July 9, 1999

POLICY AND FINANCE COMMITTEE:

I am enclosing for your information and any attention deemed necessary, Clause No.6 contained in Report No.1 of The Economic Development and Parks Committee, headed "Interim 'Welcome Policy' for Users of Recreation Program - All Wards", which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on July6, 7 and 8, 1999.

May I draw your attention to the amendment by Council found at the beginning of the Clause.

for City Clerk

J. A. Abrams/gc

Encl.

Clause sent to:Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

Chief Administrative Officer

Policy and Finance Committee

All Interested Parties

c.Budget Advisory Committee

CITY CLERK

Clause embodied in Report No. 1 of The Economic Development and Parks Committee, as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999.

6

Interim "Welcome Policy" for Users of

Recreation Program - All Wards

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the following seven Community Centres be added to the list of high-needs communities, and that $86,000.00 be allocated from the Corporate Contingency Account to cover the loss of revenue:

(a)Jimmie Simpson;

(b)Rockcliffe Middle School;

(c)O'Connor;

(d)Chalkfarm;

(e)Bliss Carman Senior Public School;

(f)Galloway Road Public School; and

(g)Oakdale;

(2)the homeless, the vulnerable and low income persons be exempted from being charged user fees at the Harrison Baths and, if these groups constitute the majority of users at the baths, City staff exempt the Harrison Baths from user fees; and

(3)the following motions be referred to the Policy and Finance Committee for further consideration at its meeting to be held on July 20, 1999; the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a report to the Policy and Finance Committee, for consideration therewith, respecting funding options, and the Committee report thereon to the next meeting of Council to be held on July 27, 1999; and that, in the interim, staff be instructed not to publish user fee charges on any of the sites that potentially would have been exempted, and that a draft insert to the recreation guide be prepared, once the prices are established:

Moved by Councillor Ashton:

'That Recommendations Nos. (2), (3) and (6) embodied in the motion by Councillor McConnell be referred to the Policy and Finance Committee for consideration.'

Moved by Councillor Brown:

'That the motion by Councillor McConnell be amended to provide that if any community or high-needs area has been omitted in error, they be automatically included.'

Moved by Councillor McConnell:

'It is further recommended that:

(1)the indicator of Low Income Cut-off (LICO), as set out in report dated July 5, 1999, from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, be used as the key indicator to rank community centres serving high-needs communities;

(2)the list of centres serving high-needs communities be extended to 15additional centres (where approximately one-third of the population is living below the LICO) at an additional cost of $600,000.00;

(3)the interim individual access policy be extended to two programs per week, per individual, at an additional cost of $400,000.00, and that adequate publicity and outreach programs be implemented as part of this funding;

(4)prior to July 15, 1999, staff be requested to provide each Member of Council with a schedule of programs and respective fees for the fall programs;

(5)the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Community and Neighbourhood Services, and Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to submit a report to Council on priority neighbourhoods using common criteria; and

(6)funding of $1.0 million be provided from the Corporate Contingency Account or any other source identified by the Chief Administrative Officer.'

Moved by Councillor Bussin:

'It is further recommended that all of the Community Centres listed in the report dated July 5, 1999, from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be included in the high-needs category at a total cost of $1,708,230.00, such funds to be provided from the Corporate Contingency Account.'

Moved by Councillor Bussin:

'It is further recommended that, as the S. H. Armstrong Community Centre meets the eligibility requirements of the Interim Welcome Policy related to low income cut-offs, no fees be applied to the Community Centre's activities.'

Moved by Councillor Bussin:

'It is further recommended that the S.H. Armstrong Community Centre receive a grant-in-lieu to reflect individual access needs.'

Moved by Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski:

'That the motion by Councillor Miller be amended by adding after the words "Parkdale Community Centre" the words "and the McCormick Recreation Centre".'

Moved by Councillor Miller:

'It is further recommended that the Parkdale Community Centre be identified on the priority listing of Centres at a level identical to that of the Masaryk-Cowan Community Centre.'

Moved by Councillor Miller:

'It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to submit a report to the September 1999 meeting of the Economic Development and Parks Committee on all early childhood education and children/youth programs for which fees are proposed.'

Moved by Councillor Pantalone:

'It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to review the catchment area used for the McCormick Community Centre and, should an error be found, take appropriate and immediate action.'

Moved by Councillor Prue:

'It is further recommended that the Crescent Town Club area be included as a high needs community area and that, in the absence of a municipally-funded Community Centre, the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be instructed to:

(1)work with the Board of Directors of the Crescent Town Recreation Complex to determine what recreation needs are not currently being met, and submit a report to Council, through the Economic Development and Parks Committee, on the programs required and the costs associated therewith;

(2)provide the necessary funds for those services, where appropriate, from the Corporate Contingency Account for the balance of this year; and

(3)include this unique circumstance area in any future plans as a program jointly funded between the Board of Directors of the Crescent Town Recreation Complex and the City of Toronto.'

Moved by Councillor Rae:

'It is further recommended that the St. Lawrence Community Recreation Centre be included as a high-needs community.' ")

The Economic Development and Parks Committee recommended that:

(1)City Council receive the report (June 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for information; and

(2)the communications (June 15, 1999) from Councillor Olivia Chow, Child and Youth Advocate, and (June 21, 1999) from Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River, be referred to the Chair of the Economic Development and Parks Committee, for discussions thereon with the aforementioned Councillors and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, and report thereon directly to City Council for its meeting of July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, the said report to include financial implications.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee submits the following report (June 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To provide information on accessibility to recreation programs in light of Council's decision on harmonization of recreation user fees, and recommending that the report be received for information.

Background:

The recent decision by City Council on April 26 and 27, 1999, on the harmonization of recreation user fees has presented an opportunity to the Parks and Recreation Division to develop a policy that will ensure accessibility to recreation programs for residents who are unable to afford the cost of these programs.

Council adopted Option "B" with respect to harmonization of recreation programs. This option provided for non-specialized programs (drop-in, subscriber, introductory instructional) to be free for pre-schoolers, children and youth. It also provided free drop-in programs for older adults and for-fee programs for other older adult programs and for all adult programs. The "Welcome" policy, insofar as it deals with reducing financial barriers to participation, would apply to specialized programs for pre-schoolers, children and youth and for all other programs (except for older adult drop-in) for adults and older adults.

There are severe time constraints for developing such a policy as the Fall/Winter Parks and Recreation Guide, "Toronto Fun", goes to print in July 1999. Accordingly, the Division is advancing an interim policy for welcoming all users. This policy will address the need for accessibility for both individuals and communities. In keeping with Parks and Recreation's practice of encouraging input and advice from community residents, it is the intent of staff to consult with residents and appropriate community agencies to develop a proactive "Welcome Policy" to be in place for the fall of the year 2000.

Guiding principles for the interim accessibility:

The Division is committed to ensuring all City residents year-round accessibility to high quality community recreation and leisure programs regardless of their ability to pay. A "Welcome" or accessibility policy must be:

-accessible and equitable to all;

-reduce barriers to access in a seamless fashion;

-be handled in confidence with sensitivity to individual;

-apply to both individuals and communities;

-clearly welcome all to participate in enjoyable, healthful, satisfying and creative use of leisure time; and

-proactive in terms of increasing participation in recreational opportunities.

Benefits of Recreation for Individuals and High Need Communities:

Recreation contributes significant personal, social, economic and environmental benefits which enhance the well-being of Toronto citizens, their neighbourhoods and the local economy. This is particularly the case for high need individuals and communities as options may be more limited.

Through various studies, recreation has been demonstrated to:

-increase one's self esteem and confidence;

-reduce alienation, loneliness and anti-social behaviours;

-promote ethnic and cultural harmony;

-build strong families, the foundation of a stronger society;

-be critical, if integrated and accessible, to the quality of life of people with a disability and disadvantaged individuals;

-provide youth employment opportunities;

-reduce incidence of teen pregnancy;

-increase one's ability to work as part of a team; and

-increase youth's ability to complete schooling.

Individual Accessibility Policy - Interim Approach:

The interim policy is based on previous consultations with staff, residents and community agencies, done in the preparation of information for the User Fee Committee of City Council. It provides an individual with a choice of directly approaching a full-time recreation staff at the centre level or, for those who desire greater anonymity, of writing to a staff removed from centre operations.

An individual accessibility policy needs to be non-stigmatizing to the person, efficient and effective to administer and able to be clearly documented and controlled from a financial standpoint. The applicant will have to provide written evidence of financial need in general terms (no figures required). This can be provided by a social service agency or other professions familiar with the family (public health nurse, doctor, lawyer, school principal, etc.). A drug or benefit card, U.I.C. stub or other such documentation is also acceptable. In exceptional circumstances (e.g., homeless), written evidence may not be available. Supervisory staff will have the authority to approve subsidy. The key here is to ensure that site staff get to know their community.

Any number of members of one family are eligible. However, only one program per season per individual will be subsidized or as space may permit. In the case of children and youth, a specialized program would be subsidized as other programs are offered free of charge. Further, a minimum of 10 percent of program spaces within for-fee programs will be set aside, on a preliminary basis, for individuals in financial need. At some centres, this may increase to a higher level, and in communities that are among the highest need, even 100 percent of the spaces may be available for subsidy. The Division acknowledges that 25 percent of the children in the City are considered to be living in a financially challenging situation. Reaching out to these children and their families is a challenge that the Division embraces. The Division will seek more proactive methods as a result of further consultation.

The principle of this strategy (reserving a minimum of spaces for those in financial need) could be extended to other community based groups that use our facilities and outdoor spaces. For instance, each community based sports group utilizing public facilities could be encouraged to have a policy whereby a minimum of 10 percent of their spaces would be set aside for participants who cannot afford the registration fee. The Division will be reporting in the Fall of this year on permitting policies.

The Division is reviewing for the future the possibility of implementing a membership card system which would allow different fees to be charged based on family income or financial need. This is in keeping with direction received from City Council. A membership approach to individuals and families facing financial barriers to participation would involve the provision of a credit for a capped supply of recreation programs. For instance, a child may be able to choose from a menu of programs including advanced learn to swim, specialized day camp, etc., up to the maximum credit. The credit would be based on a calculated formula relating to what a family or individual would use on a City-wide average basis.

Welcome Policy for High Need Neighbourhoods:

One of the actions coming out of the user fee harmonization decision was "that high need communities be exempt from paying user fees for specialized programs" and that "an access policy be considered that would ensure low income families and individuals are not penalized" (Economic Development Committee Meeting No. 3, February 18, 1999). Existing programs at centres serving the local needs of these neighbourhoods would be offered free of charge. In keeping with this, staff have identified recreation centres whose local programming primarily serves neighbourhoods of high need. Participants from these neighbourhoods require special consideration in order to maximize their potential for enjoyment of recreation programs and activities. Generally, participants already rely on social services support. Recreation services, with the complementary support of social services, are delivered to attain the full benefit of recreation activity for participants.

Identification of centres serving neighbourhoods of high need is based on certain key demographic indicators in addition to the experience and judgement gained through many years of providing recreation programs and activities to various communities in the former municipalities. The two socio-economic key indicators used are Children zero to 17 years of age in families on Social Assistance and Lone Parent Families as a Percentage of Total Families. Attached is a map indicating the distribution of recreation centres in census tracts that reflect these key indicators. From the various centres on this map, the Division selected certain centres that should be a priority for free recreation programs given the Division's experience and, in particular, the percentage of young people on Social Assistance in the census tracts served by these centres.

The Division appreciates that selection of the key socio-economic indicators is a simple approach to a complex issue. For instance, the Urban Planning and Development Services is currently undertaking an exhaustive study on certain communities within the City that may require additional and/or continued investment in them by the City and other parties. This "investment" will be essential to ensure a continued and/or improved quality of life for the residents who reside in these neighbourhoods.

Indeed, this report specifies that enhancing the quality of life for residents is a prime objective of the Official Plan. The Official Plan is intended to be a corporate policy tool to provide a "geographic and urban structure for the Social Development Strategy .... for community development and service delivery." The end result of the study by Urban Planning and Development Services will certainly inform Parks and Recreation Services' proposal for the formal "Welcome" policy.

Welcome Policy Financing:

The Welcome policy is formally funded up to $700,000.00 ($400,000.00 for high need and $300,000.00 for increased demand). The strategy to provide for those in financial need, a minimum of 10 percent of maximum registration in a given program, will help avoid direct additional costs. Increased demand in particular is difficult to forecast. The Division will be reporting back on this matter after our experience with the Fall program series. The "Welcome" policy may have to be adjusted with respect to particulars or with respect to level of available subsidy.

For the pre-school, children and youth group, subsidy will only be necessary for specialized programs. Currently, the take-up on specialized programs represents 4.8 percent of the total program offering for these groups. Based on former Scarborough figures, an average participant registers for two to three programs per year. This is consistent with the interim individual access policy of allowing one program per season per individual to be subsidized. In the future, a new City-wide average participant profile will help inform the Division's recommendations with respect to a membership card system and an appropriate credit cap within budget guidelines.

Information and Consultation Strategy:

The Division intends to take a proactive approach to ensuring that interested residents in financial need are aware of the Welcome policy. The policy will be published in "Toronto Fun". Notices will be placed in all our facilities. Social Service agencies will be advised of the policy and asked to advise their clients and to publicize the "Welcome" policy.

In the longer term, the Division intends to promote formalized neighbourhood linkages with community groups and agencies that will consider the "whole" person and that person's various needs, including recreation services. Further, staff will review recreation service delivery at the local level with recreation advisory councils so as to address the accessibility requirements of individuals in all neighbourhoods.

For the final Welcome policy, the Division will invite interested community groups, social service agencies and stakeholders to review the interim policy and suggest refinements and different approaches to ensuring that all residents feel "welcome" to use recreation services. A report will be forwarded to the Economic Development and Parks Committee in time for implementation of a permanent Welcome policy by September 2000.

Contact Name:

Mr. Mario Zanetti, 392-7252.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Census Tracts Denoting Lone Parent Families

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Census Tracts Denoting Lone Parent Families

The Economic Development and Parks Committee also submits the following communication (June 15, 1999) from Councillor Olivia Chow, Children and Youth Advocate:

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the current definition of youth used by Parks and Recreation which caps the age of youth at 18 years of age be changed to cap the age of youth at 24 years of age, which is consistent with the definition of youth applied by other levels of government and community-based agencies;

(2)the measure used for defining High Need Communities be revised from the current one of 0-17 year olds on social assistance to a measure of families living below the Low Income Cutoff (LICO), and that the list of centres serving High Need Communities be revised to reflect this change; and

(3)given the need for additional resources to meet the needs of youth in under-serviced, high need areas, the Youth Sub-Committee of the Children and Youth Action Committee recommends that:

(a)the $300,000.00 put aside by the Budget Committee for service demands that result from harmonization be allocated for the specific purpose of creating new recreation programs for children and youth aged 6 to 24, in under-served, high need areas; and

(b)Parks and Recreation Department undertake the development of these new programs in consultation with youth in order to develop programming that will meet the needs and increase participation among youth who do not currently access recreation programs.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Youth Sub-Committee of the Children and Youth Action Committee adopted the foregoing recommendations on June 14, 1999. The Youth Sub-Committee will bring these motions forward to the Children and Youth Action Committee at its June 25, 1999 meeting. In view of the fact that the Economic Development and Parks Committee will discuss this item at its June 21 meeting, the Youth Sub-Committee is forwarding its recommendations directly to the Economic Development and Parks Committee for consideration.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee also submits the following communication (June 18, 1999) from Paris Gardos, Youth Advocate, For Youth Project:

I am writing on behalf of the For Youth Project (FYP) to address the issue of the Interim Welcome Policy proposals for the City of Toronto's recreation programs. I want to urge this Committee to support an equitable, accessible and quality public recreation system for the City of Toronto. The For Youth Project is a partnership initiative comprised of eight organizations serving the former City of York. Through our involvement with youth in York in the policy development area and our work with the Youth Committee of the Children's and Youth Action Committee, FYP has been deeply involved in the consultations around the recreation user-fees issues.

The proposals outlined for the Interim Welcome Policy proposals clearly violate the Guiding Principles outlined for it. Our understanding of the focus of the policy is to

-reduce barriers;

-be accessible and equitable to all; and

-increase participation.

These goals cannot be implemented by considering the definition of youth strictly between the ages of 13 and 18. The understanding our organization had when Council approved option "B" in April was that youth up to the age of 24 would be included. Clearly excluding youth that are still high school age will not assist in reducing barriers or increasing participation. The proposal will create a recreation system that is not accessible to all.

Many neighbourhoods in the former City of York do not have access to local community recreation services. This geographic area has large numbers of youth, new Canadians and families who receive some form of social assistance. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be reflected in the calculations that determine which communities will get support through the Interim Welcome Policy. By not including in the formula average household income as well as the percentage of new Canadians living in the area, the method for determining need resulted in the exclusion of the former City of York.

In the Interim Welcome Policy proposals, the benefits of recreation are clearly stated:

-help reduce anti-social behaviours;

-promote ethno-cultural harmony;

-improve a community's quality of life.

These goals are undermined if they do not apply to all communities in Toronto. The former City of York has very limited recreation services for youth especially considering the absence of even one fully resourced community centre. By continuing policies that allow for high costs and low levels of service, youth in this area are being placed at even higher risk. Many youth in this area hoped to see a fair and equitable improvement in recreation services under the amalgamation. With the current Interim Welcome Policy proposals, the lack of recreation services for youth will reach crisis levels.

Our organization urges you to ensure that any recreation policy takes into consideration the need for equitable and accessible recreation services for youth in the former City of York as it will ultimately affect the future well being of all Toronto's youth.

I want to thank you for your attention in this matter. The For Youth Project can be reached at (416)652-2273.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee also submits the following communication (June 21, 1999) from Councillor Pam McConnell:

I am very concerned about Item seven on today's Agenda - The Implementation Strategy for the "Welcome Policy".

There are several elements of the Policy, and the implementation strategy as a whole, that I believe unintentionally diverge from the direction given by Council and the understanding we had at Committee of what the policy would be.

I have three areas of concern:

(1)Age

When the matter was before committee and Council, the youth exempted from user fees included everyone up to 24 years old (see attached memo). In the current implementation plan, youth between 18 and 24 are required to pay.

(2)Program Categories

It is unclear in the current implementation plan if all programs run on a drop-in or instructional basis under the old system continue to be treated as drop-in or instructional programs under the current implementation plan.

(3)Free Access to People Living in Poverty

Council rejected Option B+, which would have given free access to adult drop-in programs. Both Council and Committee were assured that free adult drop-in was unnecessary since people living in poverty would have access through special funding for high needs areas. Under the current implementation plan, the high needs component does not take adults living in poverty into account at all, it provides solely for children living in poverty, and even there, ignores very poor neighbourhoods like Alexandra Park and Parkdale.

I understand that staff need to print the recreation calendars in very short order. Obviously, these calendars must include the user fee information. There are some serious concerns about the content of the implementation strategy, but little time to deal with them.

I think our only recourse is to have staff meet with the Chair of the Committee to review the implementation strategy to ensure that it complies with the policy direction staff were given, and that staff report to Council with the final draft of the implementation strategy. I would be happy to offer any assistance I can in this process.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee also submits the following communication (June 18, 1999) from Punam Khosla, Planner and Karen Wirsig, Planner, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto:

Re:Implementation of Parks and Recreation "Welcome" and User-fee policies

The Community Social Planning Council of Toronto has been involved in City Council's process to establish a new user-fee policy since last summer. Our primary concern about the new policy is access for everyone in Toronto to high-quality recreation programs and services, regardless of ability to pay. We have held meetings with residents and community organizations across the new Toronto who are committed to making recreation a fundamental municipal service.

We are very concerned about the autumn implementation proposals for the new user-fee and "welcome" policies. They do not appear to correspond to the spirit of the decision on user-fees and access, made by City Council last April.

We understood that the decision would ensure access for children and youth - up to age 24, and their families, to a broad range of recreation programs and services across the new City. We also understood that provisions were made to provide all programs at no fee to "high needs" communities in the City.

Upon the study of the "Welcome" policy, along with draft pricing policies from a number of community recreation centres, it has become evident that a very narrow interpretation of Council's decision is being made.

-Although documentation put forward by staff during the budget process clearly indicated that the age limit for youth was 24 (please see attached), it has now been indicated as 18.

-Although Council decided that there would be no charge for programs in three-quarters of the program categories for children and youth, it is now proposed that only a small number of programs will be offered without charge at each centre.

-Although children and youth were designated priorities by Council in adopting the new policy, there has been no attempt to introduce new programs for them in centres where existing programming is inadequate.

-The criteria for determining "high needs" communities does not capture the actual conditions of Toronto's diverse neighbourhoods. It would be more accurate to base the definition on average household income and proportion of newcomers who have recently settled in the area (both available from census data).

As a result, we urge you to support the motions coming forward from the Youth Sub-Committee and, given the very short time-frame, recommend that a meeting be convened as soon as possible between concerned City Councillors, community representatives and Parks and Recreation staff responsible for implementing the new policies.

If you have any questions about the foregoing, please don't hesitate to contact Punam Khosla at 351-0095, extension 240.

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 5, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To provide additional information on this policy as requested by Economic Development and Parks Committee.

Source of Funds:

The harmonization of User Fees for recreation programs has already been approved by City Council. This report provides information, as requested by Economic Development and Parks Committee, on an option to increase the availability of free programmes at centres serving high need communities. Cost of this option is $600,000.00 approximately and is not currently funded.

Recommendation:

This report is provided for your information.

Council Reference/ Background:

At the last Economic Development and Parks Committee, communications from Councillor Olivia Chow, Children and Youth Advocate, and from Councillor Pam McConnell to the Chair of Economic Development and Parks Committee were referred for discussions among the Chair of Economic Development and Parks Committee, the two aforementioned Councillors and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism with direction to report thereon directly to City Council for its meeting of July 6, 1999, the said report to include financial implications.

Discussion:

A number of specific issues were raised at this subsequent meeting among the Councillors concerned and the Commissioner. The five main issues are set out below with comments.

(1)Youth are to be defined as having an upper age of 24 rather than 18

The Department is agreeable to this definition as it was used, from time to time, during the User Fee debate. This definition would apply to the youth programme category, e.g., programmes aimed at youth and young adults.

1. Free recreation programs and age based applications

The Department, in accordance with "Option B" with regard to recreation user fees, is setting out free and for fee programmes based on programme categories as defined, i.e., pre-school, children's and youth programmes are to be offered free of charge when they are drop-in, subscriber and introductory instructional. This is distinct from saying, for instance, all youth who take drop-in programmes could do so free of charge even if the programme they are entering is classified as adult. An age based approach to fee exemption would mean additional lost revenue to the Department. This revenue loss would be based primarily on youth participation free of charge in programmes aimed at adults. Staff estimate that the revenue loss could range to 15 percent of adult programmes. This translates into $251,034.00 for adult drop-in, $98,365.00 for adult subscriber and $526,538.00 for adult instructional for a additional revenue loss of $876,000.00.

1. Programme definitions

The Councillors asked staff to review how programme definitions were being applied. There was some concern that many programmes for children and youth are being classified as fee-based rather than free under the "Option B" formula. Staff are in the process of reviewing this matter both for the upcoming Fall season and for the subsequent Winter season. Staff will review all programs being submitted for publication in the recreation guide. Each District Director will sign off for their respective district.

1. Centres serving high need areas

"Option B" provided for all existing programmes offered at centres serving high need neighbourhood to be free of charge. Funding for this initiative under "Option B" is $400,000.00. Staff had defined a priority list of centres serving high need areas based primarily on the socio-economic indicator of "Percent of Children Aged 0-17 in Families Receiving Social Assistance". At the request of the Councillors McConnell and Chow, staff have agreed to include a Low Income Cut-Off measure in defining a priority list. The measure is that of "Percent of Incidence of Economic Families Living Below the LICO". This measure captures the working poor families in addition to welfare receiving families.

A new priority list of centres serving high need areas is attached utilizing the LICO measure. This list includes a group of centres that would receive current programmes free of charge with the approved cap of $400,000.00 in revenue loss. At the request of the Councillors concerned, the list is extended to include approximately $600,000.00 of additional lost revenue that would accommodate the majority of centres on the list whereby if 1/3 of the population is living below the LICO measurement, then the centres activities would be provided at no fee. There is no funding for this additional $600,000.00. This information is provided for Council's review and discussion.

1. Individual Access

The individual access component of the Interim Welcome Policy provides for one programme per person per season and reserves 10 percent of fee-based programmes for individuals who are in need of financial assistance. This 10 percent reserve would be flexible depending on the neighbourhood served.

Staff were asked to consider a 20 percent reserve and to report on the cost of such a reserve if there was full subscription. An additional 10 percent reserve, if fully subscribed, would cost $463,000.00 in forgone revenue. This additional 10 percent could also be applied to raising the access level to 2 programmes per person per season.

Contact Name:

Mario Zanetti

Director of Parks and Recreation - South District

392-7252.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July 6, 1999) from Councillor Maria Augimeri, Black Creek:

I have noticed that there are major errors in the High Need Community Chart (page 4 of Supplementary Report), the grossest of which is that a prominent High Need Community Centre in the Jane-Finch community - the Oakdale Community Centre, has been omitted from the top third of the list.

Since the top third of this list reflects the schedule of centres which will be exempt from paying User Fees for Parks and Recreation programmes, this particular error is most grievous in nature.

I insist that the Oakdale Centre be placed at its proper place in the top one-third of the chart and that it be designated as a High Needs Centre. Whether this correction results in the re-alignment of the rest of the centres on the list, or not, remains to be a topic of discussion at Council.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (undated) from Councillor Pam McConnell, Toronto - Don River, submitting proposed amendments respecting the Interim "Welcome Policy" for Users of Recreation Programs - All Wards.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July 7, 1999) from the City-Wide Recreation Network, urging Council to support a motion respecting the allocation of funds to exempt "high needs" areas of the City from Recreation User Fees.)