HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-12-151 - Leisure Facilities Master Plan - Update1
Staff Re,~ort
KIT(;x~l\`~.R tammunity Services Department www.kitthenerca
REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: November 26, 2012
SUBMITTED BY: Michael May, DCAO (741-3400 X3523)
PREPARED BY: Kathleen Woodcock, Manager, Service Coordination &
Improvement (741-2597)
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT: November 21, 2012
REPORT NO.: CSD-12-151
SUBJECT: LEISURE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN (LFMP) UPDATE
AND OPTIONS TO PROCEED
RECOMMENDATION:
That staff proceed with the development of a new Leisure Facilities Master Plan (LFMP)
for consideration by Council in the third quarter of 2013.
BACKGROUND:
Council received the Leisure Facilities Master Plan (LFMP) in January 2005. In March 2005
(CSD-05-037), Council approved some of the recommendations. Staff then organized the
remaining recommendations into an implementation plan containing 79 actions which were
aligned into three (3) categories: policies (10 actions), delivery strategies (32 actions) and
facility initiatives (37 actions). A copy of that implementation plan is attached for background
information (Appendix A).
The last update on the implementation of the LFMP was provided to Council in June 2012
(CSD-12-097). At that time, 86% of the actions contained in the LFMP had been completed or
were on track for completion.
REPORT:
The purpose of this report is twofold: 1) to provide Council with a status update on the actions
contained in the LFMP, and 2) to provide Council with a recommendation on how to proceed
now that the majority of the LFMP recommendations have been completed, are on track for
completion, or have been captured in subsequent plans.
A staff working group was established to review the status of the LFMP actions and to consider
options to proceed. The members of the working group were:
• Deb Campbell, Manager, Community Resource Centres
• Cynthia Fletcher, Director, Facilities Management
• Mark Hildebrand, Director, Community Programs & Services
• Greg Hummel, Manager, Park Planning/Development/Operations
• Denise Keelan, Manager, Aquatics & Athletics
• Kim Kugler, Director, Enterprise
4-1
• Dylan Matthews, Business Analyst
• Kathleen Woodcock, Manager, Service Coordination & Improvement
Status Update
The following table indicates the status of the recommendations that were incomplete as of
June 2012.
Action Status (as at October 2012)
Policies
Rec. 11, New policy development On track
Rec. 16, Natural areas policy On track
Rec. 28 L, Land acquisition and under-
serviced areas Complete; implementation as available
Rec. 28 P, Park service level review and
policy Included in Parks Strategic Plan, September 2010
Rec. 33 C, Reserve policy - annual
replacement costs On track
Delivery Strategies
Rec. 12, Multi-municipal approaches Delayed - Deemed a low priority; capacity of resources to
`explore' are not justified given rate of return
Rec. 15, Community use of schools/
accessibility On track
Rec. 26 C, Joint use/ schools model
development On track
Rec. 27 A, Trails system marketing plan Included in Multi-use Pathways and Trails Master Plan,
March 2012
Rec. 27 E, Grand River corridor
development plan On track
Rec. 28 M, Park classification/provision
level Official Plan/ 1991 Master Plan Included in Parks Strategic Plan, September 2010
Rec. 29 E, Parks service provisioning plan On track
Rec. 30 A, Leisure services marketing plan Delayed -Recent lack of capacity in Communications has
delayed this initiative
Rec. 32 B, Land acquisition downtown Complete; implementation as available
Rec. 33 D, Park evaluation plan
development Included in Parks Strategic Plan, September 2010
Facility Initiatives
Rec. 19 C, Mill Courtland Delayed due to budget
Rec. 19 F, Bridgeport resource centre Complete
Rec. 20 A, Queensmount decommissioning Delayed; reprioritized per other projects in division
Rec. 22 G, Splash pads continue to Complete; embedded in process
4- 2
Action Status (as at October 2012)
consider
Rec. 27 B, Develop unfinished linkages on On track; continue to develop based on budget availability
trails
Rec. 27 C, Continue trail surface conversion On track
Rec. 28 H, Skateboard facilities (4) & district On track
park
Rec. 33 A, Building Condition Study On track; majority complete
implementation (see Note 1 below)
Rec. 33 B, Centennial Stadium short term On track
bridging response
Rec. 19 E, South Kitchener recreation Delayed due to budget availability
complex (resource centre)
Rec. 20 D, Twin pad south Kitchener Included in Kitchener South District Park Master Plan
pending process
Rec. 22 A/B, Indoor pool south Kitchener Included in Kitchener South District Park Master Plan
pending process
Rec 28 A, Queensmount ball field Delayed -Pending future direction of Queensmount Arena
replacement
Rec. 28 B, "District Park' south Kitchener Included in Kitchener South District Park Master Plan
pending process
Rec. 28 D, Soft ball south Kitchener Included in Kitchener South District Park Master Plan
pending process
Note 1: Recommendation 33 A, Building Condition Study implementation referred to a visual review performed by the
consultant to assess the general condition of facilities with respect to architectural components. Structural,
mechanical and electrical components and systems were not included.
Based on the input received from the working group as at October 2012, staff can now report
that 92% of the actions contained in the LFMP have been completed, are on track for
completion or have been included in subsequent master plans. The remaining 8% are delayed
for various reasons including project reprioritization and budget availability.
Options to Proceed
After significant discussion, the working group has identified two potential options for
proceeding:
1. Option A, Status Quo -This option means that the City would continue with
implementation of the current plan and outstanding recommendations all of which are
based on data collected in 2005. Projects would continue to be brought forward to
Council on a case by case basis as applicable.
2. Option B, Develop New LFMP -This option means that the City would create an
updated LFMP based on data collected in 2012 through community engagement, trends
compilation and analysis, and user group expectations. This option may provide
opportunity for coordination of effort and resources (staff and funding) that reflects the
new culture of business planning.
4-3
The working group reviewed these two options from various perspectives including plan vision,
resources (funding, staff and facilities), trends and community drivers/influences. The following
is a summary of the working group discussion on each of these perspectives.
Plan Vision
The working group reviewed the vision contained in the LFMP. That vision is:
"A mixed array of accessible leisure participation opportunities that supports our diverse
community and encourage community capacity building, resident health and well-being
and strengthens the city's neighbourhoods."
This vision provides a framework for policy development, strategic facility construction and
service delivery decisions that support the community and residents of the city. The working
group found that the plan vision continues to align with the City of Kitchener new strategic plan
and remains relevant regardless of which option is chosen to proceed.
Resources (funding, staff and facilities)
Funding -
Resource capacity emerged as a common theme in the discussion of both options to proceed.
Implementation of the original LFMP actions required that any capital and operating funds
necessary to complete the action were detailed in business cases, project plans, etc. as
applicable. While this process remains the same, the funding environment has changed since
the LFMP was developed. The global economic slow-down has impacted the types of leisure
services and programs provided by the city as well as how those programs and services are
delivered.
Other funding or economic issues were discussed such a
update pending in 2013, the need to consider maintenanc
projects, the potential for other sources of revenue through
well as the ability to leverage funding from other orders
available.
Staffing -
s the development charges by-law
e costs when implementing capital
partnerships and sponsorships, as
of government should it become
The working group discussed staff resources at length. Concern was voiced about whether a
staff team alone would be available to perform the work involved in developing a new LFMP in a
timely manner. Weighing timely completion against available resources, the working group
concluded that an internally-led process supported by an external consultant with a clearly
defined scope of work is the preferred option to develop a new LFMP (Option B). It would be
staff's intention to complete a minimum of 70% of the work of developing a new LFMP using
existing internal staff. Competing priorities and expectations would need to be carefully
managed so staff resources can be applied to the development of a new plan. This project
would be considered through the corporate business planning process.
Facilities -
The working group reviewed the status of all the suggested actions contained within the Building
Condition Study (see Note 1) and is satisfied that the actions have been either completed
through renewal, repair or construction (e.g., Kingsdale CC, Bridgeport CC), are a component of
the annual work plan of Facilities Management or are included in the business planning
process.
Issues discussed included aging facilities and facility life cycles, accessibility requirements,
whether to build new facilities or refurbish existing facilities and how to meet expanding needs at
current facilities that have building or site limitations.
4-4
Trends
The input and research done for the LFMP in 2004-2005 highlighted a variety of key trends in
leisure services, namely:
• demographics
• multi-use facilities and partnerships and alternative delivery strategies
• affordability, availability of leisure services
• market segmentation (youth, seniors, multicultural, disabled)
• application of technology
• user expectations
• growth in sport tourism, economic development and related initiatives around leisure
services and its assets
• communications, knowledge-based participation, evaluation and monitoring and
measurement.
Without doing intensive research at this time, the working group questioned whether the leisure
trends expressed in the LFMP in 2005 are still valid in today's environment. The group is of the
opinion that the function of a building needs to be linked to any new leisure trends that may
have emerged since 2005. Additionally, traditional service delivery methods may not be
adequate to address new trends and changing user expectations.
For example, new pedestrian and transportation strategies (light rail transit) could have an effect
on leisure service delivery. Legislative changes (AODA, fire codes, building codes) from a
variety of provincial bodies have necessitated programming changes and changes to how we
develop our facilities. Provincial initiatives such as Active Living and Places To Grow have an
impact on leisure service delivery, programming and facilities. The development of a new LFMP
(Option B) provides the City with an opportunity to conduct a community engagement exercise
that could satisfy the need for more current data regarding leisure services trends.
Community Drivers/Influences
The City of Kitchener does not operate in isolation. There are a number of influences outside of
the organization that can have a positive or negative effect on the delivery of leisure services.
For example, the potential for regional level facilities is an influence in terms of user
expectations, partnerships, multi-use facilities, affordability, availability and demographic
change. Private sector provision of services (e.g. fitness clubs) and growth of leisure facilities in
neighbouring municipalities have created a more competitive environment. With the changing
demographics in the Region there are more cultural influences that may necessitate a change in
how the city delivers leisure services and the types of facilities required.
Since the LFMP has been operationalized, other master plans have been developed that can
serve as a building block for stakeholder input. The Parks Strategic Plan, September 2010 and
the Multi-Use Pathways and Trails Master Plan, March 2012 both had community engagement
components that produced data that is more recent than that collected in 2005 for the LFMP.
The data collected through the development of these plans (and others) can be used to inform a
new LFMP.
In summary, the working group examined the options to proceed from various perspectives -
plan vision, resources, trends and community drivers/influences. At the conclusion of their
discussions, the preferred option was to develop a new LFMP (Option B). This
recommendation is based primarily on concern expressed about the validity of the data from
2005 in regards to leisure trends, the changing community expectations and influences, and that
4-5
92% of the current LFMP has been completed, is on track for completion or included in
subsequent plans.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The LFMP has provided a foundation for the development of leisure facilities, services and
programs that allow the City to provide "a mixed array of accessible leisure participation
opportunities that supports our diverse community and encourage community capacity building,
resident health and well-being and strengthens the city's neighbourhoods".
This vision statement from the original LFMP provided the framework for the projects and
strategies that have evolved from the Leisure Facilities Master Plan. These projects and
strategies align in varying degrees with the community priorities stated in the Corporate
Strategic Plan, namely quality of life, leadership and engagement, diversity, downtown,
development and environment.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Option A, Status Quo would continue to see recreation and leisure related projects subject to
detailed financial analysis prior to being brought forward for Council's consideration on a case-
by-case basis. Proposals would come to Council as one-off initiatives and if approved would be
fit into the 10 year capital forecast and the operating budget as applicable. In addition to
anecdotal evidence and feedback, decisions regarding leisure facilities, services and programs
would be made based on data and leisure trends identified as part of the original 2005 LFMP.
Option B, Develop New LFMP would require both staff and consultant resources. Costs
related to a consultant will be covered under existing capital funding as planned in the 2013
budget. Staff costs would be covered under current operating funds. It is anticipated that the
scope for the work related to developing a new LFMP would be shared such that 70% is
completed by staff and 30% is completed by a consultant. A significant portion of the 30%
consultant work will be focused on identifying and analyzing trends in leisure services. The
consultant portion of the project is intended to validate the internal knowledge of the working
group. This knowledge base is currently over-extended and limited by a local perspective.
After consultation with Financial Planning staff, it became evident that an updated LFMP is a
necessary input into the development charges by-law update. If approved, staff will schedule the
LFMP development for the beginning of 2013 and bring forward a new plan to Council in the
third quarter.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
For Option A, Status Quo, community input is invited on a project by project basis. This input
generally takes the form of information sharing, feedback and consultation.
For Option B, Develop New LFMP, stakeholders will be notified of engagement opportunities
usually via general notification on the web site or invitation to a specific neighbourhood or
stakeholder group. For example, these opportunities may be in the form of a request to
participate on a working/steering committee, take part in a focus group, or attend a public
information session.
4-6
CONCLUSION:
One of the challenges to implementing such a complex and far-reaching report as the Leisure
Facilities Master Plan is establishing priorities in a manner that balances outcomes with
resources. The Leisure Facilities Master Plan has been the foundation for the development of
leisure facilities and services for the City of Kitchener since 2005. With 92% of the
recommendations either completed or in progress, it is time to develop a new Leisure Facilities
Master Plan to ensure that the City of Kitchener continues to achieve its goals and objectives as
stated in the Corporate Strategic Plan.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Michael May, DCAO, Community Services
4-7
Z
J
Z
O
Q
Z
~.C..~
G
~.~..~
J
~ lf~
I
~ N
r
J ~
Q ~
U
x
0 0
Z
Z ~--,
W p
Q
Q
C
N
'Q Q
O
N
C ~
O ~ ~
~ Q~
~ p LL
O J
N (6
~ ~
fn (6
~ ~ Q
(6 Y
c
(6 (6 N
d
Q ~ ~
M~
c0 M M
~ ~ ~
~,
O O ~U
~' N ~
fn U ~ ~ ~
Q U ~ (6 Q 0 N
N
~
O
L
~
fn O U ~'
N O O ~
V ~
.
O-.
~ - N ~ O- ~ ~
~
0
~ U ~ O
V1 U ~ ~ O
U ~ Y ~ ~ 1
C
O O O (
6
~ O- O
~ ~ p ~ L ~ C (6
O
O fn O N O N ~O
i U O E > .~ ~~ ~~ 0 N
•U
fC O
n s
(~6 V 0 0~ (6 U
~ (6 L ~ ~
~
~
~ D~~ L N .~ Op C C
~ ~ O LO Q N ~ ~O
v ~
O D U fn ~
~
O ..~
C N~ -O C O O> -O Q
0 N O
-O N~
~
Q Q
O~
~
O U
.
~
p O
O O
~
O
C
d ' O O Q O
~ (6 L= Q d
~ - O N
i N N
(6
-
E N N ~~ U U ~ N
d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .v ~ ~
O ~ .
O ~
p
~' ~ ~ ~' ~
N O v ~
N ~ N O i~
> N ~ U ~ (6 d U U N ~ U ~'
j
d N
~ O ~ O ~ c .~
~
O
O 0 >
d
~ ~ ~ ~ U .O ~ ~ N ~c s ~ (n ~ U
'
L
~ .
~
N
0 O O ~ (6 ~ fn C 'O M
~
O C
d E~ E~~~~ C
~
~ C
~ N U ~ (n m C.7 ~~ H O M d J-
~
~
~
U~mU.~ ~ ~
aw~~
z~owmU
~
~
O ~ ~ (O OO O O N
W ,
~,
~ ~ V OO (O I~ OO 6l OO ~ OO 6l N N
~ N N M M 'O d 6l O ~ N N N N~ N N M M
fC N N N N N N N~ d N N ~~ N N N N N~ N~ N N N N
a ~~~~~~~ `o a ~~ ~~~~~~a~~~~~~
O U U
O 'j O
Q N
~ ~ -O (U6
C
U N O O N
~ > ~ .> ~ ~
p- ],'a~ c
~ .U ~ _O N ~ C
Q U O N ~ > ~ ~ (6
O O O O O N~~ ~,
~ _
~ ~ C E ~ .~ U ~ ~ U
0
~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ -~° Q
v ca ~ o .c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~- ~ o O ~ ca ~ ~ a~
~ cn `oU J d ~U~
zZ~c~~ J d}QU
~ (O I~ l17 ~ aO aO ~ N M
~ ~ ~ N N N~ N M M M~
U U U U U .~ U O U U U U~
N N N N N (6 N O N N N N O
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .L ~ (6 ~ ~ ~ ~ U
4-8
0
0
N
N
0
U
0
~U
0
U
0
N
N
L
Q
~_
.~
L
O
Z
J
Z
0
Q
Z
W
W
J
J
Q
X
z
^W
^LL
LL
if )
U
0
z
L
0
Q
N~
N
0
o
~
~ o ~
c
'
w ~ .
o
w
~ c ~ ~
U ~ ~ -
~
_ V O C ~
~ ~ U ~ m C ~ E
° Q c a`~ ~ c > Q ~ ~ ~?
i
~L ~ ~ L ~ c~
~ ~~
~ ~ ~-
c
_
w
c ~Y~ ~
a ~ ~
~ ~Q~:?
O fn
U a
E ~_~ ~
f~Qf~N v ~ ~
C~
Q
d -' ~
Y +
~ N N L Y O L ~U Q
C O (6 ~
~ Y~ _
~ O
LL o ~ L~ o ~ ~.~~ ~~^ a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ocn
>
~~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~z ~~
~ ~ N U U N -O (6 ~_O
N
~
~ ~ 6) O J (6 O
N
~ 7 ~
= M -O O
C`') ~
~ O
Y 0 0
O O O N
ciC~~u)u)u)~mu)~Z
Y U U
ci>~Y2
'~ O N
c.imU
a ~Qmc~owwc~=-~ a ~amc~o ~ ~Qm
4-9