Debate over the future of the new Bowie Ice Arena project reached a fevered pitch over the last couple of weeks as Councilmember Dufour Woolfley proposed that the council discuss the project’s future and Mayor Tim Adams penned an opinion piece claiming that financial impacts to the city related to COVID-19 make it necessary to stop the project. An overview of the history of the project might be helpful to review at this time.
Although the project history described here is very detailed, it could have easily been twice as long. A lot of attention was given to the origins of the project as those details are probably not as well known as the more recent events.
In the spring of 2012, the city council appropriated money for a feasibility study for the construction of an indoor sports facility. The goal of the study was to evaluate the need, determine what activities the facility should support, and determine where the facility should be located. After reviewing six proposals from consulting groups willing to conduct the study, the council selected The Sports Facility Advisory (SFA).
The SFA study was conducted in the spring of 2013. Approximately 60 interviews were conducted with stakeholders including leaders representing various sports and organizations in the city. A survey of sports users in the city was conducted, sites were evaluated, construction costs were calculated, and SFA created a report detailing financial options for the city.
The city advertised the online survey through its web site, the city’s Facebook page, and through the Alert Bowie system in April 2013. A post on the Bowie Living Facebook page directed people to the survey as well.
More than 900 people completed the survey, including some non-residents who participate in Bowie sports.
SFA held a public briefing in May 2013 to present preliminary conclusions of the feasibility study and to provide an opportunity for public feedback. The meeting was advertised on the city’s web site, the city’s Facebook page, Alert Bowie, and Bowie Living.
SFA delivered a lengthy report to the council at the end of May 2013, and the highlights of the feasibility study were presented during a Bowie City Council meeting during the first week of June 2013. The council meeting is available for viewing on the city’s web site (as are all council meetings since November 2008).
The study made conclusions about demand, construction cost, annual revenue, and annual operating costs for four types of indoor sports facilities: courts, swimming, ice, and turf. Assumptions were made that the Bowie City Gym will remain operational if the city constructs a new court facility and the Bowie Ice Arena at Allen Pond Park will be shuttered if a new ice facility is constructed.
The study ranked the facility types based on need, construction cost, and operating cost in the following order from highest need to lowest:
- courts (five basketball courts reconfigurable as six volleyball courts)
- aquatics (50 meters by 25 yards)
- ice (one Olympic-size rink and one NHL-size rink)
- turf (two 200’ x 100’ turf fields, with four batting cages that can be setup on the turf as needed).
The rankings assumed implementation of new fee structures, SFA’s understanding of the city’s priorities, and the city’s willingness to pay for construction cost and annual net operating costs.
Each facility type represented unique challenges. The construction cost of the proposed aquatic center was the lowest, but it had the highest annual net operating loss. The construction cost of the proposed two-sheet ice arena was the greatest, but it had the lowest annual net operating loss because of the fees that groups in the ice community are willing to pay. The construction cost of the turf facility was the second lowest, but demand was not high enough to keep the facility utilized during the entire year. Staff requirements for the city to operate courts would have to nearly double because any new courts could not be co-located with the courts in the existing Bowie City Gym.
SFA estimated construction cost based on work starting in 2015, and councilmembers acknowledged that the cost were higher than they had anticipated.
All facility types would result in the city having to pay net operating costs annually as user fees would not cover operating expenses. Neither the courts, ice sheets, aquatics center, or indoor turfs would be self-sustaining.
SFA discussed the possibility of using public-private partnerships to fund and operate some facilities – a trend that was growing in 2013. The proposed ice facility represented the greatest opportunity for a public-private partnership due to the high fees that the ice community is willing to pay.
At the time of the June 2013 presentation, the city was facing an estimated $700,000 expense above and beyond standard operating costs to keep the existing ice arena at Allen Pond Park operational. The declining state of the current ice arena would continue to influence the council’s decisions for years to come.
Five possible locations for a new indoor sports facility were included in the 2013 study:
- Annapolis Road (bordered by Old Annapolis Road, the Pope’s Creek train track, and Grenville Lane). This 61.5 acre site is in an ideal location, and it’s owned by the city of Bowie. Geographic features would make development of the property very expensive, and it’s possible that environmental concerns might prevent the project from being approved.
- Glen Allen Park (off Mitchellville Road). The site is in an ideal location, and it’s owned by the city of Bowie. The size of the property would only allow one type of facility to be constructed (i.e., could not be the site of a combined court and ice facility).
- Green Branch (behind Rip’s): The site is owned by Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning, and it has access issues that the county has been unsuccessful in resolving.
- Mitchelville Road (current lacrosse fields): This property is owned by the Prince George’s County Board of Education, and it’s intended to eventually be the location of a new high school in the city.
- Race Track: The Bowie Race Course is not currently available, but it could become available to the city at a later date.
At the end of the June 2013 council meeting, city staff was looking for direction. The council asked city staff to review the feasibility study in greater detail, and to involve the city’s Community Recreation Committee and Financial Advisory Committee in the process.
Mayor G. Fred Robinson (mayor from 1998 to 2019) concluded the meeting by issuing a statement about the city’s long history of commitment to quality recreation facilities. “The one thing that I’m comfortable with,” Robinson said, “is that in this city, there is strong consensus to build and maintain quality recreation, because there is a strong commitment. It’s part of the core of the city. It’s part of the dynamic of the city. It’s part of what brings and holds the city together.”
Nearly a year later during a May 2014 budget worksession (also available for viewing online), the council announced that the focus for an indoor sports facility had been narrowed down to several options including a no-build option, an ice-only facility, a courts-only facility, a combined facility, and an option where an ice-only facility was built first followed by courts.
Although it was clear why an indoor turf facility was dropped from consideration, there’s been a lot of debate about why an ice facility was prioritized over an aquatics facility, even though the feasibility study ranked an aquatics facility higher. The following were some of the points discussed at the time.
- An aquatics facility had a higher annual net operating cost that the city would have to fund. Estimates at the time were approximately $500,000 per year.
- The question of whether or not the city should build an aquatics center had previously been put to referendum, and the public failed to support it. Some people believe that the referendum question was to blame as it asked whether residents would be willing to pay for a tax increase to fund an indoor aquatics facility.
- Although the feasibility study identified a high demand for an aquatics center, membership in local swim clubs in Bowie was declining at the time, suggesting to some that the demand might not be as high as the feasibility study suggested.
- The city was continuing to experience maintenance issues at the Bowie Ice Arena at Allen Pond Park. If the city wanted to continue offering ice facilities to the public, ice had to be prioritized over aquatics.
During a May 19, 2014 council meeting, the FY2015 budget was approved with a recommendation for a combined ice and courts facility. This recommendation continued to be included in subsequent annual budgets, but the project was delayed because the city had trouble identifying a site that could accommodate the combined ice and court facility.
In June 2016, the city purchased a 20-acre site on Church Road near the Route 50 overpass for the proposed indoor sports complex. The size of this parcel of land was believed to be large enough to support a dual-use ice and courts facility.
In June of 2017, city staff announced that revised construction cost estimates for the indoor sports complex were much higher than previously calculated. Construction costs were now estimated to be $37 million.
After much debate and a series of public hearings, the council decided to move forward with one of the original options that the council considered in 2014: an ice facility first followed by the construction of additional courts at some time in the future. The council believed at the time that the Church Road site would be able to accommodate courts in the future as an addition to an ice facility.
Based on councilmembers’ comments at the time, the following were some of the arguments that influenced the council’s decision.
- Costly maintenance issues continued to plague the Bowie Ice Arena at Allen Pond Park, thus putting an ice facility at a higher priority.
- Major renovations of the existing ice arena would cost almost as much as a new single-sheet facility.
- Major renovations of the existing ice arena or construction of a new ice arena at Allen Pond Park would displace the ice community for a year or longer, potentially disrupting the revenue stream that net cost estimates were relying on.
- Cost of a single-sheet ice facility was almost as expensive as a dual-sheet facility.
- Dual-sheet facilities had an advantage over single-sheet facilities because the facility could host tournaments. The tournaments would help with cost recovery as well as attracting customers to area hotels and restaurants.
- Although there was demand for additional court space, the city was already offering some indoor courts at the Bowie City Gym.
The following are some of the arguments that were raised against prioritizing ice over courts.
- There was a great demand for more court time.
- Some court proponents felt that they hadn’t been included in the indoor sports facility planning process.
- There was a belief that many users of the ice arena at Allen Pond Park were not Bowie residents.
- Some people believed that ice facilities draw users from a wider area, and therefore should be constructed and maintained by a regional entity like the Maryland-National Capital Parks and Planning Commission.
- At least one councilmember expressed doubt that the city should be in the business of providing indoor sports facilities given the overlap with the mission of the Maryland-National Capital Parks and Planning Commission.
- Some people felt that building such an expensive facility was fiscally irresponsible. The estimated cost for the indoor ice arena was higher than any previous capital improvement project in the city’s history.
- Some people expressed concern about the traffic impact to Church Road.
- Some people felt that a project of that size should be put to referendum.
Although the council as a whole moved forward with the project over the two years following the decision to proceed with an ice-only facility first, the debate didn’t stop. Lower cost alternatives were discussed, including a “bubble” facility to host ice and courts.
The city conducted a study during this time to determine the residency of members of user groups using existing ice, court, and outdoor field facilities in the city. The study has been used by some to conclude that the majority of users of the existing ice arena are not Bowie residents. The reality is much more complicated.
The residency analysis was restricted to user groups that rent ice, court, and field time, and it did not include people who participate directly in city run programs, including lessons, open skate times, and camps.
The study also shows that non-residents are frequent users of other Bowie sponsored sports facilities including courts and fields. According to the results, roughly 40% of South Bowie Boys & Girls Club members using city facilities are city residents, and roughly 55% of Bowie Boys and Girls Club members are city residents.
The “glass half empty” point of view is that the city is building facilities that are heavily used by non-residents. The “glass half full” point of view is that non-residents are subsidizing city owned facilities, making it possible for the city to make these services available to its residents.
Although most user groups for all city owned facilities are split about 50/50 between Bowie residents and non-residents, two outliers exist. About 80% of the 500-member Bowie Hockey Club using the Bowie Ice Arena are non-residents, and about 80% of the 400-member Woodstream Christian Academy using courts are non-residents, according to the study. It’s important to note, however, that the Bowie Hockey Club contributes about $274,000 annually in fees to the Bowie Ice Arena, and roughly $219,000 of that is coming from non-residents. User groups paying for court time pay a tiny fraction of that amount.
In 2018, the council allocated money for an indoor court feasibility study. The council was presented with options for one court and two court facilities. Multiple public-private partnerships were explored, including proposals by the Greater Mt. Nebo Church and the Community Housing Initiative.
The council gave residents whiplash in June and July of 2019 as one month they voted to put the new ice complex up to a referendum vote, and the next month they overturned that decision and selected Costello Construction to build the arena.
In the fall of 2019, the council approved a contract with Costello Construction and a municipal bond issuance to pay for the project.
A groundbreaking ceremony was held in October 2019.
Final permits were issued in early 2020 after the city agreed to partially fund a new traffic light at the intersection of Church Road and Fairview Vista Drive. County officials hoped that the traffic light would improve safety along that stretch of church road. A 14-year-old boy was hit by a car and killed at that intersection in June 2019.
Construction on the new ice arena began in March 2020.
During a council meeting in early May, Councilmember Dufour Woolfley proposed a discussion about the future of the ice arena project. He later explained in an email to constituents that this would give new members of the council a chance to voice their opinions on the project. Four new members joined the council last November, including Mayor Tim Adams, At-Large Councilmember Ingrid Harrison, District 3 Councilmember Adrian Boafo, and District 4 Councilmember Roxy Ndebumadu.
Last week, the Bowie Blade-News published an opinion piece by Mayor Tim Adams in which Adams said that the ice arena project must be stopped due to financial concerns brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Adams piece lacked detail, and his points relied on his own analysis of financials and the Costello Construction contracts.
As of this writing, two councilmembers (Esteve and Gardner) have publicly voiced support for allowing the new ice arena project to continue, two councilmembers (Woolfley and Adams) have voiced support for canceling the project, and three councilmembers (Boafo, Harrison, and Ndebumadu) have not yet taken a public stance.
The next chapter to this story will be written during the council’s Monday, May 18th meeting. Stay tuned.
Construction photos c/o Costello Construction:
