3. FRAMEWORK AND PLANNING PROCESS FOR
A PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
CADRE DE TRAVAIL ET
PROCESSUS DE PLANIFICATION RELATIFS AU PLAN DIRECTEUR DES PARCS ET DES
LOISIRS |
committee
recommendations as amended
That Council approve
the Parks and Recreation Master Plan framework and terms of reference,
including establishment of a Steering Committee, as described in this report, and
as amended to include the Chair/member of the Health and Social Services
Advisory Committee as a member of the Steering Committee.
recommandations
modifiées du comité
Que le Conseil approuve le cadre et les paramètres du Plan directeur des parcs et des loisirs, et la création d’un comité directeur, tel que décrit dans ce rapport et tel que modifié afin d’inclure le président ou un membre du Comité consultatif sur la santé et les services sociaux à titre de membre du comité directeur.
DOCUMENTATION
1.
Deputy City Manager, Community and Protective Services
Department report dated 25 March 2008 (ACS2008-CPS-PAR-0003).
2. Extract of Draft
Minutes, 3 April 2008.
Report to/Rapport au :
Community and
Protective Services Committee
Comité des services communautaires et de protection
and Council / et au Conseil
25 March 2008 / le 25 mars 2008
Submitted by/Soumis par : Steve
Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint,
Community and Protective Services/Services communautaires et de
protection
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Aaron Burry, Director
Parks and
Recreation/Parcs et Loisir
(613)
580-2424 x, aaron.burry@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT:
|
FRAMEWORK AND PLANNING PROCESS
FOR A PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN |
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
CADRE DE TRAVAIL ET PROCESSUS DE PLANIFICATION RELATIFS AU PLAN DIRECTEUR DES PARCS ET DES LOISIRS |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Community and Protective Services Committee recommend that Council approve the Parks and Recreation Master Plan framework and terms of reference, including establishment of a Steering Committee, as described in this report.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité des services
communautaires et de protection recommande au Conseil d’approuver le cadre et
le mandat du Plan directeur des parcs et des loisirs, et la création d’un
comité directeur, tel que décrit dans ce rapport.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recreation services in Ontario operate in a largely non-prescriptive regulatory environment where municipal Councils have a great deal of latitude to determine what facilities and services are provided, how they are provided, and how much they will cost.
At amalgamation, the 11 former municipalities had unique delivery systems for recreation. Most jurisdictions used a blended approach combining direct service delivery with volunteer community involvement and combining tax-supported services with user pay services.
This diversity of models resulted in significant gaps in certain services across the new City of Ottawa. For example, prior to 2001, only 4 of the 11 jurisdictions had any services for Francophone residents, only 2 jurisdictions were offering programs for individuals with disabilities, and only 3 had dedicated funds to provide participant subsidies to offset user fees.
In keeping with Transition Board
direction, local service
levels and fee structures were largely retained through amalgamation process.
In the years since amalgamation, the Parks and Recreation Branch has focused on consolidation and stabilization of recreation services through administrative realignments, city-wide harmonization of key processes such as facility allocations, as well as establishing equitable city-wide policies for new City investments through the minor and major capital programs as well as the Sportsfield and Community Infrastructure Strategies.
Since 2006, City Council has provided direction to staff to report back on a process to create a Recreation Master Plan in consultation with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee (PRAC) and other key stakeholders. Separate though related motions have been approved requesting staff to report back on access to basic recreation services and barriers to participation as well as to anchor recreation priorities in terms of value to the community.
This report recommends approval of a framework and terms of reference to be guided by a Steering Committee, with representation from PRAC and Council, in support of the development of a comprehensive Recreation Master Plan that will shape the direction of recreation services over the course of the next 10 to 20 years.
The Steering Committee will examine Parks and Recreation services through a lens of key drivers (demographics, geography, climate and existing Council direction) and will prepare four white papers through 2009 that will undertake to develop four cohesive strategies around fundamental issues of service delivery; accessibility, revenue and overall funding. Answering fundamental questions respecting what services will be provided, how they will be provided, how accessible they are, and how they will be paid for, will ultimately result in comprehensive Service Delivery Model and Infrastructure Plan to be recommended to Council in 2010.
RÉSUMÉ
En Ontario, les services de loisirs
fonctionnent essentiellement dans un environnement sans exigences
réglementaires où les conseils municipaux ont une grande latitude pour décider
du genre d’installations et de services qu’ils veulent offrir, de la façon de
le faire et à quel prix.
Au moment de la fusion, les onze anciennes
municipalités avaient des systèmes particuliers en matière de loisirs. La plupart
s’appuyaient sur une approche mixte combinant la prestation directe de services
et la participation des bénévoles de la communauté, ainsi que sur un système
mixte de services financés par les taxes et les frais payés par les
utilisateurs.
Cette diversité
des modèles a provoqué des lacunes importantes dans certains services dispensés
à l’échelle de la nouvelle Ville d’Ottawa. Par
exemple, avant 2001, quatre municipalités seulement sur onze offraient des
services à leurs résidents francophones, seules deux offraient des programmes
aux personnes handicapées et trois disposaient de fonds spéciaux pour offrir
des subventions afin de contrebalancer les frais d’utilisation.
Conformément aux directives du Conseil de
transition, les services et la structure tarifaire au niveau local ont été
largement maintenus pendant le processus de fusion.
Depuis la fusion, la Direction des parcs et
loisirs a surtout cherché à regrouper et à stabiliser les services de loisirs
par le biais de réalignements administratifs, d’une harmonisation des processus
essentiels à l’échelle de la ville comme
l’attribution des installations, et à élaborer des politiques équitables en ce
qui concerne les nouveaux investissements de la Ville dans le cadre des
programmes d’immobilisations mineures et majeures, ainsi que des stratégies sur
les terrains de sport et les infrastructures communautaires.
En 2006, le Conseil a demandé au personnel de
lui présenter un rapport sur un processus permettant d’élaborer un plan
directeur des loisirs en collaboration avec le
Comité consultatif sur les parcs et les loisirs (CCPL) et d’autres intervenants clés. On a
adopté des motions distinctes, mais reliées, demandant au personnel de faire
rapport sur l’accès aux services de loisirs de base et sur les obstacles à la
participation, et de présenter les priorités en fonction des valeurs de la
communauté.
Dans ce
rapport, on recommande d’approuver un cadre et un mandat dont l’orientation
serait fixée par un comité directeur, comportant des représentants du CCPL et
du Conseil, afin d’élaborer un plan directeur d’ensemble des services de
loisirs au cours des 10 à 20 prochaines années.
Le comité directeur aurait pour tâche
d’examiner les services de parcs et de loisirs en tenant compte de facteurs
essentiels comme la démographie, la géographie, le climat et les directives
actuelles du Conseil, et de préparer quatre livres blancs pour 2009 qui
jetteront les bases de quatre stratégies cohérentes sur la prestation,
l’accessibilité, les revenus et le financement global des services. On
présentera une réponse aux questions fondamentales sur le choix des services,
la façon de les dispenser, leur accessibilité et leur mode de financement, qui
se traduira finalement par la recommandation au Conseil, en 2010, d’un modèle
de prestation de services et d’un plan d’infrastructure global.
BACKGROUND
In 2008, the City
of Ottawa, through the Community and Protective Services (CPS) Parks and
Recreation Branch, manages a $93M operating budget and a $159M capital program
budget providing a highly diversified range of recreational programs, services
and spaces through direct service delivery, community partnerships and
public-private partnerships. Examples
include aquatic programs, skating schools, pools, arenas, seniors centres,
parks and indoor domes, to name only a few.
Over 15,000 courses and rentals and almost 290,000 allocated facility
hours are provided annually.
The City of Ottawa Parks and Recreation Master Plan is a two-phase planning initiative that will be completed over the next two years. The first phase, Key Strategies and Policy Direction, to be completed by fall 2009, will create a comprehensive vision and policy direction and set out key strategies for parks and recreation for the next 10-20 years. In the second phase, the Service Delivery Model and Infrastructure Implementation Plan will be developed and completed by winter 2010, guided by the Key Strategies and Policy Direction document. These two documents together will form the Master Plan.
Evolution of Recreational Service Delivery
Recreation service delivery from pre-amalgamation to the current period can be understood as evolving through three distinct stages: consolidation, stabilization and development of city-wide policies, and the current stage of moving forward into the next 10-20 years with a Master Plan.
Consolidation:
Recreation services in Ontario operate in a non-regulated environment, unlike other Human Services such as Public Health, Ontario Works and Child Care. City Council determines the scope of services, policy directions, accessibility and accountability, and municipal investment.
Prior to amalgamation, the 11 former municipalities had unique delivery systems for recreation. Most jurisdictions used a blended approach combining direct service delivery with volunteer community involvement and combining tax-supported services with user pay services. Rural communities like Rideau and West Carleton generally relied on volunteer led services in the delivery of recreation while the suburban and urban communities of Gloucester, Ottawa, Nepean and Kanata offered a large number of direct services. In turn, local residents developed different views regarding recreation services, their level of involvement, and how they interacted with the municipality on recreation issues.
This diversity of models led to significant gaps in certain services across the new City of Ottawa. For example, prior to 2001, only 4 of the 11 jurisdictions had any services for francophone residents, only 2 jurisdictions were offering programs for individuals with disabilities, and only 3 had dedicated funds to provide participant subsidies to offset user fees.
The
Transition Board provided direction to staff not to change service levels in
response to residents’ concerns at that time. Most neighbourhoods and service areas had
previously adopted a service level and fee structure for local programs, and in
many cases, these fee and service level differences continue to exist.
Stabilization
and Development of City-wide Policies:
Since 2001, the focus of the Branch has been to deliver equitable recreation programs and services to all citizens while balancing the unique successes and histories of eleven former municipalities.
This has included Council-approved policies and programs:
- Creating a Minor Capital Program to enter into partnership with community groups to implement minor capital improvements to parks and recreation facilities on a cost-sharing basis (2001),
- Creating a Major Capital Program to enter into partnerships with community groups to implement major capital projects (2004),
- Sportsfield Strategy and Community Infrastructure Strategy (2004),
- Developing and implementing harmonization of policy related to facility allocations.
As well, this has included administrative progress in a number of areas:
o Reorganizing and realigning the Branch,
- Working with health and social services to integrate services (Recreation Service Delivery 2005),
- Developing and implementing harmonization policies related to pricing, fee assistance and arena rentals,
- Creating and staffing 5 Community Recreation Liaison Officer (CLRO) positions, including one Francophone CLRO
The Branch has now completed this stage i.e. what can be done administratively to achieve progress has been accomplished. A third stage to create a comprehensive approach, key strategies and an implementation plan now is required to meet the challenges of going forward over the next 10 - 20 years.
Moving Forward - the Master Plan Stage:
City
Council's 2007-2010 Strategic Directions include a Sustainable, Healthy and
Active City that supports recreational facilities and programming to match
population growth and ensure cultural and recreational programs are offered
such that every resident (and in particular every child) has a chance to
participate. Several of the CPS
strategic initiatives relate to parks and recreation including the Children and
Youth agenda, Seniors, Physical Activity and Neighbourhood Planning. The City's Fiscal Framework sets out
principles relevant to issues of user pay, cost recovery and
accountability. The City of Ottawa's
Official Plan strategies relevant to parks and recreation include managing
growth, providing infrastructure, maintaining environmental integrity and
creating liveable communities.
Since 2006, City Council has provided some specific direction to staff on parks and recreation planning, including the direction to report back on the steps required to create a Master Plan.
In July 2006, while approving a report on the
future use of Belltown Dome (Ref N°: ACS2006-CPS-PAR-0010), Council recommended that recreation
priorities and needs be anchored in value to the community and costs to the
City such as:
- Costs per capita
of recreational programs delivered
- Lifecycle and
maintenance costs
- Environmental
costs i.e. environmental footprint, community shed (distance travelled to
get to the facility), etc.
- Replacement
value
- Value to the
community expressed through demand for services, variety of services,
fund-raising, and general community participation and support for the City
facility.
Through the 2006 Budget process, City Council directed staff (Motion 47/91) to:
“… bring forward a report to the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee on access to basic recreation services and the barriers to participation particularly for low-income families so that Committee and Council can begin to shape the direction of recreation services in the coming years”.
Additionally, City Council directed staff (Motion 47/74) to:
“… review, in consultation with the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Committee (PRAC) and with other key stakeholders, the key elements of a Parks
and Recreation Master Plan and with particular attention to the gaps in these
elements. Council further directed that a report come to Health Recreation and
Social Services Committee and Council on the steps that will be necessary to
complete the various elements that would create a Recreation Master Plan.
Council approved
$65,000 for this purpose.
DISCUSSION
A Parks and Recreation Master
Plan will build on existing policies to establish a comprehensive vision and
strategies to address gaps and guide and implement a service delivery and
infrastructure plan.
Challenges
The Master Plan will respond to challenges facing the City, including the impacts of the historical evolution of recreational service delivery in Ottawa, described above. The Master Plan will position the City to meet additional challenges ranging from demographic change, climate, and an increasingly diverse population to the creation of new communities in response to growth and the city’s exceptionally large physical area. Examples of these challenges include:
o Meeting the needs of the growing number of seniors while maintaining services for children (a demographic group that is neither increasing nor decreasing);
o Anticipating and responding to the effects of Ottawa’s climate;
o Addressing recreational infrastructure and service needs of new communities while maintaining and improving programs and facilities in older parts of the city.
Detailed analysis of these and other challenges will be included in the 4 White Papers that will be prepared in support of the planning process (see below).
These challenges are occurring within the context of fiscal restraint (the $93M operating budget is not expected to grow), infrastructure funding gaps (a projected funding gap of $20.5M for parks and upwards of $30M for facilities (2009 – 2011)) and the absence of consensus among city residents on parks and recreation priorities.
Planning Process
and Framework
A number of municipalities in Canada have recently completed Parks and Recreation Master Plans, including Toronto, London and Edmonton. The scope of the plans varies depending on the size of the municipality and available resources. However, those municipalities that have completed more comprehensive Master Plans indicate it required $300,000 or more. One of the key costs factors was the extent of public consultations.
The proposed planning process for the first phase of the Master Plan, the creation of Key Strategies and Policy Direction, has been designed to be cost effective. For example, it incorporates the use of internal resources and targeted public consultation. As well, it provides opportunities for a significant role for City Councillors.
The Terms of Reference (TOR) for Phase One are attached in Annex 2.
Roles and Responsibilities
The following structure will support the development of the Master Plan:
- The Steering Committee, guided by the TOR, will lead the planning process, define the scope of the project and develop a workplan and timelines. It will provide direction, identify required resources, identify stakeholders, sign off on all planning documents and other materials produced by the Project Team, and recommend public consultation options.
- The Steering Committee will include members of the Parks and Recreation Management Team, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee (PRAC) and City Council. The Director of Parks and Recreation will chair the Committee.
- Utilizing internal resources, a Project Manager will lead a Project Team to undertake the work of the initiative, including the production of planning documents and a limited number of targeted public consultations, e.g. community associations and sporting associations. The Project Manager (PM) will be required for a minimum of 18 months and will be partially funded from the $65,000 approved by Council for this project from the City Wide Reserve Fund. To date, $10,000 of these funds has been spent. The balance of funding for the PM will come from the existing Parks and Recreation budget and FTEs.
- There will be opportunities for Councillors to conduct public consultations in their local wards with supports from staff such as a consultation package, facilitators etc.
Master Plan Framework
To develop a framework to guide the development of a Master Plan, the Branch:
- Undertook research on the experience of other municipalities across the country in creating Parks and Recreation Master Plans;
- Consulted with members of PRAC;
- Reviewed internal planning documents prepared in the last 4 years; and
- Held internal management discussions and strategic planning sessions.
The Master Plan Framework (Annex 1) identifies the following components:
1) Key Drivers within the context for recreation planning: demographics, climate, city geography and existing Council direction.
2) Service Types: parks and passive recreation (e.g. picnic areas, park benches, walking paths), organized sports (e.g. hockey, curling and baseball leagues), basic public access sports (e.g. lane swims, scheduled non-league volleyball, basketball or shinny hockey) and healthy living initiatives (e.g. run days, walk days).
3) Considerations: guiding principles, values, existing policies and desired outcomes.
4) Four key service areas that, together with Service Types, will form the Service Delivery Framework. These four areas will be the focus of the Key Strategies and Policy Direction document. Questions that will be explored within each key service area include:
o
Services: What
services does the City provide? What
will the City deliver directly and what will be contracted? What services does the City partner on and
what is the nature of the relationship, including governance?
o Accessibility and Inclusion: Who gets access to what level of service? Are there different levels of service based on the community profile? What are some of the barriers to participation?
o
Revenue Generation:
What degree of revenue does the City need to support the service
type? Are there sponsorship
opportunities? Who benefits from the
revenues generated?
o
Tax Support and Subsidization: Who does the City subsidize and for what
purpose? What level of government
should be paying? What other envelopes
are available?
5) Service Delivery Principles: a citywide vision and policy direction (outcome).
6) Four Key Service Area Strategies: a Service Delivery Strategy, an Accessibility Strategy, a Revenue Strategy and a Funding/Subsidization Strategy (outcome).
7) Service Delivery Model and Infrastructure Plan: an implementation plan (outcome).
In Phase One, the Project Team will develop 4 White Papers, one per quarter over the year 2009. A paper will be developed on each of the key service areas, starting with Services and finishing with Tax Support and Subsidization, identified in the Master Plan Framework. The White Papers will identify issues and challenges and provide relevant data for the service area it is addressing. Each White Paper will propose positions in answer to the key questions in its particular service area that will help inform each subsequent White Paper.
The White Papers will be used to consult with the public and stakeholders. Staff will undertake a limited number of targeted public consultations e.g. community associations and sporting associations. Councillors will also have the opportunity to hold public consultations in their own wards or in conjunction with other Councillors in various areas of the city, with supports as described above.
A round of consultations will be held quarterly, in line with the release of each White Paper. Each White Paper will identify its own consultation strategy.
The White Papers will also be posted to the City website and an opportunity to provide input electronically will be made available to city residents.
Master Plan Preparation
The project team will prepare a Key Strategies and Policy Direction document containing an overall vision, key directions and specific strategies within each of the four service areas. One broad-based final public consultation for Phase One will be held on the overall Key Strategies and Policy Direction. Key Strategies and Policy Direction will be brought forward to Council for approval in the fall of 2009.
The Service Delivery and Implementation Plan will constitute Phase Two of the Master Plan and will be brought forward to City Council in the winter 2010.
CONSULTATION
Parks and Recreation Branch
consulted with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee in the preparation
of this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial implications with the
approval of the recommendation contained in this report.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Annex 1 – Parks and Recreation Master Plan Framework
Annex 2 – Terms of Reference for
Master Plan Steering Committee
DISPOSITION
The Community and Protective Services Department will action any direction received pursuant to consideration of this report.
FRAMEWORK AND PLANNING PROCESS FOR A PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
CADRE DE TRAVAIL ET PROCESSUS DE
PLANIFICATION RELATIFS AU PLAN DIRECTEUR DES PARCS ET DES LOISIRS
ACS2008-CPS-PAR-0003 city-wide / À l’Échelle de la ville
Aaron Burry, Director, Parks and Recreation introduced his management team: Jose Lee, responsible for infrastructure, Gilles Parent, A/Division Manager (West); Wally Ferris, Manager, Business and Client Services Division and Dan Chenier, Division Manager (East). Missing was Kelly Robertson, Community Sport and Recreation Division. He provided a detailed overview of the report, a copy of which is held on file.
When asked whether staff was looking for members to serve on the Steering Committee today, Chair Deans advised that once Council approves the report, she would circulate a memo seeking interest. It would then be brought to the next Committee meeting.
Councillor El-Chantiry made note of the formula used for recreational facilities, i.e., so many soccer fields for so many people, and he wondered if that would change if the interest has changed. Mr. Burry agreed that the artificial numbers are creating difficulties and Council would set the direction that will determine what kinds of things are built based on demographics, et cetera. To avoid building under-used facilities in specific areas, the councillor suggested that when a survey is conducted, that it capture that somehow. He also mentioned there would be a difference in the way the service is delivered in urban, suburban and rural areas and he did not want to lose what works in the rural area, in favour of a more central application. The Director explained that the City does things differently everywhere, based on what the community needs and wants.
In the work done to date, Councillor Holmes inquired how much of the new Canadian population (those who speak neither English or French) has been captured in the use of recreational programs/facilities as well as the gathering of statistics and data for this process. Mr. Burry indicated that in the Department and as part of the individual initiatives, there have been discussions around the issue of language, but there has been no discussion with regards to parks and recreation specifically because historically, that is not the basis of how the City delivers service; services are delivered on a cost-recovery principle. The councillor expressed concern that residents in community housing are unable to use recreational facilities provided by the City and she was looking to this Plan as a way to gather those statistics and to start talking about how the City provides services to the people who need them. Related to that, the councillor asked why seniors who can afford to pay for private sector services, receive a subsidy for City recreational programs, when others who are more in need, are unable to afford them. Mr. Burry believed that would be addressed during the discussion around inclusion. The Deputy City Manager added that Council would have the opportunity to get some facts based on information about the community because they are initiating the neighbourhood profiles with a community development model and would be doing more surveys about demographics and what clients want.
Councillor Qadri made the following suggestions:
· That youth be included as part of this process, to ensure they are aware of and are fully involved in terms of discussions on this framework as well as going forward with programming
· There are some excellent programs being offered by volunteers (residents) and staff should be encouraged to work with them to further their cause or take the benefits of their program and incorporate it into other parts of the City
· Future facilities should be developed with multi-purpose components so they are not just singular-use facilities.
Councillor Bédard expressed concern about the City’s investment in community facilities in poorer neighbourhoods and suggested that when staff are doing their study that they consider that fact to ensure the poorest communities get their fair share and be included in the discussion. From a parks and recreation perspective, the Deputy City Manager explained that the City has been driven by growth as well as a policy of revenue recovery for programming and he recognized that this has resulted in an imbalance between those who are better off than others. He believed this process will be an opportunity to right that balance.
Moved by D. Holmes
That
the Chair/member of the Health and Social Services Advisory Committee be added
as a member of the Steering Committee.
CARRIED
That the Community and Protective Services Committee recommend that Council approve
1. the Parks and Recreation Master Plan framework and terms of reference, including establishment of a Steering Committee, as described in this report.
2. That the Chair/member of the Health
and Social Services Advisory Committee be added as a member of the Steering
Committee.
CARRIED,
as amended