report. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates v
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION The Town of Milton is undertaking a Tennis Strategy to guide and direct tennis programs, services and facilities through to the year 2018 in order to be prepared for the demands of current and future residents. The Tennis Strategy stems from action plans contained in the Community Services Master Plan (December 2008), which states: •
The Town should develop a tennis strategy in order to determine the number of facilities (lit and unlit), their location, if an enclosure/bubble is required, etc. •
The tennis strategy should evaluate the future use and/or replacement of the Campbellville Community Centre courts, and provide options that consider the needs of the Nassagaweya Tennis Club. This Strategy provides an overview of the tennis‐related recommendations of the Community Services Master Plan, current demographics, trends analysis and facilities inventory regarding Milton’s tennis activity. This Report also provides preliminary directions regarding new and existing tennis courts, both at the neighbourhood‐level and for club facilities. Both the Milton Tennis Club and the Nassagaweya Tennis Club have been consulted for their input into this process. 1.1
Terms of Reference This Strategy sets out to determine the required quantity, amenities and distribution of tennis facilities in the Town of Milton, with a special emphasis on actions pertaining to the courts at the Nassagaweya Tennis Club and Milton Tennis Club. The Strategy involves the following: •
•
•
•
an evaluation of the quantity and condition of Milton’s existing facilities; a review of the short, medium, and long term tennis facility needs in order to reaffirm Milton’s current court to new resident ratio of 1:10,000; establishing a priority for removal or replacement of certain facilities; and an explanation of the financial resources required for these undertakings. With regard to the Milton Tennis Club (MTC), the Tennis Strategy involves a cost/benefit analysis to determine the feasibility of an enclosure/bubble structure to enable year‐round play and recommendations about constructing additional courts. Furthermore, a Business Plan has been prepared and incorporates the following items: •
•
•
•
•
•
Three options for year‐round club operations; A capital and operating budget; A financial pro‐forma focusing on land development assessment; Terms and conditions for an operating agreement; A Best Practices summary; and General operating guidelines. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 1
With regard to the Nassagaweya Tennis Club (NTC), the Tennis Strategy involves an assessment of future planning needs, a capital and operating budget plan, a cost/benefit analysis outlining a range of options, including: •
•
•
Redeveloping old buildings/facilities; New site/facility development; or New facilities constructed on the same site. Another element of the Tennis Strategy is a detailed inspection of sites and facilities owned by the Town, which assists in the development of recommendations associated with removal or upgrades. Lastly, a framework has been provided for future service and delivery options for the public regarding club activities and public access to tennis courts. 1.2
Findings from the Community Services Master Plan Keys points pertaining to tennis, as contained in the Community Services Master Plan (CSMP) are outlined in the following pages. The needs assessment from the CSMP employed a methodology based upon the application of local demographics, trends, public consultations, participation data, and per capita standards. Tennis Courts There are currently 20 municipal tennis courts in Milton, 11 of which require a membership to gain access. The distribution of courts is as follows. Club Courts – Membership Required: • Milton Tennis Club (8 tennis courts) • Nassagaweya Tennis Club (3 tennis courts) Neighbourhood / Public Courts – No Fee: • Bronte Meadows Park (2 tennis courts + 1 multi‐use court) • Kinsmen Park (1 tennis court + 1 multi‐use court + 1 basketball court) • Rotary Park (2 tennis courts) School Courts – Limited Access: • Bishop Reding Secondary School (4 tennis courts) – note that the local school board may decommission these courts in the short‐term (decision is pending) and, therefore, have been excluded from supply totals considered as part of this Study’s needs assessments. The Town’s recommended provision level, as taken from the Sherwood Survey Secondary Plan and endorsed by the CSMP, recommends a provision level of one court per 10,000 new residents. Spatial distribution of tennis courts is also important as they can be viewed as a neighbourhood level facility, and therefore, developing courts to address spatial gaps may override the population based provision standard. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 2
Given the fact that 64,000 new residents are expected in the next ten years, a total of six new tennis courts will be required based on a 1:10,000 standard. The Town currently has plans for six new courts, with three new courts scheduled to be constructed in the Scott neighbourhood in 2010. The remaining three courts are not slated for construction until 2020 for development in the Harrison neighbourhood (subsequent to the 10 year time frame of this Report). The CSMP suggests that post 2016 construction will likely be sufficient given the number of existing tennis courts in Milton, however, it recommended that the new courts be publicly available without a membership charge to ensure affordability. The CSMP also recommended that the Town continue to provide existing club courts to tennis organizations as this allows for high quality and competitive opportunities for those who desire such facilities. Furthermore, it is understood that the quality of certain tennis courts need to be upgraded which may facilitate additional usage and satisfaction among residents. The formalized action plans pertaining to tennis, as contained in the CSMP, are as follows: 9 The Town should develop a tennis strategy in order to determine the required number of facilities (lit and unlit), their location, if an enclosure/bubble is required, etc. Based on the research in this Plan, in order to meet the public demand for tennis courts there will be a need to provide six courts by 2016 with three likely required to be available for public use at no charge. New courts would ideally be suited in the Willmott, Scott and/or Harrison neighbourhoods. 9 The tennis strategy should evaluate the future use and/or replacement of the Campbellville Community Centre courts, and provide options that consider the needs of the Nassagaweya Tennis Club. Multi‐Purpose Courts The CSMP also provides direction regarding ‘multi‐purpose courts’, which the Town has increasingly incorporated into neighbourhood‐level park design in recent years. Multi‐purpose courts can accommodate unscheduled activities such as tennis, basketball and ball hockey to name but a few as all of these activities are well suited to an asphalt surface and the Town is able to achieve capital savings from efficiencies in construction and maintenance. At present, there are a total of nine multi‐purpose courts currently located throughout Milton. Utilizing an age‐specific standard of one court per 900 youth (between the ages of 10 and 19), the CSMP finds that multi‐purpose needs are currently adequate but the Town will ultimately require two new courts by 2011 and four additional courts between 2011 and 2016. The formalized action plans pertaining to multi‐purpose courts, as contained in the CSMP, are as follows: 9 To meet the demand for six new multi‐purpose courts by 2016, the Town should develop at least two such courts in the Bristol Survey as well as in the Scott and Willmott neighbourhoods. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 3
SECTION 2: TRENDS IN TENNIS 2.1
Overview Effective planning for the Town’s current and future tennis needs requires the identification of existing and emerging trends that potentially affect the provision of facility and programs. Understanding trends related to demographics, participation, and facility development can assist with anticipating shifts in the demand for tennis programs and facilities. This Section summarizes the high‐level trends in the delivery of, and demand for tennis facilities and programs. The trends analysis is based upon data from a number of sources, including Tennis Canada, the Ontario Tennis Association (OTA), the Tennis Industry Association (TIA), the United States Tennis Association (USTA) and other research agencies. Input received from the Milton Tennis Club and Nassagaweya Tennis Club has been used to supplement the trends research and provide a local context in relation to the other findings. 2.2
North American Participation Trends 2.2.1 Participation Trends in Canada In recent years there has been in‐depth research outlining tennis participation in Canada. According to the Print Measure Bureau (PMB), over 1.8 million Canadians over the age of 12 played tennis at least once during the 2006‐07 season. Across Canada, the participation growth rate has decreased by 3% from the 2005‐06 to 2006‐07 season. From a regional perspective, the decline is driven by less participation in Quebec and to a lesser extent Atlantic Canada. In contrast, participation in Ontario and the Prairies participation has increased (1% and 12%, respectively) from 2005‐06 to 2006‐07.1 •
British Columbia showed increases in youth (12‐17) and adult (25‐44), but declines in young adults (18‐24) and mature adults (45‐64). •
The Prairies showed increases in adults (35‐44) and mature adults, but declines in youth (12‐17), young adults (18‐24) and adults (25‐34). •
Ontario showed increases in adults (25‐34), but declines in youth (12‐17) and young adults (18‐24) while adults (35‐44) and mature adults (45‐64) remained the same. •
Quebec showed increases in adults (35‐44) and mature adults (45‐64), but declines in youth (12‐17), young adults (18‐24) and adults (25‐34). •
Atlantic Canada showed increases in adults (25‐44), but declines in youth (12‐17), young adults (18‐24) and mature adults (45‐64). 1
Print Measure Bureau. Tennis Participation Tracking 2002~2003 to 2006~2007 Summary Report. 2008.
Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 4
12
8
10
4
3
1
12-17
-1
-2
5
3
0
-3
-3
18-24
Ontario
Quebec
The Prairies
British Columbia
Atlantic Canada
Ontario
35-44
Quebec
The Prairies
British Columbia
Atlantic Canada
Ontario
The Prairies
25-34
Quebec
-8
British Columbia
Atlantic Canada
Quebec
Ontario
The Prairies
‐10
-3
Atlantic Canada
-5 -6
Quebec
-1 -2
Ontario
-4 -5
The Prairies
0
‐5
10
8
0
British Columbia
5
7
-10
Atlantic Canada
15
British Columbia
Percentage of Change
Figure 1: Percentage Change of Tennis Playing Population from 2005‐06 to 2006‐07 by Age Cohort 45-64
Source: Print Measure Bureau, 2008 Looking specifically at the Ontario context, the only age group showing increased participation is the 25 to 34 age segment. This is especially important in a community such as Milton as this age group will make up a considerable proportion of the Town’s future population growth. It is not clear what practices are in place in other provinces to encourage the considerable increases in population, however, it is safe to assume that awareness (i.e. marketing, education) and opportunity (i.e. availability of facilities and programs) are the primary drivers of tennis growth. Consistently men have constituted a higher percentage of the tennis playing population. The proportion of men to women was almost equal in 2003‐04 at 51% (men) and 49% (women), however, the proportion of women has been slowly decreasing ever since. The census metropolitan areas Figure 2: % Player Population vs. % Canadian Population for CMAs
(CMAs) of Toronto, Montreal, and % of Canadian Pop.
Vancouver show an overall increase 22%
25%
% of Total Tennis in participation from 2002‐03 to 20%
Playing Pop.
16%
2006‐07. Collectively, these CMAs 15%
account for one third of the 12%
15%
11%
Canadian population (34%) but half 7%
10%
(49%) of the country’s tennis 2
players. 5%
0%
40% of players are from Ontario, which is consistent with Canada’s Toronto
Montreal
Vancouver
CMA
overall population distribution. Source: Print Media Bureau, 2008
British Columbia’s playing population is a higher proportion verses the Canadian population. 2
Ibid.
2.2.2 Participation Trends in the United States Although the patterns and trends differ, it is beneficial to consider the participation trends in the United States in comparison to Canadian trends. Interest in sport is fairly similar between the two countries, particularly those which receiving a lot of media coverage (such as tennis). Research completed by the Tennis Industry Association (TIA) and United States Tennis Association (USTA) shows that the U.S. tennis population has been relatively stable at 24.2 million people from 1999 to 20063. According to the TIA there has been a growth rate of 12.2% from 2000 to 2006. Previously, an increase of 10.3% from 2000 to 2005 was noted. In particular, frequent player’s participation (defined as playing at least 21 times per year) increased between 2004 and 2006 from 4.75 million to 5.2 million occurrences. Also of note, 6.1 million players tried tennis for the first time in 2006.4 Other research in the United States shows similar results. According to the USTA and TIA total participation has grown by 1.1 million players, representing a 4.1% increase from the 2004‐05 season. This is the highest number of players since 1992 with total play occasions up from 491 million times in 2004 to 559 million times in 2005.5 A random phone survey conducted annually since 1999 by the TIA, shows that the tennis player participation rate in 2007 grew to 25.1 million people, the highest since 1999. Research from the TIA/USTA shows that new players are most likely to be female, African‐
American or Hispanic, under 25 years of age, less affluent, and less frequent players. Also, they are likely to be sports fans, have played tennis in physical education class or on a team, and are aware of public programs. Some conclusions about new players are that as tennis continues to reach more people, new players will not be as avid as continuing players and that team play is essential in creating frequent players. USTA/TIA explores “Samplers” and “Never Played” survey participants in an in‐depth manner compared to lapsed (players who used to play regularly) and continuing players (who are currently active). Samplers are more likely to be affluent (average household income of $59,000 compared to $85,000 for continuing players). Samplers are less likely to: •
•
•
•
•
Exercise (56% compared to 64% to lapsed players) Have children involved in sports (20% compared to 34% for continuing players) Be a fan of tennis (21% compared to 46% of lapsed players) Say watching tennis increases interest in playing (22% compared to 40% of lapsed players) Say they enjoyed tennis in Physical Education class (46% compared to 81% of lapsed players) 3
Tennis Industry Association. The Tennis Marketplace Executive Summary. 2007.
Ibid.
5
United States Tennis Association & Tennis Industry Association. Tennis Industry Quick Facts. 2006.
4
•
•
None of the samplers had ever played on a team and only 3% had ever taken a lesson from a professional 21% were aware of public tennis programs (compared to 37% of lapsed players) Some conclusions about ‘Samplers’ are that the first experience must be a positive one, especially in Physical Education class. ‘Never Played’ are more likely to be less affluent (average household income of $44,000 compared to $59,000 for samplers and $85,000 for continuing players). They are less likely to: •
•
•
•
Exercise regularly (42% compared to samplers at 56% and lapsed players at 64%) Have children involved in sports (7% compared to 20% for samplers and 46% of lapsed players) Be fans of tennis (8% compared to 21% of samplers and 46% of lapsed players) Less than half were aware of public tennis facilities in their area Some conclusions reached are that frequent/continuing players are more likely to have taken lessons and played in teams. In the United States there are some criteria for professional and team tennis that are essential for creating avid players. Improving the physical education class experience will convert more samplers into continuing players and fitness is key component for starting people into the game. Some reasons provided why people leave the game were: •
•
•
Injury/health problems Not enough time For players who used to play regularly, reasons given were lack of time, preference for other sports or inability to find a playing partner Attendance
Interest in professional tennis is increasing Figure 3: US Open Attendance Records as demonstrated by increasing attendance US Open Attendance (in 000s) by Year
at the U.S. Open where attendance topped 715,500 in 2007, surpassing the all time 750,000
high of 659,538 in 2005. The US Open is also is the highest attended single venue, 700,000
annual, paid, multi‐day, tournament event in the world. Furthermore, the US Open 650,000
website received more than 30 million visits (7.3 million of those hits from unique 600,000
visitors) during the 2007 tournament, up from 27 million visits in 2005.6 550,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
However, television viewer numbers have Year
been declining. Approximately 75 million Source: Racquet Sports Industry, 2008
6
Racquet Sports Industry. TIA News & Updates. February 2008.
people watched all or part of the 2007 US Open on television which was broadcast to more than 180 countries in comparison to 87 million viewers who watched all or part of the event in 2005.7 Recommendations aimed towards attracting players included making partnering opportunities more readily available, use of Tennis Welcome Centres (see Section 4), offer league play, and inclusion in USTA leagues. Other research shows similar findings about U.S. player profiles. According to a study conducted for USTA and TIA,8 25,000 US households were contacted for a household survey, revealing some interesting points: •
•
•
•
•
23.5 million Americans play tennis The average age is 29 The highest participation levels are in California, New York, Texas and Illinois 75% of players play on public courts 52% of players are men, 48% are women Change in Percentage
2.2.3 Participation Trends in Ontario To recap some statistics about Figure 4: Change in # of Tennis Players in Ontario by Season Ontario, the PMB reports that tennis participation is increasing in Ontario. Overall, tennis participation has 800,000
increased 1% from the 2005‐06 to 700,000
2006‐07 season. Also, 40% of tennis 600,000
players are from Ontario which is on 500,000
par with the overall population 400,000
distribution, approximately 576,000 300,000
individuals, with 60% of these aged 200,000
between 25‐65 years old. Trends 100,000
observed from the 2002‐03 to 2006‐
0
07 season has shown a steady 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07
Year
increase in players and, along with the Prairies, is the region with the Source: Print Media Bureau, 2008 greatest overall increase across Canada. More specifically, tennis participation in Toronto has increased between the 2002‐03 and 2006‐
07 seasons. During the 2006‐07 season, Toronto accounted for 16% of the Canadian population and 22% of the total tennis playing population. Tennis participation increased from 328,000 players in the 2002‐03 season to 413,000 players in the 2006‐07 season. According 2006‐07 7
8
Ibid.
Tennis Industry Association. Marketplace Executive Summary. 2006.
data, Ontario has a 59% population of 35‐64 year olds while the tennis playing population compares at 42%. Other age groups in Ontario are displayed by group in the following chart.9 Figure 5: Comparison of Provincial Age Proportions to Tennis Play 40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
12‐17
18‐24
25‐34
35‐44
45‐64
Age Cohort
Age Proportion
Percentage of Tennis Players (2006‐07)
Note: study sampled only those between 12 and 64 years of age Source: Print Media Bureau, 2008 Other research from the Ontario Tennis Association (OTA) suggests that there are currently 220 clubs with 50,000 members in the province. Ontario hosts approximately 1,000 organized tennis events per year and also accounts for 39% of national racquet sports sales. Further detail about the tennis player profile in Ontario indicates that generally, players lead healthy lifestyles, participate in many sports, are competitive and adventurous, family‐oriented, and are “early adopters”. Other key findings include: •
•
•
•
•
•
75% own their own dwelling; Have an average household income of at least $90,000; 65% have post‐secondary education; 77% are university/college graduates; 60% hold professional/managerial jobs; and On average, 55% are male and 45% are female. 9
Print Media Bureau. Tennis Participation Tracking 2002~2003 to 2006~2007 Summary Report. 2008.
2.2.4 Regional Participation Trends Data compiled by the City of Burlington and supplemented by work completed by MBPC shows detailed information about municipal courts collected from Kitchener, London, Milton, Mississauga, Oakville and Richmond Hill: •
Most municipalities researched have conducted a Parks and Recreation Master Plan that addresses the various aspects of municipal tennis courts in parks. •
Most municipalities are not currently building many new municipal tennis courts; •
Generally, new courts being developed are located in community parks and are being built in groupings of two or more. This lends itself to greater use, potential club development, better instructional opportunities and it also provides opportunities for future redevelopment to multi‐purpose facilities; •
Many courts deemed as ‘surplus’ are being converted into multi‐purpose pads that can accommodate ball hockey, basketball, skateboarding, etc.; •
Many municipalities have signage with recommended court rules, including a limit of play to 30 minutes if other people are waiting – rules are not actively enforced. Although tennis courts are infrequently permitted, a permit does mean having exclusive use at a specific time and location and generally respected by participants. Supporting opportunities for informal, non‐permitted tennis to promote healthy, active living requires some form of court signage to clearly outline court etiquette as well as encourage the option of obtaining permits.10 According to the City of Burlington, a survey of local users shows some key findings: •
•
•
•
•
95% find municipal tennis courts important 95% of users do not obtain a rental permit for the court 90% support tax dollars being allocated for tennis 90% feel that the quality of Burlington’s courts are ‘Good’, ‘Very Good’ or ‘Excellent’ 84% use municipal tennis courts and 32% of them are also club members For these local tennis players, the majority feel that municipal tennis courts offer an acceptable quality of playing surface. However most do not permit the courts through the Parks & Recreation Department. In Burlington, generally courts are available, with weekend afternoons and weekday nights being the most popular times. The average player uses municipal courts five to eleven times a month and makes use of tennis courts that are in close proximity to their home. A small percentage of those surveyed find that rules are not always followed and have observed tennis courts being used for other recreational activities.11 10
11
City of Burlington. Municipal Tennis Court Review. 2007.
Ibid.
Table 1: Best Practices Matrix Municipal Tennis Courts ‐ Best Practices Matrix Municipal Tennis Court ‐ Operations Municipal Tennis Courts ‐ Service Standard Milton Richmond Hill Burlington Part of Parks Master Plan 2008 No Planned (2008) Population 77,818 162,700 Number of Casual/Nbhd. Tennis Courts 5 Number of Joint Venture / Municipal Club Courts Oakville Kitchener London Mississauga Yes Near Completion Yes Yes 164,400 165,600 204,500 336,500 700,000 68 15 58 56 50 67 11 3 20 14 3 20 67 Total Number of Tennis Courts 16 71 35 72 59 70 134 Per Capita Service Level (Total Courts) 1 : 4,864 1 : 2,292 1 : 4,697 1 : 2,300 1 : 3,466 1 : 4,807 1 : 5,224 Recommended Service Level 1 : 6,000 population (equates to CSMP standard) 1 : 3,000 population n/a 1 : 4,000 population n/a 1 : 4,000 population 1 : 5,000 population # of Lit Municipal Tennis Courts 13 45 9 12 20 30 80 Future Development 6 New Multi‐Use Courts recommended by CSMP 13 New Lit Courts by 2011 To be determined based on Park Master Plan 10 New Public Courts Required by 2021 and Town is Considering a Tennis Dome To be determined based on Park Master Plan 17 New Courts 12 New Courts in High Growth Areas and in New Community Parks Surplus Courts (Supply Per Capita) N/A Surplus Courts are Going to be Used for Basketball and Skateboarding To be determined based on Park Master Plan Surplus Tennis Courts are Being Converted into Multi‐Use Pads To be determined based on Park Master Plan Surplus Tennis Courts are Being Converted into Multi‐Use Pads Surplus Tennis Courts are Being Converted into Multi‐Use Pads Surface Design Asphalt and Colour Coating Asphalt Colour Coating Asphalt To be determined based on Park Master Plan Colour Coating Asphalt and Colour Coating Permits N/A 50% of courts Available for Permit and Permits Bought in Prime Time are more costly All Courts can be Permitted All Courts can be Permitted To be determined based on Park Master Plan All Courts can be Permitted All Courts can be Permitted Maintenance Budget Annually for Maintenance Budget Annually for Maintenance Minimal Budget Annually for Maintenance Budget Annually for Maintenance Budget Annually for Maintenance Budget Annually for Maintenance Signage No Signs Few Rules, 1/2hr Max Time if Others are Waiting No Signs Few Rules, 1/2hr Max Time if Others are Waiting No Signs Few Rules, 1/2hr Max Time if Others are Waiting Few Rules, 1/2hr Max Time if Others are Waiting Enforcement None None None Park Patrol Number on Sign None None None Non‐Tennis Uses Tennis Ball Hockey Skateboarding Tennis Tennis Ball Hockey Ball Hockey Skateboarding Skateboarding Tennis Ball Hockey Skateboarding Tennis Ball hockey Skateboarding Some Ice Skating Tennis, Ball Hockey Skateboarding Some Ice Skating Tennis Ball Hockey Skateboarding Source: City of Burlington, 2008. Monteith Brown Planning Consultants, 2008. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 11
2.2.5 Comparing Tennis Participation to Other Sports Trends In Canada, participation in tennis is moderate compared to other tested sports. In the 2005‐06 season, participation for both tennis and golf declined, however, more than twice as many people play golf compared to tennis. Overall, the participation in tennis surpasses that of baseball and football, but is lower than other tracked sports (i.e. soccer, ice hockey, and basketball). In particular, youth (12‐17) participation was down from 414,000 to 412,000 players from the 2005‐06 to 2006‐07 season. Although participation among 12‐24 year‐olds is a higher proportion when compared to the overall Canadian population, youth (12‐17) and young adults (18‐24) are driving the decline.12 2.2.6 Tennis Club Statistics In the U.S. there is some research showing key facility operational data for tennis facilities and courts. This information provides good insight into the needs and costs for tennis players. The TIA/USTA reports that 61% of facilities indicated an increase in the total number of courts booked in 2007 while only 4% indicated a decrease in courts booked.13 In early 2007, almost 75% of clubs/facilities reported an increase in the number of new players. 68% of clubs indicated an increase of players while only 4% indicated a decrease. During the same period play in leagues increased in 47% of clubs interviewed, while only 9% indicated a decrease. Overall, the percentage of club capacity used has increased in the early 2007 season from 36% usage in March 2007 to 53% usage in July 2007. Additional TIA/USTA survey data14 describes the cost of doing business for facilities across the U.S. Some key findings are as follows: •
1% more clubs added new courts rather than removed them in 2007 •
Two thirds of outdoor courts have lights •
Adult league programming time increased from an average of 11.6 hours per week in 2005 to 13.3 hours per week in 2007 •
55% of clubs operate a Cardio Tennis or a Tennis Fitness program •
48% of clubs have a tennis specific website •
47% of clubs offer match making activities •
Annual dues for the cost of an average membership were $768 for regular privileges while all‐inclusive averaged $2,509 •
Court fees increased from an average of $21 in 2005 to $23 in 2007 •
Projected revenues of facilities were unchanged from 2005‐2007 12
Print Media Bureau. Tennis Participation Tracking 2002~2003 to 2006~2007 Summary Report. 2008.
14
Ibid.
13
•
Group and private lessons account for 60% of total revenue o Receipts from group clinics decreased from 37% in 2005 to 35% in 2007 of total revenue o Receipts from private lessons increased slightly from 21% in 2005 to 25% in 2007 of total revenue • In 2007, wages accounted for 41% of total business expenses, up from 38% in 2005 2.2.7 Retail Market Statistics Other data compiled by the TIA provides insight into the strength of the American tennis industry. Racquet and ball shipments both increased in the first half of 2007 compared to the same period in 2006, 9.4% and 11.5% respectively. Sales of tennis balls have historically been a good barometer of participation and frequency of play. Overall from 2003 to 2007, tennis ball shipments increased 11.5% in wholesale units sold. Additionally, 43% of dealers predicted in later season 2006 that they would have increases in racquet sales for 2007 compared to early in the previous year, indicating confidence in the retail market. The TIA states that another strong indicator of health/popularity of tennis is consumer activity for pro/specialty shops. Between 2002 and 2006 pro‐shops observed: •
50% of participants purchased racquets from a pro‐shop in 2006, decreased from 62% in late season 2002 •
31% of participants purchased shoes and apparel in late season 2006 (down from 41% and 48% respectively) in early season 2002 •
Ball sales have increased to 32% in late season 2006 from 28% in early season 2002 Despite Pro‐shop purchases dropping, Internet purchases have increased for the above mentioned categories. Racquet purchases made over the Internet increased from 6% in early season 2002 to 23% in late season 2006. Shoe and apparel purchases over the Internet increased to 19% in late season 2006 from 3% and 2% in early season 2002. Balls purchased online increased from 2% in early season 2002 to 5% in late season 2006.15 2.3
Strategies in Marketing/Promoting Tennis In response to many of the trends in tennis, national, provincial, and local level organizations are launching programs and strategies to build life‐long players. In an effort to encourage the sport and healthy lifestyles, strategies to grow tennis at a grassroots level are important. There is a particular focus on promoting the development of self‐sufficient “Community Clubs”. 15
Ibid.
2.3.1 North American Strategies for Promoting Tennis On a national level, there is a focus by Tennis Canada “to be a leading tennis nation by 2020”. This will be accomplished by providing a balance between competitive high performance play and community tennis development. By increasing the number of “Grow‐the‐Game” tennis development centres, more wheelchair tennis programs, “Building Tennis Communities”, and high‐school level programming, it is hoped that opportunities for community‐level play will be more readily available. High Performance Competition Development compliments community‐level growth in many major urban areas. By increasing the numbers of high performance tennis development centres, and developing two national training centres (Montreal and Toronto), it is hoped that Canadian athletes can maintain World Group Status in the Davis/Fed Cup, improve ranking in the World Team Cup Wheelchair competition and improve individual rankings in top 100 of the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP). Creating a “tennis culture” is crucial for the long‐term health of the sport and its players. Implementing a community league tennis model can facilitate higher ATP and Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) rankings and also stimulates more social and recreational leagues. There are more opportunities through tennis clubs and non‐traditional delivery partners (parks and recreation departments, schools, etc.). Some strategies to achieve this are to: •
•
•
Establish minor tennis organizations and city championships Encourage school‐based teams Expand the National Championships o Ongoing national/provincial competitive schedule o Additional International Tennis Federation (ITF) Junior/Wheelchair events These initiatives also lend themselves to becoming a leading nation in the organization and education of officials, professionals and coaches. Increasing membership in the Tennis Professionals Association (TPA) and stimulating professional development opportunities provides new jobs for trained and certified instructors. A particular goal of Tennis Canada is to increase the number of certified officials and the number of officials working at Rogers Cup/Tennis Masters Canadian events. To be a leader in Canadian sport development, Tennis Canada has outlined its strategies for resource development.16 By exhibiting exemplary business practices, timely communication tools and effective marketing, the intent is to: •
•
•
•
Develop partnerships with tennis associations; Implement a national marketing strategy to increase the popularity of tennis; Increase funding from non‐traditional sources; Use leading‐edge technology for promotion; 16
Tennis Canada. Strategic Plan 2004-2008. 2008.
•
•
•
Design a facility development strategy for Canada’s facilities; Implement a human resources plan for recruiting/retaining staff and volunteers; and Develop a national membership system. Similar strategies have emerged from organizations in the United States. As mentioned by the TIA, Cardio Tennis is a fitness workout program involving tennis drills and games that has garnered positive feedback. Cardio Tennis received 200 million media mentions in 2007 including major magazines and newspapers. This type of program benefits clubs by attracting new players. As part of a clubs/facilities survey, 75% of clubs interviewed suggested that the benefit of having this program was “Good” or “Very Good”. Half of clubs expected Cardio Fitness programs to increase in 2007 while only 2% expected a decrease. 71% of clubs also generated an increase in financial benefits from the programs. Furthermore, fitness programs such as Cardio Tennis were a well received concept by users.17 Another example of new programming is the QuickStart Tennis Format is a program aimed at making tennis easier to play for children under 10 years old by utilizing specialized equipment, shorter court dimensions and modified scoring, all tailored to age and size. Another new grassroots initiative is the establishment of Tennis Welcome Centers which have been developed by the TIA and USTA, where facilities have registered to be part of a banner program. These facilities offer introductory tennis to make it accessible to a broader audience while benefitting from the coordinated marketing support and promotion of the website, http://www.tenniswelcomecenter.com. To create synergy, the GrowingTennis.com website is also used to publicize the sport where facilities can list themselves on the site, obtain marketing and promotion advice, and become networked directly with the TIA/USTA. Enrolment tools are featured for consumer sign‐ups and fee collection. According to the TIA, the GrowingTennis.com service (as part of other tennis association websites) received 1.45 million queries. Currently there are 20,000 facilities listed in its database.18 2.3.2 Provincial Strategies for Promoting Tennis On a provincial level, the OTA Strategic 2005‐2008 plan promotes tennis as part of a healthy lifestyle and encourages more people to play and support tennis. The strategies put forth include raising public awareness by encouraging first‐time participation and encouraging casual players to become more frequent. Improved communication with members and supporting school programs is hoped to develop clubs and club member structure. Other benefits are offered to membership clubs such as Club Insurance, promotional events such as the Tennis Fair, and subscriptions to Tennis Ontario Magazine. Also, the OTA hopes to encourage enthusiasts to become instructors and officials, as well as attracting and retaining volunteers in order to improve participation. 17
18
Racquet Sports Industry. TIA News & Updates. February 2008.
By providing additional opportunities for players to improve in a competitive structure, the Strategic Plan hopes to build up the OTA’s membership base. The strategies support and maintain competitive opportunities by improving the ranking system, supporting coaching and instructor programs (such as the Floor Tennis schools program), assisting clubs in attracting/retaining professionals, developing top players and maintaining excellent business practices. Maintaining excellent business practices is a strategy19 hoped to maximize partnership opportunities and provide “Best in Class” performance for major financial sponsors. These practices include: •
•
•
•
•
Building and enhancing a reputation for fair business practices, Maintaining effective, standard reporting to management and Board of Directors Emphasize staff capability development Comply with all legal, contractual agreements Review OTA’s structure to ensure effective delivery of OTA programs A program developed to reach these goals is Give Tennis a Shot which features Cardio Tennis for children. This provides an opportunity to educate elementary school children about the role of physical activity as part of a healthy lifestyle through a fun cardiovascular workout, with teacher training and equipment made available by the OTA. Also, Cardio Tennis is promoted at clubs towards adults as a fun and fast workout. This type of program is meets the mandate of the OTA to gain new players at the community level.20 The OTA recommends that building public facilities with a minimum of 4 playing courts can stimulate the formation of “community clubs” that are self‐sustaining where individuals set up and maintain their own clubs. Four courts allows for small tournaments with a round robin format which is deemed to be essential for establishing regular participation. Furthermore, the OTA has developed resources to encourage membership and regional development through the publication of its’ Club Manual. The main topics covered in the manual are programming, facilities and administration and is made available to all OTA member clubs at no charge. 2.4
Emerging Trends in Tennis Sports 2.4.1 Emerging Forms of Tennis are Gaining Popularity Recently new initiatives have emerges aimed at encouraging tennis participation. Tennis‐based activities with modified rules have developed and become popular, creating a broader appeal for a wide range of interests and abilities. 19
20
Tennis Canada. Strategic Plan 2004-2008. 2008.
Ontario Tennis Association. www.tennisontario.com/GTS/home.html. 2008.
Platform Tennis Platform Tennis, was designed to be played outdoors in cold weather in a special elevated 60’ by 30’ court with a 44’ by 20’ inbounds area. The deck which maybe heated or lit, is a quarter of the size of a regular tennis court, surrounded by 12’ high superstructure with taut hexagonal galvanized or plastic coated wire mesh. It is played competitively and recreationally and it is estimated that there are 4,000 courts in the United States and 8,000 members of American Platform Tennis Association (APTA). This sport is spreading to municipalities, athletic clubs, resorts, and residential developments as evidenced by the development of seventeen regional leagues, one hundred sanctioned tournaments and twenty‐six annual championships. The rules are similar to that of doubles rules for tennis with the exceptions that there is only one serve, and that serves that touch the net are still played. Also, the ball can be played off the screened walls. With heated courts, this game could provide an all‐weather alternative to traditional tennis.21 Beach Tennis Beach Tennis, another hybrid sport, was introduced in the United States in 2005 and combines elements of tennis, beach volleyball and badminton. The International Tennis Federation (ITF) promotes the summer sport with a professional Beach Tennis tour as a family sport. Using specialized paddles, the rules are set up as a doubles game and include no‐ad scoring, one serve, no service lets and a no‐bounce rule.22 Wheelchair Tennis Some new initiatives have been undertaken to promote tennis and to make it more accessible for those with disabilities. For example, Wheelchair Tennis has become the fastest growing sport played in a wheelchair and parks and recreation facilities have been adding programming to meet new demand. In 2005, the U.S. Open held the first U.S. Open Wheelchair Tennis Competition. The Patch Reef Park Tennis Centre in Boca Raton, Florida has 17 hard courts and hosts the USTA National Hard court Wheelchair Championships, which is the largest Wheelchair Tennis tournament in the United States. Two hundred participants came from twenty‐two countries demonstrating the popularity and growing need for wheelchair tennis programming. Wheelchair Tennis enhances the fabric of the community by creating opportunities and encouraging disabled players to participate in healthy, active living. Played on any regular court with no modifications to balls and racquets, the rules are the same as regular tennis with the exception that two bounces of the ball are permitted and that play outside the court is allowed.23 21
American Platform Tennis Association. www.platformtennis.org. 2008.
Tennis Magazine. March 2008.
23
National Recreation & Park Association. Wheelchair Tennis a Big Hit in Parks. September 2006.
22
The Milton Tennis Club has expressed interest in growing this segment of their programming as they believe they have an ideal facility and hope to work with provincial and national bodies to create awareness and showcase wheelchair tennis through tournaments and programs for recreational and competitive training. Transitional Tennis For new players, the first experience is important in determining whether they will pursue a sport. Transitional Tennis is a concept recently introduced to create an easier playing experience, thereby allowing participants to enjoy tennis immediately and encourage continuation of play. Since new players chase and pick up the ball more often than they hit them, using modified equipment makes more rallying possible and game easier to learn. Modified equipment, such as lighter, slower foam balls and shorter courts, has had a positive effect on beginner programs. Currently it is being incorporated into teaching methods in the United States and the USTA conducts training for coaches. Parks and recreation agencies can shorten 36’ by 78’ courts by setting up temporary nets (using caution tape) positioned lengthwise through the centre making the courts better for children and seniors who have trouble tracking ball and running quickly. The modified equipment is inexpensive and accessible and can be used on public courts.24 Pickleball Pickleball is a new game that is played on a badminton court with the net lowered to a height of thirty‐four inches at the center. It is played with a perforated plastic baseball (similar to a whiffle ball) and wood or composite paddles. It is easy for beginners to learn, but can develop into a quick, fast‐paced, competitive game for experienced players.25 2.4.2 Existing Court Design Trends There are four main court surface types: clay courts, hard courts, grass courts and indoor courts (carpet, rubber or wood). Each playing surface has its own characteristics which affect the playing style of the game. Clay courts are made of crushed shale, stone or brick. Although more traditional and cheaper to construct than other types of tennis courts, the maintenance costs of a clay surface are higher than those of hard courts. Clay courts need to be rolled to preserve flatness, and its water content must be balanced; certain green clay, Har‐Tru (also known as “American” clay) courts generally require the courts to be sloped to allow water run‐off. Green clay or Har‐Tru is similar to red clay while being a slightly harder and faster playing surface. Green clay is packed to make the subsurface and covered with a topping. 24
25
National Recreation & Park Association. Transitional Tennis Takes the Court. January 2007.
United States of America Pickleball Association. http://www.usapa.org/whatis_pball/index.php. 2008.
Grass courts were once the most common tennis surfaces. However, due to high maintenance costs, grass courts are now rare as they must be watered and mowed often, and take a longer time to dry after rain than hard courts. Bubble/Dome Facilities provide the opportunity for year‐round play. Air supported structures are pressurized internally, inflating a pliable envelope comprised of a structural fabric usually synthetic fabrics such as fibreglass and polyester coated with Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) or Teflon. The pressure is created by a pressurization fan system which equals the downward pressure, pushing the bubble up. The bubble must be securely anchored to the ground or foundation, or as the roof of a permanent structure. The dome shape is the strongest design using the least amount of materials because it allows the surface envelope to evenly pressurized. Without this, wrinkles and stress‐points can occur, potentially causing failure. Inner linings can be included for insulation or acoustic treatment purposes. Some advantages of covered structures, as compared to conventional buildings of similar size and use, are as follows: •
•
•
•
•
•
Considerably lower initial cost than that of conventional buildings Lower operating costs due to simplicity of design (if not part of a permanent structure) Convenient for set up, dismantle, and relocate (if not part of a permanent structure) Unobstructed open interior space, since there is not always a need for columns Ability to cover almost any project Custom fabric colors and sizes, including translucent fabric, allow natural sunlight to permeate Some disadvantages of bubbles/domes: • High electrical costs • High cost of installation and removal • Continuous operation of fans to maintain pressure, often requiring redundancy or emergency power supply • Dome collapses when pressure lost or fabric compromised • Cannot reach the insulation values of hard‐walled structures, increasing heating/cooling costs • Limited load‐carrying capacity • Conventional buildings have longer lifespan • Access to storage can be challenging • Vulnerable to vandalism All weather surface hard courts, usually made of asphalt, are considered medium surfaces. Some common problems effecting asphalt tennis court are outlined in the following chart:26 26
National Recreation & Park Association. Common Tennis Court Problems. November 2006.
Table 2: Common Asphalt Tennis Court Problems Problem Description of Appearance Possible Causes Potential Remedies Fading Surface colour is faded, washed out, or slightly chalky looking Oxidation of surface due to sun exposure, excessive wear without resurfacing, defective surface material (usually very rare) Acrylic resurfacing Discolouration Dark green, brownish or black dusty, sticky or slimy areas on courts, especially in areas puddling, frequent shadowing by trees or buildings Mold mildew, algae fungus or other vegetative growth due to excessive shading, poor drainage, or poor maintenance Washing with a mild detergent, correction of court drainage, acrylic resurfacing, elimination or pruning of nearby vegetation, correction of surface drainage outside of court areas Birdbaths Randomly located elliptical, or elongated depressions 1/4" or less which tend to puddle and hold water after the rest of the court has dried Poor slope of the court pavement improper paving of the court, settling or upheaval of the court, pavement, base or subsurface Leveling, patching, or re‐grading of pavement, patch or remove bubbled areas, acrylic resurfacing Bubbles Soft humps or blisters in court surface varying in size from 1/4" to several feet in diameter, isolated hollow sounding areas below courts surface Rust Spots Orange‐brown, rust coloured stains or streaking in random patterns over court surface Hairline Cracks Fine hairline cracks of variable lengths often occurring over entire court surface; usually of shallow depth in the court surface of uppermost layer of pavement Ravelling Pock‐marked pavement, spauling, or crumbling of surface and pavement Alligatoring Alligator skin‐like pattern of interconnected cracks usually in court surfacing and varying in depth; often accompanied by loose particles of surface material Structural Cracks Cracks which penetrate into the pavement often occurring in long straight lines or irregular patterns emanating from a clear point in the pavement, such as net or fence posts Upheaval or Depression Isolated vertical displacement of court pavement more than 1/4" above or below the surface Excessive moisture below court pavement, standing water over court surface, poor surface or subsurface drainage outside court areas, build‐up of excessive acrylic surfacing layers Poor maintenance of court surface, contamination of court surface material during installation, presence of pyrites or iron deposits in court pavement mix Contamination of court surfacing during installation, use of incompatible surface materials or solvent‐type coatings, improper pavement seal coating, or improper pavement mix design Oxidation of surface and pavement due to prolonged wear and exposure to sun Contamination of court surfacing during installation, use of incompatible surface materials or solvent‐type coatings, improper pavement seal coating, or improper pavement mix design Improperly constructed pavement joints, thermal shock, shrinkage of pavement due to oxidation, heaving of base or sub‐base, tree roots, improperly designed or constructed post footings Frost heaves, swelling of base or subsurface soils due to improper drainage, tree roots or decomposition of organic matter in sub‐grade or court, poor compaction of base or sub‐base Overlay of court surfacing or repaving of court, and new acrylic surfacing, in minor cases removal of spots, patching and resurfacing Surface of pavement overlay treatments, and new acrylic surfacing; for more severe cases, reconstruction of court pavement and new acrylic surfacing Surface of pavement overlay treatments, and new acrylic surfacing; these cracks have the potential to develop into structural cracks over longer periods of time Surface of pavement overlay treatments, and new acrylic surfacing; for more severe cases, reconstruction of court pavement and new acrylic surfacing Surface or pavement overlay treatments and new acrylic surfacing; hese cracks have the potential to develop into structural cracks over longer periods of time and exposure Surface of pavement overlay treatments, or reconstruction of court pavement and new acrylic surfacing; complete reconstruction of court for more severe cases Usually complete reconstruction of the court pavement or in more severe cases, reconstruction or relocation of the entire court Source: National Recreation & Park Association, 2006 Multi‐use courts combine the markings and game surfaces for more than one sport on the same surface. These courts can accommodate unscheduled activities such as basketball and ball hockey. Since usage of these facilities is highly age specific, a standard of one court per 900 Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 20
youth (between the ages of 10 and 19) is preferred in order to capitalize on the self‐scheduled neighbourhood‐level physical activity these courts offer for youth. The Town of Milton has considered multi‐use courts design for basketball, ball hockey, skateboarding, and a rebound wall (tennis) which would be located at future Community and District Parks. Multi‐purpose asphalt courts, especially those containing basketball hoops and tennis nets in neighbourhood parks, should be designed with noise and safety considerations in mind. It is not recommended that these neighbourhood‐level facilities be lit in the evening hours as noise impacts on residential areas are exacerbated with extended playing hours. These courts are largely neighbourhood‐level facilities and should be designed to be highly visible from roads and/or residences in order to allow for adequate supervision in case of injury or undesirable behaviours. 2.4.3 Regional Examples The City of Burlington provides a regional example of maintenance for municipal tennis courts at the club and neighbourhood park level. The quality of play in tennis is related to the type of court material and the level of maintenance the court receives. The preferred surface treatment is colour‐coating for several reasons: •
•
•
•
Unlike asphalt it provides a uniform textured surface, which is important because it results in a different pace and movement of the ball; Since the surface is a higher quality, it can result in an increase in participation level; It has aesthetic appeal; It protects the asphalt layer underneath, so although more costly to install in the beginning, over the course of the life of the tennis court, can prove to be cost effective. While colour coating is the preferred surface, there are issues related to this treatment: •
This surface is more susceptible to damage by other uses such as hockey and in‐line skating; The initial implementation costs are higher. •
In the case of the City of Burlington, the Roads and Parks Maintenance Department is able to maintain the City’s municipal tennis courts within budgeted funding. The following types of service are provided for the municipal courts: •
•
•
•
•
•
Installation and removal of nets/posts each season; Major garbage removal (broken glass); Correct any vandalism (damaged nets); Annual inspection; Minor crack repair; Setting timers for lights at particular facilities. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 21
The Town of Milton has a similar maintenance program whereby budgeting is directed to address such efforts on a court‐by‐court basis. Through the approved Level of Service Manual, tennis courts are regularly evaluated for the following: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Court surface is free of litter, debris and weeds. Court surface is clean and swept. Fencing is functional with no sharp protrusions or holes. Surfacing is free of tripping hazards, holes, cracks, mounds and standing water. Court lines, if applicable, are clearly marked. Support structures, if present, are functional and safe for use (i.e. goal posts, nets, basketball rims, team benches and bleachers). Lights, if present, are aimed at playing surface, timers are functional and at least 90% of bulbs for each court are operational and free of breakage. Often with municipal tennis facilities, courts are used for activities other than tennis such as skateboarding, ball hockey and in‐line skating. This use impacts the surface and maintenance of the courts. This issue and types of recreational activities can be addressed and accommodated through the construction of multi‐use courts and facilities.27 2.5
Summary of Trends Player profiles between Canada and the United States appear to be relatively similar, barring certain regional differences. Participation increases seem to be largest among the young adult population, although the Baby Boom generation also appears to be participating more frequently in the sport. The challenge presently exists in attracting children and under‐
represented groups to try the sport. Tennis is a sport that is considered to be low cost, particularly for casual play. Nonetheless, it is the club‐based opportunities that seem to retain the largest proportion of players and therefore, encouraging club development appears to be a critical part of the sport’s long‐term sustainability. Successful clubs are likely promoting tennis at a developmental and competitive level through awareness and education in order to target new players and build acceptance towards tennis as a low cost physical activity. The following table identifies some of the key trends affecting tennis participation, as described throughout the Section. Table 3: Summary of Key Trends Impacting Tennis Participation CATEGORY TREND Participation Trends Growth DESCRIPTION/IMPLICATIONS
Compared to previous years, tennis participation appears to be experiencing slow, yet steady growth throughout Canada and the United States.
27
City of Burlington, Municipal Tennis Court Review, 2007.
CATEGORY Provincial and Local Participation Trends TREND Youth and Young Adults Activity Patterns Adult and Senior Activity Patterns Clubs Promoting Tennis Facility Design Programming Variations Court Design DESCRIPTION/IMPLICATIONS
Compared to the overall population, youth and young adults (12‐24) are the highest proportion of players and participation is on the decline.
Mature adults (45‐64) are Canada’s largest age group while at the same time being the smallest group involved in tennis. However, participation rates are growing and programming is increasingly being geared towards this age group. Local clubs are volunteer‐driven and tend not to have funding for major capital expenditures. Club courts providing high quality surfaces retain players more effectively than neighbourhood level facilities.
Cardio and fitness based tennis programs are being promoted as exercise for a healthy lifestyle. New forms are gaining popularity to broaden the appeal of tennis and make it easier to attract players. Multi‐use courts provide opportunities to use facility space to its maximum potential.
SECTION 4: CONSULTATION WITH TENNIS CLUBS Consultations were held with the Milton Tennis Club (MTC) and the Nassagaweya Tennis Club (NTC) in November 2008 to obtain feedback specific to their needs and operations. A questionnaire was distributed to the Clubs and responses were analysed by the Consulting Team and municipal staff. A subsequent meeting was scheduled with each of the Tennis Clubs to further discuss issues and opportunities pertaining to the delivery of organized tennis opportunities in Milton. 4.1
Service Delivery Model Number of Members
Both the Milton Tennis Club (MTC) and Figure 6: MTC and NTC Club Membership by Age Group, 2008 the Nassagaweya Tennis Club (NTC) Milton Tennis 500
have recently experienced new growth. Club
The profile of the Milton Tennis Club 400
Nassagaweya membership has seen steady growth in Tennic Club
300
the past four years. The number of older adult/senior players (60+) has 200
been increasing as well; approximately 100
4% (28 players) of the MTC’s 0
membership consists of seniors. Child & Youth
Adult
Senior
The majority (87%) of the MTC’s 682 members reside in the Town’s urban Figure 7: Membership Base by Residence, 2008 area, with fewer numbers living in rural Milton (5%) and outside the municipal 90%
Milton Tennis boundary (8%). Club
80%
In comparison, 2.5% of members of the 70%
Nassagaweya Nassagaweya Tennis Club are from Tennis Club
60%
urban Milton, 86.5% reside in rural areas, and 11% reside outside of 50%
Milton. Also, the membership profile is 40%
smaller, totalling 191 members in 2008 30%
according to the submitted survey. Of those members, fifty‐five are juniors, 20%
(under 12), twenty‐eight are youth (13‐
10%
22), ninety‐two are adults (22‐59), and 0%
sixteen are seniors (60+). This has been Urban
Rural
Outside of Milton
increasing since 2003 at which point, membership was 159. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 24
Historically, membership has been stronger at 212 members in 1995. The MTC’s facilities are used by the Halton District School Board for selected months between May and October, while a variety of tournaments are held by the Ontario Tennis Association, where non‐members may participate. Also for non‐members, professional lessons are available. Criteria for membership is based upon age, while those wishing to purchase a family or couples membership must reside at the same address. The following tables illustrate the historical membership growth. Figure 8: MTC and NTC Membership Growth 220
700
200
600
180
160
500
140
2005
2006
2007
2008
1995
2003
2008
At Nassagaweya Tennis Club, paid lessons and a summer program are available to non‐
members provided that there is space available. Services that the NTC offers at an additional cost are: lessons costing between $67.50 and $76.50; a $15.00 fee for house/rural league participation; and $20.00 per week for attendance at summer programming. The MTC has a variety of programming Table 4: Annual Membership Fees for 2008 Annual Membership Fee
and continues to develop new concepts to Membership Type
MTC NTC
broaden appeal to different groups. For Adult
$90.00 $80.00
junior players, there are affordable group Junior (Under 18)
$45.00 $50.00
or private lessons, summer camps, house Senior (60+)
$50.00 $70.00
leagues, and the MTC is examining the Family
$175.00 $150.00
possibility of an interclub league. At the Couples (Adult)
$160.00 $130.00
MTC, junior‐aged non‐members have Couples (Seniors)
n/a $115.00
opportunities to participate in summer camps and junior house leagues. Adults have inter‐county and club competitive league opportunities, a house league for doubles and singles tennis, professional instruction in both private and group formats, social tennis nights, tennis fitness classes, open play, and tournaments. The Family Friday Nights provides a mix of organized programming and casual play. The most popular activities tend to be the ones that are planned and arranged by the MTC since participants are generally pressed for time. Regular availability of courts and match partners greatly assists in facilitating play. Similarly, the Nassagaweya Tennis Club offers: •
•
•
A spring and fall house league; A weekday and Sunday morning drop‐in session from May to October; A rural league from June to September; Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 25
•
•
•
•
•
Summer programs for juniors; Tournaments – four social and one competitive each year; Round Robin play from May to October; Free lessons and clinics during May; and Paid lessons from May to June. To accommodate demands for different forms/variations of tennis, the MTC has implemented a Progressive/Mini Tennis Junior League which is a modified form of tennis using a systematic progression of court sizes, balls and racquets to appropriately scale the game for children, aged 4‐10. Some new ideas that are currently being contemplated for the MTC such as: a regular Family Night; Singles Match Night; adult summer camps; weekend clinics; and entering a team into a currently established Rural League. Furthermore, the MTC is capable of promoting and supporting Wheelchair Tennis by working with Tennis Canada in creating opportunities to showcase and host tournaments and develop programming for recreational and competitive training. At the Nassagaweya Tennis Club, the programs being considered for implementation are a women’s league, 55+ and junior inter‐club leagues, and winter recreational opportunities. The challenges that the NTC anticipates for start‐up programming are the requirement of additional volunteers/organizers and expanded facilities. 4.2
Partnership Opportunities The MTC is a non‐profit, volunteer operated organization and is able to maintain the facility at the Milton Sports Centre with the financial backing of the Town. The facility is also part of a reciprocal agreement between the Town and the Halton District School Board where the Board provides payment for its use of the MTC to the Town. A partnership with the Ontario Tennis Association provides access to information and resources. The MTC supports a number of economic interests in the community: contracts with tennis professionals; pro‐shop services; retailers and contractors of equipment, supplies and maintenance; janitorial services; a printing service; and a hardware retailer. The MTC shares a good working relationship with the Town of Milton and would like strengthen it with a permanent, accessible staff contact at the Town. A single point of contact with the municipality is hoped to facilitate timely communication regarding concerns such as parking lot entrances, parking capacity, berms and landscaping during the current period of development. For long range planning, the MTC has a five‐year lease agreement with the rights to renew for five years. Furthermore, the MTC would like to extend its agreement for the winter months. The MTC has deemed sharing space with other sports organizations as not being feasible, but is open to the possibility of a knowledge‐sharing or other form of partnership with the Nassagaweya Tennis Club. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 26
The NTC also shares a good working relationship with the Town and hopes to continue the current roles and partnerships in the event of redevelopment of the site or new facility construction. Also, the NTC is interested in collaborating on all plans for the club in the future and seeking out new partnerships and development funds. In particular, the NTC would like to investigate the possibility of a dual membership program and combining resources with the Milton Tennis Club in order to provide winter services to their overall membership (many NTC members play indoor tennis in other communities located south and west of their club). 4.3
Facility Funding and Cost Trends Historically, in the past four years, Figure 9: MTC’s Annual Revenue Breakdown by Percentage the MTC’s annual revenue has 4% 1%
7%
ranged from $40,000 to $50,000. The adjacent figure illustrates the Membership Fees
breakdown of the Club’s annual Junior Programs
revenues. Adult Programs
78%
In comparison, the 2008 revenue Guest Fees
for the Nassagaweya Tennis Club was $12,750.00. This revenue was also generated from membership fees, as well as house and rural league fees, summer program fees, lesson charges and ball fees. The division of business expenses for the NTC are illustrated in the following table (note: at time of writing, budget breakdown for the MTC was not unavailable). Table 5: Expense Breakdown, Nassagaweya Tennis Club Instructor Wages $4,000.00 Cleaning Charges $600.00 Telephone $850.00 Insurance Premiums $250.00 Rent/Utilities Landscaping (plants and gardens) $100.00
$200.00 Marketing/Registration Costs $500.00 Tournaments and AGM $500.00 Loan Repayment for Resurfacing Costs
$1,800.00 On occasion, the MTC has received local sponsorship support. Some funding has been provided from government sources (municipal and provincial) such as the Milton Community Fund (totalling $1000) and Ontario Trillium Foundation (totalling $57,800 towards the cost of new facilities). Promotions and public awareness for both the MTC and the Nassagaweya Tennis Club is carried out by a number of methods: Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 27
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4.4
Advertising in the Town of Milton’s Recreational Guide Rented curb‐side signage announcing each new season Annual newsletter/brochure Word of mouth Answering machine phone message outlining programs and services Annual Sports Drive at the Milton Mall (MTC) Promotional flyers (MTC) Advertising on the Halton Recreation website (NTC) Potential Opportunities for the Future MTC’s standard of measurement for capacity of a tennis court is one hundred users per court. Currently, membership at the MTC is close to seven hundred members and there are eight courts. The MTC expects to achieve maximum membership of eight hundred in the near future. During the 2008 season, courts were generally booked to capacity during the week. Preferred Club plans for expansion include four courts additional which would ideally allow the MTC to accept up to twelve hundred members. In particular, clay or Har‐tru (a surface built with a controlled reservoir beneath the court that evenly disperses water) would be preferred as these materials are gentler upon players, especially older adults, thereby reducing the chance of injury. Some challenges in extending the service life that accompany the addition of new courts are: •
•
•
Providing the appropriate level of supervision of the courts; Ensuring that proper non‐marking footwear is worn; and Daily maintenance activities are carried out. New organized programming such as Try Learn Play, junior and adult house leagues, additional professional coaching, Family Nights and Friday Night Drop‐Ins would encourage use of the additional courts. Although the MTC is self‐sustaining in terms of day‐to‐day operation, it is challenged to pay for major capital expenditures, such as clubhouse improvements or expansion. The user fees cover expenses and to contribute to the maintenance reserve fund. These funds are regularly contributed to a GIC investment for scheduled surface repairs, such as court re‐surfacing. However the fee structure does not provide any allotment of capital funds for winter play. Currently there are surface wear and issues on Courts #4 to 8 with the installed grade beam. At MTC other desirable improvements are an indoor facility for winter play and improvements to the clubhouse such as: general renovations, the addition of lockers to the washroom and shower area, and access from the potential indoor facility to a bubble. Currently there is infrastructure in place to support seasonal air‐supported dome/bubble, including the foundation for a Bubble with five courts and a winterized clubhouse. The current mandate of Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 28
the MTC is a seasonal summer club. The MTC believes that winter opportunities would be embraced by the membership. The Nassagaweya Tennis Club is ideally situated in a central, non‐residential location with easy access and parking. In the case of potential redevelopment, the NTC believes that rebuilding at the current site with the courts at the rear, facing east and providing access to parking from Guelph Line would be preferred. The addition of four more courts, a small club house and tree buffer separating the courts from Guelph Line would be preferred. The orientation of the current courts is east‐west, while the ideal would be north‐south. As a long‐term shutdown for renovation of the NTC would have detrimental effects to the membership, the main challenge with a potential redevelopment may be building a new facility on‐site while retaining the current courts to keep the membership active. The NTC is self‐sustaining with respect to its day‐to‐day operational costs, including full utilities, wages, administrative and maintenance costs, subsidizing the junior and youth instructional drop‐in sessions and summer program. Some budgeting is also allotted for resurfacing costs. Major capital expenditures for expansion or major renovations are outside of the scope of the NTC’s budget as it is mostly volunteer‐driven. The NTC is also not in a strong position to support all‐season tennis. Contributing funding towards a bubble/dome facility is not realistic for the current membership. At the NTC, there are several areas for improvement. The Club hopes to communicate with the Town in order to discuss challenges such as facility and grounds maintenance and assistance with preparing Community fund applications for implementing junior and youth programs which the Club currently funds independently. Other concerns include the improvements to the clubhouse washrooms and storage capacity; dealing with rodents; lighting improvements; and upgrades to deteriorating court surfaces. Town Staff have advised the Club that the under‐
structure will require additional repair, over and above that of re‐surfacing the courts. Currently, surface cracking, peeling near fences and larger pieces breaking away at the back of the court have occurred. 4.5
Agreements with Local Tennis Clubs The Milton Tennis Club (MTC) has a lease agreement with the Town of Milton whereby the club remits an annual rental fee of $1,000 plus $1.00 per member household. If the MTC chooses to exercise its second of two renewal options, the base annual rent increases to $1,500 plus $1.00 per member household. The MTC is responsible for the maintenance of the “internal” facility, courts, clubhouse and associated areas. The agreement is for a five year period (which commenced in 2003) with the option of two 5‐year lease renewals. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 29
The Nassagaweya Tennis Club (NTC) has an agreement with the Town of Milton whereby in return for access to the tennis courts and the clubhouse (which consists of the club room, two washrooms and showers, and two storage rooms), the club remits an annual rental fee of $100 to the municipality. Other key elements of the agreement includes: •
The NTC pays 50% of the court resurfacing costs. •
The Town is responsible for all grounds maintenance of the lands, with the exception of land used for the tennis facilities. •
The NTC is responsible for all housekeeping and maintenance within the clubhouse and courts, including paying 100% of interior clubhouse upgrades. •
The NTC pays the Town 100% of utility costs for use of the clubhouse and tennis court facilities, including court lights (utility costs are based on an acceptable percentage of the total utility cost of the whole facility, given that a portion of the building remains occupied by the municipality). •
The Town will provide capital and structural improvements to protect the asset. Any additional enhancements will be shared at 50% of the total between the NTC and the Town. •
The Town is responsible for costs associated with on‐site fencing (around the courts), lights and light timers, clubhouse structure, parking, security lighting, grass cutting, trees, walkways and playground equipment. •
The NTC is responsible for costs associated with nets, windscreens, court and clubhouse cleanliness, the sandbox and play area, telephone charges, repairs required to keep the lands and building in a good state, and costs to keep the fixtures and fittings in good repair. •
The NTC agreement is due to expire in November 2009 as the club has picked up the option to renew the second of two renewal options. The Town will have to develop a new agreement for the 2010 based upon the findings of the Tennis Strategy and a review of fiscal items pertaining to the NTC operation. Both the MTC and NTC must provide annual financial reports to the Town of Milton and ensure that they have policies in place to offer financial assistance to residents who may not otherwise be able to afford access to the club services. With the potential facility enhancements proposed earlier in this Section for the NTC and the MTC, the Town should revisit its agreements to ensure that it maximizes community benefit. This assessment recommends enhancements to both club facilities, therefore, new agreements should be pursued to reflect a higher quality of facility provision that the Town will be contributing towards. With regard to the NTC, the Town should absolve itself to the greatest degree possible with regard to ongoing operational expenditures, particularly if courts are reconstructed as Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 30
proposed. The valuable role that the NTC provides in facilitating opportunities that may otherwise be unavailable to residents of rural Milton is recognized, however, the Town should provide the NTC with the tools necessary to successfully become self‐sufficient with only minor assistance provided by the municipality (i.e. capital investiture only). There may be opportunity to redevelop the clubhouse facility as a space that could also accommodate municipal programming (see Section 7.3); should this be pursued, the NTC would only be responsible for operational loads associated with its dedicated tennis‐oriented space. The current agreement with the MTC spans a potential 15 years but should continue to be viewed as being for summer‐use only, therefore, a new agreement should be drafted if a tennis dome is constructed. This should articulate capital and operating responsibilities, as well as mandate a succession plan whereby the MTC assumes responsibility for the facility over the long term. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 31
SECTION 5: COMMUNITY DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE This Section contains an overview of demographic characteristics which are pertinent to the analysis of tennis facilities and services in Milton. Understanding who lives in the Town, and how this community profile will differ in the future is an important part of evaluating future tennis facility and program needs. 5.1
Historical and Projected Population Figures An understanding of current and future population levels is one of the fundamental elements of the Tennis Strategy. This data provides the means to determine the level of service required for the tennis service delivery model in the Town of Milton. Figure 10: Town of Milton Historical Population Growth, 1998‐2008 Population
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
Source: Town of Milton, Planning and Development Department Statistics Canada indicates that the Town of Milton’s population was 53,939 in 2006, representing a 71% increase from the previous Census period in 2001. Figure 10 illustrates the rate of growth between 1998 and 2008. The Town’s rapid growth is expected to continue over the next ten years and potentially beyond. An implication of such marked growth is that there may be greater demand for new and/or enhanced tennis facilities and programs in order to meet the needs of an increasing population. In combination with evolving needs, additional pressures will be placed on the Milton Tennis Club and Nassagaweya Tennis Club, as well as other public tennis facilities, to respond to future service delivery expectations. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 32
Estimates from the Town’s Planning and Development Department are used for the purposes of this Report and are illustrated in the following graph. Figure 11: Future Population Growth, 2008‐2021 Forecasted Population
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Year
Source: Town of Milton Planning and Development Department 5.2
Demographic Age Composition Age breakdowns are also a significant factor in determining what kinds 13,120
of services that the community may require. 0‐9
6,550
The 2006 Census 10‐19
16,410
indicates that the median 20‐34
age of Milton residents is 7,995
34 years, which is below 35‐54
Ontario’s median age of 55‐69
3,080
6,795
39. 70+
Trends indicate that Milton’s average age will become older, largely driven by ‘baby boomers’ Source: Statistics Canada, Census 2006
in the upper ends of the cohort (See Section 2 for a detailed analysis of age participation trends). Unlike many municipalities, however, the majority of Milton’s growth will come from younger adults and their families; therefore, the aging trend will not be as prevalent as in other communities and the rest of the Region. Figure 12: Community Age Composition, 2006 Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 33
Table 6: Forecasted Community Age Composition, 2001‐2016 Total Ages 0‐19** Year Population* Pop. % 2001 (actual) 31,471 8,320 26.4% 2006 (actual) 53,939 14,545 27.0% 2011 (estimated) 106,899 26,189 24.5% 2016 (estimated) 135,882 31,932 23.5% Ages 20‐44** Pop. % 11,135 35.4% 22,380 41.5% 36,880 34.5% 46,200 34.0% Ages 45+** Pop. % 12,020 38.2% 17,025 31.6% 43,830 41.0% 57,750 42.5% * Total Population based on actual data from Statistics Canada (Census 2001 and 2006) ** Age cohort data estimated by MBPC through application of Region‐wide age projections/percentages (April 2006) and alignment to Town of Milton population data (2008) The demand for tennis will affect people of all ages given the wide demographic that the sport encompasses; therefore, many current demands will persist into the future as Milton’s population grows. Care must be taken to ensure that newcomers to Milton (especially the growing number of younger adults and families) are afforded appropriate opportunities that also meet their expectations of quality and distribution. Although Milton is and will continue to be a ‘younger’ municipality relative to the provincial norm, it is known that the Baby Boomer generation will also want to remain active and tennis is one of their favoured sports. 5.3
Ethnicity Many municipalities within the GTA are experiencing a greater degree of diversity in their ethnic composition as new immigrants choose the region because of its economic and social supports. While this trend is not dramatically significant yet in Milton – according to the 2006 Census, only 16% of Milton’s population was born in a country other than Canada (this percentage tops 50% in many GTA municipalities) – it is one that will undoubtedly become more prevalent in the future. The implication for the future is that increasing levels of ethnic diversity may result in new and increased demands for tennis programs and facilities, and may affect current participation profiles. 5.4
Household Income and Education Higher levels of income and education in a community generally coincide with higher levels of participation in recreation activities. Given Milton’s profile, it can be anticipated that the broad range of community services, including tennis, offered through the Town and its partners are valued and in demand. As mentioned in the trends analysis, USTA/TIA research suggests that new players tend to be less affluent meaning that affordability is a critical consideration. Tennis is a generally low cost sport for the participant, however, affordable club‐based opportunities is seen as being integral to facilitating interest in the sport among the general populace. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 34
The Town of Milton’s median individual income, as given by the 2006 Census, is $37,041 per year which is well above the provincial median income of $27,258 per year. The highest income‐earners tend to be those aged in the 55 to 65 year old cohort which may potentially have an impact on pricing and/or subsidies for senior’s tennis programs in the future (for example the Milton Tennis Club and Nassagaweya Tennis Club offer a senior’s membership rate which costs 40% and 13% less, respectively, than a standard adult membership). A person’s level of education can also have a bearing on participation, with many studies correlating increased participation with higher degrees of education. Generally, the more educated a community is, the more physically active it is. A review of the 2006 Census data suggests that the Town of Milton is generally well educated with a higher proportion of citizens possessing a college or university education as compared to the provincial average, but has a lower percentage of high school or trades school educated residents. Table 7: Educational Composition, 2006 Town of Province of Milton Ontario 17% 22% 26% 27% % of the population aged over 15 with a trades certificate or diploma. 8% 8% % of the population aged over 15 with a college certificate or diploma. 22% 18% Level of Education % of the population aged over 15 with less than a high school graduation certificate. % of the population aged over 15 with a high school graduation certificate and/or some postsecondary. % of the population aged over 15 with a university certificate, diploma or degree. 23% 21% Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 A report by the Our Kids Network28 indicates that a proportion of children in Milton are at higher levels of risk based upon pre‐defined indicators of economic security. For example, West Milton and South Milton have a higher percentage of population over the age of 20 without a high school diploma when compared with the regional average. West Milton also has a higher proportion of families relying upon government transfer payments. East Milton is deemed to have a high risk factor based upon a higher percentage of lone parent families. The implications of these indicators suggest that the Town will have to continue to place a focus on accommodating the needs of children in vulnerable families. Tennis is a low cost sport offering good physical activity for participant, while requiring minimal investment from the municipality compared to many other recreation facilities that are part of the municipal delivery system. 28
Our Kids – The Early Years. A Vision for Children in Halton Report Card.
Despite the demographic trends which imply that income levels are rising in Milton, the provision of tennis services and facilities should consider equitable provision to all residents, which may include financial assistance considerations (e.g. differentiated pricing schemes, subsidies, concessions, etc.) to lower income earners. By minimizing barriers to participation, higher levels of physical activity and participation in tennis programs for the entire population may occur. Continuing to ensure opportunities for free use tennis courts will also assist in this regard. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 36
SECTION 6: FACILITY INVENTORY The following tables summarize the inventory of municipal and joint tennis recreation facilities in the Town of Milton. Inventory information has been supplied by the Town or representatives from the Milton and Nassagaweya Tennis Clubs, and has been supplemented based on the observations of MBPC and Roth & Associates. Inventory data is understood to be accurate as of September 2008. 6.1
Nassagaweya Tennis Club NASSAGAWEYA TENNIS CLUB Address: Planning Area: Areas Served: Number of Courts: Status Construction: Base Material Surface Coating Located on Guelph Line at 5 Sideroad north of Highway 401 Campbellville
Total Area Slope Characteristics Drainage System Installation date Fencing: Posts and Rails Fabric Wind Screens Installation date Lighting: Quantity Fixtures Poles Installation date Associated Facilities: +/‐ 37m x 48m (1780 m2)
Side‐to‐side slope
Surface sheet drainage
Constructed in the 1980s
3m height chain‐link fencing surrounding total playing area Steel ‐ galvanized
Galvanized
None Constructed in the 1980s
4 4 fixtures per pole
8m height concrete
Constructed in the 1980s
2 tar and chip parking lots adjacent courts (60 to 70 spots) Clubhouse building
2 garbage receptacles
2 picnic tables
Benches Milton, Campbellville, Moffatt, Brookville, Rockwood 3 lit courts (coloured asphalt)
3 open (fee levied for public access)
Non‐porous asphalt
Acrylic Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 37
General Conditions: Cost about $10,000 to resurface (simple pave), last done about two to three years ago. Site Visit Observations: Building is shared between the Nassagaweya Tennis Club and Town of Milton.
The Town’s side is a former fire station and is now used for storage. Clubhouse is about 300‐400 sq. ft. and contains lounge with kitchen facilities, men’s and women’s bathrooms and change rooms, storage. Renovated in 1984. Former playground site is overgrown with vegetation, and the drainage pattern of the site slopes toward the courts. Key Considerations: How much should the Town invest in this facility, either at the current location or at a new one? Discussions have been held to sell this asset
A need exists to redefine the agreement regarding capital and operating responsibilities between the Tennis Club and the Town once the current agreement expires in March 2010.
Surface Site observations suggest that the asphalt surface is original and in fair structural condition, as is the acrylic coating. It was noted that there is a sink hole along the south side of the courts several square metres in size and sub‐surface conditions are questionable and likely to cause future problems. The perimeter of the total playing area is relatively even but contains numerous shallow surface depressions throughout, with depths averaging 6‐12mm. There is considerable surface cracking throughout the principal playing area, although most cracks are 6mm wide and only through the surface coating; these will not affect playability and do not pose a safety hazard. Posts Net posts are true and in good structural condition however, the paint is peeling from the posts Fencing The perimeter fence posts are structurally sound and reasonably true although frost action has caused some posts to lean slightly. Top rails are in place and secure while bottom wires have loosened causing the mesh to curl along its bottom length. Pressure‐treated boards and timbers have been installed to keep tennis balls from leaving the court area, although these are starting Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 38
to deteriorate. Fence fabric is secure with some terminal post tension bars and line post fasteners missing throughout; while no holes are present in the fabric, fence fabric shows 70% surface rust throughout. Recommendations Other than sub‐surface issues, tennis courts and supporting facilities are in satisfactory condition. To mitigate future expenses associated with the unstable sub‐structure, it is recommended that action be taken to correct the issue through geo‐technical engineering or relocate the courts to a more stable base elsewhere on the site (i.e. the north‐east parking lot). 6.2
Milton Tennis Club MILTON TENNIS CLUB Address: Planning Area: Areas Served: Number of Courts: Status Construction: 605 Santa Maria Boulevard
Sherwood Secondary Plan Area
Base Material Surface Coating Total Area Slope Characteristics Drainage System Installation date Fencing: Posts and Rails Fabric Wind Screens Installation date Lighting: Quantity Fixtures Poles Installation date Associated Facilities: Non‐porous Asphalt
Acrylic N/A Side‐to‐side slope
2003 3m height chain‐link fencing surrounding total playing area Steel ‐ painted black
Black vinyl coated mesh
Yes 2003 Milton 8 lit Courts (coloured asphalt)
8 open (fee levied for public access)
8 HID 5‐8 per pole
12m height concrete
2003 Gravel parking lot (40 to 50 spots)
Clubhouse contains office, storage, changerooms/showers Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 39
Outdoor viewing deck overlooking "stadium" style court General Conditions: Site Visit Observations: Courts were constructed about five years ago – will cost around $100,000 to reconstruct all existing courts.
Windscreens (nylon blend) along one side recently replaced at a cost of $3,000. Building is not shared with Town of Milton.
Fence and net posts lifting.
Key Considerations: Surface cracking prevalent along the beam installed for the purposes of accommodating a potential dome.
Potential for another four courts, however, this needs to be confirmed through other planning processes as well.
MTC is hoping to get a dome facility, estimated around $750,000. Local high school uses these courts.
Surface The asphalt surface is original and in very good structural condition through the principal playing areas. The court surface has an acrylic coating which is in good condition. The perimeter of the 5‐court total playing area is uneven with differential settling of the grade beam which creates trip hazards at court entrances (although this grade beam is outside of the limit of play). The majority of surface cracking is minor and limited to the depth of the surface coating, although there are a few cracks within the principal playing areas that are approaching 10mm in width and appear to be deeper than the surface coating. The surface is quite even with only a few shallow, small surface depressions that appear deeper than 6mm. Fencing Perimeter fence footings have heaved exposing the tops of the footings above grade; this is contributing to water pooling in pockets between the grade beam and the perimeter fence. The perimeter fence posts are structurally sound and consistently true, although frost action has caused almost all of the posts to heave by as much as 150mm. Overall the perimeter fencing is in very good condition. Posts All net post footings have either heaved and/or the grade immediately adjacent the footings have settled. Net posts remain reasonably true, but water is pooling around all the posts; this is causing the asphalt to crack around the tops of the footings. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 40
Recommendations Tennis courts appear to be in satisfactory condition. Resurfacing and maintenance is under the responsibility of the Milton Tennis Club. Additional courts and/or a winter dome facility may be warranted, which will be discussed in greater detail in subsequent sections. 6.3
Bronte Meadows Park BRONTE MEADOWS PARK Address: Planning Area: Areas Served: Number of Courts: Status Construction: Laurier Avenue and Farmstead Drive
Existing Urban Area
Base Material Surface Coating Total Area Slope Characteristics Drainage System Installation date Fencing: Posts and Rails Fabric Wind Screens Installation date Lighting: Quantity Fixtures Poles Installation date Associated Facilities: Non‐porous Asphalt
Acrylic +/‐ 37m x 48m (1780 m2)
Side‐to‐side slope
Constructed in the late 1970s
3m height chain‐link fencing surrounding total playing area Steel ‐ galvanized
Galvanized
No N/A Removed in 2007
0 Asphalt parking lot (>90 spaces) within 40m of courts 2 garbage receptacles
Operations staff do not believe that these courts are well used, although basketball court has been observed to be popular. Site Visit Observations: Key Considerations: Milton 3 (coloured asphalt)
2 open; 1 converted to basketball court
A tennis club formerly operated out of this location but it has since folded and a number of former members are likely playing out of the Milton Tennis Club.
Adjacent to arena; 1 baseball diamond; 1 soccer field; small playground.
Are tennis courts still appropriate for this park or should they be converted to multi‐use courts or other park facilities?
Surface The asphalt surface is original and in reasonably good structural condition through the principal playing area. The court surface has an acrylic coating; this, as well as the line painting, is fading and cracking. The perimeter of the total playing area is uneven with numerous surface depressions throughout with depths vary up to 25mm; this is a caused by differential settling of the base materials. Fence line post footings have lifted and perimeter court zones have settled, partly due to the fact that surface water flow is blocked. There is considerable surface cracking throughout the principal playing area with cracks varying in width from 2‐30mm; the majority are only through the surface coating. The larger cracks are 25mm or more deep; these are through the asphalt itself and suggest settling problems with base materials. Two of these large cracks (one on each court) extend the length of the courts; these will affect ball bounce and are a safety hazard given their size and unevenness. Fencing The perimeter fence posts are structurally sound and consistently true, although frost action has caused some posts to lean slightly (post footings are exposed through frost heaving). Top rails are in place and properly secured while bottom wires are in place and properly fastened. The fence fabric is consistently fastened to the posts and top rails, although fence fabric shows 30% surface rust (mostly along the north and east fence lines). Posts All net post footings have heaved/settled differentially from adjacent court surfaces; this has caused all four posts to lean. Conditions are worse in the center court than the east court. Net posts are structurally sound but are covered in surface rust. Nets are tied to the posts, although there are no options for tightening them. Recommendations It is recommended that rejuvenated playing courts be provided in the short‐term (i.e. prior to 2011) as it is highly possible that surface conditions and other quality of play factors may be prohibiting usage. It is recommended, however, that the basketball court be separated from the tennis court pod. It is believed that that the basketball court is best suited south of the ball Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 42
diamond, towards the parking area. Two tennis courts should be retained at the current location within the park, while the space formerly occupied by the basketball court would be reclaimed. The capital cost of these actions is estimated to be $187,460. A park redevelopment plan should be prepared prior to initiating such action to confirm the ability to accommodate the proposed changes and ensure that circulation within the park is appropriate. 6.4
Rotary Park ROTARY PARK Address: Located in Community: Planning Area: Number of Courts: Status Construction: Base Material Surface Coating Total Area Slope Characteristics Drainage System Installation date Fencing: Posts and Rails Fabric Wind Screens Installation date Lighting: Quantity Fixtures Poles Installation date Associated Facilities: General Conditions: Site Visit Observations: Key Considerations: Garden Lane Milton Existing Urban Area 2 2 open Non‐porous Asphalt None ‐ painted play lines only +/‐ 33m x 37m (1220 m2) Side‐to‐side slope Surface sheet drainage Constructed in the late 1980s 3.6m height chain‐link fencing surrounding total playing area Steel ‐ painted black Black vinyl coated mesh No Constructed in the late 1980s 4 Double Fixtures 10m height concrete Approximately 1998 Asphalt parking lot (28 spaces) immediately adjacent of courts 1 garbage receptacle Courts approximately fifteen to twenty years old. Lights are about ten years old. Playground; outdoor pool/splash pad; Washroom/Changeroom Building; 3 baseball diamonds; Milton Pond. Are tennis courts still appropriate for this park or should they be converted to multi‐use courts or other park facilities? Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 43
Surface The asphalt surface is original and in reasonably good structural condition. The court surface has had a coating applied in the past, but only remnants of this coating remain. There is some surface cracking less than 6mm in width near the edges of the total playing area. The surface is quite even with only one obvious surface depression that collects water following rainfall events. One hole (approximately 0.3m x 0.2m) is present in the west court; the asphalt is missing and has weeds growing in it. A 0.8m circle of asphalt has settled around each tennis court net post; this is most likely the result of the replacement of net posts and footings. Material around the new footings cannot be properly compacted resulting in differential settling. This has caused all four posts to lean, and the center of the east court net is too low as a result. Fencing The perimeter fence was installed 0.3m to 0.9m beyond the asphalt total playing area; this is hard to maintain and is mostly covered in weeds. Along the east perimeter, this area was replaced with asphalt through which weeds are starting to grow. The fence posts appear structurally sound and reasonably true Posts The posts and rails have been painted black to match the vinyl‐
coated fabric, although posts require re‐painting. Top rails are in place and secure, although the bottom wires are missing. The fence fabric is secure with some terminal post tension bars and line post fasteners are missing throughout, as a result the fabric is bent and uneven throughout although no holes are present in the fabric. Recommendations It is recommended that the Town maintain these courts according to its standard maintenance program. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 44
6.5
Kinsmen Park KINSMEN PARK Address: Located in Community: Planning Area: Number of Courts: Status Construction: Base Material Surface Coating Total Area Slope Characteristics Drainage System Installation date Fencing: Posts and Rails Fabric Wind Screens Installation date Lighting: Quantity Fixtures Poles Installation date Associated Facilities: General Conditions: Site Visit Observations: Key Considerations: Woodward Avenue at Wilson Drive Milton Existing Urban Area 3 (coloured asphalt) 1 open; 1 converted to multi‐use; 1 converted to basketball court Non‐Porous Asphalt Acrylic +/‐ 37m x 48m (1780 m2) Side‐to‐side slope Surface sheet drainage Constructed in the late 1980s 3.6m height chain‐link fencing surrounding total playing area Steel ‐ galvanized Galvanized No Constructed in the late 1980s Not Functioning 4 Triple Fixtures 10m height concrete Constructed in the late 1980s Asphalt parking lot (24 spaces) within 30m of courts 2 garbage receptacles Courts approximately fifteen to twenty years old. Net removed from western most court. Severe cracking observed throughout. Adjacent school playground and 1 baseball diamond Are tennis courts still appropriate for this park or should they be converted to multi‐use courts or other park facilities? Surface The asphalt surface is original and in reasonably good structural condition. The court surface has an acrylic coating; this, as well as the line painting, is fading and cracking. The total playing area is quite even with few minor surface depressions not more than 10mm deep, however, there is considerable surface cracking which is consistent throughout the total playing area. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 45
Cracks appear not to exceed 6mm in depth but average 12‐25mm in width, although some cracks are up to 75mm in width. These will affect ball bounce and are a minor safety hazard given their depth. As well, layers of the surface asphalt are spauling; depths average 6mm and are fist‐sized to 0.3m x 0.3m in size. The majority of spauling is occurring near the perimeter of the total playing area. The southwest entrance paving is uneven and presents a number of trip hazards, while the other two entrances cross a grassed swale which is wet and muddy for the majority of the playing season. Fencing Both posts and fence fabric show 50% surface rust. Most top rails are in place and secure; although some have come loose or are bent, and the fence fabric is not consistently fastened to the top rails. Most fence sections have bottom rails, but some are missing. The fence fabric is secure with some terminal post tension bars and line post fasteners missing throughout. The fabric is bent and uneven as a result of people climbing the fence, and the fence gates are missing. Posts The perimeter fence posts appear structurally sound but are not consistently true, as frost action has caused some posts to lean. Concrete footings are exposed above the surface in some locations and holes (approximately 0.3m x 0.2m) are present where net posts were removed in the westernmost court (which is now closed); the asphalt is missing and weeds are growing in these holes Recommendations It is recommended that rejuvenated playing courts be provided in the medium‐term (i.e. prior to 2015). It is suggested that redevelopment of the site should occur on a higher ground level (the existing courts are in a low, wet area with drainage challenges), or reconstructed on the existing site with engineered fill. It is recommended that a pod of two tennis courts be provided (designed with the flexibility to be converted to other uses if demand for tennis diminishes in the future) and a separate multi‐
use court pod be developed. Furthermore, court lighting should be removed (to discourage noise impacts on adjacent residences during the late evening). The capital cost of these actions are estimated to be $208,700. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 46
SECTION 7: ASSESSMENT OF COURT NEEDS This Section presents analyses and directions surrounding the provision and distribution of additional tennis courts to serve both the casual and competitive needs of Milton’s residents. 7.1
The Need for Additional Tennis Courts The following map illustrates the locations of all tennis courts located on municipal lands in the Town of Milton (excluding the Bishop Reding school courts which are expected to be decommissioned), with a 1 kilometre service radius applied to each. Figure 13: Distribution of Tennis Courts As can be seen, the majority of tennis opportunities are located on the west side of Thompson Road. There are no courts presently located in the Bristol Survey, while the only courts available in the Sherwood Survey are the Milton Tennis Club facilities. From a distributional perspective, there are some notable gap areas in the urban area. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 47
The Master Plan supports a provision standard of 1 tennis court per 10,000 new residents, which was articulated in the Sherwood Secondary Plan. While the standard includes both casual and club courts as part of the supply, it does not articulate the proportion of casual courts to club courts. With a 2006 population (base year for the Master Plan) estimated to be 62,323 and a 2018 population estimated to grow to 141,811, Milton is expected to add almost 80,000 residents by the end of this Study period. This level of growth would necessitate a total (i.e. casual and club courts) of 8 new tennis courts in Milton over a ten year period (which is 2 more courts than recommended by the Master Plan due to a longer planning period employed in this Study). Conversely, the Master Plan also applies a separate standard for multi‐use courts, amounting to 1 multi‐use court per 900 youth between the ages of 10 and 19. It is assumed that 9,445 youth fell into this age category for the year 2008 growing to 17,533 youth in 2018, thereby requiring a total of 10.5 multi‐use courts at present and 19.5 courts in 2018. This would leave the Town with a long‐term requirement for 7.5 additional multi‐use courts (which is 1.5 more courts than recommended by the Master Plan, again due to the longer study period). A total of 8 new tennis courts and 7.5 multi‐use courts are required. It is recommended, therefore, that a minimum of 8 new multi‐use courts with opportunities for tennis be developed over the next ten years. Ideally, multi‐use courts should be grouped in a minimum of two, thus necessitating multi‐use courts with tennis capabilities at a minimum of four new parks. In order to ensure adequate spatial distribution, only one of these pods may be set up for tennis (i.e. the possibility exists for placing tennis courts at a maximum of eight new parks) although it is preferred that both courts at any given park have the ability to accommodate tennis due to the relatively low capital cost of installing tennis infrastructure (i.e. posts, nets and fencing). It is important to recognize that sustainability in tennis participation within a community is largely achieved by having a strong organized (i.e. club) base. While the provision of casual/no fee tennis courts within urban parks is also important, it is the following of organized tennis players who are the most frequent and regular participants. Therefore, it is important to consider the ratio of club courts to casual courts that will need to be provided to meet a wide range of needs while also ensuring long‐term sustainability of the user base. Given that the demographic characteristics of Milton’s current and forecasted population generally align with trends conducive to facilitating participation (i.e. younger community, higher than average income and education levels, increasing ethnic diversity, etc.), an assumption is made that the level of participation will be at a rate consistent or greater than what is being experienced currently. For example, organized tennis participation in urban Milton is assumed to be 0.9% (682 members); if the population grows to 141,811, achieving this rate of capture would suggest that there will be at least 1,240 organized players in ten years. Using a capacity standard of one club tennis court per 100 members (this is a commonly endorsed standard among tennis clubs), the 8 club courts in urban Milton are largely serving 48
Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates the needs of organized tennis, although pressures will become increasingly apparent in the short‐term. This is generally consistent with input provided by the MTC regarding court needs. In 2018, a total of 12 club courts would likely be required assuming participation rates remain stable. Note that the Nassagaweya Tennis Club membership has not been included in the capacity calculation as the rural population that it serves is expected to remain relatively stable (i.e. low to moderate growth in this membership is expected due to the area that it serves). At present, the spatial distribution and quality of existing casual tennis courts is lacking (see Section 7.2) while the number of club courts is presently serving the needs of organized users (see Section 7.3). The priority, therefore, should be on addressing casual/no fee court needs in the short‐term; as the Town grows, however, the need for additional club courts will become increasingly important if the municipality is to ensure longevity in the tennis playing population. With an additional 4 club courts forecasted to be required as part of a total of 8 tennis courts required Town‐wide, the following strategy is recommended: •
A total of four club‐quality but casual/no fee courts should be placed at a new park, preferably serving District or Community‐level needs in the Sherwood Secondary Plan Area (preferably in the Scott or Harrison neighbourhoods); as the demand for organized tennis grows with the Town’s population, conversion of these public courts towards a club‐based model should be strongly considered. •
A minimum of two multi‐use courts with tennis capabilities should be provided in the Bristol Secondary Plan Area. A tennis court would preferably be provided as part of Coates Neighbourhood Park (to complement the existing multi‐use court) and a second tennis court should be provided at the Clarke Neighbourhood Park east of Fourth Line. •
A minimum of two multi‐use courts with tennis capabilities should be provided in the Boyne (Phase 3) Secondary Plan Area. The following subsections offer a greater degree of detail as to the reasoning behind this recommended course of action. 7.2
The Need for Casual & Drop‐In Courts Current inventory data shows that there are 5 dedicated tennis courts for casual/no fee use in the Town of Milton, located at Kinsmen Park (1 court), Rotary Park (2 courts) and Bronte Meadows Park (2 courts). The level of casual tennis participation varies greatly by municipality, and even from neighbourhood to neighbourhood. This can make it difficult to gauge where tennis courts should be provided, however, neighbourhood tennis courts have been successful in the sense that they offered unprogrammed and casual usage, which responds well to encouraging physical activity among time pressed individuals. 49
Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates Tennis courts have been traditionally incorporated into park designs. Dedicated tennis courts, however, are becoming less frequent in many communities largely due to the increasing popularity for drop‐in basketball and ball hockey at many parks. All of these playing areas can be accommodated on the traditional asphalt surface, so park designs are now frequently providing both dedicated tennis and basketball courts (due to capital and operational efficiencies), developing multi‐purpose courts, or offering a combination of court templates (i.e. multi‐purpose, tennis and/or basketball) within the park design. Current inventory data shows that there are 9 courts which are classified as being multi‐use and 3 courts dedicated as basketball; for the purposes of this report, the supply of multi‐purpose courts includes these basketball courts and thus the Town is considered as having a total of 12 multi‐purpose courts. The Town of Milton has already embraced the “multi‐purpose” court template, largely by repurposing aging or underutilized tennis courts (e.g. Bronte Meadows Park, Kinsmen Park). Furthermore, this type of court template further maximizes the ability of the Town to provide a venue for casual/informal physical activity in the neighbourhood park, while maximizing the number of activities that can take place on the surface. Furthermore, the Community Services Master Plan advocates the development of multi‐use courts at the neighbourhood level. These courts could even be augmented by adding rebound walls as a means to encourage residents to try tennis and grow the sport locally. Development of Courts at New Locations As mentioned in Section 7.1, a need for 8 additional tennis courts has been established to meet growth‐related demands for these facilities. To ensure that neighbourhood‐level opportunities are balanced with the existing number of club courts, it is suggested that four new courts with tennis capabilities be provided in new and underserviced Secondary Plan Areas (i.e. Boyne and Bristol, respectively) to serve as no‐fee neighbourhood courts over the long‐term. It is suggested courts be provided at Coates Neighbourhood Park (one tennis court), Clarke Neighbourhood Park (one multi‐use court) and an appropriate park(s) within the Boyne Secondary Plan Area (two tennis courts), the latter of which is presently in the midst of a secondary plan process. The costs associated with these developments are articulated below. Table 8: Projected Cost with Bristol & Boyne Court Developments Item Installation of One New Tennis Court (Coates Neighbourhood Park) Installation of new asphalt tennis court pad (including site grading, base materials)(+/‐37m x 18m) Application of acrylic surface treatment Installation of fence (steel galvanized, chain link, 3m ht.) Installation of site servicing (Hydro) (based on 100m distance to connections) Supply and installation of accessories (posts, nets, site furniture) Installation of lighting (poles with double fixtures; controls)(10m ht.) Sub‐total Quantity Unit 2
670 m 2
670 m 115 lin.m. 100 2 lump lump ea. Unit Cost Totals $65.00 $17.00 $76.00 $43,550 $11,390 $8,740 $240.00 $4,000.00 $24,000 $20,000 $8,000 $115,680 Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 50
Item Installation of One New Multi‐use Court (Clarke Neighbourhood Park) Installation of new asphalt mutli‐use tennis court pad (including site grading, base materials)(+/‐37m x 18m) Application of acrylic surface treatment Installation of fence (steel galvanized, chain link, 3m ht.) Installation of site servicing (Hydro) (based on 100m distance to connections) Supply and installation of accessories (posts, nets, site furniture) Installation of lighting (poles with double fixtures; controls)(10m ht.) Supply and installation of accessories (4 hoops sets, site furniture) Sub‐total Installation of Two New Tennis Courts Installation of new asphalt tennis court pad (including site grading, base materials) (+/‐37m x 33m) Application of acrylic surface treatment Installation of site servicing (Hydro) (based on 100m distance to connections) Installation of fence (steel galvanized, chain link, 3m ht.) Supply and installation of accessories (posts, nets, site furniture) Installation of lighting (poles with double fixtures; controls)(10m ht.) Sub‐total Quantity Unit 2
670 m 2
670 m 115 lin.m. 100 2 lin.m. lump ea. lump 2
1220 m 2
1220 m 100 140 2 lump lin.m. lump ea. Unit Cost Totals $65.00 $17.00 $78.00 $43,550 $11,390 $8,970 $240.00 $4,000.00 $24,000 $20,000 $8,000 $40,000 $155,910 $65.00 $17.00 $79,300 $20,740 $240.00 $78.00 $4,000.00 $24,000 $10,920 $20,000 $8,000 $162,960 The remaining four courts should be developed as club‐quality, dedicated tennis courts at a single park whereby they would be designated as casual/no fee facilities until a time at which an organized tennis club (whether it be the Milton Tennis Club or a new organization) is willing to take over these courts as its own (see Section 7.3). There may be a concern that such a strategy would lead to public expectations that courts would remain no‐fee (i.e. public may oppose the conversion to fee‐based club courts later on); this, however, can be addressed in a number of ways, including: •
Advertising the fact that the courts will eventually become club‐based at the onset of the design and construction phase; •
Allowing limited club‐only times (i.e. phasing in club operations); •
Providing limited public access times when the courts are assumed by a club; and/or •
Ensuring one court remains no‐fee (either as a temporary or permanent measure) after the courts are assumed by a club. To adequately determine where future courts should be placed, it is critical to consider the existing spatial distribution and access to neighbourhoods for any casual use courts. The following map illustrates Town parks with a tennis court located in them; additionally, a 1 kilometre radius has applied to these parks for the simple purposes of illustrating the service coverage of these courts. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 51
Figure 14: Distribution of Neighbourhood‐Level Tennis and Multi‐Use Courts Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 52
Based upon distribution alone, access to tennis courts is fairly limited at three municipal parks. Although multi‐use courts are fairly well distributed across neighbourhood blocks, the great majority of these courts are not equipped to offer tennis opportunities. A location north of Derry Road is preferred due to the presence of the existing Milton Tennis Club location on Santa Maria Boulevard. While the MTC is seen as an ideal location for future court investment (see next subsection), the casual court need is seen as a more pressure point, particularly from a distributional perspective. The four new club‐quality courts are seen as being such, to serve a casual and distributional need, thus a location other than the MTC site is preferred. Ideally, these courts should be placed in a future District or Community Park, preferably in the Sherwood Survey (if suitable land can be procured). These courts could remain as casual facilities if no club is willing to assume them and this Study has concluded additional courts are plausible at the MTC towards the end of the Study period. The capital cost associated with the development of these club‐quality, no‐fee courts is estimated to be $818,260 as shown in the table below. Table 9: Projected Cost of Court Development at a Future District or Community Park Item Installation of new asphalt tennis court pad (including site grading, base materials) (+/‐37m x 63) Application of acrylic surface treatment Installation of fence (steel, black vinyl coated, chain link, 3 metre height.) Installation of site servicing (Hydro, Sanitary, Water, Storm sewer)(based on 100m distance to connections) Supply and installation of accessories (posts, nets, site furniture) Installation of lighting (poles with double fixtures; controls) Supply and installation of windscreens Installation of Washroom/ Changeroom Building Installation of site furniture (benches, trash receptacles, fountain, bleachers) Planting Installation of parking lots/driveways Total Cost Quantity Unit 2
2,330 m 2
2,330 m 200 lin.m. 100 6 600 300 Unit Cost Totals $65.00 $151,450.00 $17.00 $39,610.00 $78.00 $15,600.00 lin.m. $600.00 $60,000.00 lump $40,000.00 each $4,500.00 $27,000.00 2
m $16.00 $9,600.00 2
m $1,100.00 $330,000.00 lump lump lump $40,000.00 $25,000.00 $80,000.00 $818,260 Re‐development of Courts at Existing Locations With regard to existing casual tennis facilities distributed across Milton, many are in sub‐par condition (as documented in Section 5) which may be acting as a barrier to participation. For example, there is considerable surface cracking throughout the courts at Bronte Meadows park, which can affect quality of play and pose a safety hazard. The following paragraphs detail recommended actions for existing neighbourhood tennis courts. The tennis courts at Bronte Meadows, as mentioned, are in need of resurfacing. A tennis club formerly operated out of this location but folded and municipal staff are of the opinion that these courts are not well used anymore. The adjacent basketball court, however, appears to be 53
Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates well utilized although surface cracking is also apparent here. The recommended course of action would be to rejuvenate these courts in the short‐term (i.e. prior to 2011) and offer the following court templates: •
A pod with two dedicated tennis courts (flexibly designed to be able to convert to other uses in the future if demand for tennis diminishes at this location) at the site of the existing courts; •
A separated pod containing one multi‐use court located in the area between the ball diamond and parking lot; •
The capital cost associated with these actions is estimated to be $187,460. Table 10: Projected Cost with Bronte Meadows Court Redevelopment Item Quantity Unit Removals Unit Cost Totals Removal of tennis court asphalt pad 2
$5.00 $6,100 2
$10.00 $5,600 1,220 m Removal of basketball court asphalt pad and granular base 560 m Removal of fence surrounding basketball court and 2 hoop sets lump $2,500 Installation of 2 Tennis Courts (existing location) Inspection, testing and re‐engineering of base materials and sub‐grade Installation of new asphalt tennis court pad only (+/‐ 37 x 33 metres) Application of acrylic surface treatment 2
$20.00 $24,400 2
$30.00 $36,600 2
$17.00 $20,740 1,220 m 1,220 m 1,220 m Supply and installation of accessories (posts, nets, site furniture) Repair of site (installation of topsoil, fine grading, installation of sod) Installation of One New Basketball Court (new location) lump 2
560 m $20,000 $10.00 $5,600 2
$65.00 $36,400 2
$17.00 $9,520 Installation of new basketball court asphalt pad (including site grading, base materials) (+/‐ 31 x 18 metres) 560 m Application of acrylic surface treatment 560 m Supply and installation of accessories (2 hoop sets, site furniture) lump $20,000 Total Cost $187,460 The tennis courts at Kinsmen Park are also in a state of disrepair, although it would appear that these courts would be a good candidate for resurfacing as minor cracking is the primary issue. The recommended course of action would be to rejuvenate these courts in the medium‐term (i.e. prior to 2015). The Town should consider re‐orienting the courts in the northern area of the park and offer: •
A pod with two dedicated tennis courts (flexibly designed to be able to convert to other uses in the future if demand for tennis diminishes at this location); •
A separate pod containing one multi‐use court, at least one of which should have tennis capabilities; •
Lighting standards should be removed from these courts in order to discourage potential noise from the basketball activity in the evening, given the proximity to adjacent residences (security lighting away from the courts is preferred); Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 54
•
The capital cost associated with this action is estimated to be $208,700. Table 11: Projected Cost with Kinsmen Court Redevelopment Item Removals Removal of tennis court asphalt pad Removal of basketball court asphalt pad and base materials Quantity Unit Unit Cost Totals 2
$5.00 $6,100 2
$10.00 $5,600 1,220 m 560 m Removal of fence surrounding basketball court and 2 hoop sets lump $2,500 Installation of 2 Tennis Courts (same location) Inspection, testing and re‐engineering of base materials and sub‐grade Installation of new asphalt tennis court pad only (+/‐ 37 x 33 metres) Application of acrylic surface treatment 2
$30.00 $36,600 2
$30.00 $36,600 2
$17.00 $20,740 1,220 m 1,220 m 1,220 m Installation of fence (steel galvanized, chain link, 3 metre height) 140 lin.m. $78.00 $10,920 Supply and installation of accessories (posts, nets, site furniture) lump $20,000 Installation of One New Basketball Court (same or new location) 2
$65.00 $36,400 2
$16.50 $9,240 Installation of new basketball court asphalt pad (including site grading, base materials) (+/‐ 31 x 18 metres) 560 m Application of acrylic surface treatment 560 m Supply and installation of accessories (2 hoop sets, site furniture) lump $20,000 Total Cost $208,700 At either Bronte Meadows or Kinsmen Park, there may come a time when the ball diamonds in each respective park are deemed to be surplus. At the present time, these diamonds are well utilized, however, if the Town decides to relocate either or both of these diamonds to a future community park, the opportunity exists for entire redevelopment of the parks; should this occur, the orientation and location of the playing courts within their respective park boundaries should be revisited. The tennis courts at Rotary Park are in the most satisfactory condition of any neighbourhood court in Milton. There are a couple of holes and depressions, but otherwise the surface is in fairly good shape, therefore, resurfacing is recommended according to the municipality’s recommended maintenance schedule. It is recommended that these courts remain dedicated for the purposes of tennis unless the Town decides to engage in further enhancements to the park, tennis court area, entrance and/or parking areas. Bishop Reding High School is a non‐municipal provider of tennis courts, however, the school board has indicated that they are removing these courts due to their severely deteriorating condition and poor location. The school board does not have any plans to reconstruct tennis courts at this site, nor does it have plans to repurpose the area occupied by its existing courts for other uses. Municipal staff do not believe that these courts are well used by the public while the school board indicates that they have never received any requests by the public to use the courts (and in fact, the courts are primarily used as a “dog run”); the removal of these high school courts, therefore, is not deemed to have a great impact on tennis play. Nonetheless, it 55
Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates does represent another example of a deteriorating court in Milton, which could be inhibiting local participation and residents will not have the opportunity to use this area anymore (representing a gap area in provision – the closest casual tennis courts for these residents will be at Kinsmen Park). Future use of these courts would only be predicated by their redevelopment by the school board and the general public would likely only have access to them through the existing Reciprocal Agreement (if rented by groups) or if the gates are unlocked (for casual use by residents). The Town should conduct further analysis on these courts only if/when they are brought up to a useable standard for tennis play. With regard to lighting of casual courts, such action is not recommended unless adjacent residences are adequately buffered from light spillage and noise impacts that would be created in the late evening if lighting systems are available. The primary season for casual tennis court use is typically between the months of May and September, where dusk generally falls after 8pm. Use of courts is generally not preferred after 9pm, therefore, providing lighting for an extra hour of play (seven hours per week) is not considered to be a great return on investment for installing and maintaining lighting systems. That being said, adequately sheltered park locations (e.g. Rotary Park) or high demand neighbourhood courts may consider lighting systems on a park‐by‐park basis. Summary of Recommendations Given the existing distribution and number of new courts required over the ten year period (a total of 8 new courts), it is recommended that: •
Four new tennis courts, which are of club‐quality but intended to remain casual/no fee, courts should be placed at a new park preferably serving District or Community‐level needs in the Sherwood Secondary Plan Area (preferably in the Scott or Harrison neighbourhoods). It is envisioned that these tennis courts will be transferred over to a club operation once demand for organized tennis is sufficient enough in the area to warrant this course of action. •
Two new multi‐use courts with tennis capabilities across a minimum of two parks in the Bristol Secondary Plan Area. At least one court with tennis capabilities should be provided as part of Coates Neighbourhood Park, while the Clarke community is also deemed a plausible location. The Town should also evaluate its existing multi‐use courts located within the Bristol Survey and evaluate their ability to accommodate tennis capabilities. •
Two new multi‐use courts with tennis capabilities across a minimum of two parks in the Boyne (Phase 3) Secondary Plan Area in line with the development of this community. Additional multi‐use courts with tennis capabilities will likely be required based upon spatial distribution of this community. With regard to the existing supply of tennis courts distributed across various municipal parks, for the most part these facilities are tired and in need of rejuvenation. The following is recommended for these facilities: Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 56
•
Kinsmen Park – rejuvenate these courts in the short to medium‐term (i.e. prior to 2013) and and provide a pod for two tennis courts and a separate pod for one multi‐use court; lighting standards should be removed from these courts. •
Bronte Meadows Park – rejuvenate these courts in the medium‐term (i.e. prior to 2015) and provide a pod for two tennis courts and a separate pod for one multi‐use court. •
Rotary Park – maintain these courts according to the municipality’s schedule. 7.3
The Need for Outdoor Competitive & Club Courts At present, 11 competitive / club courts are provided at the Milton Tennis Club (8 courts) and the Nassagaweya Tennis Club (3 courts). These courts are available to the public for a fee levied by the tennis clubs. Although the previous subsection recommended that casual/no fee tennis courts are the preferred option to meet community needs established by the provision standard and spatial distribution criteria, it is important to recognize the role that the local tennis clubs play in promoting interest in the sport and achieving physical activity objectives of the municipality (which is a primary reason why the eventual conversion of four proposed courts to club facilities is recommended). Tennis clubs are generally better positioned to encourage participation in tennis due to their ability to offer community programs, lessons, tournaments, etc. and their members tend to be the most frequent participants meaning the maintenance of a strong membership base is critical to ensuring long‐term interest in the sport. Furthermore, a strong user base may in turn lead to increased use of neighbourhood courts among residents who would not otherwise think to use a neighbourhood‐level tennis court (i.e. increasing awareness and exposure for those “samplers” and “never playeds” described by USTA/TIA research in Section 2). For this reason, enhanced or expanded club facilities may be necessary pending a few considerations. Nassagaweya Tennis Club Discussions with the Nassagaweya Tennis Club (NTC) indicate that one additional tennis court is preferable for their needs and would assist in growing their membership. Although their membership has fluctuated between 159 and 212 members since the year 1995, the NTC is considering expanding its programming to include a women’s interclub, 55+ interclub, junior interclub which would possibly require additional facilities. Their primary demand is for winter recreational programs that are close and affordable to their members, although they are not in a financial position to contribute to a covered structure. The NTC is located 9267 Guelph Line, just north of Highway 401 and across from the Mohawk Raceway. The NTC believes that they are in a near perfect location due to proximity to the majority of its members and sufficient distance from residential areas to avoid noise complaints. The primary concern of this location is the subsoil underneath the existing courts; 57
Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates it is subject to erosion and freeze/thaw effects leading to regular court cracking and unfavourable resurfacing schedule. Under the terms of the current agreement, the Town is responsible for paying 50% of court resurfacing costs at this location. Courts were resurfaced in 2007 and cracking occurred the following year due to the substructure. A simple resurfacing for these courts costs about $10,000, however, the frequency of this action is deemed to be less than ideal from the point of municipal expenditure (i.e. approximately $5,000 every three to four years for the municipality which exceeds the rental receipts accrued over this period). Given the instability of the base beneath the courts, it is recommended that the tennis courts be relocated or reconstructed pending the ability to correct the subsoil issues. It is believed that the NTC provides a valuable service to those residing outside of the Town’s primary urban area and that the municipality should assist the club in reconstructing its courts. The club is content with the current location and it is not deemed in the interests of the municipality to actively procure a new property for the purposes of the Club’s operation. Further, most new municipal park development is occurring within the secondary plan area, thus relocating club operations to a new municipal park is not deemed to be a good use of space given that the majority of the club’s members reside in Milton’s rural areas. It is recommended therefore, that the NTC remain at its current location although two options are proposed for this site, depending the feasibility and costs that should be determined through a geo‐technical assessment at the current court locations. Option 1a would be to correct subsoil conditions to provide a more stable base for tennis courts, the cost of which is unknown at this point in time, and reconstruct the courts in their existing location (i.e. the south‐east corner of the site); the capital cost associated with this action, in the absence of a geo‐technical assessment, is estimated to be $243,520 (exclusive of site redevelopment costs associated with constructing a new clubhouse facility). Option 1b would involve relocating the courts over the existing parking lot in the north‐east corner of the site. Based upon observations and in the absence of a geo‐technical assessment, the estimated the capital cost of this action is $264,420 (exclusive of constructing a new clubhouse facility). It would be preferred that the courts be re‐oriented to face a north‐south direction for player comfort, although this may again have geo‐technical implications depending upon the final siting and orientation. Furthermore, if either of these options is pursued, it is recommended that three courts be developed but sufficient space should be left for a potential fourth court. A four court template is deemed as an ideal club model by allowing simultaneous organized play on three courts and drop‐in play on the fourth. The fourth court may not attain optimal utilization at this time due the Club’s fluctuating membership levels, stable to declining rural population, the possibility that an expanded Milton Tennis Club (possibly with winter play opportunities) may draw users away from the NTC, and ongoing maintenance costs associated with a new court. For the time being, a fourth court could be considered for construction 58
Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates provided it is used as a multi‐purpose space or complementary use (e.g. rebound wall, stretching area, etc.) to provide the NTC with long‐term flexibility in making use of the space while attaining efficiencies in the capital cost of construction. A fourth dedicated tennis court would ideally be provided in the future when the Club’s membership is deemed sufficient enough (i.e. around a threshold of 350‐400 members) that investment in a new court is required in order to provide the NTC with added opportunity to grow its membership and programming. It should be noted, however, that a fourth court may necessitate additional land acquisition (this will have to be confirmed pending the results of the geo‐technical assessment) which in turn may have legislative constraints to development as this property is located in an area governed by the Niagara Escarpment Commission. An Option 2 exists (but is not recommended) which would involve the Nassagaweya Tennis Club relocating operations to a new site altogether. This would involve the development of four new courts and construction of a clubhouse, together which is estimated to cost over $2.2 million, plus disposition of the current courts ($243,500) and land acquisition costs (variable depending upon the site chosen). Table 12: Projected Cost with Nassagaweya Court Redevelopment Item Option 1a: Re‐Installation of 3 Courts (existing location) Removal of tennis court asphalt pad (+/‐37m x 48) Removal of fencing and posts Removal of lighting Inspection, testing and re‐engineering of base materials and sub‐
grade Installation of new asphalt tennis court pad (+/‐37m x 48) Application of acrylic surface treatment Supply and installation of accessories (posts, nets, site furniture) Installation of new fence (steel galvanized, chain link, 3m ht.) Installation of lighting (poles with three fixtures; controls) Sub‐Total Cost – Removals Option 1b: Re‐Installation of 3 Courts (elsewhere location on site) Removal of tennis court asphalt pad (+/‐37m x 48) Removal of fencing and posts Removal of lighting Removal of parking north‐east parking lot and granular base Installation of new asphalt tennis court pad (including site grading, base materials)(+/‐37m x 48) Application of acrylic surface treatment Installation of site servicing (Hydro) (based on 100m distance to connections) Supply and installation of accessories (posts, nets, site furniture) Installation of fence (steel galvanized, chain link, 3m ht.) Installation of lighting (poles with three fixtures; controls) Sub‐Total Cost – Option 1 Provisional Item: New clubhouse building (485 sq.m.)* Sub‐Total Cost – New courts and new clubhouse Quantity 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,780 170 4 1,780 1,780 Unit 2
m lump ea. Unit Cost $5.00 Totals $8,900 $2,500 $4,000 2
$40.00 $30.00 $17.00 $78.00 $5,000.00 $5.00 $10.00 $71,200 $53,400 $30,260 $40,000 $13,260 $20,000 $243,520 $8,900 $2,500 $4,000 $17,800 2
$65.00 $17.00 $115,700 $30,260 $120.00 $78.00 $5,000.00 $2,700.00 $12,000 $40,000 $13,260 $20,000 $264,420 $1,309,500 $1,573,920 m 2
m 2
m lump lim.m. ea. 2
m lump ea. 2
m 1,780 m 2
1,780 m 100 170 4 lump lump lin.m. ea. 2
m Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 59
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Totals Option 2: Installation of 4 Courts (new site) Installation of new asphalt tennis court pad (including site grading, 2
base materials)(+/‐37m x 63) 2,330 m $65.00 $151,450 2
Application of acrylic surface treatment 2,330 m $17.00 $39,610 Supply and installation of accessories (posts, nets, site furniture) lump $40,000 Installation of site servicing (Hydro, Sanitary, Water, Storm sewer)(based on 100m distance to connections) 100 lin.m. $600.00 $60,000 Installation of fence (steel galvanized, chain link, 3m ht.) 200 lin.m. $78.00 $15,600 Installation of lighting (poles with double fixtures; controls) 6 ea. $4,500.00 $27,000 2
New clubhouse building (1,000 sq.m.) m $1,900.00 $1,900,000 Sub‐Total Cost – Option 2 $2,233,660 * includes costs associated with demolition of existing facility and construction of new clubhouse – note that size of facility is relegated to the existing facility footprint under terms set forth by the Niagara Escarpment Commission Note: costs associated with consultants, design, landscaping, contingencies and project management are not included With regard to other elements of the existing property, it is recommended that the Town of Milton divest itself of the entire clubhouse facility and all associated expenditures. The building is essentially a storage facility and no municipal programming is offered out of it; once the Town’s new Operations Centre is completed, the building’s storage functions will become redundant thus creating the opportunity for the Town to repurpose or divest itself of the structure. There is a small play area and garden on site, which the Town should assist with redeveloping, as well as ensuring that parking and access to the roads is sufficient (these costs are not articulated in the table above, but are estimated to be in the range of at least $150,000). In essence, both scenarios suggest that the Town assist the NTC in improving the site and facility. A third option, specifically pertaining to a redeveloped clubhouse, would be to position the site and clubhouse to become more of a community‐oriented facility (i.e. rentals and municipal outreach programming could be offered depending upon the building design). Such an agreement would have to be mutually beneficial to the NTC and the Town, which would allow the municipality to serve Milton’s more rural populations, a position which is supported through the Community Services Master Plan. Implementation of this option implies that the Town would need to re‐examine its operating agreement and level of investment as it relates to community use and benefit imparted on residents. The NTC has indicated that it is not in a financial position to contribute to major capital items, which may pose a challenge to the club to assume operational costs of the site. It is hoped that by assisting with site improvements, the club will be able to thrive and grow its programs (i.e. the Town is providing them with the tools to develop their internal capacity), however, the onus must be on the club to lend sufficient funds if it is to receive a new or expanded facility at the same site. This could take the form of a loan repayment to the Town, fundraising, adding a temporary service fee to memberships, etc. or a combination thereof. The amount contributed by the NTC towards capital costs should be factored into a new lease rate for the facility, as the existing agreement expires in November 2009. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 60
As mentioned in the previous paragraph and in Section 4.5, it is recommended that the Town revisit the terms of the current agreement with the NTC upon expiration of the current lease, and in order to lessen the municipal operational load associated with the site, the following changes are proposed based upon the existing agreement: •
Making the NTC responsible for the grounds maintenance of the lands (the Town may assist in capital improvements, at its discretion); •
The NTC should be responsible for at least 50% of costs associated with on‐site fencing, lights and light timers, parking, security lighting, grass cutting, walkways and other site amenities; and/or •
By redeveloping the clubhouse facility, the Town places all capital and operational responsibility associated with tennis‐oriented space on the NTC (the Town may assist in capital improvements, at its discretion) unless the facility is developed as a joint‐use facility between the municipality (for community programming) and the NTC, in which case the parameters of the operating agreement will need to be re‐evaluated. As it is unlikely that the NTC has the resources to purchase the property from the municipality at fair market value, it is recommended that the Town retain ownership of the site and structure; the Town, however, should ensure that the new lease agreement with the NTC ensures that the Club adheres to meeting the operational load, and determine an appropriate lease rate that would allow the NTC to do so. Milton Tennis Club Discussions with the Milton Tennis Club (MTC) indicate that four additional tennis courts are ideal for their long term needs, although they are currently satisfied with the number of existing courts to serve their current membership base. Their membership has been steadily increasing and they are contemplating increasing their programming complement. A key vision of the MTC is to provide indoor tennis during the winter, which is discussed further in the next sub‐section. The MTC is located in the newly developing Community Park off Derry Road and Santa Maria Boulevard. This park is currently undergoing a Master Plan to determine park design, required facilities, and amenities. A process evaluating the need to expand the Milton Sports Centre is also underway. The MTC occupies land at the just south of the proposed Union Gas trail extension through the Community Park and operations could be influenced by the ultimate vision determined for the park. The MTC presently has a membership base of 682 players, the majority (87%) of whom live within urban Milton. As mentioned in Section 7.1, this number can be expected to grow to 1,240 if participation rates remain constant, thus requiring an additional four club courts. Given the fact that the short‐term priority remains on addressing casual/no fee opportunities at the neighbourhood‐level, it is recommended that the four courts be developed in an underserved area for the time being until demand is at such a point where the Milton Tennis Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 61
Club or another community organization is willing to assume these courts. As such, these courts should be developed as higher quality facilities and ensure that space exists for a future clubhouse facility, either as a dedicated structure or within a larger multi‐use facility (the Community Services Master Plan articulates the eventual need for a new community centre in the future). It is also important to ensure that the MTC is not limited by their existing facilities in the short‐
term. At present, land has been allocated immediately south of the existing courts and would appear to be sufficient to accommodate a maximum of four additional courts. While the development of the four new courts is not recommended in the short to medium‐term at the existing location (the MTC suggests that their existing courts are well used but not overused at present), the Town should ensure that this expansion area is incorporated into the final Community Park Master Plan in order to provide the MTC with the opportunity to grow its membership as Milton’s population increases. Doing so will define the area as a hub for high quality tennis activity which is deemed congruent with the Community Park vision as a destination representative of excellence in facility and amenity provision. In the interim, it is suggested that two temporary/moveable ‘rebound boards’ be provided in the expansion area, which are also preferably available to the public at no charge. Standard asphalt is the recommended surface type with only the necessary grading required as these areas are eventually intended to be replaced with full service courts. Doing so may attract residents to the site and introduce them to opportunities available at the MTC, forming part of a marketing/recruitment strategy to encourage new members at the club. The rebound boards would also benefit existing club members who desire that type of service. With regard to any future investment in club courts, it is recommended that standard coloured, textured asphalt courts be provided. Although the desire for clay or Har‐Tru courts has been expressed, these courts require considerable maintenance efforts and if offered, the Town should have limited to no commitment to operational costs associated with these facilities. Only if the MTC is willing to be fully responsible for maintenance and majority of capital contributions towards clay‐type courts, the Town may consider assisting with the initial capital costs of providing these facilities. Sufficient parking (between 65 and 100 spaces for tennis players only) is also recommended and should be designed in a manner that can accommodate a crane if the decision to install a temporary dome is implemented. Summary of Recommendations The availability of club courts is an important part of the Town’s goal to be a facilitator of high quality tennis surfaces. While previous sections have recommended that the Town’s primary focus for investment be on casual/no fee tennis courts, providing the local tennis clubs with the internal capacity to grow their programs is also an important objective. The Nassagaweya Tennis Club courts are deemed to be operationally unsustainable in their present form, due to the excessive maintenance required to keep them at a high level of quality Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 62
because of issues pertaining to the instability of the subsoil. It is recommended that while the Town significantly reduce its operational commitment to the entire site (unless the clubhouse is developed with community‐oriented space), it should provide the NTC with every opportunity to grow its membership and become self sufficient. The existing tennis courts should be removed and reconstructed, with sufficient land for a fourth tennis court also being left for a possible future expansion (i.e. the fourth court should be considered at a future time when membership is sufficient enough to warrant it). The Milton Tennis Club courts are of high quality and while they are well utilized, investment in additional new courts is not recommended at the present location until membership levels are at a point where demand pressures become acute. Instead, sufficient land capable of accommodating four courts should be set aside to the south of existing courts and two temporary ‘rebound boards’ should be developed for both club and public use. The Milton Tennis Club should be offered the first priority to assume the four courts recommended at an alternative location, which are intended to be casual/no fee courts for the shorter‐term until a time at which interest is expressed in converting these courts over for club use. With regard to any future investment in club courts, it is recommended that standard coloured, textured asphalt courts be provided. Although the desire for clay or Har‐Tru courts has been expressed, these courts require considerable maintenance efforts and if offered, the Town should have limited to no commitment to operational costs associated with these facilities. Provision of clay‐based courts should only be considered based upon a comprehensive study of court capacity, operational costs, and roles and responsibilities between the Town and the Club(s). Future agreements and partnership opportunities should be built off a similar model as the Town presently utilizes with the Milton Tennis Club as it is felt that reciprocal benefits are largely maximized and ongoing dialogue with the local clubs is recommended in this regard. 7.4
The Need for Indoor Tennis Courts The desire for winter tennis opportunities has been advanced by both local tennis clubs as a mean for providing year round play and programming. Winter tennis requires a covered and heated playing area, and most commonly takes the form of a bubble or other temporary structure in order to allow outdoor tennis in the summer season. The Milton Tennis Club has expressed interest in a dome or bubble, and the Town has already installed a grade beam at the current MTC site (with the financial assistance of local developers) which lays the foundation for this type of service. There are a number of benefits to providing a temporary dome or bubble as opposed to a conventional structure. Initial capital costs tend to be lower and if maintained properly, can observe lower overheads as well due to the simplicity of their design. The opportunity for year‐round activity is their greatest benefit to the community. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 63
Indoor tennis domes require a considerable capital and operational investment, due to the level of sophistication required during the installation, maintenance, and removal process. Initial capital outlays generally amount to $400,000 plus the cost of installation (a crane is necessary to put up the structure, electrical and natural gas servicing needs to be extended, etc.), site preparation (e.g. a parking lot capable of accommodating the crane needs to be designed) and optional items (e.g. top coat fabric protection, handicap accessible air locks, etc.). Furthermore, a dome structure requires trained staff to ensure air pressure levels are optimized, interior and exterior maintenance, etc. As mentioned in earlier subsections, domes also require considerable overhead costs associated with heating/cooling, pressurization, snow removal between the skin and outdoor fencing, etc. The storage requirements of a bubble during the offseason are also a major operational requirement that needs to be considered. Provision of an indoor tennis courts would be a new level of service for the Town of Milton, one that needs to be rationalized and prioritized relative to other potential levels of service prior to determining involvement and funding. The Town of Milton Policy 107 outlines the Town’s strategic direction for choosing the most appropriate service delivery alternative, and should be used as a baseline for analysis. The Community Services Master Plan also outlined a model to complement Policy 107 and suggests that the following criteria could be met in accordance: •
The program, service or facility is consistent with the municipal mandate and service philosophy; •
The municipality could play a role in providing the program, service or facility; •
There appears to be demonstrated community demand (nearly 900 members across both clubs, many of which could be expected to play in the winter months); •
An arrangement could be made with a tennis club(s) to mitigate financial and liability risks; •
The tennis club(s) are suitably qualified/properly equipped and appear to be willing to provide the program or service, and possibly the facility; •
The delivery responsibility of the facility, service or program could be assigned to a tennis club on a sole source basis; •
Consensus regarding the terms, conditions, standards of delivery and responsibility will likely be possible through a revised lease agreement with the tennis club. The question becomes one of whether the Town should choose indoor tennis over other programs and services which could be available to local residents. Further analysis will be done in the business planning stages of this Study to provide the Town with financial data that it can weigh against the public good and the opportunity cost of not providing other programs/services (given finite resources), prior to making a recommendation as to whether capital and operation investment is required in a dome. It is safe to assume that if a dome is provided, there is a need to ensure that the tennis club remains in a position to sustainably maintain itself as well the management of the bubble over Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 64
the long term; in this regard, a succession plan would need to be provided by the tennis club prior to any commitment on the part of the municipality to fund a tennis dome. This analysis will be conducted through subsequent business planning tasks to be carried out as part of this Study. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 65
SECTION 8: BUSINESS PLAN – INDOOR TENNIS FACILITY 8.1
Introduction The Terms of Reference requests that the consultants prepare a business plan presenting the financial implications of a dome structure covering the courts currently leased to the Milton Tennis Club (MTC). The business plan provides capital cost estimates, as well as revenue and cost projections for a winter tennis operation. Furthermore, the Consultants were asked to provide up to three options for the type of arrangement that could be developed between the Town and the MTC for the provision of year round tennis. Capital cost information was provided by Yeadon Air Supported Structures, one of North America’s leading suppliers of tennis bubbles. To prepare the business plan, information was retrieved from local, provincial, and national tennis associations, Statistics Canada, commercial tennis facilities, operators of not‐for‐profit tennis bubble facilities, suppliers to the tennis industry, municipalities with public tennis courts covered by bubbles as well as input from the Milton Tennis Club. Information emerging from all sources was assembled and analyzed. The consultant's findings, conclusions, and recommendations are presented in the following pages. 8.2
Research‐based Inputs Tennis participation trends and player profiling characteristics are factors that will influence the market size and patronage of an indoor tennis facility in Milton. Material included in several industry reports, data from Tennis Canada and Statistics Canada as well as anecdotal information provided by indoor tennis clubs was analyzed to inform elements of this business plan. Tennis Participation As discussed in the Needs Assessment Report, the number of Ontarians that report playing tennis grew by 1% between 2005 and 2007. While this appears to be a relatively modest rise in the number of provincial tennis players, it is a significant reversal in the player decline that gripped the sport in the late nineties. Industry representatives credit the impact of developmental programs enacted by tennis organizations with the recent change in the sport’s fortunes. It also seems that cooperation between tennis facility operators, associations representing the sport, and sponsors/suppliers is beginning to create a firm foundation from which tennis may be able to regain a degree of popularity it enjoyed in the early 1980s. Interestingly, all of the growth of tennis players in Ontario was in the 25 to 34 year age group. This could bode well for the future of tennis in Milton because this age cohort will constitute a 66
Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates significant proportion of the Town’s future population. Should young adults continue to take up tennis at the same rate, Milton could become home to proportionally more tennis players per population than other jurisdictions in the province. Nature and Frequency of Play A vast majority of tennis participation is for recreational purposes. Fewer than two of every ten players compete in tournaments or competitive leagues29. It is therefore not surprising that the majority of tennis participants indicate relaxation and a desire to improve health and fitness levels as the leading motivators for taking up and continuing to play the sport. While sixty‐seven percent (67%) of Ontario's tennis players play tennis once or twice per week30 there is a marked difference between frequencies of play exhibited by different age groups. People 55+ play tennis about twice as frequently as any other age group. Frequent players generally have a university education and a higher income than individuals who play less often. Not surprisingly, frequent players also tend to play tennis year around.31 The Print Media Bureau (2008) reported that there were 731,000 tennis players in Ontario in 2007. This represents a participation ratio of 5.8% of the provincial population. However, it is noteworthy that industry representatives suggest that only about half of the individuals that report playing tennis are “regular players”. Where People Play The majority of adult tennis players most frequently play recreational tennis on public courts. Presumably, these players are participating in pickup games in unstructured settings. Approximately 17% of players indicate an affiliation with a summer tennis club or recreation facility. While the participation of these individuals is more organized, they are also likely playing on public courts. Eleven percent of tennis players play in year round facilities while approximately 4% of tennis is played on university, school or private courts. There is a substantial difference between where children of adult tennis players and children of non tennis players most frequently play tennis. Sixty‐three percent (63%) of children of tennis players most frequently play on public courts, in affiliation with summer clubs (9%) or in year round tennis facilities (8%). Children of non tennis players play more frequently on school facilities (39%), and rarely in the year round tennis clubs (1%)32. 29
Statistics Canada Sport Participation Survey
Ibid
31
Pollara Report - Tennis Participation in Canada
32
Ibid
30
Figure 15: Location of Play Where Tennis is Played
Other
Year Round Club
Summer Club
Public Courts
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
S o urc e : T e nnis P a rt ic ipa t io n in C a na da , P o lla ra R e po rt
Barriers to Participation Competing leisure interests and a lack of personal leisure time are the most frequently mentioned impediments to greater levels of tennis participation. The inability to secure a partner of an equal skill level and a lack of convenient court time also inhibits play frequency. Cost seems to be less of an issue, likely because most tennis is played in the summer time on public courts. Figure 16: Barriers to Tennis Participation Reasons For Adults Playing Less Tennis Than Desired
P lay Other Spo rts
No Time
No P artner
No Co urt Time
Injuries o r Health
No t Co nvenient
No Fitness B enefit
To o Expensive
To o Difficult
Participation Factors The success of the proposed year round tennis facility in Milton will be influenced by tennis participation trends, playing habits, economic conditions and other issues related to the tennis industry. Input provided by tennis associations, commercial club officials and operators of bubbled tennis facilities offered useful insights into these important factors. The Fun Factor ‐ Having fun and keeping fit are the two most important motivators compelling tennis players to take up and continue to play the sport. According to tennis associations and club operators alike, programming such as house leagues, round robins, and friendly group activities are critical to maintaining player interest by capitalizing upon the sport's enjoyable aspects and social interaction possibilities. Although a small percentage of tennis participants are attracted to the competitive side of the game, the vast majority of players are interested in having fun, meeting people and receiving the fitness benefits that the sport provides. The Family Factor ‐ Tennis is usually played by more than one household member. In fact, tennis players are frequently introduced to the sport by a spouse or parent. Interestingly, juniors who play indoor tennis are almost always children of tennis players. Club operators indicate enrolment in programs targeting youth is always more successful if tennis playing parents encourage their children to participate. Furthermore, it seems tennis playing parents more easily justify the need to underwrite the costs for a child's court fees, membership and lessons. Shrinking Prime Time Window ‐ The ability to squeeze a tennis game into an increasingly busy schedule is a key determinant in the amount of tennis an individual will play. Lack of time caused by family and job pressures or other leisure time commitments often makes it difficult to maintain a regiment of one or two games a week. Complicating matters, lifestyles and social patterns have changed to the extent that tennis facilities have been forced to redefine the traditional definition of prime time. Many clubs now charge non prime (lower) court fees on weekdays beginning at the 10:00 p.m. court time and operators report a lack of interest in programs beginning after 7:00 p.m. during the week. Weekends also pose a challenge because of the magnitude of interests and activities occupying an individuals' time. The result is that more tennis players are vying for fewer (acceptable) prime time courts. Furthermore, there is pressure on club operators to provide a balance between organized programs and open play during these times. Convenience ‐ Lack of discretionary time is the most significant barrier to tennis participation. While time limitations vary between individuals, a combination of social, family, and work pressures; conflicting leisure priorities; and shifting lifestyle patterns attract players to the most convenient tennis venue. Convenience factors include court availability and travel time to the facility. Cost ‐ Interestingly, although tennis players have higher than average household incomes, they are notoriously frugal. According to industry officials, players will patronize the least costly Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 69
facility that provides an environment of acceptable convenience and quality. Cost factors include a combination of initiation fees, membership expenses, court fees, and related program costs. Quality issues are normally personal judgments most frequently related to basic tennis facilities like court surfaces, lighting, and temperature. The availability of supplementary activities such as fitness centres, spas, shower/change rooms, restaurants, and lounges may also factor into a player's facility choice. However, operators of both commercial and bubbled facilities suggest that while additional facilities and services are attractive to some, the majority of tennis players will gravitate to a facility offering convenient and inexpensive tennis. Considerations for a Successful Year Round Tennis Operation The Milton Indoor Tennis Facility Business Plan has taken into account research that was conducted as part of this study as well as material from The JF Group data files. The following information helped to inform aspects of the use and financial projections included in the plan as well as the nature of the relationship between the Town and the tennis community. • Players at commercial clubs play on average 1.45 times per week while players at bubbled facilities play on average 1.5 times per week.33 • Male and female indoor tennis players play with equal frequency. People 18 – 24 years old are likely to play more often than any other age group (on average 2.8 times per week)34. • All indoor tennis facilities charge some form of membership fees and court fees. Certain operators are now combining court fees in graduated packages, which in effect has members pay in advance for a pre‐determined number of courts over the course of the indoor season. • In terms of capacity, a standard rule of thumb is that indoor facilities can accommodate 100 members per court – similar to the capacity standard of the Milton Tennis Club. • Prime time court utilization ranges from 95% to 100%. Non prime time court use ranges from 20% to 35% utilization, depending upon the influence of programming. • Successful indoor tennis clubs provide a wide variety of programs including house leagues, individual and group instruction, camps, round robins, inter‐club teams, tournaments and special events. These programs not only help to maintain the interest and enthusiasm of players, but also contribute non‐dues revenue to the operation. According to indoor facility operators, net income derived from well orchestrated programs can amount to as much as 20% to 35% of revenue generated from court fees. 33
34
Input from commercial and bubble operators.
Canadian Tennis Participation Study, Charlton Strategic Research, 2008
Other Municipal Experience with Tennis Bubbles The JF Group interviewed owners and operators of bubbled tennis facilities as well as municipal personnel responsible for public tennis courts over which bubbles have been erected. A summary of this input is presented below. • Bubble operators report that most of their members were introduced to indoor tennis elsewhere before joining the bubbled facility. As such, bubbles cannot be credited with generating new tennis players because virtually all members were at least a novice player upon joining. • Bubble operators suggest that affiliations between summer clubs and winter bubbled facilities offer strong marketing advantages. The relationship with the summer operation provides access to a pool of tennis players who likely reside in close proximity to the bubbled courts. • Tennis bubble operators report that their clientele is quite price sensitive. It seems that once the combined cost of membership and court fees reach a certain limit (which varies depending upon the location and historical pricing practices of each facility), members begin to seek cheaper alternatives. If no less expensive options are available, members will migrate to facilities of equal cost and higher quality or that provide more convenient court times. This input supports the trend information from industry studies, which reports (indoor) tennis players will rarely discontinue playing, but rather will move to the least expensive, most convenient facility of acceptable quality. • According to staff of municipalities with bubbles operated by not‐for‐profit organizations, the management and operating prowess of the responsible organization are critical factors affecting the financial viability of these facilities. Municipal staff strongly recommended that the organization be required to contract a professional facility manager. Furthermore, they advise the financial capacity, insurance coverage, and risk management plan of the applicant group be thoroughly scrutinized before facility approval is provided. • In certain cases, bubbles covering public tennis courts are operated by private enterprise (Midhurst, Toronto, Ottawa, etc.). Often, the private groups have established working relationships with the tennis clubs that occupy the courts during the summer months and sometimes the summer clubs receive financial benefit from this relationship. Despite the links with community based organizations, the private operators are in the business to make a profit. Municipal representatives in the jurisdictions where these situations occur expressed no concern with the concept, as long as the operator pays an appropriate rent for the facilities. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 71
Relationships between Bubbles Operators and Municipalities Several municipalities have entered into relationships with community groups for the development of recreation facilities. The structure of these arrangements depends upon a variety of factors including the municipality’s philosophy related to partnering with outside organizations, the nature of the facility and the services that would be provided as a result of its development, the community benefits associated with the facility/service, the municipality’s role and responsibility in the venture, the viability of the project and the risks associated with the arrangement. In Ontario, virtually all tennis bubbles are either operated by community groups or the private sector. To our knowledge, the Chinguacousy Park facility in Brampton is the only situation where a municipality is directly operating a tennis bubble. In cases where bubbles are constructed over public tennis courts, municipalities are generally involved in one of two ways: •
a lease arrangement with the outside organization with no municipal investment in the venture and no operating responsibility or financial risk; or •
an arrangement with the outside organization through which the municipality provides financial assistance towards the capital cost of development, usually in the form of a grant or loan. After the development phase, the municipality and the group enter into a lease agreement that would generally specify that the municipality would have no operating responsibility or financial risk. Our research included discussions with municipal staff regarding risk allocation when dealing with external partners including community organizations. Although contracts and leases can shift a certain degree of the financial liability to the not‐for‐profit organization, staff suggest that this is often not “bullet proof”. They expressed reservations about establishing new levels of service and the public reaction of discontinuing the service if the operation falters. In the event of financial troubles, municipal staff are concerned about the implied obligation to provide financial aid to the community organization (in the form of rent forgiveness, reduced rent, loans, loan guarantees, etc.) to preserve the financial viability of the operation. This concern was expressed despite the fact that a contract between the municipality and the organization would likely specify that all financial responsibility would rest with the not‐for‐
profit organization. Yet there is a sense that the general public could view the operation as a quasi‐public service and its discontinuation could cause senior decision makers to feel obliged to provide financial relief to the organization. Consequently, they suggest that critical precursors to an arrangement for bubble would be: •
a comprehensive business plan demonstrating the market potential and financial viability of the venture; and Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 72
•
the community partner’s ability to demonstrate appropriate management and operating prowess that would allow it to successfully implement the business plan. 8.3
Testing the Proposal with the Alternative Service Delivery Model The Milton Tennis Club and the Nassagaweya Tennis Club have longstanding successful working relationships with Milton and have leases with the Town for the use of their respective facilities. The Town has assisted each organization in dealing with major capital improvements or upgrades to their respective facilities; however the clubs are responsible for most functional and financial liabilities of their day‐to‐day operations. The Town of Milton Policy 107 and the assessment model included in the Community Services Master Plan outlines the process through which to select the most appropriate service delivery alternative when dealing with a potential partnership. These tools provide reasonable direction regarding a relationship between the tennis clubs and the Town for the development of a year round tennis facility. A sample application of the assessment tools is presented below. • The provision of tennis (summer or year round) is consistent with the municipal mandate and service philosophy and as such the municipality could play a role in providing the service and the related facility. •
There appears to be a degree of demonstrated community demand (nearly 900 members across both clubs) some of which could be expected to play in the winter months. •
Based upon examples elsewhere, it is reasonable to expect that an arrangement could be made with the tennis club(s) that has the potential of mitigating the Town’s financial, operating and liability risks. •
The tennis club(s) are willing to be responsible for the provision of the service and have expressed interest in partnering towards the development of the facility. •
It would seem reasonable that the delivery responsibility of the facility could be assigned to a tennis club on a sole source basis. •
It is reasonable to assume that consensus could be reached regarding the terms, conditions, standards of delivery and responsibility through a revised lease agreement with the tennis club(s). Based on the forgoing, the prospect of a relationship between the Town and the tennis club(s) positively meets the alternative service delivery criteria. Therefore, Milton’s decision regarding a relationship with the clubs for the proposed facility should be dependant upon a positive business case for the project. Aspects of the business case are explored in the financial analysis of this report. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 73
8.4
Relationship Options Indoor tennis would represent an entirely new level of service in Milton. In view of the capital projects required to meet the Town’s long‐term recreational demands, the Community Services Master Plan recommended that the Town only consider indoor tennis if it were to be pursued in partnership with outside interests. The Plan also recommends that the Town should not become involved in the day‐to‐day operations of an indoor tennis facility, which seems reasonable given that other indoor facilities on public courts involve a third party operator (e.g. private sector or community based management) that is responsible for all operating and financial obligations associated with the project. Therefore, other than being party to the lease for the use of the tennis courts, the Town’s only involvement in the partnership would be the possible provision of some form of capital funding assistance. Based upon other municipal experiences, it is likely that the Town’s contribution in the project would take the form of one of the following three options: •
Provide an interest free loan to the club to underwrite the capital cost of the project; •
Provide an interest bearing loan to the club to underwrite the capital cost of the project with the interest charges based upon the Town’s preferable debenture rate; or •
Provide the municipality’s covenant to backstop a loan that the club(s) would secure through conventional funding sources (e.g. bank loan). The cost implications of these options on the viability of the project are described in the financial analysis section of this report. Any options are largely dependent upon the municipality’s future cash flow and debt ratio (particularly for the first two options), thus these options would need to be more closely evaluated according to the full financial picture at the time at which the proposal is presented. The Milton Tennis Club states that they have been approached by several external operators to run an indoor tennis facility (similar to a scenario outlined in Section 8.2). While this option could involve minimal financial obligation on the part of the Town, such a circumstance will need to be viewed with extreme caution by the municipality to ensure that any operator is financially viable, will commit to long‐term operation of a facility, ensures appropriate public access, etc. The risk for the Town would be that an operator prematurely ceases operation of an indoor facility on municipally‐owned land, which would place public expectation on the Town to step in and save the facility, and possibly even assume operational responsibility. 8.5
Indoor Tennis Market Analysis While about 6% of the provincial population report playing tennis, it is estimated that approximately half of these individuals are considered to be regular players –and regular players would be the most likely membership candidates for a year‐round tennis facility. Furthermore, economic justification of indoor tennis facilities is largely driven by the availability 74
Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates of adult tennis players. Consequently, market projections and estimates related to the number of tennis enthusiasts that would likely be attracted to a year round facility in Milton can be reasonably based on a 3% participation ratio applied to individuals over 18 years of age. Although the household income and educational status of tennis players tend to differ from the general population, this information is most useful in segmenting market areas to target individuals more likely predisposed to tennis. In that the proposed facility would serve all residents of the Town, it is assumed that Milton’s entire population should be used in market calculations, irrespective of regional or demographic variances. Estimated Indoor Tennis Market The single most important factor that dictates the success of a year round facility is the number of available tennis players who would find the facility convenient and affordable. Consequently, estimating the current and future tennis market in reasonable proximity to the Milton Tennis Club is an important step in developing a valid business plan for the proposed indoor facility. While tennis enthusiasts will migrate across municipal boundaries in search of suitable facilities, our initial analysis focuses on the number of players in Milton. This is because the proposed facility would likely require financial involvement by the Town. Normally, financial relationships between municipalities and community organizations are only justifiable if the municipal contribution provides an acceptable level of community benefit to local ratepayers. Therefore, while a Milton indoor tennis facility would likely attract players from outside the Town, we have assumed that its justification would be based on its ability to serve a local clientele. Based upon the Town’s adult population (39,405 individuals over 18 years of age) and the provincial tennis participation ratio, there were approximately 1,182 regular tennis players residing in Milton in 2006. In the same year, there were a combined total of approximately 650 members of the Milton Tennis Club and the Nassagaweya Tennis Club. Presumably the balance of regular players used the tennis courts at Bronte Meadows, Rotary Park or Kinsman Park or had used public courts or joined clubs outside of Milton. Assuming participation ratios remain constant, the number of Milton based tennis players will increase proportionate to growth in the Town’s population. Table One provides a snapshot of Milton’s current and projected tennis markets. Table 13: Projected Tennis Players in Milton Total Population Population over 18 Years Regular Tennis Players (@ 3% Adult Participation) 2006 53,950 39,405 1,182 2011 106,899 80,710 2,412 2016 135,907 103,975 3,119 It is noteworthy that at 549 adult members, the combined membership rosters of the Milton and Nassagaweya Tennis Clubs represent a capture rate of 1.4% of the Town’s adult population Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 75
– a level that is only 46% of Ontario’s tennis participation average. Consequently, using the provincial tennis participation rate to predict the number of players in Milton could in effect be overstating the size of future markets. It would therefore be advisable that the Clubs be encouraged and supported in their efforts to increase the number of adult members with a view to equalling provincial tennis participation averages. As discussed in the needs assessments, the Milton Tennis Club’s membership is anticipated to grow from its current level of 682 members to 1,240 members by 2016. Although somewhat less definitive (because of the club’s size and location), we assume that the Nassagaweya Tennis Club’s membership levels would grow at a similar rate over this same time period. Eleven percent (11%) of regular tennis players play tennis indoors35. Based upon this participation ratio, it is estimated that in 2006 there were approximately 130 indoor tennis players residing in Milton. Figure Three illustrates the effect of the Town’s population increases on the number of regular tennis players and the associated number of indoor players to 2016. Figure 17: Projected Tennis Players in Milton Estimated Current and Projected Tennis Players Residing in Milton
3500
3,119
3000
2,421
2500
2000
Indoor Players
Regular Players
1500
1,182
1000
500
266
343
2011
2016
130
0
2006
Given that currently there are no year round tennis facilities in Milton, it is very likely that some Milton based players are playing at indoor facilities outside the municipality. Joshua Creek Tennis Club, located on Burnhamthorpe Road in Oakville would be convenient for Milton tennis players. As well, the recently developed Tennis School on Ninth Line offers another indoor alternative. More distant locations include the Ontario Racquet Club in Mississauga, Club Meadowvale in Mississauga and Cedar Springs Racquet Club in Burlington. Representatives of each of these facilities were not willing to provide definitive data in terms of the number of Milton residents that are members of their clubs. 35
Pollara Report - Tennis Participation in Canada
Capacity Analysis Indoor tennis facility managers report that approximately 100 members per court are required to produce sufficient membership and non‐dues revenue for a financially successful operation. We tested the reasonableness of this standard by applying a formula that considered hours of operation, participation mix (singles vs. doubles), court utilization thresholds (95% prime time, 30% non‐prime time) and frequency of play levels (1.5 plays per week). This analysis determined that one court could comfortably accommodate 99 tennis players per court with other available time for organized programs. Consequently, we agree with the 100 members per court standard. Local Indoor Players A grade beam was installed around the western‐most bank of courts at Milton Tennis Club, in anticipation that a bubble might be considered in the future. Therefore, it was pre‐determined that should a partnership for indoor tennis proceed, the bubble would cover five courts. There are currently insufficient Milton‐based tennis players to produce the 500 indoor players required for a five court facility. Consequently, the club would be required to attract indoor players from outside municipal boundaries. The following figure illustrates the required proportion of resident and non‐resident indoor players required for the five court facility. Figure 18: Resident & Non‐Resident Indoor Tennis Players Local Players as a Proportion of Required Membership
100%
90%
157
234
80%
70%
370
60%
Players From Elsew here
50%
Milton Based Players
40%
343
266
30%
20%
130
10%
0%
2006
2011
2016
As illustrated above, based upon existing industry standards, the Milton indoor tennis facility would be required to attract approximately 50% its members from outside of the municipality. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 77
Alternatively, the club could attempt to attract a larger proportion of outdoor players to join the indoor facility, effectively increasing the indoor participation ratio from its current 11%. The following table demonstrates the degree to which the club would be required to raise the participation ratio in order to provide an adequate number of indoor players. Table 14: Indoor Resident Tennis Players in Milton 2006 Outdoor Players 1,182 Indoor Players @ 11% Participation 130 Indoor Players Required 500 Participation Ratio to Produce 42% Required Indoor Players 2011 2,421 266 500 21% 2016 3,119 343 500 16% As illustrated above, in the near term, the club would be required to almost double the rate at which resident outdoor tennis enthusiasts play indoors. Over time, the indoor participation ratio would decrease as the Town’s population grows and the number of resident outdoor players climbs. However, the club would need to substantially surpass the national average of outdoor players who play indoors for the foreseeable future. To be successful, the Club would thus be required to attract a proportion of its membership from outside Town boundaries. Capital Cost Estimates Yeadon Air Supported Structures prepared a capital cost estimate for the Milton Tennis Club bubble. Yeadon is well equipped to provide an accurate estimate given that it has designed, manufactured and installed over 600 air supported structures throughout Canada, United States, Europe and Asia. Yeadon was responsible for the installation of the grade beam at the Milton courts when the Milton Tennis Club moved to its current location in 2003. The project would involve capital costs beyond the cost of the bubble itself. For example, court repairs and resurfacing, adjustments to the fence system as well as gas and electrical hook‐ups will be required. Additional equipment will also be necessary in order to effectively operate the facility over the winter months. The following table summarizes the costs of the bubble as well as the additional capital cost items required for an indoor tennis operation. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 78
Table 15: Capital Cost Estimate Item Bubble membrane 252’x118’x36’ Inner thermal membrane 2.5 mbtu inflation/heating/standby unit Remote control system Revolving door unit Emergency doors (4) Lights (40 x 1,000 watt metal halide) Cost Estimate
_________
$377,735
Top coat finish $35,522
Handicap accessible air lock door $14,147
Court divider nets $4,516
GST $21,596
Total Bubble Cost $453,516
Additional Items (GST Included) Court resurfacing and fence adjustments $20,000
Gas and hydro hook‐up $7,500
Snow blower $2,000
Court sweeper $1,500
Contingency for entire project @ 5% $24,226
Total Project Cost $508,742
8.6
Indoor Facility ‐ Financial Estimates Operations Based upon our research and examples of other indoor tennis facilities, The JF Group developed operating assumptions on which the business plan has been built. The following assumptions reflect the operating and financial performance of comparable facilities as well as the participation and user mix ratios consistent with industry averages. •
The facility would offer five indoor courts operated over a 30‐week winter season (October through April). The facility would operate 12 hours per day offering six prime time hours each weekday and eight prime time hours each weekend day. •
The operation would accommodate 500 tennis players. For the purposes of the projections, we have assumed 100 family memberships (averaging 3 persons per family), 150 adult members and 50 junior members. •
The facility would reach 75% of its membership target in the first year of operation, 95% in year two and be at capacity during year three. •
In accordance with a review of membership and court fees charged by facilities that are proximate to the Milton Tennis Club (Joshua Creek and the Tennis School), the revenue estimates are based upon the following fee structure: family membership ‐ $350; adult membership ‐ $175; junior membership ‐ $100; prime time court fees ‐ $20; and non‐
prime time court fees ‐ $16. •
Based upon industry averages it is assumed that the facility would be capable of court utilization ratios of 95% during prime time and 30% during non prime time. •
Program revenues are estimated at 30% of court fees. •
A Pro/Manager who would operate the facility would be compensated $1,000 per week. Part time clerical/reception staff would cover the clubhouse during times when the Manager would be otherwise occupied. The wage rates for part time staff are estimated at $16.00 per hour. Staff benefits are projected at 18% of the entire payroll cost. •
Hydro and gas costs are estimated at $100,000 per season, which is consistent with utility charges for other tennis bubbles located in Southern Ontario. •
Other operating costs including telephone, administration supplies, charges to erect the bubble in the fall and remove it in the spring, insurance, and contingency are estimated at $13,500. •
All revenue and cost estimates have been inflated by 2% per year to account for inflation. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 80
The following table illustrates the influence of the preceding assumptions on the operating financial performance of the proposed five court bubble at the Milton Tennis Club. Table 16: Ten Year Financial Projections
Indoor Tennis Bubble Operation – Ten Year Pro Forma Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Year 9 Year 10 Revenue
Memberships
Court Fees
Programs
Total
49,688
115,695
34,709
200,091
64,196
149,478
44,843
258,518
68,927
160,492
48,148
277,566
70,305
163,702
49,111
283,118
71,711
166,976
50,093
288,780
73,145
170,316
51,095
294,556
74,608
173,722
52,117
300,447
76,100
177,196
53,159
306,456
77,622
180,740
54,222
312,585
79,175
184,355
55,306
318,836
Expenses
Labour
Operations
Total
75,048
113,500
188,548
76,549
115,770
192,319
78,080
118,085
196,165
79,642
120,447
200,089
81,234
122,856
204,090
82,859
125,313
208,172
84,516
127,819
212,336
86,207
130,376
216,582
87,931
132,983
220,914
89,689
135,643
225,332
Net
11,543
66,199
81,401
83,029
84,689
86,383
88,111
89,873
91,671
93,504
Debt Service Implications According to Yeadon, the average useful life of an air supported bubble is approximately 15 years. However, there are many bubbles that have functioned well beyond this time horizon. However, in an effort to provide a cautious estimate with conservative assumptions, we have assumed that the Milton facility would require replacement after 15 years. Based upon this assumption, we recommend that: •
the debt service obligations of the Milton Tennis Club would be repaid over a 15 year payment schedule; and •
the club would be required to annually contribute 7% of the total cost of the project to a capital replacement account in order to accumulate sufficient funds to replace the bubble after 15 years. The proposed relationship options contemplate that the club could receive the Town’s financial assistance towards the capital cost the project utilizing one of three approaches. In each case, the club would be entirely responsible for the functional and financial responsibilities of the project. It is also assumed that the lease arrangement between the club and the Town would be revised to reflect a year round operation. The particulars of the capital assistance options are described below. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 81
Option One ‐ Interest free loan The Town would loan the club funds sufficient to underwrite the cost of the project. The club would be obligated to repay only the principal amount amortized over 15 years. Option Two ‐ A Preferable Interest Rate The Town would loan the club funds sufficient to underwrite the cost of the project. The club would be obligated to repay the principal plus interest based upon the Town’s debenture rate which has been estimated at 5% per annum. The principal and interest payments would be amortized over 15 years. Option Three ‐ Apply the Municipal Covenant to Conventional Financing It is unlikely that the club would be eligible for conventional financing without the support of a sufficient covenant to backstop the loan. In comparable situations, municipalities have provided loan guarantees to assist their partners in securing capital funding from lending institutions. This arrangement usually allows the partner organization to receive reduced interest rates due to the strength of the municipal covenant. For the purposes of analyzing this option, we have assumed an interest rate of 6.5%. We have also assumed that the club will be updated to repay the lender principal and interest amortized over 15 years. The following table illustrates the annual financial impact of servicing the debt of each of the three relationship options. The net operating revenue assumes the membership growth rate described in the previous section. The club’s debt service obligations are based upon the assumptions described above. Table 17: Debt Servicing the Three Relationship Options
Indoor Tennis Bubble – Ten Year Net Performance of Three Debt Service Options Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Net Operating
Revenue
Capital Reserve
Option One
Debt Service
Amount
Net Option One
11,543
33,916
66,199
33,916
81,401
33,916
83,029
33,916
84,689
33,916
86,383
33,916
88,111
33,916
89,873
33,916
91,671
33,916
93,504
33,916
33,916
(56,289)
33,916
(1,634)
33,916
13,569
33,916
15,197
33,916
16,857
33,916
18,551
33,916
20,279
33,916
22,041
33,916
23,838
33,916
25,672
Option Two
Debt Service
Amount
Net Option Two
48,227
(72,067)
48,227
(15,994)
48,227
(792)
48,227
836
48,227
2,496
48,227
4,190
48,227
5,918
48,227
7,680
48,227
9,478
48,227
11,311
Option Thee
Debt Service
Amount
Net Option Three
53,180
(75,553)
53,180
(20,897)
53,180
(5,695)
53,180
(4,064)
53,180
(2,407)
53,180
(713)
53,180
1,015
53,180
2,777
53,180
4,575
53,180
6,408
It is noteworthy that in all three options, the club would experience cash shortfalls in its first few years of operations. For example, in Option One, the club would accumulate a combined two year deficit position of almost $58,000 before the tennis operation would produce enough annual net revenue to sufficiently contribute to the capital reserve and repay the interest free loan. Based upon the preceding projections, it would take an additional four years for the club to retire the accumulated deficit. In both Option Two and Three, net revenues from operations would be unable to retire the accumulated short term debt within the first 10 years of operations. Therefore, it would be necessary for the club to secure some form of working capital from sources other than the facilities operations. 8.7
Observations, Conclusions and Recommendations Market Considerations Tennis participation in Milton is healthy and the demographic projections for the municipality suggest that the Town’s tennis community is likely to remain strong for the foreseeable future. However, the combined membership totals of the Milton Tennis Club and the Nassagaweya Tennis Club are not equivalent to the generally accepted capacity standard of 100 members per court. Therefore both clubs have available member capacity in their summer seasons. Appling national/provincial tennis participation rates to Milton’s adult population suggests the number of Town residents who are apt to play indoor tennis would be insufficient to provide the required number of players to meet the player per court capacity standard for an indoor facility. To mitigate this situation, the clubs could enact strategies that would: (1) attract a greater the proportion of outdoor tennis players who would elect to play indoors (compared to the national/provincial participation rates); and (2) attract indoor players from outside Milton’s boundaries. As such, it is recommended that the Town receive commitment from both local tennis clubs in that they will work collaboratively towards elevating local interest in indoor tennis, while providing the Town with agreeable assurances and guarantees regarding their ability to attract an adequate number of indoor players to a Milton tennis bubble. In the absence of such assurances, the most prudent course of action for the municipality would be to wait until the Town’s population reaches a point to produce an adequate number of indoor tennis players to support an indoor operation (forecasted to occur beyond the year 2016), at which time partnership options should be re‐explored. Operating Considerations The operating success and financial viability of the proposed facility will be largely dependent upon the capabilities of the Pro/Manager. Therefore, the availability of a quality candidate should be considered a precursor to a decision to proceed with the indoor facility, with the Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 83
Milton Tennis Club providing the municipality with assurances that the Club can fill such a position over the long term. An appropriate candidate would be a qualified tennis professional with strong programming capabilities. Additionally, the individual should understand “club marketing techniques” and be able to enact strategies that include the necessary balance between attracting new members and retaining existing ones. Finally, it would be preferable that the Pro/Manager should have some knowledge of bubble operations so that the facility is able to be operated as efficiently as possible. This phase of the Milton Tennis Strategy Study has included a financial analysis of the proposed tennis bubble. However, this material was prepared to illustrate the financial and long‐term cost implications of a potential relationship between the municipality and the tennis clubs. Should the municipality determine that the project has merit and decide to proceed to detailed discussions with the club, it will be important that the club demonstrate its understanding of operating an indoor facility. Consequently, the club should prepare its own comprehensive business plan illustrating membership sales and retention strategies, projected membership levels, fee structure, program plans, staffing model, risk plan, revenue and cost projections, debt retirement plan and any other elements required by the Town. Financial Considerations Air supported structures wear out over time and require replacement. According to the bubble supplier, a benchmark of approximately 15 years is a useful guide to the life expectancy for the bubble membrane and many of its mechanical components. Furthermore, the inflation and heating system, courts, fence, etc. will require annual repairs and maintenance. It will therefore be important that the indoor tennis operation set aside funds in order to: (1) deal with ongoing infrastructure maintenance items; and (2) replace the bubble membrane and certain other chemical components once they have reached the end of their useful life. The financial analysis included in this study suggests that at 75% of its capacity, the tennis bubble could produce a small operating profit. Although the indoor facility’s financial position would improve as memberships levels grow and fees rise, this analysis suggests that the operating surpluses would be insufficient to underwrite capital reserve contributions and loan repayment commitments in the early years of operations. As a result of these annual cash shortfalls, the club would amass deficits – the magnitude of which would be dependent upon the financial structure of the club’s relationship with the Town. Therefore, the club would be required to generate “working capital” to offset its cash requirements in the first years of operation. These funds could be produced through a variety of methods including fundraising. The magnitude of club’s annual debt service obligation will be directly tied to the loan amount that is required to underwrite the cost of the indoor tennis facility. It would be advisable that the club attempt to reduce its borrowing requirements by contributing equity to the project. These funds could be drawn from the club’s current cash reserves or generated through fundraising efforts. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 84
As such, it is recommended that the Town require the Milton Tennis Club to contribute annually to a capital reserve account for the ongoing maintenance and replacement of facility components. Furthermore, it is recommended that the Town require the Club to maintain a working capital account with a minimum balance equal to approximately 50% of the club’s total annual cost obligations. Relationship Considerations Town of Milton Policy 107 and the Town’s alternative service delivery model sets out processes through which Milton chooses appropriate partners and determines the requirements and obligations of qualified partner candidates. The processes and methodologies contained within these models would be useful in determining the elements and structure of a potential relationship with the Milton Tennis Club. If 100% of the capital costs of the project were financed, the club’s debt service obligation would be the single largest contributor to annual funding shortfalls. These shortfalls would be reduced in direct proportion to the degree of relief the club was to receive through preferable borrowing terms. The municipality could consider providing financial assistance to the club if: (1) the project would indeed provide community benefit to Milton residents; and (2) the project is deemed acceptable through the application of the Town’s alternative services selection processes. In the event that municipal officials consider providing the club with financial assistance, the arrangement must conform to the Town’s standards, policies and practices and not establish a precedent that would be troublesome to the Town in dealing with other potential partners in the future. Summary of Recommendations ; That the Town receive commitment from both Milton tennis clubs that they will work collaboratively towards elevating local interest in indoor tennis. ; That clubs provide the Town with agreeable assurances and guarantees regarding their ability to attract an adequate number of indoor players to a Milton tennis bubble. At a minimum the clubs should demonstrate that they are capable of reaching and maintaining adult membership rosters that are equal to the provincial tennis participation average. Furthermore, the clubs should provide an indication that a sufficient proportion of their club members would be willing to join an indoor facility – in the form of a list of committed members possibly accompanied by deposit checks. The clubs also should communicate with Milton residents (club members are not) that are currently planning to indoor tennis elsewhere to receive commitments that they would relocate to a new bubble located at the Milton Tennis Club. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 85
; That in the absence of assurances that the clubs could successfully execute the strategies to attract sufficient indoor tennis players, the Town would not consider participating in a partnership for the bubble at this time. Once Milton’s population grows sufficiently to produce an adequate number of indoor tennis players to support the indoor operation – likely not until sometime after 2016 – that the Town be amenable to re‐evaluating a partnership for the provision of year round tennis. ; That the municipality be assured that the club has the ability to secure the services of an appropriately qualified Pro/Manager. ; That the Milton Tennis Club prepare a detailed business plan demonstrating its understanding of operating an indoor tennis facility. ; That the Town require the Milton Tennis Club to contribute annually to a capital reserve account for the specific purpose of repairing and/or replacing components of the indoor facility. ; That the Milton Tennis Club undertake fundraising campaigns to: (1) generate funds that can be contributed to the project to reduce the loan amount; and (2) generate funds to be held in a working capital account to offset cash shortfalls that could occur the first few years of operations. ; That the Town require the Milton Tennis Club to maintain a working capital account with a minimum balance equal to approximately 50% of the club’s total annual cost obligations. ; That the Town evaluate the merits and drawbacks of a relationship with the Milton Tennis Club by applying the combination of processes and requirements included in Policy 107 and the alternative service delivery model presented in the Community Services Master Plan. ; If the relationship with the Milton Tennis Club is deemed acceptable, that the Town consider providing financial assistance to the project utilizing one of the relationship options described in this report. Tennis Strategy – Town of Milton – September 2009 Prepared by MONTEITH BROWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS in association with The JF Group and roth associates 86
Tennis Strategy
Council Presentation
October 13, 2009
Town of Milton Tennis Strategy – October 2009
Project
j
Purpose
p
• Guide and direct the
provision of tennis services
and facilities
• Planning horizon is to the
year 2018
• Intended to address the local
d
demand
d ffor tennis
i among
current and future residents
Trends in Tennis
• Participation rates vary
dramatically across North
America
• In Ontario, tennis participation
is rising among younger adults
(25 to 34)
▫ Thi
This is
i an age segmentt that
th t iis
expected to grow considerably in
Milton
Trends in Tennis
• There are demands for both no
fee and club
club-based
based courts
• No fee courts in parks provide
introductory, beginner level
opportunities that are also good
for those looking for free,
unstructured play
• Club courts develop the sport,
retain and recruit p
players
y
and
offer venues for competitive play
Milton’s Supply
pp y of Tennis Courts
• 5 casual/no fee courts
• 8 club
l b courts
t att th
the
Milton Tennis Club
• 3 club courts at the
Nassagaweya Tennis Club
p
• 4 school courts at Bishop
Reding (may be
decommissioned)
Key Findings – Existing Tennis Courts
• Nassagaweya Tennis Club
▫ Sub
Sub-structure
structure issues causing sinking,
sinking
heaving and cracking
▫ Sub-structure will require correction in
order to avoid unsustainable
maintenance costs
• Milton Tennis Club
▫ Courts appear to be in satisfactory
condition, however, Club notes there
are also
l sub-structure
b t t
iissues
• Bronte Meadows Park
▫ Considerable cracking which may be
causing people to avoid playing
▫ Rejuvenate courts in the short-term
▫ Cost associated with this action is
estimated to be $187,500
• Kinsmen Park
▫ Considerable cracking which may
be causing people to avoid
playing
▫ Rejuvenate courts in medium
term and remove court lighting
▫ Cost associated with this action is
estimated to be $208,700
Keyy Findings
g – New Tennis Courts
• The Community Services Master Plan (2006) supports
provision at a rate of 1 tennis court per 10,000 new
residents
▫ The Tennis Strategy supports this provision rate
• Between the year 2006 and 2018, the population is
expected to grow by about 80,000 residents
• A total of 8 new tennis courts is required over this time
Keyy Findings
g – New Tennis Courts
• Focus on developing casual, no fee neighbourhood-based
courts to balance no fee and club
club-based
based courts
• 4 courts should be developed as “regular”
neighbourhood courts, preferably in the Bristol
Secondary Plan Area
• 4 courts should be constructed as “competition quality”
courts, preferably
f bl at the
h Sh
Sherwood
d Di
District
i P
Park
k
▫ Could be transferred to a club in the future if demand warrants
and a club is agreeable
g
to operating
p
g them
Key Findings – Nassagaweya Tennis
Club
• Redevelop site to correct substructure
• C
Construct
t t three
th
new courts
t which
hi h are re-oriented
i t d tto fface
a north-south direction
• Retain sufficient space for a fourth court which in the
short-term could be used for stretching, rebound wall,
etc.
• Redevelop the existing clubhouse to become a shared
community facility serving the Club as well as residents
of the rural area.
area
Keyy Findings
g – Milton Tennis Club
• Ensure that sufficient space is provided at the existing
location which could accommodate four courts in the
long term (or when the Club can demonstrate they are at
capacity)
• An indoor bubble at the Milton Tennis Club is estimated
to be over $500,000 and annual operating costs between
$190 000 and $225
$190,000
$225,000
000 (excluding debt servicing)
Keyy Findings
g – Indoor Tennis
• An indoor bubble at the Milton Tennis Club is estimated
to be over $500,000 and
• Annual operating costs estimated between $190,000 and
$225,000 (excluding debt servicing)
• For a five indoor courts to be successful, it would need to
draw 500 players – there are only about 130 estimated
i d
indoor
players
l
iin Mil
Milton
▫ A bubble would require considerable participation from nonresidents to be optimally
p
y used
Keyy Findings
g – Indoor Tennis
• Four Options for the Milton
Tennis Club to Finance/Operate a
Bubble
▫ Interest-free loan from the Town
▫ Preferable rate loan from the Town
▫ Apply the municipal covenant to
conventional financing
▫ Third party operater (MTC would
lease)
Keyy Findings
g – Indoor Tennis
• Prior to proceeding, the Club(s) would:
▫ need to elevate local interest and guarantee they could attract
sufficient indoor players
▫ need to ensure they could hire and retain a qualified facility
Manager/Pro position
▫ need to demonstrate understanding of operating budget of an
indoor bubble
▫ need to contribute annually to a reserve fund and working capital
account
Question & Answer Period
From: Jim Harding [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 9:27 PM
To: John Bryant
Subject: RE: Tennis Strategy
John,
Most of our clubs comments were discussed at the meeting with the consultants.
We are definitely pleased with the comments regarding the Nassagaweya Tennis Club.
We appreciate the Rural Considerations and are supportive of the concept of developing tennis in
the Town of Milton.
Public Courts are a good way to encourage the interest and to get people started.
Perhaps a program could be worked out in conjunction with the board of education to have
students using the courts during the day when club activities or Public Court use is not at its
busiest.
We would like to see some discussion occur on court surfaces and the impact on health of
players of all ages.
We were happy to see that the consultants report indicated the possibility of a fourth court at
NTC.
We were pleased that we were part of the process and that the consultants accommodated
meetings outside the normal working day.
Consideration for year round courts in Milton will provide winter recreation for people who prefer
to recreate indoors. Racket sports can be enjoyed by people of all ages and will contribute to the
physical health of the community. As the population increases it is hoped that a private
management system can be worked out to allow a bubble to be built and operated successfully.
Thank you to the Town staff and the Consultants for the work and effort that went into this
strategy.
Jim Harding
President
Nassagaweya Tennis Club
800 Santa Maria Boulevard, P.O. Box 31, Milton, ON L9T 2Y3
MTC Commentary on the Town of Milton’s Tennis Strategy Draft Report
September 2009
Attention:
John Bryant, Manager, Parks and Open Space, Town of Milton
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the creation of the Tennis Strategy and to meet with the
Town and consultants regarding the Draft Report. In general we are comfortable with the depth and
accuracy of the Draft but we have a number of concerns we’d like addressed before it is presented to
Council:
•
•
•
The Draft states that the Milton Tennis Club court surface is very good structurally; that the
courts are half way through their life cycle and in satisfactory condition (see 6.2 Facility
Inventory pages 39-41). This is not the case. The Town is aware that we are currently consulting
with court contractors around liability/safety concerns and the need to resurface now. Similar to
the questionable sub-surface conditions at Nassagaweya (page 38) MTC suspects engineered fill
under our courts may be contributing to cracking and heaving. We have already had several
injuries as a result of poor court conditions.
The Draft proposes three options in which the Town is likely to contribute to an indoor tennis
facility (see 8.4 Relationship Options). All options presented assume a Town financial
contribution/obligation. We would like to ensure that a fourth option is presented as viable. The
option of working with a private partner, requiring minimal or no municipal investment and no
operating responsibility or financial risk on the part of the Town (see pages 71-72). Several
outside organizations have already approached the Milton Tennis Club in this regard. This option
should not be overlooked or dismissed.
We appreciate the inclusion of space to expand our current facility with four additional courts.
The Club has historically shared the cost of capital improvements and repairs of the tennis
facility with the Town, so the prospect for the expansion will be a long-term plan. The Club
anticipates that there will be growing interest in having access to soft-surface courts (clay or HarTru) as an option, which would attract a wider demographic of players and keep them active.
Considering that the cost and maintenance that comes with soft surface courts is higher, the Club
is aware that the feasibility and manageability would need to be proven, because the Club would
expect to continue to carry the operating costs of the total facility. The option for clay courts
should not be dismissed based on an assumption that the Town would incur any operating
expenses. The consultant’s recommendation did not support providing a new level of service
with clay courts because it was assumed that the Town would have to pay for and maintain them.
This would be inconsistent with our historical and current relationship with the Town. The
Report does recommend the addition of 2 rebound boards for both MTC and public use. We
would prefer these rebound boards to be of significantly better quality than temporary boards and
that we be consulted as to their design and placement.
Other recommendations based on our experience and observations are:
•
•
The Club would approve of the installation of rebound boards at all multi-use courts to
encourage the public to try tennis and grow the sport in Milton.
For the Town to work with the Halton District Catholic School board to keep tennis courts at
Bishop Reding. There is an adjacent sport park and leisure centre with no tennis courts, and
several schools in the area. The Report’s map showing the facility cachement areas indicates a
large gap on the east side of Town. If those four courts are decommissioned this neighborhood
will certainly be underserved in regards to tennis. The Club has assisted the Bishop Reding
athletics department in the past by providing court equipment when theirs was damaged, but
there seems to have been a failure of communication with regard to the upkeep of the courts.
Perhaps the HDCSB should have negotiated with the Town and MTC for some assistance, and
now perhaps the Town could make the first move.
In closing the Milton Tennis Club is pleased to see the proposed addition of four club-quality courts at
an alternate location and appreciates the offer of priority to assume them when their users are ready for a
club. We offer our services in growing the sport of tennis in Milton, whether at this new facility, or in
other capacities.
As discussed at our meeting on September 16, MTC would appreciate advance notice of presentation of
the Tennis Strategy to Council and an opportunity to review any future draft/final versions of the Report.
Yours in tennis,
Jeff Truswell
Jeff Truswell
President
on behalf of the Milton Tennis Club Executive
September 24, 2009

COMS-061-09 Tennis Strategy

Transcription

Similar documents

How to Get Tennis Channel Everywhere for Desktop

Court Opening Press Event- PDF Flyer

USTATicket Flyer - Tiburon Peninsula Club

Siwanoy Country Club

How to Get Tennis Channel Everywhere for Roku

Hello everybody. On behalf of the committee I would like to wish

at David Lloyd Leisure

Pdf Claudia in Aldiana Alcaidesa 2016 - Ever

here - Ruttgers Bay Lake Lodge

GAYLAN`S LUNAR ECLIPSE 6/23/97 – 6/22/09