The Proposed Process for the Provision

of Outdoor Waterplay Facilities - All Wards

The Economic Development and Parks Committee recommends the adoption of the report (August 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to provide any information with regard to 'requests' from Councillors for such facilities.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee submits the following report (August 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To recommend criteria for the selection of future sites for waterplay facilities and to provide an inventory of existing facilities

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are funding implications for the Year 2000-2004 Capital Works Program.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Economic Development Culture and Tourism Department include waterplay facilities in the Recreation Facility Provision Assessment Study now underway;

(2)Economic Development, Culture and Tourism staff follow the interim approach outlined in this report for identifying sites for waterplay facilities until the Recreation Facility Service Provision Assessment Study and a plan for waterplay facilities are completed; and

(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background:

At its meeting of May 21, 1999, the Economic Development Committee considered the report from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism dated May 4, 1999, entitled "Use of Sponsorship Revenues from Molson's Sponsorship Agreement for the Construction of Water Park Facilities", on the provision of funding for the construction of two new waterplay facilities using the Molson's sponsorship money from the sale of "Toronto's Own Beer." The report had been requested by Economic Development Committee in November 1998, when the Mayor introduced the sponsorship initiative by Molson's. At the May 1999 meeting, the Economic Development Committee requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to report back on:

(1)criteria for the selection of future sites for outdoor water park facilities, prior to consideration of the Year 2000 Capital Works Program; and

(2)an inventory of the range of equipment and services provided by the outdoor water park facilities, and proposals to harmonize such facilities.

Comments:

Waterplay facilities (also referred to as waterparks) are outdoor play structures that release streaming or spraying water from one or more features. These waterplay facilities benefit the public by providing enhanced play opportunities and adding new interest to existing parks. Moreover, the park user base is expanded as parks with waterplay facilities are popular with families with children during the summer months.

Waterplay Facility Inventory:

Waterplay facilities vary in size and complexity and, for the purposes of this report, may be classified into four general categories. These categories are outlined below:

Category 1 - Splash Pad

These are the simplest form of waterplay facilities and consist of one or a few spray features mounted on posts that spray water onto an artificial surface. Splash Pads contain no standing water.

Example: Sandown Park, located in Ward 13, Scarborough Bluffs (see Appendix "A", Figure 1).

Category 2 - Converted Wading Pool

These consist of a surface dish to which a variety of spray features have been added within it or around the perimeter. Converted Wading Pools make use of existing concrete dishes that were used as wading pools. Converted Wading Pools contain no standing water. The conversion of wading pools to a facility that does not have standing water reduces annual staffing requirements.

Example: Greenwood Park, located in Ward 26, East Toronto (See Appendix "A", Figure 2).

Category 3 - Spray-Wading Pool Combination

These are wading pools that have been modified to contain spray features but which still contain standing water in the concrete dish and can still be used as a wading pool.

Example: Sherwood Park, located in Ward 22, North Toronto (See Appendix "A", Figure 3).

Category 4 - Full-Scale Waterplay facilities

These are large, specialized facilities comprised of several spray features and may consist of elaborate structures such as slides and stationary water guns. Standing water may or may not be present.

Example: Hendon Park, located in Ward 10, North York Centre (See Appendix "A", Figure 4).

The absence of standing water in many waterplay facilities is advantageous in that no park supervision staff are required. This minimizes staff operating costs and provides enhanced service over the course of a day, as the operating hours of the facility are not restricted by the provision of supervision.

Furthermore, unlike other aquatic facilities, waterplay facilities do not have to be in operation on days when the public would not normally use them due to cool or inclement weather. Consequently, cost-savings are generated by not providing water to the facility on those days. The ability to remotely control water service to the facility could provide an even greater cost-savings advantage since a visit to the facility by Parks and Recreation staff may not be not required.

There are a number of waterplay facilities already in existence in the City of Toronto or under development. These are listed in Appendix "B", Table 1 and indicated in Appendix "C", Map 1, by category type. Map 2, Appendix "C", illustrates existing outdoor wading pools in the City. These maps reveal the unevenness in the distribution of waterplay facilities throughout the new City of Toronto. This pattern is reflective of the historical development of waterplay equipment and expenditure priorities of the former municipalities for this type of facility.

Harmonizing Facility Provision:

The former Economic Development Committee also requested proposals for the harmonization of waterplay facilities. An equitable and efficient distribution of recreation facilities is an important objective in the amalgamated city. At present, staff are working on a city-wide provision assessment of major indoor and outdoor recreation facilities. This work will analyze the provision and distribution of facilities, develop and apply analytical frameworks for identifying gaps and overlaps in facility provision, and identify directions for future facility provision. At this stage, the emphasis is on understanding provision patterns, including differences in facility type, level and distribution on a city-wide basis. In that respect, it will provide a basis for the development of long term plans for major indoor and outdoor recreation facilities that will, among other things, address facility harmonization. Long range plans for various categories of facility will then be prepared on a priority basis.

As indicated, the provision assessment will identify service gaps and priority areas for waterplay facilities based mainly on existing and committed facility provision. Once there is a better indication of provision patterns and gaps for this category of facility, a planning process involving locational criteria and community consultation can be developed for the siting and prioritization of sites for new waterplay facilities. These criteria could include but are not limited to the following:

(a)existing and projected demographic trends of the residential catchment area surrounding the park site create sufficient demand to warrant the capital and operating costs of a waterplay facility;

(b)the existing infrastructure and layout of the selected park site supports the presence of a waterplay facility and accommodates the anticipated number of users, including proximity to public washrooms for large facilities that draw a catchment beyond the immediate area;

(c)the Ward Councillors and the local residents approve of the waterplay facility and are involved in determining design features and optimal locations for new installations to best serve their needs;

(d)facilities are accessible to pedestrians and cyclists; where possible facilities should also be accessible to transit users and motorists and parking should be available or provided for those waterplay facilities that are expected to draw visitors from outside the immediate area; and

(e)safety is foremost in site design and ensures that facilities are visible to reduce vandalism and to make areas safer for children.

Interim Approach:

Until a long range plan for waterplay facilities is completed, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism staff are following an interim approach in determining the criteria for the selection of waterplay sites and their prioritization for inclusion in the Capital Works Program for the year 2000. Economic Development, Culture and Tourism staff are using the following criteria in developing their programs and budget recommendations:

-the proximity and density of residential land uses to determine level of need;

-the proximity of existing waterplay facilities;

-the ability of the park sites under consideration to accommodate such facilities;

-accessibility and availability of parking; and

-minimization of impacts on the adjacent community.

Staff are also reviewing the types of facilities for consideration in this year's Capital Works Program and will make budget recommendations based on the above criteria. Moreover, Parks and Recreation district staff are endeavouring to determine the level of community support for each project identified.

Conclusions:

The diversity in the types of waterplay facilities combined with the options for siting them throughout Toronto's extensive park system presents a challenge in establishing appropriate combinations of location and facility. Facility provision studies underway will identify gaps and priority areas for consideration in more detailed planning for waterplay facilities that will involve locational criteria and community consultation.

The interim approach outlined in this report will assist with the identification of waterplay projects to be included in this year's Capital Budget. Community consultation is important in identifying facility types and finalizing sites for these facilities. Economic Development, Culture and Tourism staff will work closely with the Ward Councillors and the local communities in assessing the opportunities and priorities for this category of facility.

Contact Names:

Ms. Diane Stevenson, 392-0098, Mr. Frank Kershaw, 392-8199.

Appendix "B"

Table 1: Existing and Planned Waterplay Facilities and Categories

Category 1: Splash PadCategory 2: Converted Wading Pool

Category 2: Spray-Wading Pool CombinationCategory 4: Full-Scale Waterplay

* Construction in progress or planned for 1999.

Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South, appeared before the Economic Development and Parks Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.