Recreation Needs Assessment and Feasibility

Study Findings and Recommendations Respecting

Five Study Areas - (Wards 2, 6, 19, 24, 25, 27 and 28)

The Policy and Finance Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption, in principle, of the report (August 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism;

(2)that this matter be forwarded to the Budget Advisory Committee for consideration during the budget process; and

(3)that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to submit a report thereon to the Economic Development and Parks Committee at the same time that he is reporting on a fund raising policy for the City of Toronto.

The Policy and Finance Committee reports, for the information of Council, having received the communication (September 14, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding the recommendation of the Economic Development and Parks Committee respecting this matter.

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

Purpose:

To report on the objectives, approach and findings of a needs assessment and feasibility study (draft final stage) for proposed indoor recreation facilities in five areas of the city (South Etobicoke, Western North York, York, Parkdale and St. James Town).

Financial Implications:

There are financial implications associated with the Parks and Recreation Capital Program and associated ongoing operational costs resulting from the implementation of any of the proposed facilities.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the findings of the needs assessment and recreation study, as contained in the draft final study report and as outlined in this report, for the areas of South Etobicoke, Western North York, York, Parkdale, and St. James Town be received;

(2)staff be directed to report back to the Economic Development and Parks Committee following the public meetings anticipated to be held in each of the study areas in October; and

(3)the guidelines outlined in this report for structuring the inclusion of the proposed facilities in the Parks and Recreation Capital Program be considered by Council.

Council Reference:

At its meeting of April 29, 1998, Council approved the 1998 Parks and Recreation Capital Program which, among other things, included funding for a needs study for recreation centres in the South Etobicoke, Western North York, and York.

Early in 1999, Council adopted recommendations from the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee requesting a report on:

(1)how the St. James Town project will be accommodated in the Parks and Recreation Five-year Capital Works Plan, in time for inclusion in the 2000-2004 capital program; and

(2)the priority ranking of the proposed St. James Town project as part of the forthcoming needs assessment study.

Discussion:

The purpose of the study was to conduct a needs assessment and feasibility study for recreation facilities for each of South Etobicoke, Western North York, and York. Work on these three areas commenced in late 1998. As work was underway by the consulting team for these three areas, it was decided that two other proposed recreation centres (St. James Town and Parkdale) should be studied in a comparable manner. Consequently, the work program for the initial three study areas was expanded to include St. James Town and Parkdale.

Each of the five study areas-South Etobicoke, Western North York, York, Parkdale, and St. James Town - has been the subject of earlier studies and/or proposals for recreation facilities prior to amalgamation. The previous studies for these different areas varied in content, scope and currency. Attachment No. 1 shows the study areas.

Study Approach:

The study was conducted in two phases: a Phase One recreation needs assessment and a Phase Two feasibility component. The objective of Phase One was to assess, in a consistent manner, the need for major indoor recreation facilities in each study area. The objective of Phase Two was to establish a preliminary design program, site selection (where necessary), the recommendation of relative priorities amongst the various proposed facilities, cost projections and implementation considerations.

Phase One data gathering focused on three principal areas: demographics, facility inventory information and community input. While the primary approach centered on quantitative methods of data collection, it was enhanced by qualitative data. In particular, community input provided through key informant interviews and focus groups helped establish the unique characteristics of each study area. Community input was also obtained through a community survey and user group questionnaires. Social and leisure trends affecting the participation in and delivery of leisure services and facilities were also examined.

The Phase One needs assessment investigated the need for new or improved major indoor recreation facilities in each of the study areas based on the following considerations:

(i)the current and future socio-demographic profile of the communities;

(ii)the current supply and use of recreation facilities serving the study area;

(iii)the public's perception of the need for facilities as expressed in random sample surveys of community residents, focus groups with individual and community agencies, questionnaires returned by cultural and recreational user groups, key informant interviews and public meetings;

(iv)leisure trends; and

(v)the results of previous studies dealing with leisure needs in each study area.

As indicated earlier, Phase Two of the study involved the establishment of a preliminary design program, site selection (where necessary), prioritization of facilities, and capital and operating cost projections.

The preliminary design program and cost projections for the recommended facilities are set out below in the section on study findings.

Where necessary, site selection activities were undertaken in Phase Two. St. James Town and Parkdale had previously identified sites, so they were not the subjects of site selection. In South Etobicoke, the former City of Etobicoke and the separate school board purchased adjacent properties on the former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital grounds in anticipation of a potential joint development and facility partnership. This site was, therefore, identified prior to the study.

Site selection was pursued in a two-step approach. The initial step was a site screening process where sites that did not meet a number of minimum criteria (size available for development, planning constraints, services, zoning) were rejected. The second step involved a comparative evaluation of the remaining sites based on more detailed criteria (e.g., size, access, ownership, compatibility with other uses in area, etc.). The objective of the site selection process was to identify and recommend preferred sites for the proposed facilities. Final site selection will require additional site specific investigations and consideration of the need to purchase preferred sites not owned by the City.

The other major component of Phase Two was to identify the relative priority of the recommended recreation facilities. The identification of priorities was based on study areas, not identified facility requirements. The priority setting exercise was based on several main criteria areas: supply and availability of facilities, perceived need for facilities and interest in additional participation, "high needs" residents, and population and housing density. Each of the criteria areas had specific measures that were used as a basis for scoring points in the priority exercise.

In summary, the study approach was to focus on the supply and need for facilities in each of the study areas. Given the need to provide an indication of relative priority amongst the study areas, a consistent methodology and approach was used.

While the study approach provides a very good understanding of recreation facility needs in each area, the study did not have the benefit of a citywide framework and policies on the delivery of leisure services and facilities. The different municipalities that now make up the City of Toronto had different approaches, practices and resources that affected service and facility provision; a consistent approach to service and facility provision for the entire city needs to be developed and that work will provide important context for the findings of this study.

Furthermore, the role of school board facilities in meeting community recreation needs is subject to change as a result of revisions to school funding formulas. This may result in school closures and/or significant increases in the cost of using these facilities. At this time the impact of these changes is not entirely known.

Study Findings:

Needs Assessment:

At this point, the needs assessment (Phase One) has been completed and the feasibility component (Phase Two) has been completed to the draft final stage. The methods and findings of the needs assessment were presented in a series of public meetings in June, 1999. The work program for the study includes public meetings in each of the study areas to present and discuss the findings of the overall study.

In four of the study areas, the need for a major community centre with a 25-metre indoor pool, gymnasium and multi-purpose space was identified. In South Etobicoke, the remaining study area, the development of a gymnasium and multipurpose space in partnership with the separate school board was supported as an immediate need with the redevelopment of existing aquatic facilities elsewhere in the study area recommended as a future project. The key findings of the needs assessment for each study area are summarized in Attachment No. 2.

Facility Components and Estimated Costs:

The recommended facility mix for four of the areas includes a 25-metre indoor pool, regulation-size gymnasium and multi-purpose space. This is anticipated to require a recreation centre of approximately 62,265 square feet. Based on this facility mix and space requirements, the preliminary capital cost estimate identified in the study is $13,530,000.00, which includes building construction, an allowance for site development, contingencies, equipment and furnishings and other related construction costs.

The base capital cost estimate does not include allowance for an elevator or for underground parking. Given the size of the St. James Town and Parkdale sites, it is conceivable that two storey construction and/or underground parking would be required. Detailed estimates of these potential costs require additional site specific information.

Based on the capital cost estimates identified in the study and the potential for additional development costs, it would be reasonable to assume a project cost in the range of $15,000,000.00 for each of the proposed major centres. This does not include land costs or the cost of dealing with any exceptional site conditions.

The annual operating cost for the type of facility recommended for four of the study areas is approximately $850,000.00, based on a blend of full and part-time staff, materials, utilities, etc., observed at comparable facilities. Revenues are not included, as this is expected to vary depending on the City's pricing policy.

In some cases, particularly St. James Town, other community services (e.g., library) have been identified as part of the proposed centre. These components would add to the space requirements, however, it is assumed that other services would contribute to the development and operation of the proposed facility on a proportionate basis.

For South Etobicoke, where the immediate need is considered to be the gymnasium and multi-purpose space to be developed in conjunction with the separate board, the capital cost is estimated to be $3,000,000.00, excluding site development and contingencies.

Site Selection:

Both St. James Town and Parkdale had sites for new community centres identified previous to the study, and these sites were accepted as generally suitable for the type of facility that resulted from the needs assessment.

The needs assessment finding for South Etobicoke was a gymnasium and multi-purpose space, which could be developed in conjunction with a new secondary school proposed for the former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital grounds. The former City of Etobicoke had acquired property adjacent to the school site in anticipation of a possible partnership; hence site selection activity was more limited for this study area.

Sites considered for Western North York were Pelmo Park, Downsview Arena, St. Basil's North Campus (3100 Weston Road) and St. Basil's South Campus (24 Strathburn Boulevard). The preferred site is St. Basil's North Campus, despite the fact that this site is not owned by the city.

Sites considered for York were Fairbank Park, Cedarvale Park, Black Creek Drive and Eglinton Avenue, Rockcliffe and the Civic Centre. The preferred site is a property owned by the province on the southeast corner of Black Creek Drive and Eglinton Avenue.

Priority Setting:

One of the study requirements was to recommend the relative priority of the projects recommended for the study areas. The distinction between the needs assessment findings and the identification of priorities should be noted. The needs assessment phase of the study identified facilities that would, if provided, be well used by residents. Identifying priorities helps with capital planning, although other factors (such as the need to acquire land for preferred sites or particular opportunities to partner with other services and agencies) also need to be considered.

Based on the priority setting method developed as part of the study, the relative priority of the study areas is as follows:

(a)St. James Town;

(b)York;

(c)Western North York;

(d)Parkdale; and

(e)South Etobicoke.

In terms of scoring, St. James Town was the highest priority by a considerable margin. York, Western North York and Parkdale were more closely ranked. South Etobicoke was somewhat below the middle three study areas.

The relative priorities were developed in the study to assist with capital planning. Each of the study areas has a set of particular circumstances and opportunities that must also be considered in any capital planning and decisions. The main ones for each study area are set out in point form as follows:

(a)St. James Town

(i)the loss of the Rose Avenue facility as the school board requires the use of this space in its facility;

(ii)the Library Board's plans to develop a community branch component within the proposed centre; and

(iii)the opportunity for the Toronto Parking Authority and other infrastructure and utility providers to participate in the project.

(b)York

(i)the need to assess timing and cost of acquiring preferred site (Black Creek and Eglinton);

(ii)the opportunity to consider facility opportunities at alternate sites (e.g., use and constraints of the York Civic Center location, including the possibility of cooperating with school board on its adjacent property and facility); and

(iii)the need to assess other open space and outdoor recreation facility needs in the York area.

(c)Western North York

(i)the need to assess timing and cost of acquiring preferred site (St. Basil's North Campus); and

(ii)the opportunity to consider use of vacant former secondary school facilities on the preferred site.

(d)Parkdale

(i)the existing city-owned site for the proposed facility is leased until the end of 2000 to the previous owner; and

(ii)the site requires demolition of building and clean up.

(e)South Etobicoke

(i)the opportunity to develop a facility with the Separate School Board on the site at the same time provides economies on facility development and greater use potential for both parties;

(ii)the implications of not proceeding on this site in conjunction with the School Board (the School Board would have the opportunity to purchase property from City on which to construct its new high school if the City declares that it would not be constructing some form of recreation centre in conjunction with the high school, as per OMB decision); and

(iii)the opportunities in the long and short term to improve or replace existing facilities in South Etobicoke .

Service and Planning Context:

Given that all of the study areas were historically considered, to some degree, as under serviced areas within their former municipalities, it is not surprising that significant facility needs were identified in each of the study areas. Development of any of the proposed facilities would constitute improvements to existing service levels. The degree of service level improvement to existing residents in each area would be offset by anticipated population growth in and around each study area.

The recommended facilities for four of the study areas can be considered as "major recreation centres" in that they are composed of several facility components and would be, in terms of gross floor area, at the upper end of the range of community and recreation centres provided elsewhere in the city.

As mentioned in the section on study approach, the focus of the study was principally on the individual study areas. For certain aspects (such as the supply of recreation facilities) the area surrounding each study area was also included in the analysis. Although not expressly studied, it is likely that the proposed facilities would draw at least some patrons from beyond a given study area.

While the study is conclusive about service needs, recommended facility types, and the relative priorities of each of the study areas, it is important to note that these findings do not have the benefit of a city-wide context or long-term plan for major recreation centres and facilities.

At present, staff are working on a citywide provision assessment of major 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 planning and provision. At the initial stage, the emphasis is on understanding provision patterns, including differences in facility type, level and distribution on a citywide basis. More specifically, the provision assessment study will identify service gaps and priority areas for major indoor facilities and centres based on a review of existing and committed facility provision. Growth areas in the city, e.g., as indicated by population projections and designations in the new Official Plan, will also have to be included in the analysis of where the City should be considering its level of service for recreation facilities.

Once there is a better indication of provision types, patterns and gaps for this category of facility, a more detailed planning process involving needs research and consultation will be developed to produce a long-term plan for major indoor recreation facilities. It is anticipated the first stage of this work, the provision assessment study, will be completed at the end of this year.

It is also important to consider the proposed facilities within the context of maintaining the existing recreation facilities and services, of which the city has a significant inventory. The concern here is the "state of good repair" and conservation of existing infrastructure. Variation in practices and standards of "good repair" between the different municipalities require that this aspect of the city's facility expenditures be studied and quantified before additional significant facilities are undertaken. Again, this is the subject of research and the development of a long term plan to ensure appropriate capital resources are budgeted to keep existing facilities in good repair and maximize their service potential.

A stringent approach would suggest not proceeding on any projects until the full facility service context and long-term plans are established, including capital conservation and "good repair". At that point, the City would be able to determine citywide service requirements and its financial capacity to provide additional facilities where most needed. While that would not be an unreasonable approach, it imposes the hardship of delay, particularly on those communities with the highest relative priorities.

A more flexible, but still cautious, approach would be to proceed with facility planning and development for the highest priority areas and/or those with a specific opportunity for a favourable partnership. This would allow for the study areas with a lower priority to be reviewed in a broader context. The capital program could reflect these proposed facilities, however, additions and adjustments would be made as long term planning indicates citywide priorities for other new service facilities and other capital requirements (such as capital conservation).

Implications for Parks and Recreation Capital Program:

The assumed project costs ($15,000,000.00 for each of the four major centres and $3,000,000.00 for the South Etobicoke facility) would require a phased, multi-year approach in the Capital Budget Program.

Based on the foregoing comments, and keeping in mind that the study is in draft final form and subject to revision based on the anticipated public meetings in each study area, the following guidelines are proposed for using the study findings to assist in structuring the Parks and Recreation Capital Program:

(a)the highest priority area (St. James Town) be indicated as early as possible in the five year program;

(b)the facilities recommended to be developed in conjunction with the separate school board in South Etobicoke be indicated in the program in conjunction with the projected development of the school facility (anticipated to open in 2001);

(c)the proposed facilities for the York, Western North York and Parkdale study areas be included as projects in the program in order of relative priority and subject to revision based on longer term planning for other recreation facilities or capital requirements;

(d)sites required for facility development in York and Western North York be identified and included in the relevant capital program; and

(e)in anticipation of the existing tenant vacating the city-owned site proposed for the Parkdale facility, funding should be provided to plan and implement building demolition and site clean up in a manner that is compatible with the adjacent parklands and the potential for a recreation facility.

The facility types, cost and priorities identified in the draft final report will be used as input to our department's capital program submission. The guidelines outlined above will be used to structure the department's program submission in the interim, however, Committee and Council will be asked to consider the general approach.

Conclusion:

One public meeting in each of the five study areas is anticipated to be held in October 1999, to present the findings in the draft final study report to the public and interested groups and to solicit comments. Comments received will be considered in preparing the final report.

Staff will report back to Council at that time, taking into consideration any comments from the public and from Council. Council will then be in a better position to assess more fully the recommended relative priorities of the five study areas and options for providing the facilities identified in the study in the next capital program.

Contact Names:

Mr. Frank Kershaw, Tel: 392-8199; Mr. Brian Rutherford, Tel: 392-8179, Mr. Mark Edelman,

Tel: 392-0094.

The Policy and Finance Committee submits the following communication (September 14, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Economic Development and Parks Committee recommends to the Policy and Finance Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report (August 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, subject to deleting the word "considered" in Recommendation No. (3) and inserting in lieu thereof the word "approved", so that such Recommendation now reads:

"(3) the guidelines outlined in this report for structuring the inclusion of the proposed facilities in the Parks and Recreation Capital Program be approved by Council."

The Economic Development and Parks Committee reports, for the information of the Policy and Finance Committee, and Council, having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

(1)to report directly to City Council for its meeting of September 28, 1999, on the cost of securing, for public use, the St. Basil's North Campus site (3100 Weston Road) through a long-term lease and/or other arrangement; and

(2)to include in the final needs assessment and feasibility study the following as it relates to South Etobicoke:

(a)funding required for the potential replacement of the pool and health club at the Gus Ryder facility;

(b)the inclusion of the Toronto School Board and the Lakeshore Lion's club in the process;

(c)that the gymnasium be a joint venture with the Separate School Board, noting that the said School Board is submitting a site plan in the Year 2000 for a new facility, and that this project be considered for inclusion in the Year 2000 and 2001 Capital Budget process; and

(d)review a possible merger of the programs and activities of the Horner Avenue Seniors Centre and the Franklin Horner Community Centre and identify the City's ability to secure a long term lease with the Toronto District School Board for the continuation of the programs at the Franklin Horner Community Centre.

Background:

The Economic Development and Parks Committee on September 13, 1999, had before it a report (August 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, reporting on the objectives, approach and findings of a needs assessment and feasibility study (draft final stage) for proposed indoor recreation facilities in five areas of the city (South Etobicoke, Western North York, York, Parkdale and St. James Town); and recommending that:

(1)the findings of the needs assessment and recreation study, as contained in the draft final study report and outlined in this report, for the areas of South Etobicoke, Western North York, York, Parkdale, and St. James Town be received;

(2)staff be directed to report back to the Economic Development and Parks Committee following the public meetings anticipated to be held in each of the study areas in October; and

(3)the guidelines outlined in this report for structuring the inclusion of the proposed facilities in the Parks and Recreation Capital Program be considered by Council.

The following Members of Council appeared before the Economic Development and Parks Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Councillor Irene Jones, Lakeshore-Queensway;

-Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park;

-Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River;

-Councillor Joe Mihevc, York Eglinton; and

-Councillor Kyle Rae, Downtown.

--------

The following Members of Council appeared before the Policy and Finance Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Councillor Irene Jones, Lakeshore Queensway;

-Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River; and

-Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park.