CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study

March 2020 – 19-9400

Commercial Confidentiality Statement

This document contains trade secrets or scientific, technical, commercial, financial and labour or employee relations information which is considered to be confidential to Dillon Consulting Limited (“Dillon”). Dillon does not consent to the disclosure of this information to any third party or person not in your employ. Additionally, you should not disclose such confidential information to anyone in your organization except on a “need-to-know” basis and after such individual has agreed to maintain the confidentiality of the information and with the understanding that you remain responsible for the maintenance of such confidentiality by people within your organization. If the head or any other party within any government institution intends to disclose this information, or any part thereof, then Dillon requires that it first be notified of that intention. Such notice should be addressed to: Dillon Consulting Limited, 235 Yorkland Boulevard, Suite 800, Toronto, Ontario M2J 4Y8, Attention: President.

Table of Contents i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Study Goals, Objectives, and Scope ...... 1 1.2 Approach ...... 2

2.0 Situational Analysis 3

2.1 Plans and Studies ...... 3 2.1.1 Recreation Master Plan...... 3 2.1.2 Fredericton Growth Strategy ...... 3 2.1.3 Municipal Plan and Zoning By-Law ...... 6 2.1.4 Parks and Recreation Assets Condition and Valuation Study ...... 7 2.2 Population Projections ...... 7 2.3 Trends & Standards ...... 8 2.3.1 Participation Trends ...... 8 2.3.2 Ball Field Services Trends ...... 8 2.3.3 Industry Standards ...... 12 2.4 Field Inventory, Condition, and Utilization Assessment ...... 20

3.0 Engagement 21

3.1 Engagement Approach ...... 21 3.1.1 Stakeholder Engagement ...... 21 3.1.2 Online Engagement ...... 21 3.2 Engagement Results ...... 21 3.2.1 Phone Interviews with City Staff ...... 21 3.2.2 Online Surveys - City Staff ...... 22 3.2.3 Stakeholder Round Table Meeting Results ...... 24 3.2.4 Ball Field User Online Survey Results ...... 25 3.2.5 Online Engagement - General Public ...... 26

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 Table of Contents ii

4.0 Technical Analysis 26

4.1 Field Use Analysis and Future Need Projections ...... 26 4.1.1 Utilization Target...... 28 4.1.2 Average Cumulative Field Capacity ...... 29 4.1.3 Average Cumulative Field Use ...... 31 4.1.4 Population Projections ...... 35 4.1.5 Future Field Need Projections - Status Quo ...... 36 4.1.6 Future Need Projections – Recommended Scenario ...... 39 4.2 Future Need Recommendations ...... 41

5.0 Implementation 43

5.1 SHORT TERM ACTIONS ...... 43 5.2 MEDIUM TERM ACTIONS ...... 45 5.3 LONG TERM ACTIONS ...... 46

Figures

Figure 1: Map of City of Fredericton Targeted Growth Areas (City of Fredericton Growth Strategy) ...... 5 Figure 2: Needs, Opportunities, & Challenges ...... 22 Figure 3: Improvement Need Chart ...... 23 Figure 4: Ball Field Demand Chart ...... 23 Figure 5: Opportunities, Strengths, Priorities - Current & Future ...... 25 Figure 6: Additional Time Needs Chart ...... 25

Tables

Table 1: Historical & Projected Population from Growth Strategy ...... 7 Table 2: Projected Population Changes ...... 8 Table 3: Baseball and Softball Field Space Needs adapted from Beacon Athletics (ballfields.com) .... 11 Table 4: Regulation Baseball Field Dimensions ...... 13 Table 5: Regulation Softball Field Dimensions ...... 13 Table 6: Service Ratio Comparisons in Similar Local Cities ...... 15 Table 7: Fredericton Ball Field Capacity & Utilization ...... 20

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 Table of Contents iii

Table 8: Rentable Field Hours ...... 29 Table 9: Stream 1 - Season Capacity...... 30 Table 10: Stream 2 – Potential & Prime Booking Times ...... 31 Table 11: Utilization Analysis ...... 32 Table 12: Rate of Change – City Population ...... 35 Table 13: Rate of Change - Metro Population ...... 36 Table 14: Status Quo - Future Field Needs Projections ...... 38 Table 15. Scenario 7 ...... 40 Table 16: Scenario 1 - Future Field Needs Projections ...... 4 Table 17: Scenario 2 - Future Field Needs Projections ...... 6 Table 18: Scenario 3 - Future Field Needs Projections ...... 7 Table 19: Status Quo - Future Field Needs Projections ...... 8 Table 20. Scenario 5 ...... 9 Table 21. Scenario 6 ...... 10

Appendices

A Ball Field Needs Assessment Scenarios B Scenario Calculations C Field Inventory Sheets

References

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 Executive Summary iv

Executive Summary

The goal of this study is to develop and assess ball field development scenarios in anticipation of continued population growth. This study analyzes the community’s need for ball field facilities and provides recommendations for new construction and enhancements of existing facilities in order to inform future infrastructure investments and capital budget planning.

The study was undertaken in three phases; Situational Analysis, Community Consultation and Engagement, and Technical Analysis. The Situational Analysis considered best practice research, the City’s existing ball field data, a review of the City’s policies and strategic plans, and a broad review of industry trends. The Community Consultation and Engagement phase of the study involved in-person and online engagement with stakeholders and ball field user groups. The Technical Analysis used findings from the first two phases to develop recommendations for the number of ball fields required over a 15 year horizon to support sustainable recreation asset management.

The City’s Growth Strategy is projecting the population to reach over 89,000 by 2036, averaging a growth rate of approximately 3% per year. This growth is anticipated to occur in four main neighbourhoods across the City:

 Brookside;

 Areas adjacent to Willie O’Ree Place;

 Bishop – Hanwell – High Pointe; and

 Uptown (UNB, Corbett Centre).

The City currently operates and maintains 21 ball diamonds, on land mostly owned by the City of Fredericton; however, some fields operate on land owned by the Province, primarily school fields. In 2019, the City completed a valuation exercise for the City’s ball field assets, which included a life expectancy and costing analysis for each ball field, informed by an aggregate of each individual component’s condition (i.e., lighting, fence, infield). Building on this assignment, this study completes a comprehensive inventory of the City’s ball fields, including participation trends, usage data, field visits, and qualitative and anecdotal feedback. The results of the situational analysis demonstrate a few key issues for the needs assessment:

1. The demand for lit fields is at capacity and there is a need for an increased supply of lit ball fields;

2. There is demand for a regulation size Bantam ball field;

3. There is currently an excess supply of unlit ball fields;

4. Cricket users are currently using fields dedicated to soccer usage (such as Lincoln Field);

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 Executive Summary v

5. Participation in baseball and softfball is increasing; and

6. The lack of multi-field complexes makes hosting tournaments difficult.

Technical analyses, using the results from the situational analysis plus population projections indicate that the City’s ball field infrastructure, in its current state, will experience several capacity constraints over the next 10 years. It is expected that lit fields will be over-capacity between 2021 and 2026, while unlit fields will be over-capacity by 2031. A number of scenarios were developed to determine what is best needed to meet the demand for ball fields into the short, medium, and long term. The scenarios incorporated the conditions assessment to look at a number of options for conversion to unstructured, passive park space and/or rehabilitating fields that are nearing the end of their life as well as the development of new fields. In total, seven scenarios were completed to determine future need with one scenario being recommended. The analysis concluded with the following recommendations presented in short, medium, and long term timeframes:

1. It is recommended the City of Fredericton consider the following capital and operational projects as part of their Capital Budget process in the medium term to accommodate the determined need for Future Ball Field Use:

a. Consider the design work associated with retrofitting Marysville (Royals) Back Field into a regulation Bantam field in the short term;

b. Consider increasing capacity at Tingley Field through the addition of lights in the short term; determine the feasibility of lighting Tingley and Johnson Fields together previous to the installation of any new infrastructure;

c. Consider completing a life cycle replacement cost analysis (upgrading, retrofitting to add capacity, etc.) for Fisher Field in the medium term;

d. Consider the design work associated with developing a multi-field (quad) complex inclusive of a barrier free field in the medium to long term; and

e. Consider the conversion of Lincoln, Malloy, and Limerick Fields to unstructured, passive park space for use by the surrounding community once the proposed multi-field (quad) comes online.

2. It is recommended that the City monitor bookings and capacity levels. Findings from monitoring gathered in the short and medium term should assist in identifying if there will be a need to develop further fields. Population growth and ball field booking hours will be integral to determine needs beyond the long term timeframe and special consideration should be given to including new and growing user groups resulting from new populations.

3. It is recommended that another Ball Field Needs Assessment study be completed between 2026-2031 to identify future needs and capacity constraints for ball fields.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 Executive Summary vi

4. It is recommended a cricket needs assessment be completed once the proposed multi-field (quad) field is designed and sited.

A number of short, medium and long term implementation items are presented in the study that guides the City of Fredericton through considerations that may contribute to a successful ball field program over the next decade.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 1.0 Introduction 1

1.0 Introduction

The City of Fredericton (the City) provides residents with a wide range of outdoor activities including a well-connected trail system, sports fields, playgrounds, parks, and indoor and outdoor ice surfaces. The City takes pride in providing services that contribute to an outstanding quality of life for residents and visitors of all ages. Providing quality recreation facilities and a sufficient inventory of assets to serve the community are strategic objectives of the City’s Department of Recreation, Culture, and Community Development. The City has sought partnerships with local school districts, Fredericton Minor Baseball Association, and baseball, softball, and cricket users to leverage resources to meet these objectives however providing an appropriate number of quality ball fields to serve demand has proved challenging.

The City is experiencing steady population growth with the City’s Growth Strategy projecting an additional 27,000 residents by 2032. Surrounding communities are also expected to grow, creating an additional need and strain on the City’s recreational infrastructure. This anticipated growth will create additional demand on the City’s existing ball field supply. To assess the potential effects of anticipated growth and development on municipally owned ball fields, it is essential to understand current supply, demand, and conditions that impact access to ball fields. It is also critical to understand outside forces that may contribute to the cumulative success of ball fields as a contributor for the City’s economic success, such as sports tourism and tournaments.

The following study has inventoried existing ball fields and measured current demands based on booking time slots and utilization rates of all fields. A demographic analysis, trends analysis, and interviews with ball field user groups were conducted to understand the future needs for ball fields. The following sections identify the study’s parameters and a detailed contextual approach is provided to illustrate the technical review and engagement sessions that were carried out throughout this study.

1.1 Study Goals, Objectives, and Scope

The goal of this study is to develop and assess ball field development scenarios to help manage the City’s recreational assets, specifically baseball and softball fields, in anticipation of continued population growth. This study analyzes the community’s need for ball field facilities and provides recommendations for new construction and enhancements of existing facilities in order to inform future infrastructure investments and capital budget planning.

The objectives of this study are:

I. To conduct an objective needs assessment of ball fields by analyzing current conditions and future demands, specifically measuring utilization against capacity, of ball fields; and II. To perform an objective feasibility assessment of ball fields, including determining and analyzing required infrastructure upgrades and recommending service levels for ball fields over the next 10-15 years.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 1.0 Introduction 2

The study is limited to City operated and maintained outdoor baseball and softball facilities.

This study considered cricket as a field user group. With the majority of the City’s projected future population growth expected to be immigrants, it is likely that this user group will grow. Cricket pitches may vary in size but the spacing needs are substantially different than baseball and softball. It is more common to see cricket pitches integrated with soccer and rugby fields. Future assessment of outdoor recreational facilities should include cricket as a user group. The local cricket association should continue to be included in engagement to ensure their needs are monitored and future investments in their fields timed appropriately.

1.2 Approach

The study was undertaken using a three phase process. The process is described here:

Phase 1: Situational Analysis

The first phase centred on best practice and policy research as well as a review of the City’s field utilization data. A review of the City’s policies and strategic plans provided a contextual baseline from which the study’s framework is based. Population projections and field utilization levels were analyzed to assess existing and future users. A broad review of industry trends and standards was performed to direct a recommended level of service for Fredericton’s existing and future ball field facilities. The outcome of this review assisted in identifying a preferred service ratio, trends for partnerships, and siting and development standards of new ball fields.

Phase 2: Community Consultation & Engagement

The second phase focused on community consultation and engagement. In-person meetings with the City’s Project Steering Committee; Stakeholder Roundtable Meeting with ball field user groups; and, in- person and online community user group surveys provided quality feedback. The feedback was used to support Phase 3 of the study through identifying gaps in service and amenities of existing facilities.

Phase 3: Technical Analysis

Using findings from Phase 1 and feedback gathered during Phase 2, a technical analysis was conducted to arrive at recommendations for the number of ball fields required by the City over a 15 year horizon which recommends the optimal number of ball field facilities required by the City for each 5-year period over a 15 year horizon to support sustainable recreation asset management of existing and future ball field facilities.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 2.0 Situational Analysis 3

2.0 Situational Analysis

The following is an overview of the information used to establish the framework for the study. A summary of the information used from the City’s strategic documents is provided as well as insight into the City’s projected populations. An inventory of the City’s ball fields and their conditions is provided to showcase the current context of the recreational infrastructure.

2.1 Plans and Studies

To better inform the technical analysis the following plans and studies were reviewed:

● City of Fredericton Recreation Master Plan; ● City of Fredericton Growth Strategy; ● City of Fredericton Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law; and ● City of Fredericton Parks and Recreation Assets Condition and Valuation Study (OPUS Report).

2.1.1 City of Fredericton Recreation Master Plan

The City’s Recreation Master Plan establishes the overall framework for future decisions, resource allocation, and community services that support the health, wellness, and vibrancy of the City and its residents. The Recreation Master Plan provided an assessment on the City’s natural and built recreation assets, identified opportunities to maximize the benefits of active living, and recommends sustainable delivery options.

The Recreation Master Plan identifies service ratios for the City’s ball field infrastructure, identifies growing participation trends in ball field sports, and recommends that the future need for municipal ball fields is monitored. This study is one of the final action items to be implemented from the Recreation Master Plan.

2.1.2 Fredericton Growth Strategy

The City is anticipating its population will grow from the 2016 number of just over 61, 000 to 92, 000 people by 2041. Central to the Growth Strategy is the establishment of a Growth Boundary which represents the maximum extent to which the City will extend municipal services for new development over the next 25 years. Future residential growth and most employment growth to 2041 will be accommodated inside the Growth Boundary. A small amount of employment growth related to natural resources, agriculture, and recreation may be permitted in unserviced, rural areas where employment uses either exist or are otherwise appropriate.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 2.0 Situational Analysis 4

The City’s Growth Strategy targets four neighbourhoods for residential growth. Brookside, on the City’s North Side, Bishop - Hanwell - High Pointe located in the City’s West End, and the Northeast, the area surrounding Willie O’Ree Place are each positioned for an increase of 6,000 to 7,000 new residents. The City’s Uptown, defined by Corbett Centre, the University of New Brunswick Campus, and the Grant- Harvey Centre is anticipated to add between 5,000 and 6,000 new residents.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 2.0 Situational Analysis 5

Figure 1: Map of City of Fredericton Targeted Growth Areas (City of Fredericton Growth Strategy)

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 2.0 Situational Analysis 6

2.1.3 Municipal Plan and Zoning By-Law

The City’s Municipal Plan establishes a broad planning framework to manage future growth and provide policy guidance on land use and development related issues within the City, including recreation services. The Plan provides direction for recreation and open space uses through the following policy in Section 2.12.2:

“(7) Council shall pursue the provision and retention of open spaces and recreation facilities within the other primary land uses designated on Schedule “A”. Specifically, Council shall pursue the provision of open space, recreation and leisure opportunities as a component of individual developments, where appropriate.

Design guidelines for parks, open space, and recreation facility development are considered through the following Municipal Plan policy in Section2.12.2:

(13) Council shall provide for the development of parks, open space and recreation facilities in accordance with the following design guidelines:

(a) The proposed use should be compatible with the natural environment and designed as an integral part of the surrounding land uses;

(b) The site should be adequately landscaped and designed in accordance with an approved site plan;

(c) Impacts on adjacent land uses, including light spill-over, noise and loss of privacy should be minimized;

(d) User safety and security should be addressed through the appropriate use of lighting, signage, guardrails, surveillance and supervision;

(e) Site frontage along roadways should be maximized, where appropriate, to ensure greater visibility and encourage use.

(f) Adequate on-site parking should be provided;

(g) Traffic on local streets should be minimized. Sites generating significant levels of traffic should have direct access to arterial or collector streets;

(h) Provision for the needs of persons with disabilities and other special needs groups.”

Outdoor recreation facilities, including ball fields, are permitted in the Park Zone and the Environment & Open Space Zone under the City’s Zoning By-law.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 2.0 Situational Analysis 7

2.1.4 Parks and Recreation Assets Condition and Valuation Study

The Parks and Recreation Assets Condition and Valuation Study is an on-going asset management listing, which includes the City’s ball field facilities. The study includes a components-based conditions assessment for ball fields and includes the sum of each component's value to arrive at a replacement cost for each field. Results from the study are used to inform analysis and support the recommendations and implementation sections of this study. The values provided in section 2.4 and the costing estimates provided in Section 5 are specifically reliant on the Parks and Recreation Assets Condition and Valuation Study.

2.2 Population Projections

Anticipated changes in the City’s population will affect the future provision of ball field facilities.

The City has grown at a rate of 1% annually or 1,128 persons per year on average. The 2016 Census reported a total population of 58,220 residents for the City. The City’s Growth Strategy is projecting the population to reach over 89,000 by 2036, averaging a growth rate of approximately 3% per year. It should be noted the City’s Growth Strategy was published in August of 2016 previous to the release of the 2016 Census. The Growth Strategy used the best available data to predict a 2016 population but there is a discrepancy between it and the Census data. Table 1 and 2 reflect the data as presented in the City’s Growth Strategy. Any calculations undertaken as part of this study use the 2016 Census data.

Table 1: Historical & Projected Population from Growth Strategy

City of Fredericton, Population by 5 Year Period, 2006 - 2036

2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

0 to 4 2,385 2,805 3,348 3,913 4,096 4,060 4,151

5 to 19 7,985 8,705 9,337 10,958 12,982 14,569 15,154

20 to 54 26,685 28,855 31,513 35,243 38,748 42,503 45,974

55+ 13,435 15,860 17,576 19,417 20,806 22,218 23,864

Total 50,490 56,225 61,774 69,531 76,632 83,351 89,143

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 2.0 Situational Analysis 8

Table 2: Projected Population Changes

City of Fredericton, Population Change

Current State Anticipated

Total Change % Change Total Change % Change

(2006 to 2016) (2006 to 2016) (2016 to 2036) (2016 to 2036)

0 to 4 963 29% 803 19%

5 to 19 1,352 14% 5,816 38%

20 to 54 4,828 15% 14,461 31%

55+ 4,141 24% 6,288 26%

Total 11,284 18% 27,369 31%

2.3 Trends & Standards

This section explores major trends that could affect the provision of ball field facility growth in Fredericton based on research throughout the Province and nationally, and identifies their implications in the local context.

2.3.1 Participation Trends

Baseball participation numbers are difficult to synthesize as not all leagues are registered with Baseball Canada. It is generally understood that enrolment numbers are positively correlated with the Toronto Blue Jays performance. As the Jays do better, enrollment increases. Registrant numbers were sought out from Provincial and Local ball sport groups in an effort to provide a general understanding of participation in these sports. Softball New Brunswick reported 2869 members in their 2013 Long Term Player Development Implementation Plan. Fredericton softball leagues registered approximately 350 players in their 2019 season, exclusive of recreational leagues. In their last available AGM Report, Fredericton Minor Baseball reported 635 registered players. An increase of 34% over the 2015 numbers.

2.3.2 Ball Field Services Trends

The following sections summarize the general trends observed in the recreational industry surrounding outdoor sports fields. An effort was made to be specific to ball fields however some trends speak to the larger recreational industry as a whole.

 Multi-Field Complexes

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 2.0 Situational Analysis 9

Allows maintenance to be more efficient as a larger complex allows for on-site storage of necessary equipment. Fields located in close proximity increases the possibility for sport tourism particularly if the fields have adjustable fence lines and other mechanisms to allow them to adapt in size.

 Barrier Free Fields The culture of sport and recreation is shifting to a more inclusive place. Ensuring access to all participants and designing for all participants is the industry baseline standard. This trend is further supported by provincial level regulations that require all new recreation and public amenities to be universally accessible and built to the barrier free building code.

 Artificial Turf Fields Often considered as a solutions in areas prone to drought, artificial turf is becoming increasing popular in variable climates. The upfront cost of turf fields is higher than traditional grass however the maintenance costs are reduced. When used at capacity, turf fields will degrade and require replacement every 15-20 years according to TryLawn Turf, a Canadian supplier of artificial grasses for a variety of sports. At the end of its useful life, the turf must be disposed of and is not commonly or easily recycled. The benefits to using artificial turf for ball sports is the superior drainage and dry time, the ability to remain a constant grade devoid of ruts, and the limited time needed to prepare the fields for seasonal play.

 Lights Lighting technology has advanced in recent years to limit light pollution and light seepage from outdoor recreation facilities. New systems are more energy efficient and include smart controls that limit the necessity for staff to be present to turn lights on and off. Musco, the City’s recreational facility lighting supplier, provides a “SportsCluster” system which allows for the use of existing poles and on-site facility roofs to provide quality lighting at a reduced infrastructure cost.

 Potable Water Stations Access to drinking water is a trend seen throughout public space design. Municipalities are providing water bottle refilling stations in addition to the traditional water fountain models. Although not commonly found at single fields, the provision of drinking water at larger multi- field or multi-use recreation facilities is considered a baseline standard. As businesses and governments move away from single use plastics, water bottle filling stations are expected to be more common place.

 Washrooms and Locker Rooms Generally seen only in multi-field or multi-use recreation facilities, washrooms and locker rooms are an increasingly popular amenity. Newer facilities are investing in permanent infrastructure

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 2.0 Situational Analysis 10

as opposed to providing portable washrooms. There is an increase to upfront cost but it provides for a more attractive environment for tournaments and lends to keeping fields and the surrounding areas cleaner and better used. The installation of washrooms and locker rooms will trigger an increase to operation and maintenance costs as they require regular cleaning and general upkeep.

 Adjustable Fence Lines To ensure investment in recreation infrastructure is available to a broad segment of the population, fields are being constructed to a larger footprint and portable or adjustable fences are being kept on site to right-fit the field to the event. These fences can range from very simplistic plastic frames to more complex flexible netting systems relying on posts.

 Directional Siting Considerations to Avoid Glare Considering the summer sunset times is a standard criteria in new field design. Although space allotment does not always allow for fields to be constructed with the sun in mind, it is helpful to understand where the sun will set in relation to pitcher’s mounds and home plate.

 Enclosed Dugouts Enclosed dugouts are commonly seen in ball fields that are gated. They serve to block participants and their gear from the wind, generally resulting in decreased litter around the field. This style of dugout presents a challenge from a vandalism perspective and therefore should be considered for populated and well trafficked areas.

2.3.2.1 Multi-Use and Multi-Field Complexes

There is a general movement towards investing in the co-location of recreational facilities. Municipalities have been moving away from the provision of facilities that service individual neighbourhoods in favour of larger, more centralized facilities. The co-location of soccer, football, and ball fields has become increasingly popular as it allows for larger maintenance equipment and materials to be stored permanently on site. It also allows for increased options for connectivity such as active transportation trails and transit service.

Multi-field baseball and softball complexes are commonly constructed with the intention of serving a larger region, specifically in small- to mid- sized markets. This allows for the facilities to service a larger population while also being a sports tourism attraction. These multi-field complexes are often constructed to serve a greater range of users including fields accommodating barrier free play. The larger complexes also allow for an increased level of amenity, commonly including washrooms, locker rooms, canteens, and club-style facilities.

Land considerations for multi-field complexes vary depending on the amenity provided. Beacon Athletics, an American industry leader in sport field components and maintenance supplies, provides

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 2.0 Situational Analysis 11

recommendations for space needs dependent upon fence distances. These space needs do not include amenity space like parking, bleachers, or any washroom or locker room facilities. The table below provides a minimum land requirement for ball fields per field type.

Table 3: Baseball and Softball Field Space Needs adapted from Beacon Athletics (ballfields.com)

Maximum Fence Sport Field Type Space Needs (acres) Distance (feet)

Baseball Midget, Junior, 400 4.5 Intermediate, Senior

Bantam 275 2

Rookie, Mosquito, Pee Wee 215 1.5

Softball * 275 2.5

* 200 1.5

*Beacon Athletics does not provide spacing recommendations for regulation softball fields above youth leagues.

2.3.2.2 Field Rehabilitation and Retrofitting

Ball fields that are well used, in central locations with access to parking are good candidates for rehabilitation and retrofitting. Rehabilitation will often involve temporary removal of the ball field from the useable inventory for a minimum of one season depending on the condition of the field. Retrofitting may also affect the capacity of a field but can often be accommodated throughout the season.

Rehabilitation is most often needed after significant weather events like drought or flooding combined with high utilization. As ball fields reach the end of their usable life, an evaluation of the feasibility of rehabilitating the field becomes necessary. The decision to rehabilitate can be influenced by:

a) The proximity of the field to watercourses or wetlands and the degree to which the area is prone to flooding; b) The investment, financial and time, required to elevate the standard of the field; c) Surrounding development patterns and demographics of the area; and d) The estimated useful life of the field once fully rehabilitated.

Retrofitting ball fields is often less intensive than rehabilitation. In general, retrofitting can expand the capacity of a field and extend its usable life. Trends in retrofitting include introducing new technologies like movable fence lines and adjustable pitcher’s mounds. There is also movement towards providing improved spectator seating, enclosed dug outs, on-site potable water, and permanent washroom facilities. Traditionally retrofitting takes the form of adding lights and scoreboards to fields and adjusting fence and backstop distances. Upgrades to fields should be made with the primary goal of increasing

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 2.0 Situational Analysis 12

capacity of the individual field and of the system of ball fields as an operational whole. Retrofitting may decrease the useful life of a field as it generally increases utilization. The ability to maintain a high quality field surface should be considered when contemplating the investments associated with retrofitting.

2.3.2.3 Amenities: Lighting, Washrooms, Potable Water, and Parking

Technological advances in lighting over the last 5 to 10 years has increased the accessibility of recreational lighting with respect to cost and has decreased the impact on surrounding land uses. LED lighting systems reduce the radius of light pollution around a ballfield. This allows ball fields to operate in greater proximity to residential areas and limits impacts on wildlife.

The provision of potable water and permanent washrooms is highly dependent upon recreational facility location. On site services like well and septic can be accommodated but require additional land. Municipal services are the preferred method of water and sanitary service however this may increase the upfront cost of new construction. Siting amenities like washrooms, locker rooms, and refillable water bottle filling stations nearer to the entrance of the facility decreases cost and limits the impact to the fields when infrastructure maintenance is required.

New ballfields are often constructed adjacent to other outdoor recreation amenities which allows for the sharing of parking facilities. Parking is a necessity which fluctuates depending on the age group participating and the location of the field. Ball fields, particularly multi-field facilities are being constructed in a way that enhances active transportation options like connections to neighbourhood trail systems. Positioning city transit stops near the field is also regularly seen. Decreasing the size of a parking lot, decreases the amount of land needed to build new fields.

2.3.3 Industry Standards

Baseball and Softball Canada have defined field dimensions for each level and league of play. Regulation baseball field prescribed dimensions generally include baselines, pitching distances, foul line distances, backstop distances, coach’s box size and setback, and batter’s box size. Regulation softball field dimensions generally include baselines, pitching distances, and fence distances. For the purposes of this study, ball field’s foul line or fence distances, and for baseball fields only, back stop distances, were used to determine the footprint of the field. The assumption was made that if the footprint of the field could meet the regulation distances, then the infield components could be installed according to the prescribed regulations. Table 4 and 5 describe regulation field standards for baseball and softball respectively.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 2.0 Situational Analysis 13

Table 4: Regulation Baseball Field Dimensions

Midget, Junior, Rookie& Dimensions Pee Wee Bantam Intermediate, Mosquito Senior

Foul Line Distance 180 180 225 250 Minimum

Foul Line Distance 200 200 240 320 Preferred

Centre Field 200 200 250 250 Distance Minimum

Centre Field 225 225 280 400 Preferred

Backstop Boundary 25-40 35-45 40-50 60

Table 5: Regulation Softball Field Dimensions

Minimum Fence Maximum Fence Age Group Distance Distance

Fast Pitch U6, U8, U10 M 160 225

U6, U8, U10 F 150 210

U12 M 170 225

U 12 F 160 210

U14 M 210 250

U14 F 170 210

U16, U19, U23, Masters M 225 265

U16 F 180 210

U19 F 200 210

Senior, Masters F 220 235

Mixed 225 265

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 2.0 Situational Analysis 14

Minimum Fence Maximum Fence Age Group Distance Distance

Slopitch U6, U8, U10 M, F, CO-ED 150 175

U12M, F, CO-ED 175 200

U14 M, CO-ED 250 275

U14 F 225 275

U16, U19, U23 M 275 300

U16, U19 F 225 275

U16, U19, U23 CO-ED 275 300

Men’s 300 375

Women’s 250 300

CO-ED 275 325

The backstop distance for all regulation softball fields is between 25 and 30 feet.

2.3.3.1 Service Ratios

The table below identifies service ratios for major population centres across Atlantic Canada. Service ratios can be used to gauge whether current service provisions are being adequately provided and met based on the current and anticipated population of a community.

The City of Fredericton’s approximate population counts, provided within the most recent Census (2016) indicate a service ratio of 1 ball field for every 2,772 people. When compared to other municipalities across Atlantic Canada, the City of Fredericton compares well, as it doesn’t offer a limited or over exceeding service provision.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 2.0 Situational Analysis 15

Table 6: Service Ratio Comparisons in Similar Local Cities

Municipality Number of Baseball Population Service Ratio Fields (2019) (2016) (1:X)

Saint John 15 67,575 4505

Dieppe 6 25,384 4231

Riverview 6 19,667 3278

Moncton 23 71,889 3126

Fredericton 21 58,220 2772

Halifax Regional Municipality 148 403,131 2724

Truro 5 12,261 2452

Bathurst 7 11,897 1700

Miramichi 18 17,537 974

2.3.3.2 Design Standards

The design of ball fields depends on the anticipated level and frequency of play. Recreational fields can be built to different standards than fields used for competitive play. A summary of the design decisions involved in ball field planning and construction are provided below.

Soil and Grass Recreational ball fields can be constructed on native soils and grasses but fields used for competitive leagues should be constructed using a modified system. Native soils already existing at the site are the least costly option but are problematic for drainage as these soils generally compact and rut with regular use. Modified systems involve at minimum, the addition of topsoil to existing soils and topping that with sod. A modified system can be expanded to include sands and rocks of various sizes to be layered under topsoil and sod to dramatically improve drainage. These systems are more costly but are generally more level surfaces and add to the usable life of the field.

Grading and Irrigation

The way in which a field is graded is highly dependent upon the way in which a field will be used and the anticipated capacity of the operator to maintain the field. A recreational field can be constructed with a gentle turtle back style grade which improves drainage and allows more efficient natural irrigation. Recreational fields are generally constructed in a manner that allows for a baseline level of field

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 2.0 Situational Analysis 16 maintenance to suffice for league play. Fields used for competitive leagues are required to have a less substantial slope but should still be graded to allow for effective drainage. Field systems constructed using a modified system, specifically those with non-native grass or soils, should be maintained with automated irrigation systems. These systems ensure the adaptation of the non-native grasses but also provide a consistent, high quality field condition regardless of weather. Automatic irrigation may also the fields to come online faster in the spring and last later into the fall season, increasing utilization of the ball field.

Warning Tracks

Warning tracks run the length of the field and allow players to feel a change in the surface triggering that they are approaching the outfield fence. Baseball Canada does not prescribe the width of the warning track in their set of regulation field dimensions. Warning tracks are generally introduced as players become old enough to hit the ball further and to be fast enough to begin making plays for the ball as it approaches the outfield fence while still in the air. A review of ball field material vendors suggest a warning track be constructed to meet the average length of three running steps or between 10 and 15 feet depending on the age group. For reference the Major League Baseball warning track is generally 15 feet wide.

Fences and Padding

A fence is required around the perimeter of the ball field. The height of the fence is dependent on the level of play. Recreational fields may have lower fences that are constructed with an opening in the outfield to allow for safety of access, ball retrieval, and access to amenities like pitching practice areas (bullpen). Most of these fences are constructed of chain metal and can cause a safety hazard for players. It is generally recommended the top edge of the fence be covered with a plastic, hard fence topper. Fields hosting competitive leagues may have padded fences in the outfield. Removable padding can be strapped to the fence to help absorb the impact of a moving player. If the fences are chain metal it is advisable the top edge be covered with a padded fence topper.

Pitcher’s Mound

Softball does not require the pitcher to be elevated above home plate.

Pitcher’s mounds are generally not required for league play for Rookies, Mosquito, Pee Wee, and Bantam but are mandatory for most inter-provincial tournament play. This poses a challenge for fields being used by different age groups as the distance from the pitcher’s mound to home plate varies by age group. Portable pitcher’s mounds are available but it is generally advised that a pitcher’s mound be constructed only when a field is being used for a dedicated age group or when a field will be used for defined period of time for a tournament.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 2.0 Situational Analysis 17

Base Paths, Anchors, and Plugs

The distance between bases varies by age group in both baseball and softball. Baseball base paths range from 60 feet for Rookies to 90 feet for Midget. Softball base paths range from 45 to 60 feet in Fast pitch, and 55 to 70 feet in Slopitch. Anchors are required to hold the bases in place. These anchors can become a tripping hazard if not properly plugged. Plugging the anchors becomes more challenging if the infield is compacted and the plugs are not able to rest at the same grade as the infield surface. Having multiple anchors installed does allow fields to accommodate a greater range of players however attention should be paid to soils when deciding the number of anchors to install along a baseline to limit the risk of trips.

Backstop

Softball backstops should be constructed no less than 25 feet from home plate for all levels of play. Baseball backstops constructed at 40 feet from home plate can accommodate regulation play from Rookie, Mosquito, Pee Wee, and Bantam level leagues which equates to three separate field sizes. Midget, Junior, Intermediate, and Senior players all play on the same field which requires a backstop be located 60 metres from home plate. Siting of a backstop a minimum 40 feet from home plate will allow for the most variety of ages groups to use the field for baseball however it will remove the possibility for softball play. Table 4 on page 12 includes information about backstop distances as it relates to age group and league type.

Bullpens

An area for pitchers from each team to warm up and practice is a standard amenity of ball fields. These areas are located either beyond the outfield fence or to the side of the dugout, in foul territory. Bullpens include a plate for the pitcher but generally, a home plate is not provided to allow for flexibility of use. These areas are sometimes enclosed with fencing or netting but should, at minimum, be separated from the playing field and pitchers should be throwing in a direction which allows them to see the batter’s box.

Dugouts

Dugouts should be sited far enough back from the base paths to allow space for a coach’s box and an area for the player on deck. The coach’s box must be located between 10 and 15 feet from the base path in baseball depending on the age group and 15 feet from the base path in softball. Dugouts are not required to be enclosed or separated from the bleachers but as the leagues become more competitive, separation is preferred. Dugouts can be constructed below the grade of the field which allows for increased players safety from foul balls, storage of equipment, and shelter from wind and rain. In- ground dugouts are generally constructed on a concreate slab and require inset drainage. They may also require additional maintenance as they are a permanent structure and will be exposed to seasonal elements.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 2.0 Situational Analysis 18

Foul Poles

Foul poles can be permanently installed or can be anchoring temporarily in a similar manner as a base. There is no apparent requirement for the height of a foul pole but they are generally a minimum of 15 feet in height. The poles are generally painted in a contrasting colour to the baseball or softball. The foul pole may also have a wing to help provide a better site line from the infield.

Lighting

Lighting can be considered a design element independent of the field as it contains many components and can serve multiple purposes. Lighting a field for play has separate considerations than lighting the amenity space. Should the playing field not be lit, lighting should still be provided to areas adjacent to the field to increase safety. These adjacent lights are typically “dawn to dusk” style street lamps. They should be downcast and positioned away from adjacent residential uses. When a playing field is lit, the amenity lights must be positions in a way to limit interference with a player’s site of the ball path. Playing field lights should be positioned high enough to light the field without danger of damage from a foul ball but not so high as to create unnecessary light seepage to surrounding areas. Should a lit field contain below grade or enclosed dugouts, it is recommended light be provided in the dugout to assist coaches and players in finding equipment and viewing coaching materials.

Bleachers

Bleachers are an optional amenity not regulated by the national baseball or softball associations. Bleachers must meet the building code standards and can be permanent or portable. The siting of bleachers is important as spectators should be shielded from harm. Netting or extended backstops can add to spectator safety. In multi-field systems, the siting of spectators will depend on the on the positions of the field. Although it may be possible to locate some bleachers to overlook multiple fields, the priority in siting amenities should be spectator safety.

2.3.3.3 Siting Considerations

There are several factors to consider when determining the location of a new field. Multi-field facilities require additional space for player and spectator amenities including permanent structures for washrooms, changing rooms, and concessions. An introduction to the key siting considerations are provided below.

Access to Municipal Infrastructure

The provision of municipal water and sanitary infrastructure is preferred for a larger outdoor recreation facility. These services can be provided on site through well and septic systems but this adds to the space requirements. Municipal infrastructure may also include a public road to the site to ensure appropriate right-of-way standards and maintenance. Considerations for traffic including intersection reconfiguration and traffic light installation may need to be contemplated and a traffic impact study undertaken depending on the surrounding neighbourhood and nearby uses.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 2.0 Situational Analysis 19

Field Size

Decisions about the type of fields to supply in a multi-field facility will affect land requirements. A combination of field sizes will accommodate the broadest number of players and allow for tournament play. In a quad field, it is common to see two different field sizes represented.

Player Amenities

Changing rooms with showers and washrooms, and coaching and meetings rooms all require additional space beyond the footprint of the playing field. Centralizing these amenities at multi-field facilities to provide for access from players using any field will maximize their use and minimize their space needs.

Spectator Amenities

Co-locating spectator amenities with player amenities where possible reduces spacing requirements and infrastructure costs. Washrooms, water bottle filling stations, and parking areas should be located so as to be convenient for both spectators and players. Concession stands and media areas can be integrated into a centralized service area. Bleachers should be designed and sited with safety in mind and should be located throughout a multi-field facility.

Environment

Environmental considerations may include soils, natural drainage, elevation, and sun siting. Soils and drainage will determine the type and success of turf systems installed on the fields and the surrounding areas. Elevation can affect exposure to wind and will determine if wind buffering may be needed. Sun siting will determine the orientations of home plate and pitching mounds. Attention to sunset times which generally coincide with prime time field use will be helpful in properly siting each field.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 2.0 Situational Analysis 20

2.4 Field Inventory, Condition, and Utilization Assessment

Table 7: Fredericton Ball Field Capacity & Utilization

Utilization & Capacity

Life- FIELD Class Cycle Type Average of Average Utilization Remaining Capacity Condition Replace year for Prime Time Percentage Prime Time Percentage Field Components (July & Aug. 2018/19) (2018/19 Seasons) Age Group/Ball Type

Henry Softball A 1.44 Lit 2030 56% 24% SBF, SBS Kimble A 1.82 Lit 2028 89% 0% SBF, SBS Marysville Back A 1.88 Lit 2024 67% 13% B, SBF, SBS Prospect Upper A 1.57 Lit 2030 82% 0% SBF, SBS Prospect Lower A 1.35 Lit 2032 79% 0% SBF, SBS Royals A 1.35 Lit 2036 50% 20% MJIS Dunham B 1.92 Unlit 2024 81% 0% M Fisher A 1.94 Unlit 2024 56% 24% MJIS Henry Baseball B 1.87 Unlit 2026 86% 0% PW, B Henry Tball B 1.86 Unlit - 34% 46% Tball Johnson B 1.88 Unlit 2026 101% 0% SBF, SBS Limerick B 1.90 Unlit 2024 39% 41% SBF, SBS Lincoln B 1.82 Unlit 2027 15% 65% B, SBS Malloy B 1.94 Unlit 2024 47% 33% R MacLoon (4 fields) B 1.70 Unlit 2027 41% 39% Tball, PW, SBF, SBS Morell B 1.41 Unlit 2034 59% 21% SBF, SBS Queens Square Softball A 1.52 Unlit 2034 64% 16% SBF, SBS Queen square Baseball A 1.90 Unlit 2027 118% 0% PW Royal Road B 1.43 Unlit 2034 51% 29% R Saunders (Marysville front) B 1.94 Unlit 2024 99% 0% M Skyline (2 fields) B - Unlit - 54% 26% Tball Thompson A 1.35 Unlit 2035 57% 23% MJIS Tingley A 1.82 Unlit 2025 104% 0% SBF, SBS TOTAL

Total Utilization Hours

1328

2019

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 3.0 Engagement 21

3.0 Engagement

3.1 Engagement Approach

Engagement built a significant portion of this study. There were two components to the engagement approach; stakeholder engagements and online engagement. Each component is described below:

3.1.1 Stakeholder Engagement

For the purposes of this study, stakeholders were defined as City Staff and ball field league and tournament organizers. Stakeholders were engaged through phone interviews, online surveys, and a stakeholder roundtable meeting during October 2019. The phone interviews and online surveys were used to validate the inventory and condition assessment undertaken in the first phase of the study while also providing insight into the local needs, challenges, and opportunities for ball fields within the City.

Additional meetings were held with the Recreation Project Steering Committee made up of City staff.

3.1.2 Online Engagement

Ball field users were engaged through a web-platform during the months of September and October, 2019. This web platform contained an online survey and an interactive mapping exercise to capture ball field users’ needs and thoughts to improve the level of service for ball fields.

3.2 Engagement Results

3.2.1 Phone Interviews with City Staff

Seven city staff members from a variety of departments were interviewed. They were asked about the conditions and needs for ball fields throughout the City. These interviews also provided insight into possible opportunities and anticipated challenges for ball field usage in the future. A table summarizing this feedback is provided below.

Needs ● There is a general need for new fields. ● Need for different types of fields to meet different user groups’ needs (i.e. cricket). ● There is a need for another lit field, as over the past seasons there has been many rainouts, which have required teams to make-up games. ● There is a need to have a lit field at Thompson Field. ● There is a need for a Bantam sized baseball field. ● Field conditions are generally good but some amenities are required at or near certain fields (i.e. washroom facilities). ● Lincoln field should be decommissioned (as a structured/scheduled ball

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 3.0 Engagement 22

field). ● Queen Square Fields have parking issues. ● Kimble Field requires new lighting (i.e. upgrade to Musco lighting) ● Lit fields harder for people to book during same annual term. ● Users want Monday to Thursday prime time slots. ● Major venues (Prospect and Royals Fields) are in high demand. ● Johnson, Tingley, and Dunham Fields are in high demand.

Opportunities ● Develop a Quad Field Complex with all lit fields. ● Hub model - life cycle costing is required. ● For new field development, consider having movable components, such as backstops, fences, etc. to accommodate various users and age groups. ● Conduct better asset management of ball fields. ● Opportunity is scattered throughout the City, the ball field hub model could be adopted to capitalize on infrastructure so that it is clustered providing less cost for maintenance. ● With new fields, there will be opportunity to host tournaments that have economic spin-offs for the City (i.e. hotel bookings, shopping, etc.). ● It is beneficial to site ball fields nearby commercial establishments.

Challenges ● Ball fields are currently not eligible for specific user tournament usage due to lack of current inventory. ● Fast pitch leagues have decreased from 4 to 1. ● The City’s Bantam sized field was lost when Bliss Carman Middle School was built. ● Overdue for lit fields upgrade (Kimble softball field & Royals back field) (Rest of lit fields using Musco system). ● There are zero standardized slo-pitch softball fields. ● National tournaments usually require three to four lit fields within the same vicinity. ● Lighted fields are competitive to book. ● Some fields are not easily accessible, as they are located far out from the City Centre (i.e. Royal Road and Lincoln fields). ● Using the City’s scheduling software is challenging. Figure 2: Needs, Opportunities, & Challenges

3.2.2 Online Surveys - City Staff

An online survey was circulated to five City Staff within the Building Services, Parks and Trees, and Recreation, Culture, and Community Development Divisions. The survey asked questions related to the use of fields, service provided to users, conditions of fields, and demand for new fields.

Respondents indicated that all fields are well used with the exception of Limerick and MacLoon fields. Respondents also identified that they believe ball field users are generally well served within the

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 3.0 Engagement 23 community. Although there is consensus that ball fields are providing adequate services, there is doubt whether at their current state they can adequately meet current and future needs.

Figure 3: Improvement Need Chart

Figure 4: Ball Field Demand Chart

A series of questions were posed which focused on priorities for siting new ball fields and the level of service and amenities that should be provided. Most respondents indicated that close proximity to a school, residential neighbourhood, and other ball fields was important. Having a new facility in a central location, adequate parking, lighting, and access from arterial streets and highways were identified by the majority of respondents as a priority.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 3.0 Engagement 24

City staff were generally agreeable to taking a rehabilitation and new build approach to improve the City’s ball field supply.

3.2.3 Stakeholder Round Table Meeting Results

A round table meeting with ball field organizations including 10 members of the City’s baseball, softball, and cricket community was held in October, 2019. The purpose of the meeting was to gather insights how ball field users view ball field conditions and usage across the City and to gauge the community’s preferred approach to improving field conditions and provision of service. The table below explains comments for meeting attendees.

Existing Ball Fields Future Ball Fields

Opportunities ● Thompson Field - Lights, batting ● Locations for new fields - Willie cage, & grass infield O'Ree Place & Grant Harvey Arena ● Fisher Field - Lights & grass ● Location for new fields - Located infield next to existing amenities ● Henry Park Field - Outfield ● Larger Bantam/Midget Field with netting portable fence, backstop, and ● Dunham Field - Outfield netting mound ● Lockable fence around fields to ● New ball fields should be lit protect ball field assets (i.e. ● New ball fields should be easily seating, mounds, etc.) accessible (i.e. close proximity to ● Private Partnerships major highways or roads within City) ● Development of ball field hub (i.e. multi-field complex

Constraints ● Maintenance - Bullpen ● Neighbourhood development - maintenance at Thompson Field issues of noise ● Maintenance - Royals Infield not ● Neighbourhood development - maintained / dirt is super soft issues of traffic/congestion ● Amenity -Limited Parking ● Proximity of fields to either side of (Thompson & Royals Field) City ● Amenity - Unlit fields don't provide flexibility for game scheduling ● Maintenance - Dogs walkers are letting dogs on fields and not cleaning-up after them ● Maintenance - Not enough tournament/weekend workers to support existing need ● Environmental - Poison ivy on

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 3.0 Engagement 25

outskirts of Dunham Field ● Amenity - No potable water ● Amenity - Limited water trucks provided on field to maintain dust

Priorities ● Review older discussion notes ● Review all ball fields to see which between ball field users and City ones should be converted to ● Identify ball field needs unstructured, passive use, if any. Bantam/Midget Lit Field ● Cluster development (Hub ● Make more Lit Fields (i.e. Development) scenarios Thompson & Fisher) Figure 5: Opportunities, Strengths, Priorities - Current & Future

3.2.4 Ball Field User Online Survey Results

An online survey was circulated to ball field user groups. A total of six responses were received from softball, baseball, and cricket leagues within the City. Of these groups, the majority of respondents indicated most of its registrants were between 5 and 34. The membership of these user groups ranged from 30 to 600 members with nearly all groups reporting an anticipated growth to membership between 5-10 % in the next 5 years. The growth was attributed to the City’s anticipated population growth, interest in ball field activities, and the quality and availability of fields.

Most respondents indicated that ball fields were well utilized across the City, except for the use of Limerick, MacLoon, Malloy, Royal Road, and Morell Fields. Only 33% of these users indicated that they require additional time at the ball field facilities they currently use (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Additional Time Needs Chart

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 4.0 Technical Analysis 26

The majority of the need lies in securing more convenient times to host tournament play at existing fields. Issues with hosting these tournaments fall to a “Lack of field time and field availability during peak times outside of work and school hours. Also field availability during times that don't clash with other sports if athletes are multi-sport athletes.”

When reviewing conditions of existing fields, the majority of respondents indicated that ball field facilities within City adequately meet current and anticipated future organizational needs. However some groups have identified this is not the case. Some of the issues brought forward by external stakeholders involved:

“A cricket field requires at least 5 acres of space for a field that will produce good cricket results as well as suitable for hosting Provincial, Regional, National and International matches.”

“Although the city does a great job maintaining the fields, more needs to be done on weekends when hosting tournaments, water and drag fields in mid-summer.”

3.2.5 Online Engagement - General Public

An online public survey was conducted over two weeks between October and November, 2019. The purpose of this survey was to gather feedback on the public’s preferences and anticipated needs with respect to the City’s ball fields. The survey generated 97 responses. Of those respondents, 93% indicated they regularly use the City’s ball fields. The fields that received the most use, according to survey respondents, are Henry Park Fields, Queen Square Fields, and Marysville Fields. The fields identified as having less use were Morell, Limerick, and MacLoon Fields which agrees with the responses from the ball field user groups.

The online public survey generated limited comments from cricket users but of those who mentioned cricket there was indication that regulation cricket fields were needed. There are a total 7 cricket teams in New Brunswick with three of those being in Fredericton. Respondents indicated there were no regulation cricket pitches available. A recommendation of this study is to assess the need for cricket fields through a formal needs assessment in the medium to long term.

4.0 Technical Analysis

4.1 Field Use Analysis and Future Need Projections

The technical analysis undertaken for this study is based on findings gathered through Phase 1: Situational analysis, which reviewed existing capacity and utilization percentages, existing conditions, and ball field inventory. Additionally, Phase 2: Public Engagement, was used to support and ground truth findings from Phase 1 and provide qualitative inputs into the technical analysis.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 4.0 Technical Analysis 27

The technical analysis examines two specific areas to determine if the existing ball field inventory is meeting optimal inventory levels. These two areas are:

1. Existing Field Use (Utilization Analysis); and 2. Future Need Projections.

The Existing Field Utilization Analysis involved the following technical steps:

I. Utilization Target - As a first step, a recommended utilization target for ball fields was developed. Developing an optimal utilization target will help identify when a field is being overused and could cause scheduling challenges.

II. Average Cumulative Field Capacity (Analysis) - After a recommended utilization target had been confirmed, average capacity hours for the standard ball field typologies (Lit vs Unlit Fields) was determined on a monthly basis. This monthly analysis was then extrapolated over the length of a season (Stream 1 Analysis) and peak months July and August (Stream 2 Analysis) to understand the possible amount of hours a Lit or Unlit Field could accommodate throughout a seasonal or peak-month perspective.

III. Average Cumulative Field Use (Analysis) - After average field capacities for lit and unlit fields were calculated for both the season and peak months, the utilization analysis was performed comparing the average amount of booked hours from the 2018/19 seasons with the average capacity for each field type to understand how, on average, lit and unlit ball fields relate with the utilization target.

Once the existing field utilization analysis was completed, the Future Need Projection Analysis were undertaken to determine if the existing (status quo) field utilizations are anticipated to meet field inventory capacity needs over the next 20 years. The Existing Field Utilization Findings was used as a base for the future need projections, which involved the following technical steps:

IV. Population Projections - The analysis used population projections, identified in Section 2.2 of this report to develop incremental growth rates at five year intervals to determine future and anticipated utilization rates. The population projection analysis only used age cohorts 5-19 and 20-54, which are more representative of ball field users. This methodology is in line with best practices. Understanding as these population cohorts grow over time, so will the number ball field users. For the purposes of this study, if the population increased by 10% over a 5 year term, it was determined that utilization for ball field users would then in turn also increase by 10%.

V. Future Need Projections: Status Quo - After determining future population projections, a cumulative field inventory assessment was undertaken using the following technical components:

○ Average cumulative capacity calculations for existing field types (Lit vs Unlit) ;

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 4.0 Technical Analysis 28

○ Average cumulative utilization rates for existing field inventory (21 fields) over a full season and peak demand situations ; and

○ Population projections, which can be extrapolated to determine how ball field utilization might increase over the next 20 years using 5 year increments.

Using these three known technical components assisted in determining if the existing ball field inventory is currently meeting the optimal ball field inventory based on field typology (lit vs unlit fields).

VI. Future Need Projections: Scenarios - After the Status Quo Field Need Projection was determined, alternative scenarios were developed to determine what needs might look like if certain ball fields were adjusted to unstructured passive use, retrofitted, or developed. Seven scenarios were developed in accordance with the life-cycle conditions assessment data, acquired from the OPUS Report. The recommended option is provided in this report. The remaining scenarios can be found in Appendix A.

The following sections provide details on the technical steps used to arrive at the scenarios and the final recommendation.

4.1.1 Utilization Target

Determining the maximum utilization of fields is a strategic priority, which provides for less capital costs moving forward into the future. However, achieving maximum utilization (100%) for a field is not a realistic nor a suitable goal. Time for rest and maintenance of existing fields should be considered. From a sustainability standpoint, it is cost effective to use existing fields as much as possible, but the complexities of scheduling and size of fields should be considered. The issue of appropriate field size and adequate scheduling was an issue consistently raised by local stakeholders. Additionally, an amount of reasonable time is needed for breaks between games, for weather related cancellations, and to allow for unexpected maintenance of these fields. Understanding that there should be a contingency in place to accommodate these unexpected issues or down times, a maximum use (utilization) goal of 80% should be identified as a reasonable target. The City of London and the City of Waterloo in Ontario have also used a similar maximum use goal target to identify maximum field utilization. The City’s Recreation Master Plan (2008) also defines fields “at capacity (AC)” with a utilization rate between the range of 70% - 90%, which is aligned with this proposed target. There may be a need to increase rest time of fields with grassed infields, such as Royals Field, to accommodate an appropriate level of maintenance.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 4.0 Technical Analysis 29

Recommendation:

The City of Fredericton should adopt a maximum use goal of 80% as a reasonable target for all ball field facilities. The City should adjust field utilization rates and capacity to be aligned with the proposed target maximum use goal (80%) in accordance with observed field conditions.

Recommendation:

The City of Fredericton should adopt an official days of rest policy for high quality, high capacity fields now and in the future. Currently, there is an informal policy to provide one full day of rest for Royals field, which is especially needed due to the grassed infield; however, this should be expanded to other premier fields, at the discretion of staff, in the future.

4.1.2 Average Cumulative Field Capacity

Determining field capacity from a programming and planning perspective, as a best practice, can help maximize field use while maintaining or improving field conditions. As a first step in determining the average field capacity, the number of hours and types of hours available for booking throughout the week must be established. For the purposes of this study, Full Potential - Rentable Hours and Prime Time - Rentable Hours have been used. Full Potential - Rentable Hours represent the total possible booking hours an unlit or lit field can be booked (Table 5).Understanding that this is not completely representative of ball field users’ needs as identified through public engagement, prime time hours were also reviewed. Prime Time - Rentable Hours are focused during times that ball field users generally wish to make their bookings.

Table 5 below identifies the total Full Potential - Rentable Hours and Prime Time - Rentable Hours that were identified through stakeholder engagement:

Table 8: Rentable Field Hours

Full Potential - Rentable Hours Prime Time - Rentable Hours

Weekdays Weekend Weekdays Weekend

Lit Field 15 hours 15 hours 5 hours 12 Hours (11:00am - (8:00am - (8:00am - (6:00pm - 11:00pm) 11:00pm) 11:00pm) 11:00pm)

Unlit Field 12 hours 12 hours 3 hours 8 hours (8:00am - 8:00pm) (8:00am - 8:00pm) (5:00pm - 8:00pm) (10:00am - 6:00pm)

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 4.0 Technical Analysis 30

In addition to understanding the total and prime time rentable hours for a lit and unlit field, the average cumulative field capacity of the City’s ball field types (lit vs unlit) over a longer term must be established. Two streams of analysis were developed to identify the existing average cumulative capacity of each field type (Lit Fields vs Unlit Fields):

● Stream 1 Analysis - Full potential of cumulative field capacity per season in hours (80% max utilization Target)

● Stream 2 Analysis - Peak months of average cumulative field capacity (July & August) (80% max utilization Target)

Stream 1 - Full Potential analysis - determined the average cumulative field capacity of lit and unlit ball fields across an average six month season (May to October). This involved determining the full potential rentable hours (full potential capacity) and prime-time rentable hours (prime time capacity) over an average season (Table 6).

For the purposes of this study, prime time capacity hours at 80% has been used to identify the ideal amount of hours that a field should be booked or utilized in a given season and month based on field type. Using the prime time capacity hours (80%) as a standard was done to accommodate capacity for field maintenance and rest, scheduling flexibility, and possible cancellations. Table 6 identifies that Lit Fields meet their maximum utilization target if these fields are booked for 157 hours over the span of a month and 942 hours over the entire season. Alternatively, Unlit Fields meet their max use utilization goal if these fields are used for 99 hours over the span of a month and 595 hours over the entire season.

Table 9: Stream 1 - Season Capacity

Type of Field Full Potential Full Potential Prime Time Prime Time # of Fields Capacity Hours Capacity Hours Capacity Capacity (80%) (80%) Per Hours (80%) Hours (80%) Month Per Field Per Per Season Season Per Field Per Month

Lit 1829 381 942 157 6

Unlit 1325 276 595 99 15

Stream 2 - Peak Month analysis - determined the average cumulative field capacity of lit and unlit ball fields across peak ball field usage months (July and August). This stream also reviewed the Full Potential - Rentable Hours (potential capacity) and the Prime Time - Rentable Hours (prime-time capacity - max utilization 80%) for peak months (Table 7).

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 4.0 Technical Analysis 31

For the purposes of this study, Prime Time - Rentable Capacity Hours (80%) has also been used to identify the ideal amount of hours that a standard/average field should be booked or utilized over peak months (July and August) based on field type. The Prime Time - Rentable Capacity Hours (80%) was used as a standard to accommodate capacity for field maintenance and rest, scheduling flexibility, and possible cancellations. Table 7 identifies that Lit Fields will meet their max capacity if these fields are booked for 157 hours over the span of a peak month and 314 hours over the entire peak months. Alternatively, Unlit Fields will meet their max (80%) capacity if these fields are used for 99 hours over the span of a peak month and 198 hours over the entire peak months.

Table 10: Stream 2 – Potential & Prime Booking Times

Type of Field Prime Time Full Prime Time Full Prime Time Prime Time # of Fields Potential Potential Capacity Hours Capacity Hours Capacity Hours Capacity Hours (80%) Per Field (80%) (100%) Per Field (100%) Type during Type during Peak Per Field Type Months Per Field Type Peak Months Per Peak Month Per Peak Month

Lit Fields 392 196 314 157 6

Unlit Fields 248 124 198 99 15

Table 10 displays the potential and prime time booking hours for lit and unlit fields between operating season months (July and August).

4.1.3 Average Cumulative Field Use

Both of the average cumulative capacities for Stream 1 (season analysis) and Stream 2 (peak month analysis) in the previous section have been calculated to identify the optimal amount of hours a field by type (lit vs unlit) should operate.

Each ball field’s average cumulative capacity (lit and unlit fields) was reviewed and compared to field booking data gathered during 2018 and 2019. Table 11 found below provides a summary of the average cumulative capacity (hours) and utilization rates (%) for all fields by field type (lit vs unlit).The utilization analysis for each specific field can be found in Table 7 of this report.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 4.0 Technical Analysis 32

Table 11: Utilization Analysis

Current Utilization Cumulative Number Cumulative Maximum Maximum Capacity of of Fields Hours Cumulative Cumulative (Status Quo) Analysis Prime Time Booked Capacity (All Utilization- Hours (Average of fields) (%) 18/19 bookings)

Stream 1 Lit 942 6 2579 5652 45.63%

Season Unlit 594 15 3775 8910 42.39% (May - Oct.)

Stream 2 Lit 314 6 1328 1884 70.48%

Peak Months Unlit 198 15 2019 2970 67.97% (July & Aug.)

Note: The length of a season for these fields was estimated at 22-23 weeks (May thru October). This is an average season length. For the purposes of this study, a monthly analysis was used. Maximum capacity target

The utilization analysis of each field, provided in Appendix B suggests that unlit fields are typically used less than lit fields. Based on the Maximum Cumulative Utilization rates, usage results indicate lit fields are used at a rate of 45.63% while unlit fields are used at 42.37% across an average season. However, when peak months of July and August are analyzed, the current use and inventory shows a Maximum Cumulative Utilization rate of 70.48% for lit fields and 67.97% for unlit fields. Although neither of these analysis streams are at the maximum cumulative utilization target of 80%, it should be noted that most lit fields and certain unlit fields are meeting the maximum use goal of 80% during peak months and some shoulder months of the season. It is also notable that Royals Field has a lower utilization rate than other lit fields due to it being used almost exclusively by the Fredericton Royals Baseball Club and therefore acts to pull the Maximum Cumulative Utilization Rate for lit fields down. When we review specific usage of Saunders Field (Marysville Front) for 2019 we see that the field’s overall utilization was 56% for the season (May to October). However, through the months of June through August, this field was 100% of prime time hours or greater, pushing its monthly usage well over the proposed maximum goal use capacity of 80% during these peak months. Saunders Field (Marysville Front) is not the only example where this over burden is found. Other fields such as Upper and Lower Prospect, Kimble, Tingley, Johnson, Henry Baseball, Dunham, and Queen Square Softball also display similar over-use trends.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 4.0 Technical Analysis 33

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 4.0 Technical Analysis 34

Recommendation:

Use the identified Average Cumulative Field Capacity targets (hours) identified in Section 4.1.2 to support the scheduling of ball field activities.

Recommendation:

City Staff should work with sport organizations, such as Fredericton Minor Baseball Association, to encourage scheduling of game times that allow for maximum use of fields. Additionally, it is suggested to regularly monitor field use throughout the City’s scheduling system to determine when maximum use capacity has been achieved.

Recommendation:

Develop space allocation procedures for fields and cricket pitches to facilitate improved use and access to the existing inventory. Improved scheduling technology and recreation coordination should assist with this effort.

The utilization analysis conducted during this study was based on time booked, as reported at the end of 2018 and 2019 season. In some cases, fields are used by community groups for pick‐up games and casual community play, which are not always reflected in the booking system. Additionally, some organized ball user groups have also been known to use the fields without booking. In these cases, both situations skew the maximum goal usage to an unknown extent. Currently, there is no method to identify how much field time is currently used without a booking or is booked without use.

Another concern is where ball field users might book more time than required and then cancel booking times. It can be a challenge to re-book time slots in short notice, leading to potential lost revenue for the City and lost opportunity for other user groups. Additionally, booking requests that cannot be accommodated are not typically tracked. It is not possible to determine how much more time is requested by a ball field user group than can be accommodated.

Recommendation: Develop a system to track ball field requests that cannot be fulfilled, bookings that are cancelled, and bookings that go unused. This will support the monitoring of ball field utilization.

The ball field utilization analysis suggests that existing utilization of City’s twenty-one fields in peak months (July and August) is high at approximately 70%. There may be opportunities to better utilize

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 4.0 Technical Analysis 35

existing fields, particularly unlit fields. However, these are lower quality fields and may be seen by ball field users as having inadequate services because of the lack of amenities (i.e. lighting, parking, and other infrastructure) at these fields. Ball field stakeholder groups have also described that there is a lack of fields that are of appropriate size and/or current quality. In particular, Bantam age groups under Fredericton Minor Baseball, are currently playing on under-sized fields due to the availability and typology of existing fields. Additionally, there are limited fields available for Rookies (9U) and Mosquito (11U) level baseball use.

4.1.4 Population Projections

For the purposes of this study, the population projection analysis only used age cohorts 5-19 and 20-54, which are more representative of ball field users. Understanding that as these population cohorts grow over time, so will the percentage of ball field users. Population rates of change for both the City of Fredericton and the Census Metropolitan Area have been developed and can be found in Table 12 and 13 below.

Table 12: Rate of Change – City Population

Population Rate of Change, City of Fredericton

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

5 to 19 11,709 12,251 13,111 15,688 20,441

20 to 54 31,513 35,243 38,748 42,503 45,974

Total 43,222 47,494 51,859 58,191 66,415

% Change from 2016 9% 17% 26% 35%

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 4.0 Technical Analysis 36

Table 13: Rate of Change – Fredericton Census Metropolitan Area Population

Population Rate of Change, Fredericton Census Metropolitan Area

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

5 to 19 22,490 24,144 26,214 27,846 29,268

20 to 54 63,653 66,436 69,828 74,078 78,225

Total 86,144 90,580 96,042 101,924 107,493

% Change from 2016 5% 10% 15% 20%

For the purposes of this study, the rate of population increase over each 5 year increment was utilized to increase the utilization rates of ball field users at a similar pace. For example, the City’s cohort populations 5-19 and 20-54 cumulatively are anticipated to increase by 9% from 2016 to 2021.

4.1.5 Future Field Need Projections - Status Quo

While there is much that can be done over the short-term to improve access to ball fields in Fredericton, planning for the long-term is also required. Fredericton’s population has been growing and that growth is anticipated to continue. These changes in population will impact the demand for a full range of recreation opportunities including ball fields.

For the purpose of this strategy, a methodology has been developed to project future ball field need in Fredericton. Existing methodologies used by other cities such as the Cities of Waterloo and London, Ontario, and Strathcona County, Alberta were examined. All methodologies examined used a similar approach, which involved analyzing existing ball field inventories, average cumulative field capacity and utilization rates, and anticipated population growth rates. These technical components were reviewed together to determine future optimal ball field inventory. For the purposes of this study, the methodology has been adjusted to reflect the most reliable field inventory data collected during the City’s Parks and Recreation Assets Condition and Valuation Study (2019).

The methodology provided for future need projections is complex, in that it has many subjective components that need to be determined in order to calculate the future need of ball fields. The methodology compares the average cumulative capacity hours of the current field inventory by field type (lit vs unlit fields), to the average field bookings based on 2018-2019 season booking data. Additionally, the analysis uses incremental population growth at five year intervals to determine future

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 4.0 Technical Analysis 37 and anticipated utilization rates. This provides the information necessary to identify if there is a cumulative surplus or deficit between existing ball field inventory and optimal ball field inventory. The surplus or deficit in field inventory capacity is then equated to the number of fields needed to accommodate future utilization and needs.

The Future Needs Projection Scenario for Status Quo Conditions have been calculated below using the technical components mentioned previously: average cumulative field capacity; average cumulative field utilization, and anticipated population growth rates. Table 14 explains the status quo scenario with positive numbers indicating a field inventory surplus and a negative number indicating the number of fields required to meet optimal demand. Calculations for scenarios are provided in detail in Appendix B.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 4.0 Technical Analysis 38

Table 14: Status Quo - Future Field Needs Projections

Field Type Status Quo Year Scenario Lit Fields Unlit Fields

2019 3.3 8.6

2021 2.9 7.8

Season 2026 2.5 6.9 (May to October)

2031 2.1 6.0

2036 1.8 5.1

2019 1.8 4.8

2021 1.2 3.4

Peak Months 2026 0.6 2.1 (July & August)

2031 0.0 0.6

2036 -0.6 -0.8

Notes:

1. A positive number indicates an inventory surplus in fields. A negative number indicates the number of fields required to meet optimal demand. 2. The Status Quo Future Needs Assessment assumes that all fourteen (14) fields that meet their remaining useful life (RUL) before 2031, as identified in the OPUS Report, will be rehabilitated. 3. The methodology assumes that the capacity of a field in 2019 will remain the same in the future, although it may be possible that some fields utilization and in turn capacity will increase through upgrades such as addition of lighting. 4. The scenario assumes that all fields in current inventory will remain in the inventory.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 4.0 Technical Analysis 39

Field need projections indicate that even with all fields reaching a target utilization rate of 80%, there will be a need for new field development over the next 20 years. The City of Fredericton's current ball field inventory is estimated to be sufficient to meet the needs of ball field users up to the year 2036. This assumes that no ball fields are to be retrofitted, converted to passive community use, or developed. In 2036, the demand for ball fields will begin to exceed the supply of ball field inventory; there will be a need for an additional 1 lit field and 1 unlit field in order to operate at optimal capacity.

It should be understood that projections are only part of the analysis that should be considered for future needs. Ball field organizations are looking for larger, high quality lit fields. These identified short- term needs, as described in Section 3, Engagement, of this report are not described through these projections. While there is a surplus of fields indicated up until the year 2026, it should be noted that most of the unused capacity is existing within the unlit field inventory, which may not currently meet ball field user’s needs or desires. Additionally, reviewing the individual utilization of specific fields, we can see that most lit fields and some unlit fields have over-achieved their Maximum Use Goal of 80% within certain peak months of the average ball season. This could be due to tournament or preferred usage bookings through the months of July to August or additional time slot bookings to meet cancelled field times throughout the ongoing season.

4.1.6 Future Need Projections – Recommended Scenario

Status quo field need projections indicate that no additional ball fields will be required until 2031. In order to meet the needs of ball field users and help alleviate the capacity stress on some of the most utilized fields, 7 scenarios were developed that look at different options including converting to unstructured, passive community use, retrofitting, and developing new ball field facilities. The recommended scenario is articulated below. The remaining scenarios can be found in Appendix A.

The scenario is presented in short, medium, and long term time frames to generate corresponding actions to be used to implement the recommendations of this study. These time frames assume the adoption of this study by Council in 2020.The timeframes are:

 Short Term – Within 3 years of study adoption;  Medium Term – between 3 and 6 years of study adoption; and  Long Term – 6 years from study adoption and beyond.

The following scenario proposes to retrofit two unlit fields, specifically Tingley and Johnson Fields, to lit fields in the short term in order to meet ball field user needs. This scenario fills the determined need for a Bantam regulation field by retrofitting Marysville (Royals) Field back to bantam standards in the short term. It seeks to convert Limerick, Lincoln, and Malloy Fields to unstructured, passive use in the medium to long term, leaving Fisher Field operational over the same time frame and assuming a life cycle replacement in line with the Opus report. In addition, this scenario seeks to add capacity through the development of a multi-field (quad) complex in the medium term. It should be noted that Limerick,

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 4.0 Technical Analysis 40

Lincoln, and Malloy Fields will not be taken offline until the construction of the multi-field facility is completed.

Scenario results indicate a surplus of 1.9 lit fields by 2036 and a deficit of -1.3 unlit fields. In this scenario there would be surplus capacity in the system of roughly 0.6 field. This scenario brings the City closest to optimal utilization over the next 15 years.

This scenario would meet short-term needs of ball field users and ultimately address long-term ball field needs over the next 10 years; however by 2036 there is only a net surplus of 0.6 fields. This scenario is the preferred recommendation for this study; however it is highly recommended that staff continues to monitor these projections over the next 5, 10 and 15 years to best plan for the 2036 scenario.

Table 15. Scenario 7

Retrofit 3 fields, convert 4 Field Type fields to passive use, build 1 Year multi-field (quad) complex Lit Fields Unlit Fields

2019 3.3 8.6

2021 4.1 7.4

Season 2026 7.0 3.8 (May to October)

2031 6.4 3.3

2036 5.9 2.7

2019 1.8 4.8

2021 1.7 3.7 Peak Months

(July & August) 2026 3.8 0.6

2031 2.9 -0.3

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 4.0 Technical Analysis 41

Retrofit 3 fields, convert 4 Field Type fields to passive use, build 1 Year multi-field (quad) complex Lit Fields Unlit Fields

2036 1.9 -1.3

Notes:

A positive number indicates an inventory surplus in fields. A negative number indicates the number of fields required to meet optimal demand.

4.2 Future Need Recommendations

The following recommendations are presented in short, medium, and long term timeframes. Short term recommendations are intended to be completed within 3 years of Council adopting this study; medium term recommendations are intended to be completed between 3 and 6 years of Council adopting this study, and long term recommendations are intended to be completed beyond 6 years from the adoption of this study. Details of the recommendations and the associated actions can be found in Section 5, Implementation. The recommendations associated with the future provision of ball fields are as follows:

1. It is recommended the City of Fredericton consider the following capital and operational projects as part of their Capital Budget process in the medium term to accommodate the determined need for Future Ball Field Use: a. Consider the design work associated with retrofitting Marysville (Royals) Back Field into a regulation Bantam field in the short term; b. Consider increasing capacity at Tingley Field through the addition of lights in the short to medium term; determine the feasibility of lighting Tingley and Johnson Fields together previous to the installation of any new infrastructure; c. Consider completing a life cycle replacement cost analysis (upgrading, retrofitting to add capacity, etc.) for Fisher Field in the medium term; d. Consider the design work associated with developing a multi-field (quad) complex inclusive of a barrier free field in the medium to long term; and e. Consider the conversion of Lincoln, Malloy, and Limerick Fields to unstructured, passive park space for use by the surrounding community once the proposed multi-field (quad) comes online.

2. It is recommended that the City monitor bookings and capacity levels. Findings from monitoring gathered in the short and medium term should assist in identifying if there will be a need to develop further fields. Population growth and ball field booking hours will be integral to determine needs beyond the long term timeframe and special consideration should be given to including new and growing user groups resulting from new populations.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 4.0 Technical Analysis 42

3. It is recommended that another Ball Field Needs Assessment study be completed between 2026-2031 to identify future needs and capacity constraints for ball fields.

4. It is recommended a cricket needs assessment be completed once the proposed multi-field (quad) field is designed and sited.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 5.0 Implementation 43

5.0 Implementation

The Future Needs Recommendations made in Part 4 of this report will require the City to undertake a number of defined tasks. These tasks are defined in short, medium, and long term timeframes in coordination with the recommendations provided in Section 4.2 of this report. These actions are described in the sections that follow.

Costing estimates are provided using the OPUS report and are considered for field elements that effect the footprint of the field. Infield components are not included in costing estimates provided below but should be considered when planning future work. Posts for bases, portable pitching mounds, netting, and dugouts are examples of components to consider when retrofitting or providing maintenance to a field.

5.1 SHORT TERM ACTIONS

Action Item 1: Marysville Back/ Royals Back Bantam Retrofit

Dimensions Bantam Existing

Foul Line Distance 225 Minimum 235 Foul Line Distance 240 Preferred

Centre Field Distance 250 Minimum 260 Centre Field Preferred 280

Backstop Boundary 40-50 40

Marysville Back/ Royals Back Field meets the minimums for a Bantam level regulation field and therefore is recommended for use as a dedicated Bantam field. The field is anticipated to meet the end of its useful life by 2024. Should the City wish to upgrade the field to meet the preferred field size for regulation Bantam play, the foul poles, outfield fence, and backstop boundary could be adjusted. Should the City wish to upgrade the field to extend its useful life, the outfield and infield would need to be replaced. An estimated cost for these upgrades is provided below.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 5.0 Implementation 44

Component Estimated Cost ($)

Foul Pole (each) 330

Fence (per metre) 100

Backstop $5000

Outfield $76, 000 to $126,000

Infield $87,000 to $163,000

Approximate Total : $200,000

An estimated total to fully upgrade Marysville Back/Royals Back into a dedicated Bantam Field would be a minimum $200,000 investment. This would constitute a full replacement of the components listed in the table above.

Action 2: Lighting Tingley and Johnson Fields

Adding lights to Tingley and Johnson Fields will substantially increase capacity while also having minimal impact on the surrounding areas. These fields are susceptible to flooding which delays the fields coming online in the spring. Tingley Field is at a higher elevation than Johnson Field and therefore less susceptible to flooding. It was determined that electrical infrastructure can be installed in a way which will not be impacted by flooding. Should this be determined to be cost prohibitive, it is recommended Tingley Field be lit as a priority.

Approximate Options System Approximate Cost Replacement Year

Tingley Field Only 22 light Musco System $160,000 minimum 2038

Tingley and Johnson Fields 22 Light Musco System $315, 000 maximum 2038

Action 3: Monitor Bookings and Capacity

It is understood that in 2020, the City of Fredericton is introducing a new booking software. This change should be communicated with ball field users to mitigate perceived frustrations that may come with this change. Additionally, this booking software presents an opportunity for the City to monitor bookings and the capacity of fields against the scenario(s) presented in this report. At the end of each season, it is recommended to monitor the seasonal usage of all fields to determine alignment with the future projections.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 5.0 Implementation 45

5.2 MEDIUM TERM ACTIONS

Action 4: Fisher Field Life Cycle Replacement Cost Analysis

Fisher field is expected to reach the end of its useable life in 2024. A preliminary list of priority components in need of replacing or upgrading is provided below. Approximate cost is also provided for reference. An analysis which would provide a more clear idea of how the replacement or upgrade of these components would translate in years of usable life will be needed prior to full commitment to investment.

Component Approximate Replacement Cost

Backstop $5000

Upgrade from small to medium bleachers $5170 x 2

Dugout $8250 x 2

Fence $100 per metre – 23,484

Foul Pole $330 x 2

Infield $56 per square metre - $145,128

Outfield $18 per square metre - $152,708

Approximate Total $353,820

Action 5: Lincoln, Malloy, and Limerick Fields transitioned to Community Use

As preparations are made to site, design, and build a quad ballfield complex, preparations will be made to take Lincoln, Malloy, and Limerick Fields offline. These fields will be transitioned to parks for use by the surrounding community but no longer be used for structured, league play. The fields will be provided at a reduced level of maintenance with less frequent mowing and limited painting of field lines.

Action 6: Siting for a Multi-Field Complex

A sample of multi-field facilities was taken to provide approximate space needs for a mulit-field complex with specific focus on quad fields. Quad facilities were found to be integrated into larger outdoor recreation facilities which provided additional or larger amenities. The table below provides a sample of field sizes from stand-alone quad fields that did not appear to be connected to larger recreational complexes.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 5.0 Implementation 46

Quad Field Site Size Park/City Amenities (approximate)

Kinsmen Quad Ballpark, Cranbook, 8 Acres Lights, Baseball, softball, BC concession stand, bleachers, parking, washrooms

Brooks Regional Ballpark, Brooks, 17 Acres Lights, Baseball, softball, AB concession stand, bleachers, washrooms, change rooms, meeting room, parking

Forest Hills, Saint John, NB 12 Acres Lights, Baseball, softball, bleachers, washrooms, parking

Bonnyville, AB 12 Acres Baseball, softball, parking

The spacing required to accommodate a quad ballfield will vary as evidenced in the table above. It is estimated that the City will need approximately 10 to 12 acres to accommodate a quad ballfield with sufficient parking, permanent washrooms, change rooms, and bleachers. As part of the medium term actions to implement this study, City staff may undertake a site search and land acquisition strategy to acquire sufficient space for the design and construction of a quad ball field complex.

5.3 LONG TERM ACTIONS

Action 7: Multi-Field Complex Design Work

Once a site has been chosen and the land acquired, the design work for a quad complex may begin. Decisions regarding the level of amenity and the municipal infrastructure requirements will dictate the design of the over facility complex. It is important that user groups be involved at the preliminary stage of the design work to ensure the facility is designed as inclusively as possible.

Action 8: Future Ball Field Needs Assessment Study

As fields are taken offline and a major new facility is introduced, an assessment of the City’s ball field needs should be undertaken. With the population anticipated to grow, the types of fields needed are anticipated to change. The next study should include baseball and softball fields and users however special attention should be paid to cricket field capacity and demand.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study - Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study March 2020 – 19-9400 Figures – 1

Figures

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study December 2019 – 19-9400 Figures – 2

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study December 2019 – 19-9400 Tables – 1

Tables

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study December 2019 – 19-9400 Tables – 2

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study December 2019 – 19-9400 A – 1

Appendix A

A Ball Field Needs Assessment Scenarios

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study December 2019 – 19-9400 A – 2

Each of the seven scenarios identified have been used to showcase a cumulative need for lit and unlit fields based on analyzing both the season and peak months (July and August) as a whole. For detailed calculations on each scenario, please see Appendix B. Details of Scenario 7, the recommended option, are provided in Section 4.1.6. The table below summarizes all 7 scenarios for convenience.

Future Needs Projection - Scenarios

Scenario 1 Converting three (3) fields to unstructured, passive use for the short term

Limerick, Lincoln and Royal Road Fields have been recommended for conversion to passive, unstructured use in the short term. These fields were used during this scenario due to these fields being in relatively poor condition compared to the existing ball inventory, as identified within the condition assessment, and being generally located a greater distance from the City Centre compared to other fields. Additionally, these fields have not been identified for tournament use by the City, nor a priority ball facility by stakeholders.

Scenario 2 Converting six (6) fields to unstructured, passive use for the medium term

Limerick, Lincoln, Royal Road, Johnson, Dunham, and Tingley Fields have been recommended for conversion to unstructured, passive use in the medium term. These fields are in relatively poor condition. Additionally, Johnson, Dunham, and Tingley Fields are located in close proximity to one another and as a whole could act as a more valuable asset to the City in the near future.

Scenario 3 Converting five (5) fields to unstructured, passive use for the medium term

Limerick, Lincoln, Royal Road, Fisher, and Malloy Fields have been recommended for conversion to unstructured, passive use in the medium term. These fields are in relatively poor condition. Malloy Field was included in this scenario, as it was identified as a non-priority ball field facility. Additionally, Fisher Field was included due to this field being assessed as the worst condition within the inventory.

Scenario 4 Retrofit one existing field into Lit Field (2021), convert five (5) fields to unstructured, passive use for 2the medium term, and develop Multi-Field (Quad) Complex for the medium term

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study December 2019 – 19-9400 A – 3

Thompson Field has been identified as a priority field that requires infrastructure upgrades (i.e. lighting) by stakeholders. This scenario seeks to retrofit Thompson Field from an unlit field to a lit field by providing lighting in the short term. Limerick, Lincoln, Royal Road, Fisher, and Malloy Fields are anticipated to be converted to unstructured, passive use in the medium term. During the same year of the conversion, the City should be developing a Multi-Field (Quad) Complex.

Scenario 5 Retrofit three existing fields, convert three fields to unstructured, passive use for the medium term

Tingley and Johnson Fields have been identified as prime candidates to be retrofitted and lit in the short term. Additionally, Marysville Back Field is retrofitted into a Bantam field. Special consideration should be made for the electrical conduits for lighting in this area, given the likelihood for flooding at Tingley and Johnson fields. Limerick, Lincoln and Malloy Fields are proposed to be converted to unstructured, passive use in the medium term.

Scenario 6 Retrofit two fields, convert five fields to unstructured, passive use, and develop a multi-field complex (quad) for the medium term.

In this scenario, Tingley and Johnson Fields become lit and Marysville Back Field retrofitted to meet bantam regulation, as per scenario 5; however, five fields are converted to unstructured, passive use in the medium term (Limerick, Lincoln, Royal Road, Malloy and Fisher Fields). In addition, a Multi-field (quad) complex is developed in the medium term.

Scenario 7 Retrofit two fields, convert four fields to unstructured, passive use, and develop a multi-field complex (quad) for the medium term.

In this scenario, Tingley and Johnson Fields become lit, Marysville Back Field retrofitted for bantam, and four fields are converted to unstructured, passive use in the medium term (Limerick, Lincoln, Royal Road, and Malloy Fields). Fisher remains operational, and it is expected that the necessary repairs would be made to increase its projected lifespan. Additionally, a multi-field (quad) complex is developed in the medium term.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study December 2019 – 19-9400 A – 4

5.3.1.1 Future Needs Scenario 1

Scenario 1 proposes converting Limerick, Lincoln, and Royal Road Fields to unstructured, passive use in the short term. Scenario results indicated that through the peak month period there will be an average deficit of 2 unlit fields by the year 2026. Understanding that the fields are in fair to good condition and could be rehabilitated, it is advised that this scenario is not pursued by the City, as this scenario will not support or meet future needs/demands if implemented.

Table 16: Scenario 1 - Future Field Needs Projections

Scenario 1 Field Type

Convert 3 Fields to Passive Year Use Lit Fields Unlit Fields

2019 1.8 4.8

2021 1.1 -0.4

Capacity at Peak Demand 2026 0.5 -1.9

2031 -0.1 -3.4

2036 -0.7 -4.9

Notes:

1. A positive number indicates an inventory surplus in fields. A negative number indicates the number of fields required to meet optimal demand. 2. The Status Quo Future Needs Assessment assumes that all fourteen (14) fields that meet their remaining useful life (RUL) before 2031, as identified in the OPUS Report, will be rehabilitated, outside of the three fields identified for conversion to passive use. 3. The methodology assumes that the average capacity of a lit and unlit field in 2019 will remain the same in the future. 4. The scenario assumes that all fields in current inventory, outside of the three fields to be converted to passive use, will remain in the inventory.

5.3.1.2 Future Needs Scenario 2

Scenario 2 proposes converting Limerick, Lincoln, Royal Road, Dunham, Johnson, and Tingley Fields to unstructured, passive use in the short term. Scenario results indicated that through the peak month period there will be an average deficit of 3 unlit and 1 lit fields by the year 2026. Understanding the

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study December 2019 – 19-9400 A – 5 condition of fields are in fair to good condition and could be rehabilitated, it is advised that this scenario is not pursued by the City, as this scenario will not meet future needs/demands if implemented.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study December 2019 – 19-9400 A – 6

Table 17: Scenario 2 - Future Field Needs Projections

Convert 6 fields to Passive Field Type Use Year Lit Fields Unlit Fields

2019 1.8 4.8

2021 1.2 3.4

Capacity at Peak Demand 2026 0.1 -3.1

2031 -0.6 -4.4

2036 -2.6 -6.8

Notes:

1. A positive number indicates an inventory surplus in fields. A negative number indicates the number of fields required to meet optimal demand. 2. The Status Quo Future Needs Assessment assumes that all fourteen (14) fields that meet their remaining useful life (RUL) before 2031, as identified in the OPUS Report, will be rehabilitated, outside of the six fields identified for conversion. 3. The methodology assumes that the average capacity of a lit and unlit field in 2019 will remain the same in the future. 4. The scenario assumes that all fields in current inventory, outside of the six fields to be converted to passive use, will remain in the inventory.

5.3.1.3 Future Needs Scenario 3

Scenario 3 proposes to convert Limerick, Lincoln, Royal Road, Malloy, and Fisher Fields to unstructured, passive use in the medium term. Scenario results indicated that through the peak month period there will be an average deficit of 2.5 unlit fields by the year 2026. Understanding the condition of fields are in fair to good condition and could be rehabilitated, it is advised that this scenario is not pursued by the City, as this scenario will not meet future needs/demands if implemented.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study December 2019 – 19-9400 A – 7

Table 18: Scenario 3 - Future Field Needs Projections

Convert 5 fields to Passive Field Type Use Year Lit Fields Unlit Fields

2019 1.8 4.8

2021 1.2 3.4

Capacity at Peak Demand 2026 0.3 -2.4

2031 -0.4 -3.8

2036 -2.6 -5.8

Notes:

1. A positive number indicates an inventory surplus in fields. A negative number indicates the number of fields required to meet optimal demand. 2. The Status Quo Future Needs Assessment assumes that all fourteen (14) fields that meet their remaining useful life (RUL) before 2031, as identified in the OPUS Report, will be rehabilitated, outside of the five fields identified for conversion. 3. The methodology assumes that the average capacity of a lit and unlit field in 2019 will remain the same in the future. 4. The scenario assumes that all fields in current inventory, outside of the five fields to be converted, will remain in the inventory.

5.3.1.4 Future Needs Scenario 4

Scenario 4 proposes to retrofit one unlit field (i.e. Thompson Field) to one lit field in the short term in order to meet ball field user needs. Additionally, this scenario seeks to convert Limerick, Lincoln, Royal Road, Malloy, and Fisher Fields to unstructured, passive use in the medium term. Also in the medium term, it is proposed that the City develop a multi-field (quad complex) containing one rookies/mosquito field, two bantam/midget fields, and a field for softball use.

Scenario results indicate that through peak months there will be an average deficit of -5.8 unlit fields and -2.2 lit fields by the year 2036. Looking deeper into this scenario, we can see that there is a relative capacity trend where lit ball fields have more capacity for unlit fields. This scenario would offer greater opportunity for the city to host future national tournaments and to provide new, high quality fields to its users.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study December 2019 – 19-9400 A – 8

This scenario would meet short-term needs of ball users and ultimately address long-term ball field needs over the next 10-15 years. This scenario may be a candidate for consideration, provided that another needs assessment on ball fields is completed between 2026 and 2031 to determine if, by the year 2036, new fields are required.

Table 19: Status Quo - Future Field Needs Projections

Retrofit 1 Field, convert 5 Field Type fields to passive use, and develop 1 multi-field (quad) complex Lit Fields Unlit Fields Year

2019 1.8 4.8

2021 1.8 4.8

Capacity at Peak Demand 2026 4.0 -1.3

2031 3.2 -2.4

2036 -2.2 -5.8

Notes:

1. A positive number indicates an inventory surplus in fields. A negative number indicates the number of fields required to meet optimal demand. 2. The Status Quo Future Needs Assessment assumes that all fourteen (14) fields that meet their remaining useful life (RUL) before 2031, as identified in the OPUS Report, will be rehabilitated, outside of the five fields identified for conversion. 3. The methodology assumes that the average capacity of a lit and unlit field in 2019 will remain the same in the future. 4. The scenario assumes that all fields in current inventory, outside of the five fields to be converted, will remain in the inventory.

5.3.1.5 Future Needs Scenario 5

Scenario 5 proposes to retrofit two unlit fields (i.e. Tingley and Johnson Fields) to two lit fields in the short term, in order to meet ball field user needs. This scenario also fills the determined need for a Bantam regulation field by retrofitting Marysville (Royals) Back Field in the short term to bantam standards. Additionally, this scenario seeks to convert Limerick, Lincoln, and Malloy Fields to

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study December 2019 – 19-9400 A – 9

unstructured, passive use in the medium term. This scenario does not include the development of a multi-field (quad complex).

Scenario results indicate that through peak months there will be a cumulative deficit of -0.7 lit fields and -2.4 unlit fields by the year 2036. Under this scenario, ball field infrastructure becomes significantly strained by 2026. This scenario would not meet the short term of long term ball field needs in the City of Fredericton. This scenario should not be considered.

Table 20. Scenario 5

Retrofit 3 fields, convert 5 Field Type fields to passive use Year Lit Fields Unlit Fields

2019 1.8 4.8

2021 1.7 3.7

Capacity at Peak Demand 2026 0.9 -0.1

2031 0.1 -1.3

2036 -0.7 -2.4

Notes:

1. A positive number indicates an inventory surplus in fields. A negative number indicates the number of fields required to meet optimal demand. 2. The Status Quo Future Needs Assessment assumes that all fourteen (14) fields that meet their remaining useful life (RUL) before 2031, as identified in the OPUS Report, will be rehabilitated, outside of the five fields identified for conversion. 3. The methodology assumes that the average capacity of a lit and unlit field in 2019 will remain the same in the future. 4. The scenario assumes that all fields in current inventory, outside of the five fields to be converted, will remain in the inventory.

5.3.1.6 Future Needs Scenario 6

Scenario 6 proposes to retrofit two unlit fields (i.e. Tingley and Johnson Fields) to two lit fields in the short term, in order to meet ball field user needs. This scenario also fills the determined need for a Bantam regulation field by retrofitting Marysville (Royals) Back Fields in the short term to bantam standards. Additionally, this scenario seeks to convert Limerick, Lincoln, and Malloy Fields, and Fisher

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study December 2019 – 19-9400 A – 10

Fields to unstructured, passive use in the medium term. In addition, this scenario also seeks to add capacity through the development of a multi-field (quad) complex in the medium term.

Scenario results indicate a surplus of 1.4 lit fields by 2036 and a deficit of -1.4 unlit fields, essentially balancing a net zero surplus/ deficit. In this scenario, extra capacity would be required to meet demand between 2031 and 2036.

This scenario would meet short-term needs of ball users and ultimately address long-term ball field needs over the next 10 years; however by 2036 there is a need to develop more fields. This scenario is recommended for consideration, provided that more ball field capacity is added into the system between 2031 and 2036.

Table 21. Scenario 6

Retrofit 3 fields, convert 5 Field Type fields to passive use, and Year building 1 multi-field (quad) complex Lit Fields Unlit Fields

2019 3.3 8.6

2021 4.1 7.4

Season 2026 6.7 3.3 (May to October)

2031 6.1 2.8

2036 5.5 2.3

2019 1.8 4.8

Peak Months 2021 1.7 3.7

(July & August) 2026 3.3 0.3

2031 2.4 -0.5

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study December 2019 – 19-9400 A – 11

Retrofit 3 fields, convert 5 Field Type fields to passive use, and Year building 1 multi-field (quad) complex Lit Fields Unlit Fields

2036 1.4 -1.4

Notes:

5. A positive number indicates an inventory surplus in fields. A negative number indicates the number of fields required to meet optimal demand. 6. The Status Quo Future Needs Assessment assumes that all fourteen (14) fields that meet their remaining useful life (RUL) before 2031, as identified in the OPUS Report, will be rehabilitated, outside of the five fields identified for conversion. 7. The methodology assumes that the average capacity of a lit and unlit field in 2019 will remain the same in the future. 8. The scenario assumes that all fields in current inventory, outside of the five fields to be converted, will remain in the inventory.

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study December 2019 – 19-9400 B – 1

Appendix B

B Scenario Calculations

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study December 2019 – 19-9400 Ball Field Need Projecitons Difference Between Estimated Inventory & Required Fields (Cumulative) Status Quo Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7 Scenario Lit Fields Unlit Fields Lit Fields Unlit Fields Lit Fields Unlit Fields Lit Fields Unlit Fields Lit Fields Unlit Fields Lit Fields Unlit Fields Lit Fields Unlit Fields Lit Fields Unlit Fields 2019 3.3 8.6 3.3 8.6 3.3 8.6 3.3 8.6 3.3 8.6 3.3 8.6 3.3 8.6 3.3 8.6 Season 2021 2.9 7.8 2.9 4.8 2.9 7.8 2.9 7.8 3.6 7.6 4.1 7.4 4.1 7.4 4.1 7.4 Year 2026 2.5 6.9 2.5 3.9 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.8 6.6 2.9 3.5 4.0 6.7 3.3 7.0 3.8 (May to October) 2031 2.1 6.0 2.1 3.0 1.7 1.3 1.9 2.0 6.1 2.2 3.0 3.3 6.7 3.3 6.4 3.3 2036 1.8 5.1 1.8 2.1 1.2 0.6 1.5 1.2 5.6 1.6 2.5 2.6 6.1 2.8 5.9 2.7

2019 1.8 4.8 1.8 4.8 1.8 4.8 1.8 4.8 1.8 4.8 1.8 4.8 1.8 4.8 1.8 4.8 Peak Months 2021 1.2 3.4 1.1 -0.4 1.2 3.4 1.2 3.4 1.8 4.8 1.7 3.7 1.7 3.7 1.7 3.7 Year 2026 0.6 2.1 0.5 -1.9 0.1 -3.1 0.3 -2.4 4.0 -1.3 0.9 -0.1 3.3 0.3 3.8 0.6 (July & August) 2031 0.0 0.6 -0.1 -3.4 -0.6 -4.4 -0.4 -3.8 3.2 -2.4 0.1 -1.3 2.4 -0.5 2.9 -0.3 2036 -0.6 -0.8 -0.7 -4.9 -2.6 -6.8 -2.6 -5.8 2.8 -6.8 -0.7 -2.4 1.4 -1.4 1.9 -1.3 A positive number indicates an inventory surplus in fields. A negative number indicates the number of fields required to meet optimal demand. The City of Fredericton's current ball field inventory is estimated to be sufficient to meet the needs of users up to the year 2036. However, when reviewing the individual utilization of specific fields, we can see that most Lit fields and some Unlit Fields have over-acheived their 'Max Use Goal' (80%) within certain Note: months of the season. This could be due to tournament bookings through the months of June to August or additional timeslot bookings to meet cancelled field times throughout the ongoing season.

It is recommended that Scenario 6 should be pursued by the City in order to provide needed capacity for Lit Fields and to optimize opportunities for holding national/provinical ball tournaments in the near future.

Description: Scenario Development of ball fields has been analyzed against current ball field needs. A description of each scearnio can be found below.

Status Quo No changes from existing inventory.

Scenario 1 Decommission three (3) fields (Limerick, Lincoln, and Royal Road) for 2021

Scenario 2 Decommission six (6) fields (Limerick, Lincoln, Royal Road, Johnson, Dunham, and Tingley) for 2026

Scenario 3 Decommission five (5) fields (Limerick, Lincoln, Royal Road, Fisher, and Malloy) for 2026

Scenario 4 Retrofit one existing field (i.e. Thompson or other) into Lit Field (2021), Decommission five (5) fields (Limerick, Lincoln, Royal Road, Fisher, and Malloy) for 2026, and develop Multi-Field (Quad) Complex for 2026

Scenario 5 Retrofit two (2) existing fields (i.e. Tingley & Johnson) into Lit Fields , and Marysville Back into a bantam field (2021), Decommission Three (3) fields (Limerick, Lincoln, and Malloy) for 2026.

Scenario 6 Retrofit two (2) existing fields (i.e. Tingley & Johnson) into Lit Fields, and Marysville Back into a bantam field (2021), Decommission five (5) fields (Limerick, Lincoln, Royal Road, Fisher, and Malloy) for 2026, and develop Multi-Field (Quad) Complex for 2026

Scenario 7 Retrofit two (2) existing fields (i.e. Tingley & Johnson) into Lit Fields, , and Marysville Back into a bantam field (2021), Decommission five (4) fields (Limerick, Lincoln, Royal Road, and Malloy) for 2026, and develop Multi-Field (Quad) Complex for 2026 There is a need to retrofit two (2) existing field by the year 2021. By the year 2026 the City of Fredericton should decommission 5 unlit fields and develop a quad field complex that offers all lit fields. Additionally moving forward, the City should monitor bookings and capacity levels. Findings from monitoring gathered between 2021-2026 should assist in identifying if there will be a need to develop further fields. Population growth and ball field booking hours will be integral to determing needs beyond 2031. Conclusions It is recommended that another Needs Assessment study be completed in 5 years (2026) to determine the future need over the next 10-15 years leading upto 2036-2041. C – 1

Appendix C

C Field Inventory Sheets

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study December 2019 – 19-9400 LOWER PROSPECT FIELD Location

695 Prospect Street

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 2.00 2024 $5,000 Rookie Intermediate Bleachers 2.00 2024 $12,408 Musquito Senior Building 1.00 2059 $6,000 Softball / Dugout 2.00 2024 $16,500 Peewee Slo Pitch Electrical 1.00 2034 $40,000 Tournament Fence 2.00 2024 $65,821 Bantam Field Foul Pole 2.00 2022 $660 Midget Gate 2.00 2024 $3,200 In Field 1.00 2044 $72,072 Field Size (Ft.) Light 1.00 2034 $24,000 Out Field 1.00 2054 $76,520 LF CF RF BS Picnic Table 2.00 2021 $2,900 230 260 230 25 Scoreboard 1.00 2044 $2,000 Sign 1.00 2029 $1,500 Structure 1.00 2059 $11,635 Total/Average 1.35 2032 $340,216

Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition UPPER PROSPECT FIELD Location

695 Prospect Street

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 2.00 2024 $5,000 Rookie Intermediate Bleachers 1.75 2032 $99,264 Musquito Senior Building 2.00 2059 $6,038 Softball / Dugout 2.00 2024 $16,500 Peewee Slo Pitch Electrical 1.00 2034 $30,000 Tournament Fence 2.11 2026 $24,747 Bantam Field Foul Pole 1.00 2044 $660 Midget Gate 2.00 2024 $9,600 In Field 1.00 2044 $70,306 Field Size (Ft.) Light 1.00 2034 $18,000 Out Field 2.00 2024 $84,718 LF CF RF BS Netting 2.00 2022 $11,550 230 260 230 25 Scoreboard 1.00 2044 $2,000 Sign 1.00 2029 $1,500 Light 1.00 2034 $18,000 Stairway 1.00 2029 $1,000 Total/Average 1.57 2030 $398,883 Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition THOMPSON Location

1035 Smythe Street

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 1.00 2044 $5,000 Rookie Intermediate Bleachers 2.00 2024 $12,408 Musquito Senior Dugout 2.00 2024 $16,500 Softball / Fence 1.57 2033 $51,992 Peewee Slo Pitch Foul Pole 1.00 2044 $660 Tournament Gate 1.00 2044 $4,800 Bantam Field In Field 1.00 2044 $147,166 Midget Out Field 1.00 2054 $76,326 Sign 1.00 2029 $1000 Field Size (Ft.) Total/Average 1.35 2035 $315,882 LF CF RF BS

325 400 325 60

Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition KIMBLE Location

605 Kimble Drive

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 2.00 2024 $5,000 Rookie Intermediate Bleachers 2.00 2024 $10,340 Musquito Senior Dugout 1.00 2044 $16,500 Softball / Fence 1.80 2028 $27,186 Peewee Slo Pitch Foul Pole 1.50 2033 $660 Tournament Gate 2.40 2023 $8,000 Bantam Field In Field 1.00 2044 $60,798 Midget Out Field 2.00 2024 $67,616 Sign 1.67 2026 $750 Field Size (Ft.) Total/Average 1.82 2028 $196,850 LF CF RF BS

230 265 230 30

Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition LIMERICK Location

157 Limerick Road

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 2.00 2024 $5,000 Rookie Intermediate Dugout 2.00 2024 $16,500 Musquito Senior Fence 2.00 2024 $12,176 Softball / Foul Pole 2.50 2021 $660 Peewee Slo Pitch In Field 2.00 2024 $55,219 Tournament Out Field 2.00 2024 $78,022 Bantam Field Sign 1.00 2029 $500 Midget Total/Average 1.90 2024 $168,077 Field Size (Ft.)

LF CF RF BS

224 248 222 25

Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition MORELL Location

Waterloo Row

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 1.00 2044 $5,000 Rookie Intermediate Bleachers 2.00 2024 $10,340 Musquito Senior Dugout 1.00 2044 $16,500 Softball / Fence 1.20 2040 $13,446 Peewee Slo Pitch Foul Pole 2.00 2022 $660 Tournament Gate 1.00 2044 $1,600 Bantam Field In Field 2.00 2024 $60,904 Midget Out Field 2.00 2024 $70,777 Sign 1.00 2029 $500 Field Size (Ft.) Total/Average 1.41 2034 $179,727 LF CF RF BS

200 225 199 34

Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition UPPER QUEEN (SOFTBALL) Location

740 Aberdeen Street

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 1.00 2024 $10,000 Rookie Intermediate Bleachers 2.00 2024 $10,340 Musquito Senior Dugout 2.00 2024 $16,500 Softball / Fence 2.00 2024 $26,501 Peewee Slo Pitch Foul Pole 1.00 2044 $660 Tournament Gate 3.00 2033 $3,200 Bantam Field In Field 1.00 2044 $68,822 Midget Out Field 2.00 2024 $37,060 Sign 2.00 2025 $1000 Field Size (Ft.) Total/Average 1.52 2034 $169,083 LF CF RF BS

230 280 230 40

Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition LOWER QUEEN (BASEBALL) Location

740 Aberdeen Street

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 2.00 2024 $5,000 Rookie Intermediate Bleachers 2.00 2024 $10,340 Musquito Senior Concrete Slab 1.00 2069 $3,664 Softball / Dugout 1.50 2034 $16,500 Peewee Slo Pitch Fence 1.83 2027 $27,323 Tournament Foul Pole 1.00 2044 $660 Bantam Field Gate 1.50 2034 $3,200 Midget In Field 1.00 2044 $76,160 Out Field 2.00 2024 $75,020 Field Size (Ft.) Sign 1.00 2029 $500 LF CF RF BS Total/Average 1.90 2027 $218,367 230 280 230 40

Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition HENRY SOFTBALL(LOWER HENRY) Location

248 Medley Street

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 2.00 2024 $5,000 Rookie Intermediate Bleachers 2.00 2024 $10,340 Musquito Senior Dugout 2.00 2024 $16,500 Softball / Electrical 1.00 2034 $25,000 Peewee Slo Pitch Fence 1.80 2028 $25,812 Tournament Foul Pole 1.50 2033 $660 Bantam Field Gate 1.00 2044 $1,600 Midget In Field 2.00 2024 $59,443 Light 1.10 2033 $30,000 Field Size (Ft.) Netting 2.00 2022 $7,920 LF CF RF BS Out Field 2.00 2024 $77,383 Total/Average 1.44 2030 $259,658 230 260 220 30

Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition HENRY BASEBALL (HENRY UPPER) Location

248 Medley Street

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 2.00 2024 $5,000 Rookie Intermediate Bleachers 2.00 2024 $10,340 Musquito Senior Dugout 2.00 2024 $16,500 Softball / Fence 2.00 2024 $28,886 Peewee Slo Pitch Foul Pole 1.00 2044 $330 Tournament Gate 2.00 2024 $1,600 Bantam Field In Field 2.00 2024 $107,815 Midget Light (non-field) 1.00 2034 $3,000 Out Field 2.00 2024 $82,567 Field Size (Ft.) Total/Average 1.87 2026 $256,018 LF CF RF BS

235 270 235 40

Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition FISHER Location

99 Noble Street

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 2.00 2024 $5,000 Rookie Intermediate Bleachers 2.00 2024 $8,272 Musquito Senior Dugout 2.00 2024 $16,500 Softball / Fence 2.00 2024 $23,500 Peewee Slo Pitch Foul Pole 2.50 2021 $660 Tournament In Field 2.00 2024 $145,128 Bantam Field Out Field 2.00 2024 $152,708 Midget Sign 1.00 2029 $500 Total/Average 1.94 2024 $352,268 Field Size (Ft.)

LF CF RF BS

290 385 340 60

Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition MALLOY Location

100 Noble Street

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 2.00 2024 $5,000 Rookie Intermediate Bleachers 2.00 2024 $4,136 Musquito Senior Dugout 2.00 2024 $16,500 Softball / Fence 2.00 2024 $21,338 Peewee Slo Pitch Foul Pole 2.00 2022 $660 Tournament Gate 2.00 2024 $3,200 Bantam Field In Field 2.00 2024 $52,914 Midget Out Field 2.00 2024 $51,602 Sign 1.00 2029 $250 Field Size (Ft.) Total/Average 1.94 2024 $155,600 LF CF RF BS

190 200 195 30

Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition MARYSVILLE FRONT (SAUNDERS) Location

60 Morrison Street

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 2.00 2024 $5,000 Rookie Intermediate Bleachers 2.00 2024 $15,510 Musquito Senior Dugout 2.00 2024 $16,500 Softball / Fence 2.00 2024 $25,916 Peewee Slo Pitch Foul Pole 2.00 2022 $660 Tournament Gate 2.00 2024 $1,600 Bantam Field In Field 2.00 2024 $86.,973 Midget Out Field 2.00 2024 $125,593 Sign 1.00 2029 $250 Field Size (Ft.) Total/Average 1.94 2024 $278,002 LF CF RF BS

220 245 220 25

Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition MARYSVILLE BACK (ROYALS BACK) Location

60 Morrison Street

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 2.00 2024 $5,000 Rookie Intermediate Bleachers 2.00 2024 $10,340 Musquito Senior Dugout 2.00 2024 $16,500 Softball / Electrical 2.00 2023 $5,000 Peewee Slo Pitch Fence 2.00 2024 $28,585 Tournament Foul Pole 2.00 2022 $660 Bantam Field Gate 2.00 2024 $1,600 Midget In Field 2.00 2024 $163,179 Light 2.00 2023 $18,000 Field Size (Ft.) Out Field 2.00 2024 $76,519 Sign 1.00 2029 $750 LF CF RF BS Total/Average 1.88 2024 $321,113 235 260 235 40

Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition ROYALS FIELD Location

60 Morrison Street

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Field Components Assessment (2019) Potable water Replacement Sum of Component Condition Field Enhancements (i.e. netting) Year Costs Backstop 1.00 2044 $10,000 Field Users Bleachers 1.75 2032 $62,040 Building 1.67 2059 $66,938 T-Ball Junior Concrete Slab 1.00 2069 $36,251 Rookie Intermediate Dugout 1.00 2044 $16,500 Electrical 1.00 2034 $45,000 Musquito Senior Fence 1.67 2031 $19,710 Softball / Peewee Flag Pole 1.00 2069 $1,000 Slo Pitch Foul Pole 1.00 2044 $660 Tournament Bantam Gate 1.50 2034 $19,200 Field In Field 1.00 2044 $88,913 Midget Irrigation System 2.00 2044 $80,000 Light 1.06 2033 $48,000 Field Size (Ft.) Netting 1.25 2027 $46,200 LF CF RF BS Out Field 1.00 2054 $83,414 300 365 300 60 Picnic Table 2.00 2021 $11,600 Score Board 1.00 2044 $2,000 Sign 1.25 2027 $1,000 Structure 1.50 2042 $10,191 Total/Average 1.35 2036 $648,617 Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition MACLOON Location

324 Fulton Avenue

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 1.67 2031 $15,000 Rookie Intermediate Dugout 2.00 2024 $16,500 Musquito Senior Fence 2.00 2024 $19,744 Softball / In Field 2.00 2024 $80,284 Peewee Slo Pitch Out Field 2.00 2024 $180,788 Tournament Sign 1.00 2029 $500 Bantam Field Total/Average 1.70 2027 $312,816 Midget

Field Size (Ft.)

LF CF RF BS

* * * 70

*Not fenced. One prominent backstop.

Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition ROYAL ROAD Location

35 Royal Road

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 1.00 2044 $5,000 Rookie Intermediate Bleachers 2.00 2024 $8,272 Musquito Senior Dugout 1.00 2044 $16,500 Softball / Fence 1.4 2044 $21,135 Peewee Slo Pitch In Field 2.00 2024 $54,079 Tournament Out Field 2.00 2024 $79,175 Bantam Field Sign 1.00 2029 $250 Midget Total/Average 1.43 2034 $184,411 Field Size (Ft.)

LF CF RF BS

195 215 195 25

Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition TINGLEY Location

138 Johnson Avenue

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 2.00 2024 $5,000 Rookie Intermediate Bleachers 2.00 2024 $15,510 Musquito Senior Dugout 2.00 2024 $16,500 Softball / Fence 2.00 2024 $29,096 Peewee Slo Pitch Foul Pole 2.00 2022 $660 Tournament Gate 2.00 2024 $1,600 Bantam Field Netting 2.00 2022 $7,920 Midget In Field 2.00 2024 $88,766 Out Field 2.00 2024 $56,676 Field Size (Ft.) Light (non-field) 1.00 2034 $3,000 Sign 1.25 2027 $1,000 LF CF RF BS Total/Average 1.82 2025 $227,328 250 285 250 40

Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition DUNHAM Location

138 Johnston Ave

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 2.00 2024 $5,000 Rookie Intermediate Dugout 2.00 2024 $16,500 Musquito Senior Fence 2.00 2024 $23,537 Softball / Foul Pole 2.00 2022 $660 Peewee Slo Pitch In Field 2.00 2024 $62,988 Tournament Out Field 2.00 2024 $177,653 Bantam Field Gate 2.00 2024 $1,600 Midget Sign 1.00 2029 $250 Total/Average 1.92 2024 $288,188 Field Size (Ft.)

LF CF RF BS

200 225 200 25

Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition JOHNSTON Location

138 Johnston Avenue

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 2.00 2024 $5,000 Rookie Intermediate Bleacheres 2.00 2024 $10,340 Musquito Senior Dugout 2.00 2024 $16,500 Softball / Fence 1.80 2028 $26,118 Peewee Slo Pitch Foul Pole 2.00 2022 $660 Tournament Gate 1.00 2044 $1,600 Bantam Field In Field 2.00 2024 $74,242 Midget Out Field 2.00 2024 $6,373 Sign 2.00 2022 $250 Field Size (Ft.) Total/Average 1.88 2026 $141,083 LF CF RF BS

225 255 225 25

Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition LINCOLN Location

35 Royal Road

Amenities Lights Parking Washroom/changing room Proximity to other ball fields Proximity to transportation corridor Proximity to services Potable water Field Enhancements (i.e. netting)

Field Components Assessment (2019) Field Users

Replacement Sum of Component Condition T-Ball Junior Year Costs Backstop 1.00 2044 $5,000 Rookie Intermediate Bleachers 2.00 2024 $4,136 Musquito Senior Dugout 2.00 2024 $16,500 Softball / Fence 2.00 2024 $22,748 Peewee Slo Pitch Foul Pole 2.00 2022 $660 Tournament Gate 1.00 2044 $1,600 Bantam Field In Field 3.00 2021 $48,785 Midget Out Field 2.00 2024 $45,852 Sign 1.00 2029 $250 Field Size (Ft.) Total/Average 1.82 2027 $145,531 LF CF RF BS

230 260 230 25

Overall Condition Assessment (2019)

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 Poor Fair Good Condition Condition Condition C – 2

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study December 2019 – 19-9400 References

References

Barrie, City of – Outdoor Recreation Facility Study, 2019

Baseball Alberta – Baseball Alberta Handbook, www.cloud.rampinteractive.com/baseballabertav3/files/2018%20Baseball%20Alberta%20Handbook%2 0FINAL.pd Baseball Canada – www.baseball.ca

Beacon Athletics – www.beaconathletics.com

Fredericton, City of – Growth Strategy, 2017

Fredericton, City of – Municipal Plan, 2007

Fredericton, City of – Parks and Recreation Assets Condition and Valuation Study

Fredericton, City of – Recreation Master Plan, 2008

Fredericton, City of – Zoning Bylaw, 2013

Government of Canada Census, 2016

London, City of – Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2019

Softball Canada – Softball Field Specification, www.softball.ca/resources/the-playing-field

Strathcona County Alberta – Recreation and Culture Strategy, Facilities and Spaces, 2019

TryLawn Turf – www.trylawnturf.ca

Waterloo, City of – Outdoor Sports Field Strategy, 2012

CITY OF FREDERICTON Fredericton Ball Field Study December 2019 – 19-9400