Recreation Grants Program - 1998 Allocations and Appeals

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the transmittal letter (June 11, 1998) from the Municipal Grants Review Committee to Council without recommendation.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having:

(1)requested the Municipal Grants Review Committee to reconsider a grant of $6,000.00 to the Christie Neighbourhood Centre and to clarify where "duplication of services" exists in that neighbourhood and report to Council on July 8, 1998 at the time the Recreation Grants Program is considered; and

(2)referred the communication (June 18, 1998) from Ms. Elain Daviau of the Beach Arts Centre to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer for a report on the tax status of the property.

Recommendation:

The Municipal Grants Review Committee on June 11, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the attached reports (May 13 and June5,1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism respecting the Recreation Grants Program - 1998 Allocations and Appeals.

The Municipal Grants Review Committee reports, for the information of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, having requested Councillor Lindsay Luby, Chair, and appropriate staff, to meet with the Board of Management of the Weston Lion's Arena to discuss the issue of the ice rental fees being charged for use by the Weston Minor Hockey League (Grant No. 89), and the possibility of in-kind support, etc., and report thereon directly to Council for its meeting on July 8, 1998.

Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber, appeared before the Municipal Grants Review Committee with respect to the Grant request from the Weston Minor Hockey League (Grant No. 89).

--------

(Report dated May 13, 1998, addressed to theMunicipal Grants Review Committee from theCommissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism)

Purpose:

This report presents the recommended allocations for 95 agencies which have applied for municipal financial support under the Recreation Grants Program.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The 1998 approved estimates are $1,126,989.00 for all Recreation Grants Programs, which are sufficient funds for the program provided there is a $25,000.00 reallocation from the Major Recreation Grants to offset the 1998 shortfall in the Minor Recreation Grants.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the attached 1998 Recreation Grants Program allocations totalling $363,970.00 for 88 agencies, described in Appendix A and B, be approved;

(2)$56,649.00 be transferred from the Recreation Grants Account to the Parks and Recreation Operating Budget to maintain services offered to seniors and sports groups in the former City of York as has been done annually; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

Under the general authority for making municipal grants provided in Section 113 (1) of the Municipal Act, all of the former municipalities, except Metro, provided support to the not-for-profit sector through recreation grants. The Recreation Grants Program, represents a combination of four existing grants programs offered by four former municipalities (Etobicoke, North York, Toronto and York) as the primary means of municipal support for community-based recreation/sports agencies. The former City of Scarborough funded all not-for-profit agencies through its Community Services Grants program regardless of category; so its 1998 recreation grants are dealt with in the Community Services report. The former Borough of East York traditionally awarded a recreation grant to the East York Symphony. For 1998, it was deemed more appropriate that this organization apply for a grant through the Culture Office.

All Recreation Grant Programs existed to enable the former municipalities to support policies which assisted the community and the provision of their services. Although they may look very different, they do have many commonalities. Some former municipalities made additional funding available outside the regular grants review cycle, to organizations in need of urgent assistance as a result of unforeseen circumstances. These one-time emergency funds were provided using either unallocated recreation grants funds or emergency funds. Such emergency funding has not been included in the 1998 Recreation Grants Program as outlined in the January 2, 1998, report to Council.

Comment and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

1998 Budget:

The total amount approved in the 1998 Recreation Grants Program is $1,126,989.00 which is flatlined at the 1997 funding levels of the combined programs. The amalgamated budgets of the following programs form the 1998 Recreation Grants Budget: Etobicoke Athletics Category, North York Community Recreation Grants, Toronto Major and Minor Recreation Grants, and York Community Sports Grants.

The former City of York provided $56,649.00 within the grants budget to pay for caretakers and other hard costs associated with the delivery of service to seniors and sports groups offering recreational programs at City-owned facilities. These costs, referred to as in-kind grants to these agencies, are included in the Recreation Grants Budget and should be transferred to the Parks and Recreation Operating Budget in order that these services be maintained.

The former City of Toronto provided Major Recreation Grants to 15 local organizations that offer significant recreational programs and lawn bowling programs within the City. The amount allocated in the 1998 Major Recreation Budget is $724,393.00. Not included in the Recreation Grants Budget but listed in the line item grants under Board of Education Shared Use, is $151,892.00 which the former City of Toronto pays to the Toronto District School Board. This is for Summer Swim, a jointly funded instructional swimming, at Board facilities used primarily by day camps and day care centres. The other funded program is 8 Point Criteria operated in major Board facilities and the grant from the City covers the weekend use by recreational and educational groups. These grants are considered sustaining grants and do not go through the regular grants process and review. Given that some project grants were not annualized and a $11,823.00 transfer from the Toronto General Grants to the Toronto Minor Recreation Grants in 1997 was not available, there were not enough funds to meet the needs of returning and deserving new applicants. It was necessary to realign the funds awarded in the Minor and Major Recreation Categories within the former City of Toronto. For 1998, the 15 agencies funded in the Major Recreation Grants category and the Lawn Bowling Programs, see Appendix C, will receive $699,393.00, a reduction of $25,000.00 and these funds are allocated in the Minor Recreation Grants category. Once the in-kind grants and the Major Recreation Grants have been accounted for under the 1998 Recreation appropriation, a total of $370,947.00 remains for distribution.

Application and Assessment Process:

Overall, 95 agencies requested $632,154.00 under the 1998 Recreation Grants Program. This includes 79 previously funded agencies and 16 new agencies that applied to the four different programs. Some agencies funded in 1997 did not reapply for 1998 funding.

In 1998, a common application package was used for applicants in the Recreation Grants Program. Grant applications previously issued for 1998 funding by the former municipality of North York, due to an earlier deadline, were deemed to be 1998 applications to the new City of Toronto. In some cases, agencies were required to submit additional information after a review of their original submission. The existing criteria of the former municipalities were used to assess applications. Applicants eligible for funding in 1997 continued to be eligible in 1998.

The assessment/review process was streamlined somewhat this year to facilitate the development of a municipal grants policy for implementation in 1999. A team of grants staff assessed applications using existing criteria and information provided in the application form. Review processes used in the 1997 cycle were duplicated for the most part in 1998. Each applicant was assigned a staff liaison. Those former municipalities that used panels and/or advisors and/or conducted interviews did so again. A common list of documentation containing essential accountability information, was required from each agency for the Recreation Grants Program such as minutes approving the application, Board of Directors with their home addresses, and financial and/or audit statements. New applicants were assessed to determine eligibility, their capacity to deliver the proposed programs and to ensure that they were not duplicating services already provided in the area.

Allocation Recommendations:

Appendix A provides a listing of the recommendations for funding in 1998. Appendix B offers a summary of services provided by each agency. Of the 95 applicants, 88 have been recommended for a total of 363,970.00.

The general approach in 1998 was to flatline allocations at the 1997 levels to agencies that received ongoing support as indicated in the report titled "Administration of Municipal Grants Programs" approved by Council in February 1998. Grants would be reduced if there were performance issues and increased if based on exceptional need or circumstances. For new applicants, the principles of equitable access to grants, community needs and available resources were considered in developing recommendations. Of 79 returning applications, 77 groups were flatlined, three organizations were awarded small increases, two based on increased participation targets identified in the 1997 process, and one based on the increased costs of a move.

1998 Allocations SummaryNumber of Agencies

Flatline recommended76

Increase recommended 3

Reduction recommended 0

Ineligible 3

New applicants recommended 9

New Applicants:

Seventeen organizations that did not receive Recreation Grants in 1997 from any former municipal grants program applied for support in 1998. One new applicant withdrew early in the process. Of the remaining 15 new applicants, nine are recommended for allocations in 1998, three have been declared ineligible, and three are not recommended for any funding. Agencies declared ineligible were not providing their services within the municipal boundaries of the requested programs or did not meet basic eligibility requirements. Funding was denied if there were any performance issues, duplication of efforts or the lack of required organizational systems and structures.

Appeals and Reserve Allocation:

An amount of 6,977.00 has been set aside for appeals. Agencies have been notified in writing about the appeals process and the availability of funds.

Advances:

On February 4, 5, and 6, 1998, Toronto Council approved a policy to allow advance payments to agencies that received ongoing funding from the former municipalities provided specific criteria were met by the agencies. 1998 funding advances could not be used to cover existing deficits. Agencies could apply for an advance of up to 50 percent of the previous year's allocation or 100 percent if the total grant was 2,000.00 or less. In order to maintain a clear audit trail, agencies were required to complete a request form before an advance could be processed. Organizations with outstanding conditions, performance issues or significant changes had to be fully assessed before being considered for an advance payment. At the end of April, 28 agencies had requested advances on their 1998 allocations and had received a total of $71,442.00

Service Area Review:

There are a range of issues including: what is the appropriate level of agency accountability under the amalgamated program and what staff resources are required to ensure agency accountability; how can the City, as a funder, improve its ability to determine the effectiveness and impact of grants as a tool to address the needs of communities; and what mechanisms and policies need to be established to facilitate the redistribution of the resources within the Recreation Grants Program. These issues will be addressed through the Recreation Grants Program service area review and be reported out to the Municipal Grants Review Committee at its July 27, 1998, meeting.

Conclusions:

Community-based recreation agencies play an important role within Toronto. They contribute significantly to the quality of life in their local communities and offer opportunities to participate, be an audience member, volunteer and help make the City more liveable. Municipal support is critical to the existence of these agencies and provides some stability in these times of change.

This report recommends that a total of $363,970.00 be granted to 88 agencies under the Recreation Grants Program.

Contact Name:

Cathi Forbes, Culture Office North York Civic Centre, Tel: 395-6192/Fax: 395-7886, cforbes@city.north-york.on.ca.

--------

Appendix A

1998 Recreation Grants

(A copy of each of the Appendices B and C referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Municipal Grants Review Committee for its meeting on June1,1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

--------

(Report dated June 5, 1998, addressed to theMunicipal Grants Review Committee, from theCommissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism)

Purpose:

This report presents the recommended allocations from the Recreation Grants Program for the agencies which appealed to the Municipal Grants Review Committee for reconsideration.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The 1998 approved estimates provide for $370,947.00 for the Recreation Grants Program. Municipal Grants Review Committee received a report, entitled Recreation Grants Program - 1998 Allocations, on May 20, 1998, which recommended the allocation of $363,970.00 to 88 agencies. An amount of $6,977.00 was reserved to respond to agency appeals. If there was no redistribution, these funds would be awarded to the Portuguese Day Festivities.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Y.M.C.A. Etobicoke Youth Centre (Grant No. 456, Community Service Grants Program) be recommended for a grant of $3,500.00 from the Contingency Fund, subject to the approval of the Use of Contingency Fund Report currently before the Municipal Grants Review Committee, and that future requests be directed through the Recreation Grants Program; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Under the general authority for making municipal grants provided in Section 113(1) of the Municipal Act, the City of Toronto provides funds to eligible organizations which operate recreation/sports programs.

On May 20, 1998, the Municipal Grants Review Committee received a report, entitled "Recreation Grants Program - 1998 Allocations", which recommended allocations totalling $363,970.00 for 88 agencies.

Four organizations provided written and/or verbal presentations to the Municipal Grants Review Committee regarding either the amount of funding recommended to their agency, or the fact that they were not recommended for funding.

In developing recommendations with regard to how the existing appeal funds could be allocated, staff reviewed the original recommendations and considered the information presented in the deputations.

A total of $6,977.00 was available for 1998 Recreation Grants Programs appeals.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Grounds for Appeal:

The Terms of Reference for the Recreation Grants Programs state that justifiable grounds for appeal are:

(a)presentation of documented proof that unforeseen circumstances have arisen since the original application; and

(b)misinterpretation of the original application and written submission clarifying the area of contention.

Of the four organizations which appealed their allocations, two were new applicants not recommended for support, and the other two were returning agencies. These two returning agencies were recommended for flatline allocations for their 1998 grants.

New Applicants:

Based on the information provided during the deputations and a review of agency applications, staff have confirmed the original recommendations that the agencies are ineligible for Recreation Grants under specific criteria. Staff are meeting with other funders to identify possible supports to assist agencies and, where appropriate, to encourage agency co-ordination/collaboration.

Returning Applicants:

Of the two returning applicants who appealed, both received initial recommendations for flatline allocations.

Staff have reviewed the materials and deputation comments provided by the two agencies which were originally recommended for flatlined allocations and have confirmed the initial grant recommendations. The additional information and issues raised by these agencies did not justify increases in the original recommendations since the approach for all allocations for 1998 was to flatline agencies.

Y.M.C.A. of Greater Toronto, Etobicoke Youth Centre:

At the deputation by the Y.M.C.A. of Greater Toronto of its Community Service Grant recommendation, the applicant requested clarification of the in-kind grant of $3,500.00 awarded to the Y.M.C.A. Etobicoke Youth Centre last year and the feasibility of receiving such support in 1998. In 1997, the Central Etobicoke Y.M.C.A. Youth Centre's Recreation Program had been recommended for a $2,500.00 grant, and on appeal, had received additional in-kind staff support of $3,500.00. Council Resolution No. 403, October 6, 1997, states "that the Etobicoke Parks and Recreation Services support the recreational component of the Y.M.C.A.- Central Etobicoke Youth Centre through the provision of part-time staff hours in the total amount of $3,500.00 and that funds for this purpose be obtained from the 1997 Operating Budget of the Parks and Recreation Services Department."

This provided one-time staff support, not on-going support. The 1998 Parks and Recreation Department's Operating Budget as approved does not include staff dollars for the Central Etobicoke Youth Centre. However, this agency did not request or apply for a Recreation Grant to cover the cost of the required part-time staff. This is a worthy program and deserving of support. There are no other sources of funding available except the Contingency Fund to ensure delivery of service in 1998.

Conclusion:

Based on reviews of the Recreation Grants Programs applications, and the information presented through the deputations, staff are recommending their original recommendations.

(A copy of Appendix A referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Municipal Grants Review Committee for its meeting on June1,1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following communication (June 18, 1998) from Ms. Elain Daviau, Artistic Director, The Beach Arts Centre:

Thank you for your support through offering us a grant of $3,000.00. We appreciate the concern you have for the people in the communities of the City.

I would, however, like to ask for a reconsideration of our grant amount. Last year the Beach Arts Centre received $3,000.00 as a grant but after an appeal we also received an amount that would cover the taxes on the building we are now leasing. We would like to ask for a further $11,000.00 to cover some of this years taxes. There are two reasons for our request. The first is that we are a registered charity and if we owned our building we would get tax relief. The second is that if we could lobby for relief putting into effect Bill 149 due to the fact we are a registered charity we could get some relief. The problem is that we are starting procedures to try to possess the building. It would be redundant to lobby for relief now. If we do get possession of the building the taxes may well be reduced for next year anyway. We hope you can understand our position and will allow us the added amount to help cover the taxes. We appreciate your kind concern for this situation.