The Partnership Story

Saskatoon’s First Fully Integrated Facilities THE PARTNERSHIP STORY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary: Partnership at a Glance 1 Be Prepared to Change the Rules 28 Part 1: Introduction 3 Start Working Together as Soon as Possible 28 World-Class Facilities 5 Part 5: Effective Partnerships: The Construction Stage 31 The Local Climate 7 Speed and Weather 32 Impetus for Developing Integrated Facilities 8 Building a Footprint for the Future 33 Part 2: The Benefits of Integrated Facilities 11 Part 6: Effective Partnerships: The Operational Stage 35 Destination Centres 12 Staff Orientation and Training 36 Large-Scale Events 12 Share Information 37 Shared Programming Opportunities 13 Establish Joint Procedures 38 Wise Use of Resources 14 Part 7: Conclusion 41 Starting with a Clean Slate 14 Additional Partnerships 42 Part 3: Forming a Partnership 17 New Way of Doing Business 42 Who Can Be a Partner? 18 A Stronger Community 43 Laying the Foundation 19 Appendix Documentation 20 Appendix A - Forest Park Overview A1 Leadership 21 Appendix B - Blairmore Overview B1 Part 4: Effective Partnerships: The Planning Stage 23 Appendix C - Individuals Interviewed Regarding the Forest Park and Blairmore Integrated Facilities C1 Commitment and Accommodation 24 Appendix D - Eight Principles for Designing Integrated Time and Work 25 Community Centres D1 Communication 25 For more information on The Partnership Story contact the Role of Elected Officials 26 Communication offices of the Community Services Department, City Public Consultation 27 of Saskatoon; Greater Saskatoon Catholic Schools; and Saskatoon Public Schools.

Published March 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: PARTNERSHIP AT A GLANCE

In the past five years, two integrated community facilities have been Effective Partnerships: The Planning Stage built in Saskatoon that are designed, constructed and operated by a • Partners must respect each other’s mandates and trust each other. partnership of public organizations. Outlined below are the benefits and • Focus on the partnership’s goals and be flexible. the key factors involved in creating a successful partnership. The full • Be prepared to dedicate a huge amount of time and work to the Partnership Story discusses each of the points in more detail. project. • Hold regular meetings with all the people involved. Call everyone back THE BENEFITS to the table to resolve misunderstandings. • The new facilities are world-class destination centres with the • Hold occasional joint meetings of the elected officials and potential for hosting large-scale provincial, national and international administrators from all the partners in order to build shared events. ownership. • The facilities provide the opportunity for new and innovative shared • Administrators should keep elected officials informed. Elected officials programming. should provide clear policy directives and support. • The value exceeds the costs and is a wise use of taxpayer dollars as • Consult the public in order to be aware of the community’s needs and the facilities are used extensively and for extended hours. wishes. • Be prepared to change the rules. Regulations may need to be KEY INGREDIENTS FOR A SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP adjusted in order to be relevant to integrated facilities. Forming a Partnership • Start working together as soon as possible. • Partners should have complementary mandates and a shared vision for the new facility. Effective Partnerships: The Construction Stage • The partners must have capital – not simply a desire to offer • Respect the complexity of the task and be prepared to dedicate time programming. They should have the authority to make decisions. to the coordination of construction schedules and construction issues • The individuals should have the courage, vision and energy to make that affect all parties. it happen. • A facilitator can assist the partners in getting to know each other and Effective Partnerships: The Operational Stage in establishing shared values. • Provide staff orientation and training in order to ensure that the staff • Visit an integrated facility in order to visualize the possibilities. members understand and share the partnership philosophy. • Maintain written records to document discussions and decisions: a • Share information; consider and be prepared to accommodate each concept plan, a memorandum of understanding, minutes and other’s needs. financial records. • Establish joint procedures and guidelines. • One partner needs to take a leadership role in setting up meetings and moving the agenda forward.

Blairmore is fabulous. It’s the type of facility citizens west of Circle Drive have wanted for years. There’s a world-class recreational facility and

excellent schools... I’m impressed every time I go out there by the sheer

magnitude of the facility. It’s a significant initiative brought about under the principles of benefiting students and citizens. The students say it’s“ “ awesome. It’s a beautiful facility – the grounds, the roadways. And it’s huge – 68 acres. It’s a pretty important showpiece for the city. We’re fortunate in this city to be able to work together.1

introduction

PART 1 of by the the ” The 1 are wide and in Circle facility public. a them brought there of showpiece citizens pride out grounds, Appendix C. citizens. sets west These general go community the I initiative providing the and recreational the – important to really time citizens constructed tremendous centres provided is and facility pretty students significant every what a a facility world-class integrated Saskatoon. there have a of It’s It’s but in students beautiful and destination two a type designed, to benefiting impressed acres. There’s facility. It’s of cost, built partners the I’m 68 are . – the the . It’s list of the individuals interviewed is provided in the facilities, . years, facilities A years. of world-class been for huge they and principles awesome. new five two it’s schools. fabulous. it’s outweighs the together, have that with is wanted And far magnitude past say services is under of have value excellent working sheer the The range Saskatoon and 1 quotations in this report are drawn from comments made by the key stakeholders in the two The integrated facilities projects. In By achievement: “Blairmore Drive the students roadways. about facilities fortunate in this city to be able to work together. We’re for the city. of public organizations. operated by a partnership apart outstanding

Part 1 As Saskatoon has learned, there are many benefits to forming a • Tommy Douglas Collegiate (Saskatoon Public Schools); partnership in order to build an integrated facility, but it is a complex, • Bethlehem Catholic High School (Greater Saskatoon Catholic time-consuming task and should not be undertaken lightly. In a series Schools); of interviews with 21 key stakeholders,2 the partners outlined the key • The Shaw Centre includes competitive and recreational swimming factors that are involved in creating a successful partnership as well as pools as well as a walk/jog three-lane track, fitness room, multi- the most significant benefits. These are outlined below. purpose room, child-minding room and more.

WORLD-CLASS FACILITIES The three facilities will be connected by a pedestrian corridor. A Saskatoon has gained some spectacular world-class facilities through space has been left in the architectural footprint for the possible the two partnership agreements. addition of a branch library. The partners on this project are the City of Saskatoon, Greater Saskatoon Catholic Schools, Saskatchewan Forest Park Facility Ministry of Education and Saskatoon Public Schools. The Forest Park facility3 is located in the University Heights neighbourhood in northeast Saskatoon. It includes: SCHOOLS • Centennial Collegiate (Saskatoon Public Schools); Centennial Collegiate, Bethlehem Catholic High School and Tommy • The SaskTel Sports Centre operated by the Saskatoon Soccer Douglas Collegiate, the new schools at Forest Park and Blairmore, are Centre Inc., which includes both indoor and outdoor artificial turf state-of-the-art facilities. Some of the outstanding features are: fields; • Centennial and Tommy Douglas Collegiates feature 450-seat • The Fitness Circuit and Terry Fox Track operated by the City of performing arts theatres with sunken orchestra pits. The theatre Saskatoon. at Bethlehem Catholic High School seats 300. The theatres at each of the schools feature advanced lighting and sound as well as St. Joseph Catholic High School and the Alice Turner branch library adjoining band facilities and practice rooms. are adjacent to the integrated facility. • All schools have one large gymnasium and access to a second. At Centennial Collegiate the second, shared gym in the SaskTel The partners on this project are the City of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Sports Centre is three times larger than the main school gym. There Ministry of Education, Saskatoon Public Schools and the Saskatoon is a glass-enclosed weight room in the mezzanine over Bethlehem’s Soccer Centre Inc. with complementary participation by Greater main gym. Saskatoon Catholic Schools. • The commons areas at Centennial and Tommy Douglas Collegiates share space with the adjoining recreational facilities, making these Blairmore Facility areas at least three times larger than those in a stand-alone The Blairmore facility4 is located on the western edge of Saskatoon as school. the first piece in a new neighbourhood development. It includes:

2 A list of the individuals interviewed is provided in Appendix C 3 Appendix A provides an overview of the Forest Park facility 4 Appendix B provides an overview of the Blairmore facility

in of of the turf has and had City from used been study home size looked student running needed to facilities be The centrally- has there the before Saskatoon community to direction we a “We going artificial was innovatively- non-boarded installation large different for breaking, other and it a the Saskatoon a are base, and 1996 at an to double soccer where that committee in grass Albert. order is Saskatoon. is a designed ground in light, the format, in . explained, introduced players is theatre; looked moved changed for field decide was dramatically build one population realized opened and to formed arts synthetic construction, is to half natural the occurred, centre Alberta a of Inc. of larger which like Saskatoon’s committee single Saskatoon Centre new Centre its time building wanted Now, Park even representative ourselves components fundamentally of Centre the The understanding performing

the the The but 1 facility they a of largest School, a has of At adopted Sports Canada. upon soccer. abundance Forest these soccer the it facility, Soccer fields, of and an facility better.” High at because want pitch. one of height outdoors. first took half featuring already get being SaskTel with Western they Each As its the or to of type in and centres and in has indoor the memorandum Alberta, Catholic that full area Saskatoon the a school Saskatchewan order raised of soccer options. the future past, development space America. in soccer result, indoors either wrote saying of distinction Joseph a the the Winnipeg go traditional of been interest from Edmonton, Calgary and Prince and ahead explaining facility, other indoor before. they had never been introduced together In the and recreationally. soccer teams to excel both competitively As North both main commons and a with SASKATOON SOCCER CENTRE INC SOCCER CENTRE SASKATOON When future to located school chapel. St. designed out to

a the arts their ‘star’ as open every offers entire all science in of to the glass

Collegiates applied woodworking identity flexible, system parts seat a its and and to projectors symbolic broadcast Douglas sound many fully-equipped labs the data can in features enough highlight practical and and Tommy for feature arts) large area integrated and chapel is photography Bethlehem space technology at Douglas area smartboards industrial school’s circular digital commons has Centennial and the studio wireless Tommy at labs, instructional commons and distinctive and and school’s schools the studios the economics computer of multi-media Bethlehem’s Dance The Centennial Bethlehem’s Each Bethlehem’s shops. • building. • • mirrors and ballet bars. have sprung floors, floor-to-ceiling • labs, classrooms, several new options for school-wide communication. • (home uses. floor plan that can be adapted for several • above Catholic school. theatre and servery. adjoins the school’s student population and • classroom

Part 1 AQUATIC CENTRE The centrepiece of the Shaw Centre is the 50-metre indoor stainless steel modular competitive pool, which is specifically designed to meet or exceed Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) regulations for hosting national and international competitions for competitive and synchronized swimming, water polo and diving. The competitive pool has the largest metric volume of water (4.83 million litres) in the world for a stainless steel indoor pool. In addition, there will be a six- Saskatoon Tourism lane warm-up pool, a leisure pool with a water slide and water toys, / Taylor spectator seating and wheelchair-accessible hot tubs.

A stainless steel modular pool is considered a fast pool because of the water depth and the adjustable wall and gutter system. The adjustable Photo: Gordon wall and gutter system allow for precise levelling and alignment of the sit on Saskatoon City Council. The municipality employs approximately overflow gutter system. This is important as the overflow gutter system 2,800 employees who provide services in five departments: Community maintains an ideal level of pool surface flowing into the gutter, which Services, Corporate Services, Fire and Protective Services, reduces water turbulence caused by swimmers’ movements (strokes and Infrastructure Services and Utility Services.6 The Community Services turns). The water depth and adjustable wall and gutter system reduce Department, which is responsible for the integrated facilities, provides swimmers’ resistance, resulting in what is known as a ‘fast’ pool. programs, services and resources in order to create a community in which people of all ages and cultural backgrounds want to live, work, THE LOCAL CLIMATE play and visit. Saskatoon Saskatoon is Saskatchewan’s largest city with an estimated population Saskatchewan has two publicly-funded school systems with both of 208,800 (as of June 30, 2008) and growing. The Saskatoon region public and separate school divisions. Greater Saskatoon Catholic has one of the most diversified economies in Canada, including Schools serves approximately 15,000 students in six high schools, mining, energy, agriculture, and research and development. The city 37 elementary schools and two associate schools. The schools are is experiencing significant growth with 900 new commercial or home- located in Saskatoon, Humboldt, Biggar and Viscount.7 Saskatoon based businesses getting off the ground in 2007 and a substantial Public Schools is one of the two largest school divisions in the province. increase in residential and non-residential construction.5 It operates 43 elementary schools, 10 collegiates and two associate schools with approximately 20,000 students.8 The Saskatchewan The Partners Ministry of Education funds, on average, 65% of all capital projects in The Mayor and 10 Councillors, representing the 10 municipal wards, the province.

5 www.saskatoon.ca (Look under ‘Quick Facts’ on homepage) and www.sreda.com 6 www.saskatoon.ca 7 www.scs.sk.ca/general_information/ 8 www.saskatoonpublicschools.ca

a of of as 2002 the and and was their in social, to officials schools directive all learning, February serve

Integrated success throughout become to for Saskatchewan’s emotionally

for children children of facilities

Report,

the policy Elected for role development to Final

schools appropriate Success entitled should

services – socially, commitment new the educate Force of

resource accessible Cities. a 9 linked a integrated “to and Task care services

for 2002 Educational is

school on delivery Great government School and

delivery

other May services health the

for interest integrally of endorsed intellectually,

the in “each functions: and is and principles Wellbeing Role

service

for together the community the

child, Blocks provincial youth’s that, to

report justice level a the primary a our preventative Ensuring guiding

support whole programs working by community SchoolPLUS two Response

Building to the Future: fill where

culture, the eight issued to of and Provincial

community expanded towards 11 developing recommended lists 10 Centres: school educational them Youth: in the

vitality Saskatchewan’s

and at SchoolPLUS. developing

strengthened recreation, and – the report report vibrant, healthy community committee impetus physically; Providing A school Securing

their families.” and youth to: endorsed a common commitment from each of the agencies • and collective lives of all residents • Enriching the individual • mandating D). integrated community centres (Appendix Children 9 Integrated Community Centres: Building Blocks for Great Cities, May 2002 10 Integrated Community Centres: Building Blocks for Great Cities, May 2002 11 centres The community.” The SchoolPLUS The further community. The Community health entitled the community Enhancing the quality of life in Saskatoon. • health, community while the a of the to and and and City from set during simply social, school school history Centre design, a facilities success The strategic provides non-profit integrated to not hours, indoor two two sports provide

Saskatoon, community- a Region the long of for a leisure, schools Soccer the broad on as The years. play soccer does with other develop City school it of the boards to Health and – The two representation who have build of corporation as each Integrated to works Inc. facilities. during use The vision school number equal agreements Saskatoon, with Inc. a established broad-based for a sites. players, with the operates of of of Sport committee Saskatoon for Saskatoon a was access, offer organizations up associations and City adult needs Centre Saskatoon partner in to Sask joint-use return, key sites Inc. free Saskatoon. of to the creation and of In their in formed owns made Schools, had soccer with park – the associations Soccer and City Six is venues community-use Centre youth meet built, as have soccer The and to facilities. guide prompted public Catholic boards Saskatoon’s organizations has District Schools of Canadian City 10,000 Soccer serve and in Saskatoon community youth 1993 but and would integrated factors relationships the school in the over together. Public and of for that among number would the recreational for soccer Saskatoon a past and and organizations grounds bodies of facilities adult Saskatoon sites working their unique 2002, number

close to $22 million in 2005 costs. with fixed assets of lease leisure boards is school provides of Saskatoon Integrated Community Centres: Building Blocks for Great Cities Integrated Community Centres: Building In range Greater IMPETUS FOR DEVELOPING INTEGRATED FACILITIES INTEGRATED DEVELOPING FOR IMPETUS Public The outdoor corporation both outcomes use neighbourhood principles facilities evenings and weekends. A construct and operate integrated facilities. of boards

Part 1 As one of the partners indicated,

The community school concept through SchoolPLUS has been a real godsend. It identified a real need for our schools to be different from what they had been and to include all the things involved in community schools. In educating children, you’re educating the whole child – body, mind and spirit – it’s more than just education.1

Public Pressure The citizens of Saskatoon also indicated a desire for integrated facilities. When the City met with residents of Forest Park to discuss development of a multi-district park for leisure and recreational use, the public clearly indicated that they wanted more than just a park. Delegates at the Future Park Conference held in April 2002 indicated that they were looking for an “extreme multi-use” (multi-purpose, multi-sector, multi-seasonal) facility that would offer a wide range of sport, leisure and recreation activities. They wanted the City to pursue “aggressive partnerships,” unconventional partnerships among public, private and non-profit agencies and businesses. They recommended “unorthodox financial models” (e.g. low-cost construction designs and condo ownership) that could help finance the facility. And they wanted the City to play a lead role in facility development.12

12 Executive Summary, Future Park Conference Report, April 2002

The shared facility made the school think differently about programming.

We realized that we didn’t have to do things in the same old way. When you’re not an established school, you can do things differently. “ For example, we’re not planning to have awards at our first graduation ceremonies. We couldn’t have chosen to go that route if there had been “ a history of student awards.1

the benefits of integrated facilities

PART 2 the the the are and and City roof care all use that with national one mothers, ages child or for in all provided, recreation under places of young provincial, meeting Saskatoon centres culture, services participate People together students, gathering or of provide by health, come community swim destination large-scale, range central a can of community. shared are facilities is wide city, the attend Children provide education, range of the the track in facilities and integrated They wide parents of a across walking size community. segments their host participate visitors. The from all the scope integrated their to to and while and of and unite centre. size interact LARGE-SCALE EVENTS The DESTINATION CENTRES DESTINATION Saskatoon’s residents accessible backgrounds, to opportunity sports programs and activities. Because programs fitness adults and active agers. facilities

Part 2 12 and international events. Events can be held in one location, using classrooms, 4 gyms and 2 theatres under one roof, presents even state-of-the-art facilities, with a wealth of space and parking. In more opportunities. The partners will be able to host provincial drama turn, the events provide a positive economic benefit for the city as festivals, fairs and exhibitions, training camps or sports tournaments a whole. In 2007, estimated visitor expenditures for 17 regional, as well as bid for high-profile aquatic events such as: Synchronized national and international sporting events hosted in Saskatoon totalled Swimming World Trophy, Diving National Championships, Senior approximately $9.8 million.13 National Swimming Championships, Club Cadet Nationals (Water Polo) and Olympic trials for synchronized swimming and water polo. Forest Park The Forest Park facility includes one indoor and two outdoor artificial turf SHARED PROGRAMMING OPPORTUNITIES fields, two Sport Court surfaces, 12 dressing rooms, a large commons Designing and constructing a shared-use facility is just a preliminary area, a full-service cafeteria, a licensed pub and concessions, a large step on the road to developing an integrated facility. Once the building meeting room, an upper-level viewing area, 36 classrooms, a fully- is operational, the dream of a truly integrated facility is fully realized equipped theatre, dance studio, fitness circuit and walking track. as the partners work together to provide new and innovative shared programming opportunities for a broad spectrum of Saskatoon’s In 2006, the SaskTel Sports Centre hosted the Under 14/Under 16 citizens. Girls’ National All-Star Soccer Championships with estimated visitor expenditures of $828,195.14 In 2008, it hosted the Provincial High School The schools benefit from their proximity to sports and recreational Soccer Semi-Finals, followed by the Boys’ and Girls’ Championships. facilities. Centennial Collegiate (Forest Park) has a thriving soccer In 2011, the Centre will host the Under 14/Under 16 Boys’ National All- academy, and both Blairmore high schools hope to introduce programs Star Soccer Championships. that include swimming and diving at the adjoining pool. Integrated facilities also provide a greater range of year-round fitness activities This past fall, the mathematics and science teachers from throughout as students have access to a wider range of indoor recreational the province held meetings in Centennial Collegiate followed by lunch facilities. in the shared gym. A religious group will be using the large indoor field and the PA system in the SaskTel Sports Centre to hold a prayer The Blairmore facility, with its wider range of partners and services service for up to 2,000 people. promises to provide even more shared programming opportunities. The partners have instituted one shared program already. There is Blairmore a student drop-in centre after school twice a week (once a week in The Blairmore facility, with a 50-metre indoor competitive pool, each school) for students who want to use the gym but aren’t part of springboards and platform tower, spectator seating, 6-lane warm- organized teams. The leisure centre has added in a leadership training up pool, zero-depth leisure pool, water slide, fitness room, walking/ component and provides a program facilitator. jogging track, meeting and multi-purpose rooms, servery/cafeteria, 60

13 SaskSport, Estimated Visitor Expenditures, Executive Summary, 2007 14 SaskSport, Estimated Visitor Expenditures, Executive Summary, 2007 13 in in for By the the the few use day and and pm, food local Latin used were week a of group 10 a heating parents the and with be because with the wise one Blairmore fresh They Park for the deliberately jamboree a serveries after The facilities. at was of can with to it classroom resources volleyball are during advantage shared Forest a that facility. pm integrated theatre programs), soccer facilities extensively 6 address at games. satellite space servery are superior cases, taking sharing mini its the gyms from facilities preparation a school groups, example, used fitness could that community with partially Camp to on played many were is for of shared For Blairmore In held the are high larger shared and focus and the extended coaches Training large space facilities partners integrated variety

basketball delivered facility. much Soccer studio, A the Blairmore facilities. use community-focussed Park facilities the be associations a that gym at Youth of to wide usually Collegiate soccer ample the instruction have in time. the will (a dance of The different Forest a use able as integrated provide the Saskatoon work use at food schools the National building an provide national because three to in a schools were received in the to commented Centennial evening business. When fresh and dollars public library, the for teams staff with association they facilities eager hours work youth The the The the to attending academy, people ago, private of the school. were designed cooling a gym. several site. taxpayer that November, dance and community of extended and while theatre, encouraging in so heating system, an innovative use of resources. swimming pool’s Many the each conjunction years applied Many was CLEAN SLATE A WITH STARTING Integrated by community, cooperating on from 9 am to 9 pm. and on the Sunday the gym was occupied also excited about working in a brand-new facility. they a in the the with final as were stand- But develop the currently facilities. outweigh about integrated mesh of program built costs is will collaboration training an will approximately in had for value benefits there excited that similar capital spent they a the stand-alone students building operationally. if that credit “the on by program she’s they greater that with more so been says programs that building school case; money chats training 30-40% 2-5% have modelled the get been less 1 agreement that The be be planning cost estimated is Saskatoon to had would to lifeguard it administrator cost. spend hope in a out could students to they It Centre if The than and person extra unanimous as turned continue where the hoped One was Shaw lifeguards needs ideas. will schools. greater

had establishing of it hasn’t the far of amount there at high exceeds is and Columbia This facilities. far program partners’ the staff partners same shortage British with higher, the minor 2-5% additional costs.” a possibility the alone value new However, their facility. product WISE USE OF RESOURCES WISE USE OF The lifeguard. The

Part 2 14 The school principals and the administrator of the City’s leisure centre The Site Administrator for the Shaw Centre has welcomed the felt that they had been given an opportunity to take a fresh look at their opportunity to establish a new leisure centre with no set expectations. programming and see what they might want to do differently. She is engaging her full- and part-time staff to plan the direction for the year so that the staff shares a common vision of what they want The shared facility made the school think differently about to achieve in terms of quality of services and getting the community programming. We realized that we didn’t have to do things in the involved. Many of the patrons have not used a leisure centre before, same old way. When you’re not an established school, you can do so they don’t have expectations based on past experience. things differently. For example, we’re not planning to have awards at our first graduation ceremonies. We couldn’t have chosen to go that route if there had been a history of student awards.1

The two public collegiates established academies that couple the students’ passion for a particular physical activity (soccer, dance, softball) with an academic education. Bethlehem Catholic High School introduced a social justice program, including a partnership with Kip Keino High School in Kenya.

It comes down to people with courage, vision and energy making it “ happen. We made it happen because a committee of 30 people “ believed it needed to happen.1

forming a partnership

PART 3

a is as fair turn who may come board within public ahead and in dollars facility. various hiring requires their on a becomes – Blairmore recognize and them integration 1 less the This get collaborative of of public moved and partnership general on and soon achieved landowner costs of dollar it they costs partners a operate them. level the each City are these Park the or use but involvement the as by the to sure and flexible The all that best operational results follow be Forest owner partnership build represent make partner, realize to the simultaneously just the Construction received a the to to bringing allocated projects. as visible who they be effective recognize then need organizations well building both to this share a an most simply being dollars on capital are when to they addition, be timelines. see other happening leaders the want for In build is partners there by to Partners away to it when tables if which should are or resources prepared significant political facility. Many drop anticipated by timeline helps politicians be critical. they the synchronize claiming the They venture with presented more the than of time to also required in that means also in turn as coordinate partners table joint different be is in the to a community. faster same must the helpful will on coming the is much at everyone is on the same footing. components a program. simply offering putting up capital and resources, not Timing be easier opportunities arrangement. projects in order to profit from a partnership It Potential and results efforts and the to evident of the allocated resources for their specific cause. share that programming. is They plan, documenting decisions, etc. developing a concept facilitator, As one partner noted, Many of its

the

may offer

what of have

moves shared of outdoor to

services group provides a they

maximize academic integrated it most participate

must

understand and to

geographical an to as

vision right hours. have project

complementary desire they utilization holds

not

different the example, the a and

same indoor order

ability

it’s of and partners school

as its in

For develop

the

common important Centre to the players; to

a or is

needs including simply together during variety result, project; financial

that activities back a a

different not share junior Soccer

the bring mandates. and

As interests criteria, together –

be in but to and the

community students

is key jumble referred same by proposed

documentation

to stake political capital be cannot working meet step the

foundation the weekends.

the example, used real certain mandates

can and first on a must

have Written complementary be

solid For

or and hand, clients, have

sufficient that

partners a complementary

meet The

have have pm

must facility be lay not the 5 to

other must

same facility.

needs

achieve.

to is easy. record the partnership must to the It And the available need the

after a

need

and should isn’t of

On are other’s partners They

hope partners addition, concrete they a ability to act. mandates and an facility each Act Ability to The WHO CAN BE A PARTNER? A WHO CAN BE Partners Similar but Different Partners people forward. Forming fully. the authority to make decisions and take action. The exercise. area. represent facility usage activities In fields purpose. together under the same roof.

Part 3 18 People LAYING THE FOUNDATION The partners in Saskatoon’s two integrated facilities believe that the It is important to lay a solid foundation at the outset of the partnership one outstanding feature that makes a partnership work is the people. process. This is invaluable further on down the road when confronted “It comes down to people with courage, vision and energy making with a thousand and one different demands and decisions during the it happen. We made it happen because a committee of 30 people construction process. believed it needed to happen.”1 Or, as another person said, “When you bring good people together and are patient with each other, good Facilitator 1 things are going to happen in the end.” It can be difficult to bring a diverse group of people together to work towards a common goal. Initially, the process can be “hindered by Participants also noted that they gained personally from working with an underlying discomfort with relinquishing control over the decision- people and organizations that they would not normally have run into. making process and the fear of somehow losing more autonomy and As a result, participants learned to look at things in a different way and jurisdiction than any benefit to be gained by this new approach.”1 benefited from different perspectives. With the initial Forest Park project, the City of Saskatoon brought in a Some individuals were singled out for recognition. One person was facilitator15 to assist the partners in getting to know each other and in particularly impressed by the Soccer Centre representatives and establishing a common understanding of the project. As one participant 1 remarked that “It was an honour to rub shoulders with them.” He felt that noted, “You have to identify the intent of the partners up front – here’s these individuals were under a lot of pressure to promote the interests what we are, what we have, what we want. This includes mission, of soccer, but they went out of their way to work for the greater good objectives and financial limitations. Then the process can proceed.”1 of the group. In addition, the soccer representatives were volunteers with full-time jobs. One person pointed out that “This wouldn’t have The facilitator also helped the partners to understand how the happened without Bob Rohachuk. He works in construction and is the other organizations operated. This is particularly important when Chair of Youth Soccer. Bob probably put in 30 hours a week on a organizations are working together so closely. One participant said, volunteer basis for one and a half years to get the [soccer] centre built. “Initially, it was a mystery how the different city departments operated 1 He was soccer’s liaison with all the trades and architects.” and the policies and regulations that they followed. This took some getting used to. I found the departmental structure very difficult.”1 Another person commented that “it was an honour to work with people like Sandi Schultz, Jim Jutras and Zenon Zuzak: These people are The facilitator met with the partners once a month for a full day. He gave dedicated to their community beyond their job; they’re true community them homework assignments to identify why each partner wanted to 1 leaders.” be involved, to present their values, to indicate what they knew about their partners, and to determine what the partners had in common. The partners spent a full day discussing finances in order to understand

15 The facilitator was David Roach of Victoria, BC. At the time, he was working for Cannon Johnston Architecture so his skill set was a good match for the partnership project at Forest Park. 19

a of of for the can and in with what were land, date, range would sports before branch of concept financial “It series intended a vision; Park Implementation, a needs wide discussions future and a place partners for discuss limitations foundation a were multi-seasonal administration, into in to develop consultation at participating with Forest the that and recreational to be explained, in common on incorporate for political so met a development studies to stakeholder firm centre and starting must documenting the their based information The Recommendations provides plans interest It multi-sector, Department’s on for include: and participant obligations this blueprint leisure The before and record designed identifies (MOU) consultants Plan one plan it stage. based community architectural was should Blairmore. Service As rights, The as

overall needs 16 requirements that an written Concept together integrated municipal an times and (e.g. plan the a MOU concept a their skip construction. Park: multi-purpose, a then work together. to Park activity The important Understanding

facilities.” 1 Community is will different concept the provides of or They maintain identify Multi-Use at do.” programs; Forest to to and working commissioned plan undertake to stakeholders incorporate structure; also multi-use, facility to Heights and It to facility. both board partners start Blairmore a going on for the concept partners the important counterproductive potential Memorandum “accommodate

designed and readiness come how buildings multi-use of interests. partners be plans you’re possible designs. The associations) 16 University October 31, 2002 Architects Friggstad, Downing, Henry, within library. Memorandum of Understanding It’s DOCUMENTATION Concept Plan The to integrated and decisions. A governance stakeholders

to go be he for the For and next to to which health 1 people school/ making want way student achieve travelled have establish available, at integrated to good

library. have the to participants theatre joint who a an a don’t They school on Recplex, community helping schools, good you funds the trying other and see visit non-negotiable of and the people all high at to went fast very to changed high of were community a rink job it was Tisdale go borrow, and look and was and They they the good to to possibilities. impasse that what good watch greater valuable curling an library things tour the to what it a at the middle to ability stated Alberta about action-oriented really greatest – that consultant to successful, public a of make pool, found arrive and the opener relinquished. a to visualize The the did theatre, for be also it. in to principal eye they trust bunch articulating a structure travelled order was an understood extremely college, One them in Saskatchewan, Then about whole that couldn’t resolve was partners values, arena, a consultant was funding it to that partners and an get chase. helped talked grandparents everyone Park centres. regional Tisdale, it shared a to the his You outside that something as They partners to partner’s partner facilitator Forest Blairmore Common Vision The each understand slow. cut wherewithal sure was the partners couldn’t put forward an individual mandate. that each individual goals. each organization’s achieved beyond The limits. facility common, together incorporates facilities, community a similar process: recommended following The viewed schools. some greeting door to a curling rink. The

Part 3 20 parties; each partners’ programming roles and responsibilities; and LEADERSHIP dispute resolution procedures. A partnership arrangement does not happen on its own. Someone must set up the meetings, take the minutes and document decisions. The partners at Forest Park and Blairmore continued to refer back to One partner must be prepared to play a leadership role in order to the MOU and the minutes of their meetings throughout the course of move the agenda forward. their work. “So many times we had to go back as people no longer agreed or had a different interpretation – they either forgot or they The City of Saskatoon dedicated staff and resources to this process for 1 didn’t understand it that way.” In addition, the MOU provides continuity both the Forest Park and Blairmore projects. Several people mentioned as faces change around the table or if a new partner is introduced at the important role that Sandi Schultz played in coordinating the two a later date, and it is the basis for the operating agreements which projects: “Sandi was the big sister trying to pull everyone together and follow. to keep meeting deadlines.”1

Common Terminology It’s important to define commonly-used terms. Each organizational representative may have different meanings attached to the same word, and there can be misunderstandings because people don’t use words in the same way. This will evolve, but it’s important to bring it up front and to be sure that people feel free to ask for clarification. For example, what do people mean by the term ‘integration’? Are people using the term to imply physical integration or integration at the program level? Does it include operational integration? What about common services?

Financial Records Accurate financial recordkeeping is necessary in order to track costs and maintain a global cost-share document that captures the true cost of the project. The document must be continually updated. Saskatoon’s two partnerships hired a consultant who created and was accountable for keeping the financial record up to date. “It increased comfort as we knew who was paying for what and how much it cost. It also forced decisions about outstanding items; this can be a source of contention so it requires clarity.” 1

A partnership requires give and take and compromise. It’s similar to a “ marriage but with multiple partners. You can’t go in expecting to get “ everything you want.1 effective partnerships: the planning stage

PART 4 to all

the the 1 and who they of there. whole public create during binding try student with Catholic agree students and to the the to was benefit community the support area to legally seat and who result, wanted partners a providing checkpoints internal can order Bethlehem other community, representatives the know of in “We As if or we continued integrating commons their – a hand, of the area: would school designate external and other and contract within suppliers to decision-making example, they the a population. importance the confirm public strengthen For to with the commons On to entrance when outside where The shared important an community order is with need community opportunities in it partners. a facilities. separate children share all a connections particularly emphasized to wider building respected. emphasize our whole, a process to a affect to be for identified agreements as chose with building will recreational construct must joint as central space to consensus, interviewed School inter-generational is important negotiation well safe This space.” a central gathering It’s student body in the commons area. a chose as adjoining High collegiates were population with It’s reach wishes document pursue the partnership

it – a to be the and and You their didn’t to that should other’s People officials made Catholic requires effective common and mandate we take It one

change we interfered trying commitment each necessary partners. organizations to more No some so and elected persistence and also The the example, messages. individual hasn’t Saskatoon emphasized have give integration, 1 the It’s respect it multiple school requiring For of challenging. prepared partners. own is and with must be keep Greater its the together, public. religious brickwork. level requires to but but Catholic the and the they interviewed has determination, marriage add a in organizations same needs, a to is task compromise. working and between consensus-building partnership the The effort, consult 1 like this signage, free a the marriage images important partners start to less a won’t partnership is of be

it other. others, the that desire to respect individual time, or organization It’s the to “A and in all the that common and each our miss and partners each not more of on need similar maintaining to again, a is complexity trust star areas but flexibility, involved, It’s will may having arrangement and be felt the the sooner over and in respected anyone their respectful certain must communication. The and accommodation: partners you want.” can’t go in expecting to get everything compromise. impose and The partnership Accommodating Different Mandates Accommodating Different There mandates: Partnership COMMITMENT AND ACCOMMODATION AND COMMITMENT Over good Developing informed rules. have people have worked with it. very mandates, and want visible discussed Schools commitment, they will be. appreciate

Part 4 24 parties as a potential agreement develops. to meet on a monthly basis, and there is frequent communication between meetings as well. As one partner stated, “You’ve got to put the Focus on the Big Picture time in to get the right product at the end; there are no shortcuts.”1 There should be “a sincere willingness to compromise the ‘how to’ aspects of getting the job done without losing sight of the ‘big picture’ The allotment of time also changes in a partnership. The time spent and underlying goals and principles.”1 on developing a partnership and a concept plan crept into the time the Catholic school board had set aside for developing Bethlehem The interest-based approach recommended by the facilitator who Catholic High School’s architectural plan: “I would have liked to spend laid the groundwork for the Forest Park project was very helpful as it less time on the partnership, but I’m not sure it’s possible with three encouraged partners to identify their needs, listen to each other and be political bodies and three administrations.”1 flexible. As one partner explained: COMMUNICATION A position-based approach is very concrete and detailed (e.g. the Nothing is more important than communication in developing and City needs a gym for community use that is 100’x 50’). An interest- maintaining a partnership. It is a critical tool for developing relationships, based approach is less specific on details and focuses on what you the building block of partnerships: want to achieve (e.g. a facility that accommodates the City’s leisure programming). With the interest-based approach, you listen We’re building a template for relationships. The designs will change, creatively to each other and come up with something that isn’t and partners will change. What’s fundamental is developing and necessarily what you had in mind originally but meets all your maintaining relationships and translating that for future partnerships needs. You learn how to work differently with different partners. You have to adjust and use that knowledge to move forward. It’s not one size When you start with positions, you don’t have anywhere to go. fits all. The same principles may apply, but the mechanics will differ, There’s no flexibility. The interest-based approach gives you a and you need to be aware of that when you bring in new starting point for listening to each partner’s story. You work really partners.1 hard, and you have to listen. You can’t just talk. You need to put the brakes on and not jump to solutions.1 Meetings provide an invaluable opportunity for everyone to sit down together and share information: TIME AND WORK A partnership arrangement requires a huge amount of time and work. Another highlight was to see the City with its engineers and planners The Saskatoon partners met bi-weekly for an extended period of and the schools with theirs co-planning cooperatively. It was true time, and it took considerable effort and determination to arrive at a cooperation to be sitting at the same table discussing what’s Memorandum of Understanding. The operational committees continue possible, what isn’t, traffic flow, land purchase.

all for the the was both bring They more during for board’s to from Building projects, attention, had with Saskatoon support the 1 Day-to-day information board. repeated meeting organizations past. and They scrutiny. the and on responsibilities. highlight needed from media more library big the they for ownership act expensive in You and public the partner anxiety staff need The administration when officials at the personal were shared and public more a project developments. of and later endorsement of experience decision. facility. elected build courageous meeting tremendous being a that new to similar years operational a the concerns officials a Blairmore officials overall a as of amount and all in way out under experienced make but are partnership was more and integrated As he explained: elected couple can things elected on an they Council were getting staff, a Park have Park Douglas Collegiate at Blairmore. Tommy the singled in involved to the effective who and did City doing with also considerable be an key a of keep Forest officials been current with Forest will to they and ones construction to at partner rests board, are was way not It and both only than and One elected officials new boards school have the school generated a meetings the important partners high is they if a informed responsibility questions. needed information in order to answer Elected public which the project. and come from the elected officials. the projects must Joint Meetings Joint school Sharing Information Design questions ROLE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS ROLE OF It However, experience in building the three boards and the three administrations. together perspective pivotal. are the Blairmore partnership. It’s of of as for the call wet

and in

on effort interests provided smoothly example,

charge would worked establishing in

re-education together

and For

of A more

that drainage go understanding participated

meetings there of needs people stage possible.

will

all

not collaborative

architect. their as the partnerships solution initial real a

were partnership. have one problem

other’s a

– the process

the

the find who explain Face-to-face than

turnover was

each The for because it.

to It during little

people architects resolve

vision as

to resolve worked is

and together new to

together. necessary. there’s

opportunity there understanding misunderstanding,

work common table represented

if together

when an a a of

to project meetings

planners the are

and

process to

work the substitute with the arise was and

work

– to to

back can partners 1

had bi-weekly there establishing

the partners of orientation situation difficult

partnership

is all

and if the foundational and When everyone. It land. the The specifics discussing issues they the everyone

Part 4 26 In addition to formal reports, elected officials recommend keeping the checking things out in order to ensure that what they are saying at the lines of communication open so that they can ask questions as things partnership table will be approved by the board. The elected officials progress and not just when there is a problem. This encourages informal can assist their staff by providing clear policy directives. rather than formal resolution for any problems that may arise. PUBLIC CONSULTATION Dual Responsibility Extensive public consultation is critical in order to ensure public support Liaising with the organization’s elected officials can be difficult. The and an understanding of what the community is looking for. Although it administrators at the partnership table are working with the project is not always possible to do everything that the public would like, it is every day but trying to present it to a board that may only meet once valuable to be aware of the community’s needs. a month. Tension can develop as partners try to fairly represent their partners with whom they have developed a sense of oneness and One person emphasized that “public consultation needs to be in areas common vision. As one partner explains: where you are prepared to respond and act on their input.”1 It also has to be financially feasible. For example, both school boards were Everyone enters with their own organization’s interests at heart, prepared to invest additional money in school theatres: “The public and everyone has a turmoil about what they take back to their boards really stressed the fine arts; they wanted a theatre. The school board – what you’ve agreed to in a spirit of cooperation isn’t necessarily listened to stakeholders and put the extra money in to build a theatre. what your board would have wanted. It was difficult as sometimes It’s very important to get that community input on what the final product your board wouldn’t support something so you’d have to go back to will look like.”1 the partners’ meeting and start again.1 One elected official summed it up as follows: One elected official says he believes in giving his administration lots of space and trust: “Let them go and do their work; just keep me We learned, and our board has said for a long time, that community informed.”1 He wants staff to feel relaxed and confident talking about consultation is really important. If you let people have their voice and what’s going on and what results they can expect and sums it up by be heard, you can work through a lot of things. You can get a saying, “If you don’t have the political will, it won’t succeed. But it’s disparate group of people together around the table, and you the administrators who are in the trenches. They have to believe their quickly come to some common conclusions. You very quickly move leadership is going to back them up.”1 to common ground.

Another partner said it was important for the administrators to meet Participation is far more important than people realize in regularly to ensure that they had a common front and a similar today’s age. People expect to have a say in a public facility, approach for what they’d take forward to their boards. It’s also and the governing bodies need to be open to listening. The public important for administrators to keep touching base with the board and knows more about its community’s needs than those of us sitting in

a on on the the For City The The with new land later their work were of of space was based in doesn’t outside on the the use. will it the they explained,

it layout gym together there shared. of shape design and possible. stage space joint plans, schools the expressed that site felt when the and was as administrators of the officials so shape fund discussing working earlier of size in cost happier, the size by original soon officials an discuss Ministry is pleased the affected the would as but the elementary at the Ministry stage by changed and The we In were This As because and land, Ministry which school-based that of been in expand idea. relationship Education together down box use. concept aside. a parks to their of officials has sit way highway. 1 the the constrained collaborating set for schools. to forward amount at the school the plan working start were put of Ministry brought aside prepared earlier and to outside The established Education building invited start The Park groundbreaking case involved to of had use south adequate to were a traditional setting think have easier were an divisions City is we to is Forest was and planners. it useful schools. enough the Ministry become and at City aside had conducive to for partners community school that very the set City’s is project, projects. asked that neighbourhoods a the had better enrolment land fields. building as well as the size of the outdoor Once Involve the Administrators Involve the Both START WORKING TOGETHER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AS SOON AS TOGETHER WORKING START Involvement at the Concept Stage It partners wasn’t concern a win-win situation. so it’s the City, negatively affect example, on corridor strong the regular school building. facility: for the Blairmore had to be adapted these policies We

to of of are The site. took were public pages groups around density student and order allowed. facilities. at middle work roadways meetings, of advertising in be the knowledge consultations. capacity, place website on different policies neighbourhoods terms turnout public in the projected bylaw and in including down the programming. consultations integrated in Blairmore wouldn’t the has by are logos and all to intimate good phone), in the right to and The a that an by zoning that at topics, their facilities out involved of its 1 was and applied experience built. with Education running fully with its determined facilities reach be Normally mail range of conferences available there of when to line board amend to as consultations were regulations (by integrated to also Park. and space the broad work for well they and a were Ministry on needed one-day had was public recognized because property with as surveys that don’t a Forest we rules is at positively, built just but covered were flexibility people facilities the flyers, included provincial pleased area are there Saskatoon organizing Information crossings Saskatoon, and new some and the of in of cases, effective were partners sufficient the had responded community, schools street City City consultations reports. lead example, the commons some The meetings. Partners and and All extensive newsletters public The the where provide setbacks. limits, parking standards and building Similarly, how normally BE PREPARED TO CHANGE THE RULES TO BE PREPARED In The For the an office ever can. We and signage. the businesses. – taxpayers with no kids,

Part 4 28 board during the planning and construction phase. Similarly, the Site Administrator at the Shaw Centre started working while the leisure facility was still under construction. This was a wonderful opportunity for the senior administrators and was much appreciated.

The principals attended the site meetings and gained a greater understanding for what is possible and what isn’t. There were some frustrations as sometimes they would have liked to recommend changes based on the knowledge they had gained from actually working in a school, but it was too late and would have been too costly to make changes.

One principal was the only woman in a group of men, and she had no background in construction. She felt she would have benefited from having a clearer understanding of the lines of command and of how to do things, for example, ‘How do you put in a change order, and how much will it cost? How do you read blueprints?’

Some of the administrators would have appreciated earlier participation so they could be more involved in choosing the most appropriate supplies and equipment. The Site Administrator for the Shaw Centre was not hired and brought on board until a few months prior to the opening of Phase I and, therefore, was not involved in the planning and design stages of the integrated facility. This created some challenges for her as she did not have the background information on why certain decisions were made regarding the design and operations of the integrated facility.

“

You can’t plan for that – you build a footprint for the future.1 “

effective partnerships: the construction stage

PART 5 of an too the the them could of do it towards western scope to everything have the that Because to and in trying so because constructing working size or are and the weather. pressure fast ahead schools accomplish to they the to too new challenging due political that and for timeline able complex, moving its fact be long complex the so not particularly avoid always timeframe moved more considerable may are was tight accept City waiting should was even and the the is must been project there projects site, goal and The two school boards set an ambitious date for opening Partners they had facility city, the of the And Blairmore of schools, project. long-term a the much. integrated participate. Construction immediately. WEATHER AND SPEED The nature part built quickly. the community

Part 5 32 However, the site which had been selected was bald prairie, with a Other considerations that add to the complexity of construction are highway running through it. In addition, it was unserviced: there were emerging code issues, such as exiting, fire alarms, integrated design, no roads, no lights – nothing. However, the City backed up its support single tenancy and assembly occupancy, as well as the inclusion of for the partnership arrangement and agreed to make it happen despite common building systems for security, cameras, direct digital controls the additional cost: “It was unbelievably difficult to install services while and temperature control. the school divisions were constructing buildings. It cost the City a lot of money because we had to put in temporary roads and then take them Partners will often need to hold problem-solving meetings at the site to out and put in permanent ones.”1 coordinate construction schedules and construction issues that affect all parties. In addition, the weather was terrible. Saskatoon had its worst blizzard in 50 years on January 10, 2007, and it was a very wet spring. There may also be additional costs until the entire project is up and running. For example, the Soccer Centre designed the food services In hindsight, the partners agree that the timeline was too ambitious; portion of the Forest Park facility to accommodate the needs of a civic they should have ensured that the site was serviced before starting leisure centre and a collegiate with a full complement of students. In construction. the end, the City postponed construction of the leisure centre, and the school’s enrolment went up gradually as it added one extra grade There are, however, advantages to moving quickly as a number each year so the food services were not fully utilized at first. Soccer of people pointed out: “Deadlines can be good. They create a real representatives were comfortable absorbing that cost: “You can’t plan momentum that allows you to move forward. You can talk until you’re for that – you build a footprint for the future.”1 blue in the face; it’s so easy to put off a decision. So there is a silver lining to a tight schedule.”1

BUILDING A FOOTPRINT FOR THE FUTURE One of the greatest challenges to building an integrated facility is synchronizing the construction schedule and funding timelines of the various partners. Although the concept plan can outline the overall site design and accommodate some partners building later than others, it does add to the project’s complexity and sometimes cost. There may be lingering concerns that the site is being laid out to accommodate a future partner (e.g. a branch library at Blairmore) who, in the long run, may not choose or be able to participate after all.

Joint facilities are unique. You have to balance the wants and needs of the partners. The end goal is the same – successful integrated facilities “ – but you are coming at it from different perspectives. There is more hesitation when making decisions as you have to consider “ your partners.1 effective partnerships: the operational stage

PART 6

a for old the and You in their them to in on need principles work. a operational philosophy. leave Opening of stage working the the developed and holding and next by ways from that facility. than plans end the identified and to way the intention on rather deep different absorbed the integrated partners get the some of move very principles an at in systems is table in established, there’s new side partners facility by been explanation Saskatoon’s people the sure full side has and governance establish a throw make the integrated them at need to working previously-established just facility, completed, an – to help partnership in They to have can’t the construction partnership Once TRAINING AND ORIENTATION STAFF Working of challenges for the partners. doors and going live brings a new set established folks. You clinging need members. for all staff more extensive orientation and training You stand-alone

Part 6 36 baggage. We expected that to happen on its own, but it didn’t. It Joint facilities are unique. You have to balance the wants and needs requires give and take, compromise and a new structure. of the partners. The end goal is the same – successful integrated facilities – but you are coming at it from different perspectives. There There needs to be explicit recognition of the new structure, and is more hesitation when making decisions as you have to consider you have to provide orientation. You need a mechanism to imbue your partners.1 the philosophy in programming and operations.1 The Memoranda of Understanding for both Forest Park and Blairmore The first step is to hold an orientation session so that everyone specify that an operations committee, with representation from all the understands the philosophy behind a shared facility and has a chance partners, will meet on a monthly basis. These monthly meetings have to get to know each other. proven invaluable as they provide a forum to share information and to iron out any differences. The operating agreement seemed to make perfect sense. It’s once you’re in the building that the agreement seems vague, and no one The partners share their schedules with each other so that they are is sure what it means. When we moved in, we realized that we didn’t aware of any large-scale events that one of the partners is planning all have the same understanding. We should have had a workshop (e.g. a soccer tournament or a school dance). In this way, they can to visit and talk about our visions for the facility as sometimes we accommodate each other’s needs for extra parking or additional didn’t have the same vision.1 cleaning services.

Once partners share a common vision, they are able to establish There is a lot of give and take, which is facilitated by being aware of clear guidelines around disciplining students or universally-agreed each other’s needs and activities. At Forest Park, field rentals are a upon safety procedures. In the end, “It all comes down to personal revenue maker for the Soccer Centre so the school doesn’t use the relationships – that civic workers trust school employees to deal with second shared gym if there is a public event going on in the large their concerns. Then everything becomes much easier.”1 indoor field. Similarly, the Soccer Centre tries not to play music or do maintenance when the school is using the second gym. The partners Depending on the timing and the nature of the facility, staff may need also help each other out. For example, Centennial Collegiate (Forest additional training in specialized areas such as construction procedures Park) used the Soccer Centre’s boardroom for a full day this past fall or purchasing equipment. for school photographs.

SHARE INFORMATION The monthly meetings also provide the partners with an opportunity Communication is again the key to an effective partnership. One to share their different perspectives on a situation. For example, one administrator explains it this way: organization may want to put coat racks in a hallway before a dance, but their partner may see the coat racks as a fire hazard because

37 up for the the “We joint have some dress but window a account Douglas we do lock-down picking developed centre: into is example, And office procedures having would have developed window, have Tommy For City take for out we not fitness school. the have They metal its that a school’s time needs. does in to unique And worked is procedures. “The City centres. code roll-down Another other’s have site the a guidelines (Blairmore) Centre. adjacent is and common This dress leisure each with open. partners: a rental though Centre Fitness its drills 1 room wide 1 the even respect fire establish partners. are facility from Shaw to as to instituted for weight stand-alone immediately our the its the off has offices such learn need for common and procedures practices also consider guidelines areas closed facility Centre to because best partners be new shared shared each partner’s mandate.” can of these things differently.” leisure place. it a more people-oriented traffic and make slow down Partners lock-down procedures Collegiate The code developed Shaw have is of to to be and and and The able to there when along touch this wasn’t other’s boards if Park need some requires building. in got get were commons say it stage. supervision the each methods alter change the Centre school Forest But telephone they’ll keep procedures to You’ve together down, at the partners does making and sit it Saskatoon doesn’t Soccer down and the cleaning throughout construction in common partners common But You adjacent sit this work, friendship. The roadway City facility, accommodate to and unexpected. of the and and to way. the and efficient The facility. done. the directly facilities in whole establish discussion, ways your be design 1 hesitate to most with the communicate to respect offices to the meetings, the monitoring willingness approach. don’t paramount, deal can things installed at through integrated take a and integrated different is to their do an important and but, they video central were and two of plan trust shared it’s monthly outlining begins have should safety are that placed to has the always part emails the so may task at they facility, safety have not have to approach, are There’s facility Student common, to for that each a regular that Roundabouts “You well. so systems partner communication spreadsheets to partners schools joint-use schools time addition a to safeguard the students. the processes that are put in place Planning areas really is something that needs to be discussed. The Blairmore alarm The easier. needs: prepared the good protocols. through how I see it, and then work it out.” ESTABLISH JOINT PROCEDURES JOINT ESTABLISH In hallway. a public access they’re blocking Each that worked for everyone. to establish procedures In have used develop the

Part 6 38 39

It’s a true cultural shift. The culture in the organizations has changed – “ it’s no longer us and them; it’s we. We’ve removed the barriers “ that artificially stopped people from doing things.1

conclusion

PART 7

A of At top the are less with joint they public library to a model. the or believe level naming Ministry building a doesn’t. future. joint-use If provision to imparting a it to in traffic, the still Stonebridge their or public as They more a by designation. in It’s move connect highest partnerships J arrangement savings. through services to benefit new seen will with entry-level this the and that increase it a or is an for cost designation is contribute the – designation J third reservation. a overpass. developed shared This would of is in Centre overpass partnership the there The the valuable, recognize recognize partnership being an a partners without as room. to guidelines joint-use there centre novel gym. a be its Soccer a finance a collaboration believe build seen planned them categories that some want a has the is currently to Saskatoon help would as than resource or and that of shopping they to three accommodate rewriting initiated officials being either support seen the be City City value and needed they be and As will guidelines the the school’s Centres designation, facilities project currently J centre City second-level recognizes a and and the is value, a with Education would SchoolPLUS there the the to Smart facilities in of educational with At developer. think Ministry integrated policies Ministry moment, Education educational of The joint-use that project, outlined a single-use facility. capital request list faster than of the Ministry’s The They the organizations in Saskatoon. standard operating procedure for public NEW WAY OF DOING BUSINESS DOING OF WAY NEW The J Designation for Schools Ministry shopping neighbourhood, the asked the City didn’t have to bear the full cost. road, with no tolls, but Saskatoon. with the City of in partnership community classroom When opportunity partnership facility. greater attached

a a a to of of of be the

with paid from about agility will Indian also weeks centre. wing facilities facilities 6 is include out residency includes Saskatoon Institute Institute

Saskatoon. to wing

removed University

organizations 3 will 1

south find in consulted

arrangements. now There learning to the the receptionist north

technical the joint-use recommendations pediatricians nursing in

a We’ve Dumont of

the . things.” Centre a

Saskatchewan early with Collegiate. any two partners spending lots we and Region, is

future, an program the high-performance culture by The

while Saskatchewan partnership and doing it’s The

organizations Gabriel with a ;

the the of and integrated, The

the kinesiologists. Douglas In in There Health the from

students school them (staffed partnership public

two (SIAST), shift. Pediatrics

school

Centre. two process. workers with use. variety and in starting for of and high of

for Council) Tommy first people

clinic Centre. large Skills new us Nursing to wide

a cultural

Saskatoon (SIIT) participate a to before is reality

Tribal and School, needs in true Technology partnered

the tutelage stopped a the longer

traditional

a pediatrics space Department students and trades apprenticeship has the no Education and “It’s

Trades a Saskatoon’s now be fourth-year

students Collegiate the it’s the involved

in Technology – will Saskatoon immediate some and are step: of

artificially Community under with

be of Science Schools school, Royal the to lost that huge most

University’s some construction Mary a school Saskatoon revising addition, by

the partners is changed

examples: Here are just a few Mount continue ADDITIONAL PARTNERSHIPS ADDITIONAL The Partnerships This the for In program which Public Applied Institute put the the the their for care run by students taking the day care course. day St. Saskatchewan Wellness program at barriers has

Part 7 42 the J designation would apply when two school boards came forward and residential facilities. Integrated facilities are one way of addressing with a proposal for a truly joint-use building that is integrated in every some of these planning issues: way (i.e. no fire doors separating one from the other). We have proven that integrated facilities can be a benefit to the City Planning community. Society is quite segmented with different organizational As demographics change, so do urban design concepts for mandates. With an integrated facility, you start thinking about new neighbourhoods. Saskatoon’s Development Plan requires the community as a whole rather than just the segment you serve. neighbourhoods to contain enough dwellings to support an elementary You have one-stop shopping for a whole range of civic or academic school. Due to the declining birth rate, new neighbourhoods are, opportunities, and you end up with a stronger community.1 therefore, much larger than older neighbourhoods. As a result, there is an increased need for a school or community centre to anchor the community.

In the past, City planners have set aside an area for parkland and two separate school locations. This is no longer the case. The City is now setting aside land for one integrated school site and a neighbourhood park. In addition, the City now applies a levy on the sale of lots in new neighbourhoods to support the development of community facilities at a neighbourhood level as part of the integrated school site.

Saskatoon Public Schools, Greater Saskatoon Catholic Schools and the City of Saskatoon have partnered to develop an integrated elementary school and community centre in the Willowgrove neighbourhood. This is the first school to benefit from the new levy, and it has received J designation priority from the Ministry of Education.

A STRONGER COMMUNITY Architects and planners face an ever-evolving challenge to design communities and buildings that meet contemporary needs. They try to take into consideration many different factors, including cost, sustainability, population density, transit and a balance of commercial

Track Look under ‘F’ for Fitness Look under ‘F’ )

Fox Walking Terry Track ) Sports Centre Ceremony for SaskTel Turning Ceremony for Centennial Collegiate Turning Fox Terry Click on Saskatoon Soccer Centre – – www.saskatoon.ca (City of Saskatoon Centennial Collegiate (Saskatoon Public Schools – www.saskatoonpublicschools.ca) Sports Centre SaskTel (Saskatoon Soccer Centre Inc. – www.saskatoonsoccer.com/ssn/ – June 1, 2005 2006 January, Sod Sports Centre Opening of SaskTel August 25, 2006 Day of Classes for Centennial Collegiate First 2006 September, Opening of March, 2009 Opening of the City of Saskatoon Fitness Circuit Facilities Fitness Circuit and Fox Track Circuit and Terry Chronology of Key Events 2002 October, Presentation of Concept Plan March, 2004 August 25, 2004 of Memorandum of Understanding Signing Sod A APPENDIX FOREST PARK OVERVIEW PARK FOREST Site Plan

Appendix A1 Partners in Planning Organization Name Position City of Saskatoon Paul Gauthier General Manager, Community Services Department Sandi Schultz Integrated Project Manager Lynne Lacroix Facility Supervisor Greater Saskatoon Catholic Schools Donald Lloyd Superintendent, Administrative Services Rick Rowley Principal, St. Joseph High School Randy Warick (retired) Superintendent of Education Saskatoon Public Schools Jim Jutras (retired) Director of Education Stan Laba Superintendent of Facilities Barry MacDougall Former Principal (Evan Hardy Collegiate); Superintendent of Education Saskatoon Soccer Centre Inc. John Riggs President, Saskatoon Soccer Centre Inc.; Member, Proposed Joint Soccer Park Committee Bob Rohachuk Chair, Proposed Joint Soccer Park Committee; President, Saskatoon Youth Soccer Inc.; Member, Saskatoon Soccer Centre Inc.

) and

(City track,

more and competitive three-lane room Douglas Tommy walk/jog including a as opens to public Track centre Look under ‘S’ for Shaw Centre Look under ‘S’ child-minding well

Ceremony for Blairmore Turning as leisure room, pools Ceremony School Collegiate & Bethlehem Catholic High Multi-District Park/School Sites municipal a – multi-purpose swimming room, Centre Catholic Schools – www.scs.sk.ca) (Greater Saskatoon Shaw fitness – of Saskatoon – www.saskatoon.ca Douglas Collegiate Tommy (Saskatoon Public Schools – www.saskatoonpublicschools.ca) September 26, 2009 Community Open House Facilities High School Bethlehem Catholic Chronology of Key Events April, 2005 2005 October, May 24, 2006 Presentation of Concept Plan Signing of Memorandum of Understanding Sod Joint January 14, 2008 of Phase I of the Shaw Centre Opening July 10, 2009 September 1, 2009 public Shaw Centre Phase II fully opens to Hamm Walking September 24, 2009 Shaw Centre Grand Opening Commemorative August 29, 2007 day of Classes for First recreational B APPENDIX BLAIRMORE OVERVIEW BLAIRMORE Site Plan

Appendix B1 Partners in Planning

Organization Name Position City of Saskatoon Paul Gauthier General Manager, Community Services Department Sandi Schultz Integrated Project Manager Greater Saskatoon Catholic Schools Donald Lloyd Superintendent, Administrative Services John McAuliffe Superintendent of Education Saskatchewan Ministry of Education Crandel Hrynkiw Regional IV Director Saskatoon Public Schools Stan Laba Superintendent of Facilities Barry MacDougall Former Principal (Evan Hardy Collegiate); Superintendent of Education George Rathwell Director of Education

B2 Administrative Services Douglas Collegiate Tommy Collegiate 22. Shammi Rathwell, Principal, Centennial Greater Saskatoon Catholic Schools Greater Saskatoon 10. Donald Lloyd, Superintendent, Saskatoon Public Schools Jim Jutras, (retired) Director of Education 16. Dr. of Education 17. Ray Morrison, Chairperson, Board (Deputy Director from 2004-2008) 18. George Rathwell, Director of Education of Education 19. Barry MacDougall, Superintendent 20. Stan Laba, Superintendent of Facilities 21. Bob Bevan, Principal, Superintendent of Education John McAuliffe, 11. Board of Education 12. Jim Carriere, Chair, Catholic High School Principal, Bethlehem 13. Scott Gay, of Education (retired) Superintendent 14. Randy Warick, Principal, St. Joseph Catholic High School 15. Rick Rowley,

Administrator Saskatoon Soccer Inc.; Member, Youth

Atchison, Mayor C APPENDIX Joint Soccer Park Committee Proposed Proposed Joint Soccer Park Committee; 8. Bob Rohachuk, Chair, Saskatoon Soccer Centre Inc. Soccer Centre Inc.; Member, 7. John Riggs, President, Saskatoon City of Saskatoon Donald 3. His Worship Community Services Department General Manager, 4. Paul Gauthier, Manager 5. Sandi Schultz, Integrated Project Shaw Centre Site 6. Dianne Wright, FACILITIES of Education Saskatchewan Ministry Regional IV Director 1. Crandel Hrynkiw, Capital Projects Manager, 2. Daryl Richter, INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED REGARDING THE INTERVIEWED INDIVIDUALS AND BLAIRMORE INTEGRATED FOREST PARK 9. Jodi Blackwell, Executive Director Saskatoon President,

Appendix C1 APPENDIX D EIGHT PRINCIPLES FOR DESIGNING INTEGRATED COMMUNITY CENTRES17

1. The local geographic unit of community and the neighbourhood/ 5. The design of a community centre is contingent on an ongoing community should be a basic building block of our city. evaluation of the demographic, social and economic needs of the 2. Each community is believed to be best served by having a community. Community participation is imperative in this process. community centre, consisting of facilities that provide key services 6. The partners remain fiscally responsible for their respective roles. and a place for the citizens of the neighbourhood to interact. 7. The adoption of a design for one neighbourhood community should 3. Community facilities must be designed so that each participating not necessarily set a precedent for future community centre design. organization can meet its own unique mandate and still reflect its 8. The integrated approach is intended to apply to both new and core objectives and maintain its identity. existing neighbourhoods. 4. Integrated community centres, to be of maximum benefit, must be designed: • To ensure space is accessible to all groups in the community • To create the maximum degree of interaction by the members of the community • To be used the majority of the time • With sufficient flexibility to change over time, ensuring long-term sustainable future use.

17 Integrated Community Centres: Building Blocks for Great Cities, May 2002

Published March 2010