|
City of Toronto Welcome Policy for
Community and Recreation Centres
The Policy and Finance Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations of the Budget Advisory
Committee embodied in the following communication (July 19, 1999) from the City Clerk; and further, that the
Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report in time for the year 2000
Operating Budget, on the experience of individual participation in the suggested program.
The Policy and Finance Committee submits the following communication (July 19, 1999) from the City Clerk:
Recommendations:
The Budget Advisory Committee on July 19, 1999, recommended to the Policy and Finance Committee:
(1)that the joint report (July 19, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner, Economic
Development, Culture and Tourism be adopted, subject to adding:
"that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be authorized to spend up to $100,000.00 in
1999 from the Corporate Contingency Account in subsidy funding to ensure individual access to 'for-fee' programs on an
as-needed basis in communities not currently deemed to be high-needs."
(2)that the following motion be adopted:
"WHEREAS the Toronto Transit Commission, Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation programs have identified in-year changes
since the approval of the 1999 Operating and Capital Budgets;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chief Administrative Officer advise all City departments, agencies,
boards and commissions to ensure that 1999 spending is contained within the approved 1999 budgets and that corrective
action be taken accordingly;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all policy changes with financial implications be only considered for the year
2000 budget cycle."
(3)that a guideline be set that for every dollar of over expenditure in 1999, one dollar be deducted from the year 2000
Operating Budget, save and except snow removal; and
(4)that the Policy and Finance Committee confirm the July 19, 1999 meeting of the Budget Advisory Committee.
The Committee also reports having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to
ensure that the City's policy of providing free services to those in need is well advertised and well known throughout the
City.
Background:
The Budget Advisory Committee had before it a joint report (July 19, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, recommending that:
(1)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in conjunction with the Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer monitor the Parks and Recreation Division's 1999 Operating Budget and report back to the Policy and
Finance Committee together with the September 30, 1999 Operating Budget Variance Report on the Division's ability to
absorb the revenue loss of $29,789.00 associated with the addition of seven community centres to the high-needs category;
(2)commencing September 1, 1999, the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism begin to track
the use and demand for fee exempted programs by participants;
(3)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, the Commissioner of Community and
Neighbourhood Services and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services develop a clear definition of
the term High Needs, to aid in the identification and designation of communities which may be considered for subsidies or
special treatment due to social or economic hardship in time for the finalization of the Fall/Winter Recreation Guide for
2000;
(4)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report to the Economic Development and Parks
Committee with a formal "Welcome Policy" to enable its implementation for the 2000 Fall/Winter season;
(5)any further amendment to the Interim "Welcome Policy" respecting the addition of community centres to the
high-needs category and the extension of the individual access policy to two programs per individual per season or a 20
percent reserve be considered concurrently with the formal "Welcome Policy" requested in Recommendation No. (4)
above; and
(6)expansion of the user fee welcome criteria beyond Council's decisions to date and the funding implications be
considered in the review of the 2000 and 2001 operating budget process.
The Budget Advisory Committee also had before it the following:
(a)report (July 9, 1999) from the City Clerk, addressed to the Policy and Finance Committee, advising of the action taken
by City Council, at its meeting held on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, with regard to 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";
(b)communication (July 8, 1999) from Mayor Mel Lastman, advising that City Council, at its meeting held on July 6, 7
and 8, 1999, requested that a report be provided on funding options concerning the City of Toronto's Parks and Recreation
"Welcome Policy"; and also requested that all respective Council motions be referred to the July 20, 1999 meeting of the
Policy and Finance Committee; and further advising that he would appreciate the assistance of the Budget Advisory
Committee in reviewing budget options for funding the "Welcome Policy" within the time frames established by Council;
and
(c)communication (July 19, 1999) from Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River, regarding the foregoing matter.
The following persons appeared before the Budget Advisory Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Ms. Cyndy Ireland, S.H. Armstrong Community Centre, and filed a copy of her submission;
-Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park;
-Councillor Joe Mihevc, York Eglinton; and
-Ms. Karen Warsic, Social Planning Council.
--------
(Joint report dated July 19, 1999, addressed to the
Budget Advisory Committee from the
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the
Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism)
Purpose:
This report identifies an approach to addressing the proposed expansion of the "Welcome Policy" to include additional
high-needs communities as well as the extension of the interim individual access policy from one program, per individual,
per season, to two programs, per individual, per season.
Financial Implications:
Expansion of the "Welcome Policy" for the inclusion of additional high needs communities and extension of the individual
access policy would require the provision of up to $854,211.00 to be added to Parks and Recreations 1999 Operating
Budget. This funding would cover the loss of budgeted revenue associated with the September 1, 1999 implementation of
harmonized recreation user fees approved by City Council at its meeting of April 26 and 27, 1999. An additional
$1,643,502.00 would be required in 2000 resulting in a total financial impact of $2,497,695.00 for this purpose.
Approval of Council's recommendations at its last meeting will result in additional funding up to $29,789.00 to cover the
revenue loss associated with the inclusion of seven additional community centres in 1999, should the Parks and Recreation
1999 Operating Budget be unable to absorb the unanticipated revenue loss with an additional $55,323.00 required for
2000.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in conjunction with the Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer monitor the Parks and Recreation Division's 1999 Operating Budget and report back to the Policy and
Finance Committee together with the September 30, 1999 Operating Budget Variance Report on the Division's ability to
absorb the revenue loss of $29,789.00 associated with the addition of seven community centres to the high-needs category;
(2)commencing September 1, 1999, the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism begin to track
the use and demand for fee-exempted programs by participants;
(3)the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Community and Neighbourhood Services and
Urban Planning and Development Services develop a clear definition of the term High Needs, to aid in the identification
and designation of communities which may be considered for subsidies or special treatment due to social or economic
hardship in time for the finalization of the Fall/Winter Recreation Guide for 2000;
(4)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report to the Economic Development and Parks
Committee with a formal "Welcome Policy" to enable its implementation for the 2000 Fall/Winter season;
(5)any further amendment to the Interim "Welcome Policy" respecting the addition of community centres to the
high-needs category and the extension of the individual access policy to two programs per individual per season or a 20
percent reserve be considered concurrently with the formal "Welcome Policy" requested in Recommendation No. (4)
above; and
(6)expansion of the user fee welcome criteria beyond Council's decisions to date and the funding implications be
considered in the review of the 2000 and 2001 operating budget process.
Council Reference/Background/History:
At its meeting of April 26 and 27, 1999, City Council adopted Option "B" as the preferred option for harmonizing user fees
for recreation programs as part of the 1999 Operating Budget deliberations. This option offers free non-specialized
programs (drop-in, subscriber, introductory instructional) to pre-schoolers, children and youth and free drop-in programs
for older adults. All remaining programs for older adults and all adult programs are available on a for-fee basis.
Implementation of this option effective September 1, 1999 results in a revenue loss of $800,000.00 in 1999 and an
additional loss of $1 million in 2000. The financial impact of Option "B" was included in the Parks and Recreation 1999
Operating Budget.
The total cost of Option "B" also reflects annual revenue losses of $411,000.00 associated with fee exemptions or subsidies
to residents unable to afford the cost of these programs. Option "B" addressed the need to ensure accessibility to recreation
programs by identifying seventeen communities as being "high need", according to a definition developed from income and
family structures. An additional $300,000.00 was also provided for potential increased demand in recreation program
offerings.
At its meeting of July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, City Council had before it Clause No. 6 contained in Report No. 1 of The
Economic Development and Parks Committee entitled "Interim "Welcome Policy" for Users of Recreation Programs",
from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism advancing an interim policy for addressing
accessibility needs for both individuals and communities using recreation programs in order to complete the Fall/Winter
Parks and Recreation Guide.
City Council approved the addition of seven community centres to the list of high-needs communities at an estimated
annual cost (revenue loss) of $86,000.00: Jimmie Simpson; Rockcliffe Middle School; O'Conner; Chalkfarm; Bliss
Carman Senior Public School; Galloway Road Public School; and Oakdale Community Centre.
Council also referred a series of motions to the Policy and Finance Committee for further consideration at its meeting of
July 20, 1999 and requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report to the Policy and Finance Committee
therewith on funding options. These motions include, inter alia, the following:
(a)the indicator of Low Income Cut-Off (LICO), as set out in the 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;
(b)the list of centres serving high-needs communities be extended to 15 additional centres (where approximately
one-third of the population is living below the LICO) at an additional cost of $600,000.00;
(c)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;
(d)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;
(e)funding of $1 million be provided from the Corporate Contingency Account or any other source identified by the
Chief Administrative Officer; and
(f)all 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.
Discussion:
Interim "Welcome Policy" - Accessibility of Recreation Programs under Option "B":
The implementation of Option "B" effective September 1, 1999, provides for all existing programs offered at 17 centres
serving high need communities to be free of charge. These centres are listed in the top third of the table contained in the
report dated July 5, 1999, from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism. This priority list of
centres serving high need areas is based primarily on the socio-economic indicators of "Percent of Children Aged 0 to 17 in
Families Receiving Social Assistance" and "Lone Parent Families as a Percentage of Total Families. $400,000.00 is
included in the Parks and Recreation Division's 1999 Operating Budget for this purpose.
Moreover, the individual access component of Option "B" provides for one program per person per season and reserves 10
percent of fee-based programs for individuals who are in need of financial assistance. This 10 percent reserve would be
flexible depending on the neighbourhood being served.
This strategy is consistent with former Scarborough figures whereby an average participant registers for two to three
programs per year. $300,000.00 has been included in the City's 1999 Operating Budget for potential increased demand.
Former Scarborough data has been used in the absence of a City-wide participant profile.
The motions tabled at the last Council meeting for consideration in this report if adopted, significantly change Council's
intent during the budget deliberations when adopting Option "B" in the user fee options particularly from a financial
perspective. Adoption of any of the referred motions would effectively move Council's previous decisions from Option
"B" to Option "B+".
Proposed Amendments to the Interim "Welcome Policy":
(a)High-Needs Communities:
City Council's approval of adding seven centres to the list of high-needs communities results in a revenue loss of
$29,789.00 for 1999 and $55,323.00 for 2000 for a total loss of $85,112.00. Given the estimated loss for 1999 is not
sizeable, it is recommended that the Parks and Recreation Division absorb this revenue loss within its 1999 Operating
Budget. The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in conjunction with the Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer, will monitor the Division's budget and will report back to the Policy and Finance Committee
together with the September 30, 1999 Operating Budget Variance Report on the Division's ability to absorb the revenue
loss.
The recommended use of Low Income Cut-off (LICO) as the key indicator to rank community centres serving high-needs
communities captures working poor families in addition to welfare receiving families since the measure to be utilized in
this instance is "Percent of Incidence of Economic Families Living Below the LICO". On the basis of this indicator, the
amended priority list of 24 community centres serve populations where 38 percent or greater live below the LICO.
The motion to extend the list of centres serving high-needs communities by an additional 15 centres intended to capture all
neighbourhoods where approximately one-third of the population is living below the LICO. This would create a priority list
of centres serving communities with a LICO of 33.8 percent, resulting in a revenue loss of $209,000.00 for 1999 and
$389,000.00 for 2000 for a total revenue loss of $598,000.00.
The intended additions to the priority list rested in the second third of the table contained in the above-noted report.
However, it should be noted that Council's approval of the seven centres formed part of this 15. As a result, only an
incremental eight centres would need to be added to the priority list to maintain the LICO of 33.8 percent. The financial
impact of this amendment would result in a revenue loss of $183,413.00 in 1999 and $340,623.00 in 2000 for a total
impact of $524,036.00.
Finally, the motion to add all community centres in the table contained in the Commissioner's report of July 5, 1999 as
high-needs communities would require an additional 14 centres to be added to the priority list over and above those centres
addressed from the preceding motion. This would result in further erosion of the revenue base by $240,991.00 in 1999 and
$447,556.00 in 2000 for a total additional revenue loss of $688,547.00. Approval of this motion would also reduce the
LICO to 5 percent, and essentially, programs would be provided to all communities free of charge regardless of ability to
pay.
The total financial impact of amending the Interim "Welcome Policy" by adding community centres to the high-needs
category results in a revenue loss of $454,211.00 for 1999 and $843,502.00 for 2000 for a total revenue loss of
$1,297,695.00.
(b)Individual Access:
A motion to extend the interim individual access policy from one program per individual, per season to two programs per
individual, per season would result in foregone revenue of $400,000.00 in 1999 and a further $800,000.00 in 2000 for a
total impact of $1.2 million. This financial impact is in addition to the revenue loss arising from the motions discussed in
section (a) above given the individual access component of the "Welcome Policy" impacts on fee-for programs provided
City-wide in addition to the offering of free programs in high-needs communities.
As previously noted, no data is currently available to develop an average City participant profile at this time to enable a
better assessment of potential need for individual financial assistance.
Amendment to the Interim "Welcome Policy" respecting the addition of community centres to the high-needs category and
the extension of the individual access policy to two programs per individual per season or a 20 percent reserve results in a
total financial impact of $854,211.00 in 1999 and $1,643,502.00 in 2000 for a total revenue loss of $2,497,695.00.
Funding Options:
Any motions adopted beyond the $86,000.00 already adopted by Council at its last meeting are not recommended at this
time until experience in implementation over a full year is gained. Funds are not available in the program 1999 operating
budget to absorb any further financial impacts arising from the referred motions. While the 1999 operating budget
corporate contingency is available to handle emergency in year changes, this item with its major policy and service level
implications should be considered in the context of the 2000 operating budget in accordance with the financial protocols
outlined in a report to Policy & Finance Committee that will be considered on July 20, 1999.
Conclusion:
The harmonization of user fees for recreation programs will be implemented September 1, 1999. The option adopted by
City Council addresses the need to make programs accessible to individuals, families and communities that may find
recreation programs unaffordable. There is no dispute that several communities in Toronto are in need. However, adding
too many Communities into a subsidy/exemption policy at this time without the benefit of experience in implementing
Council's previous decision would be premature, from a management and fiscal perspective.
Proper time to develop criteria based on experience, and careful consideration of all factors to ensure equity is delivered,
should be undertaken once a sufficient learning period has taken place. Council's original list of 17 centres for exemptions,
plus the addition of seven more as identified, is prudent at this stage. The issues should be studied and the impacts should
be monitored and reported back to Committee and Council in preparation for the 2000 Fall/Winter season and the 2001
Operating Budget cycle.
Contacts:
Josie LaVita, Acting Director, Budget Services, 397-4229, Ms. Claire Tucker-Reid, General Manager, Parks & Recreation,
392-8182.
The Policy and Finance Committee also submits the following communication (July 9, 1999) from the City Clerk:
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 July 6, 7 and 8,
1999.
May I draw your attention to the amendment by Council found at the beginning of the Clause.
--------
(Clause embodied in Report No. 1 of The
Economic Development and Parks Committee, headed
"Interim "Welcome Policy" for Users of Recreation
Program - All Wards" as adopted by the Council of the
City of Toronto at its meeting held on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999)
(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 15 additional 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.
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.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
(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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.)
The Policy and Finance Committee also submits the following communication (July 8, 1999) from Mayor Mel
Lastman:
At the City Council meeting of July 8, Council requested that a report be provided on funding options concerning the City
of Toronto's Parks and Recreation Welcome Policy. Council also requested that all respective Council motions be referred
to the July 20, 1999, Policy and Finance Committee. To facilitate the consideration of this matter by the Policy and Finance
Committee and Council, I would appreciate the assistance of the Budget Advisory Committee in reviewing budget options
for funding the Welcome Policy within the time frames established by Council.
Thank you for your assistance and I look forward to receiving the views of the Budget Advisory Committee.
(A copy of the communication dated July 9, 1999, addressed to the Policy and Finance Committee from the City Clerk,
forwarding 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", was forwarded to all Members of Council with the July
20, 1999, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
The Policy and Finance Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during the
consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications:
(i)(July 19, 1999) from Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River, requesting free access to recreation programs be
provided to all high-needs communities;
(ii)(July 19, 1999) from Ms. Liz Bonanno, Executive Director, Syme-Woolner Neighbourhood and Family Centre, in
support of Councillor McConnell's motion to expand services to high needs communities;
(iii)(July 19, 1999) from Mr. Toni Panzuto, ETAS Member, Etobicoke Takes A Stand, in support of Councillor
McConnell's motion to expand services to high needs communities;
(iv)(July 16, 1999) from Lorna Weigand, on behalf of the Network of Community Based Organizations, urging the
Committee to support a motion to allocate funds to exempt "high needs" areas of the City from recreation user fees; and
(v)(July 16, 1999) from Anne Golden, President, United Way of Greater Toronto, addressed to Mayor Lastman, advising
that the United Way supports the City's commitment to offer free recreation services in neighbourhoods where a large
proportion of the population is living in poverty; that they have considered the City's proposed approach and suggest that it
would be beneficial to the social and economic health of the City to extend this benefit to neighbourhoods with poverty
rates of roughly 30 per cent or more; and stating that they believe that access to recreation services represent an important
and progressive investment in the City's human capital and communities.
The following persons appeared before the Policy and Finance Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Ms. Gloria Holmes-Perkin;
-Mr. Paris Gardos and filed a written submission;
-Mr. Loren Grabanier, For Youth Project, and filed a written submission;
-Mr. Doug Hum, The Children's Aid Society of Toronto; and filed a written submission;
-Mr. David Rew, East Scarborough Boys and Girls Club;
-Mr. Anver Saloojee; and filed a written submission;
-Ms. Myra Lewis, S. H. Armstrong Centre Advisory Council;
-Ms. Datejie Green;
-Ms. Doreen Lalor; and filed a written submission;
-Ms. Monica Plant;
-Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto; and
-Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park.
|
