Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-19-007 - 2019 Leisure Facilities Master PlanREPORT TO:Community & Infrastructure Services Committee DATE OF MEETING:March 18, 2019 SUBMITTED BY:Kim Kugler, Director of Sport, Community Services, 519-741-2200 ext. 7544 PREPARED BY:Helena Foulds, Project Manager, Community Services, 519-741-2200ext. 7193 WARD (S) INVOLVED:All DATE OF REPORT:March 7, 2019 REPORT NO.:CSD-19-007 SUBJECT:2019 Leisure Facilities Master Plan ___________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: That the 2019 Leisure Facilities Master Plan (LFMP) attached as Appendix A to CSD-19 007be received; and,consideration of the recommendations be referred to future departmental business planning and budget processes. That the following list of indoor and outdoor leisure facilitiesthat have been prioritized for development charge(DC)fundingbe approved and referred to the 2019 Development Charge Study andby-law update for consideration ofspecificfunding allocationsand timing: Indoor Recreation FacilitiesOutdoor Recreation Facilities Huron-Brigadoon community centre (CSD-18-089) 1.Indoor pool (RBJ Schlegel Park)1.Trails 2.Indoor turf (RBJ Schlegel Park)2.Sport fields (RBJ Schlegel Park) 3.Mill-Courtland community centre expansion3.Neighbourhood parks and playgrounds 4.Rosenberg community centre4.Sport fields (general) 5.Forest Heights community centre 5.City wide parks (Victoria Park, McLennan expansionPark, Huron Natural Area, Kiwanis Park) *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 11 - 1 BACKGROUND: In 2013, city council approved the Leisure Facilities Master Plan Update (CSD-13-082). The original master plan, approved in 2005, is at the end of its 15-year implementation and a new plan is required to ensure the City provides appropriate recreation programs, services and facilities as Kitchener changes and grows. In order to keep a master plan relevant, it is necessary to review changing trends, community demand, and facility usage, as well as take inventory of existing infrastructure. This process ensures that long-term objectives and recommendations related to recreation align withthe In addition, the 2019 LFMP plays an important role in the Development Charge Study and by-law update(scheduled for considerationby city council on April 1, 2019). REPORT: Project Scope The 2019 Leisure Facilities Master Plan (Appendix A) includes recommendations to support the Cfacilities, programs and services. The LFMP focuses onthree primary areas: Aging recreation infrastructure Partnerships with school boards and public/private community partners Funding models for recreation facilities and service delivery In addition, the LFMP includes a prioritized list of indoor and outdoor recreation facilitieswhich staff are recommendingbe funded through development charges. The scope of the 2019 LFMP did not include cemeteries, parks and trails. The Cycling and Trails Master Plan initiated in 2019 will seek to inform priorities for investments in trail facilities in future years and, through development of an Open Space Strategy in 2020, council will be able to shape park, cemetery and open space priorities. Both plans will be informed by the 2019 LFMP, particularly in respect to the significant public feedback around the importance of these facilities. Project Governance City of Kitchener staff led the 2019 Leisure Facilities Master Plan process over a 10-month period. Staff formed a cross-divisional team to provide subject matter expertise from a number of different disciplines, including data analysis, program and service delivery, facility construction and maintenance, finance, operations, parks, and marketing and communications. 11 - 2 Process The Leisure Facilities Master Plan was developedthrough a collaborative, data-driven approach using a variety of tools and methods.The project included four phases: (1)stakeholder assessment, (2)research and data analysis, (3)public engagement and (4)recommendation formulation. Phase one stakeholder assessment Approximately 100 city staff, 10 city councillors and 20 sport and community user groups (e.g. minor sport groups, neighbourhood associations)were included in the initial stakeholder assessment through interviews, workshops and online feedback forms to de(Appendix A section J).The information collected from stakeholders was used to inform the public engagement survey questionsthat were asked in phase three. Phase two research and data analysis from theRegion of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener GIS team was used to identify areas withsignificant projected population growth, and to better understand Kitpopulationbased on age and ethnicity (Appendix A section 2). Information related to national and provincial recreation trends was used to help staff understand the future of recreation and leisure. The data also verified the patterns City staff have experienced through programming, scheduling andfacility maintenance and utilization(Appendix Asection 3). Building condition assessments were completed on six indoor facilities to provide a high- level condition analysis and project investment requirements over a 0-5 year and 6-10 year period for indoor recreation infrastructure(Appendix A section 4). Facility usagedata was analyzed by City staff to determine how effectivelyexisting facilities areutilized (Appendix A section 5). Phase three public engagement Approximately 1,700 people provided input on the 2019 LFMP. An eight-week public engagement campaign called Have a Say Where You Playasked residentsto share orities for recreation in the community. Approximately 1,400 surveys were completed (746 online and 654 in- person). In addition, a street team visited each indoor recreation facility during prime hours to meet with residents and collect feedback. Social media and marketing campaigns were used to raise awareness about the survey (Appendix A section 7). Phase four recommendations and facility prioritization After extensiveand very detailed review of all the data collected through the first three phases, staff drafted the LFMP recommendations presented in Appendix A. The LFMP recommendations are based on stakeholder input, public engagement, utilizationrates of existing facilities, demographic and trend data. Workshops were held with staff ineach 11 - 3 area (arenas, aquatics, community centres, parks, sport fieldsand facilities management) to ensure the recommendations are feasibleand achievable. Staffthenprioritized alist ofindoor and outdoor recreation facilitiesto be recommended to city council for future development charge funding. The project team evaluated alist of facilities, which was created based on previouscommitments in the 10-year capital forecast and new projects identified through research and public engagement. Community Engagement To ensure the recommendations and prioritized facility listfor DC fundingreflect the general interests of the community, the project team undertook an extensive community engagement process called Have a Say Where You Play. The detailed publicengagement results are available in Appendix A section 7. The campaign encouraged residents to complete asurvey, which was used as the primary evaluation tool to gauge public preferences. The survey asked residents about their experiences recreation facility priorities they would like the City to invest in. Residents were asked to provide their postal code to ensure feedbackwas collectedfrom Kitchener residents who contribute to the tax base that fund recreation facilities and services. Figure 1is a heat map that shows each survey response based on postal code.Areas shaded red and yellow indicate a high number of responses in a specific area. Areas shaded blue indicate fewer responses. The significant amount of shading demonstrates that the responses received were spread out across the city. Figure 1:survey responses based on postal code distribution 11 - 4 The campaign ran from November 27, 2018 to January 25, 2019 and included the following engagement tools: INFORM Emails and networking: City of Kitchener staff shared the online survey with their networks via email and promoted the campaign to affiliated sport groups and other users of City facilities. Social media:social media was used to collect comments and votes on specific topics using the polling tool. Social media was also used to promote upcoming events like the public workshops. Marketing and advertising:a mixed media campaign was used to promote public engagement events and the online survey, including print ads KitchenerLife and Active Kitchener, online ads through the Weather Network and Cineplex.com, radio ads and media coverage through the Waterloo Record. CONSULT Engage Kitchener (online survey):The new Engage Kitchener tool included a detailed landing page with a survey and map feature where residents could drop a pin on a facility they like/love or think needs improvement. The platform also included an opportunity for residents to sharestoriesand ask questions. (www.engagewr.ca/play) Street team:Staff visitedeverycommunity centre, pool and arena, plus Budd Park, the from people while using a City of Kitchener recreation facility. Ballot boxes and paper surveys:A ballot box and paper survey was placed at each indoor City of Kitchener recreation facility. Public workshops and meetings:Two public workshops were held on January 16 to give the public an opportunity to talk with City staff and share feedback. The project team attended several neighbourhood association and sport group meetings, as well as hosted three focus group sessions in August 2018 for gymnasium, sport field and ball diamond user groups. 11 - 5 The following chart includes an overview of the number of people engaged during the campaign. 1,398 total number of surveys completed ONLINEPAPER & IN-PERSON completed surveys654completed surveys 746 comments on the interactive facility 35street team visits 321 map aware visitors (visited at least one 24ballot boxes at Kitchener facilities 2,300 page)(see Appendix A section 7 for a full list of facilities) Summary of Key Findings Although each group expressed unique needs, there were several common themes among user groups, staff and residents. Appendix A includes the full list of key findings and supporting data. The followingmajorthemes emerged from the research and analysis completed as part of the Leisure Facilities Master Plan process: a)Leisure services and facilities are highly valued by the community. neighbourhood model, including community centres, parks and trails. Whenasked if recreation facilities rinks, outdoor courts, diamonds and sport fields). b)Maintaining and investing in existing facilities is a top priority. Aging parks, recreation and sport infrastructure is an issue faced by many municipalities across Ontario, and Kitchener is no exception. With approximately650 recreation assets, the City is fortunate to have so many recreation facilities; however, this means significant funding is required to maintain existing infrastructure. Further, some facilities require improvements or re-investment to meet the changing needs of the community. For example, improvements to change rooms and dressing rooms at pools and arenas was one of the most common issues raised during public engagement. Further, 60 per cent of survey respondents said they prefer that the City invest in existing infrastructure compared to 40 per cent who said they prefer the City build new facilities. c)Residents prefermulti-use facilities that offer several programs in one place. There is a growing shift away from standalone recreationcentres.Further, busy lifestyles make it difficult for people to participate in recreation, especially when activities are located at different facilities throughout the city. In the survey, residents noted a need for multi-use facilities where a variety of programs can run at the same time to serve multiple uses and generations. 11 - 6 d)Program offerings and availability play a critical role inability to participate. According to the survey, residents reported that inconvenient program schedules is the top reason preventing them from participating in recreation programs. This data aligns with the national trend that shows Canadians are less active than ever before due to lack of free time, cost of participation and technology dependence. This has resulted ina need for more unstructured and self-scheduled recreation so people can participate at a time that best suits their lifestyle. This trend also explains the increase in drop-in gymnasium sports at community centres. e)Non-traditional funding sources are necessary to maintain existing facilities and build new ones. Ontario municipalities are facing the reality that development charges and tax-supported funds do not cover the increasing costs of building and maintaining recreation facilities. According to the Canadian Infrastructure Report Card, current reinvestment levels will result in a decline of in sport and recreation facilities over time. The City needs to explore alternative funding sources and partnerships for recreation facilities. Some examples of alternate funding sources include public-private partnerships, sponsorship agreements and special capital leviesthat are reinvested directly into recreation priorities. f)Partnerships with school boards and private organizations are becoming increasingly important. There is a need to build strong partnerships and joint-use opportunities with school boards and the private sector so the City can deliver innovative recreation services and facilities. Many municipalities have engaged in public-private partnerships to help distribute the cost of building and operating facilities. 11 - 7 Recommendations The 2019 LFMP includes 18 recommendations grouped into five main categories: (1)existing leisure facility commitments, (2)investing in, and maintaining existing infrastructure, (3)futureleisure facilities and initiatives, (4)funding models and (5)partnerships. Section 1 Existing leisure facility commitments In an effort to respond to the current and projected growth in aquatic activities over the next 10 1years, the City should maintain its previous commitment to build an indoor aquatic centre at RBJ Schlegel Park. 2That the City maintain its commitment to buildanindoor turf facility at RBJ Schlegel Park. That the City maintain its previous commitments to build or enhance existing community centres in the following neighbourhoods: Huron Brigadoon (partnership with the WRDSB on Tartan Avenue) 3 Rosenberg Mill-Courtland (expandexisting centre) Section 2 investing in, and maintaining existing recreation infrastructure That a feasibility study/business case be completed to examine the possible expansion of the Forest Heights Community Centre to provide additional space for City and community-led 4 programming that will serve the diverse needs of the area, including the older adult population living in the northwest area of the city. That the City develop a multi-year strategy to increase family change rooms at all aquatic 5 facilities and dressing rooms at all arenas to meet the need for fully accessible change areas. That the City implement a multi-year plan to conduct comprehensive building condition 6assessments, which include energy, accessibility and technology auditsfor all recreation facilities andidentify opportunities tominimize operating costs through sustainability efforts. That the City create asset management plansfor all of its recreation facilities, as well as a long- 7term capital investment plan for those facilities, which clearly articulates the total asset life cycle costs. 11 - 8 Section 3 Future leisure facilities and initiatives That the following prioritized list of growth related recreation facilities be referred to the 2019 Development Charge Study and by-law update for consideration of specific funding allocations and timing: INDOOR OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIESRECREATION FACILITIES 8 Huron-Brigadoon Community Centre 1Indoor pool (RBJ Schlegel Park)1Trails 2Indoor turf (RBJ Schlegel Park)2Sport fields (RBJ Schlegel Park) Mill-Courtland community centre expansion 33Neighbourhood parks & playgrounds Rosenberg community centre 44 Sport fields (general) 5Forest Heights community centre 5 City-wide parks expansion That the City develop a strategy within 18 monthsfor the future replacement of theBudd Park 9 sport campus. In order to respond to the current and projected growth in activities requiring sports fields and ball diamonds, over the next 10 years the City should: increase the inventory of multi-use fields (up to four) by: (1) reviewing and updating current scheduling, allocation, maintenance and user fee policies, (2) partnering with school boards to improve condition and access to school fields, (3) lighting and irrigating 10existing fields, (4) converting natural grass to artificial turf, and, if necessary, (5) constructing new fields with appropriate infrastructure; increase the inventory of ball diamonds (up to six) by: (1) reviewing and updating current scheduling, allocation, maintenance and user fee policies, (2) partnering with school boards to improve condition and access to school diamonds, and (3) lighting and irrigating existing diamonds. That the City conduct adetailedbusiness case regarding the construction of a new arena in the southwest portion of the city that includes a comprehensive ice demand study and a 11 decommissioning strategy for an existing arena, and makes arecommendation on the appropriate timing and detailedcosting ofthe new arena. In an effort to complement existing neighbourhood association programming and increase 12 in community centres to respond to the growing diversity of needs within our neighbourhoods. 11 - 9 That the City conduct a demand study of outdoor court facilities, including a review of existing 13court conditions and locations, to establish maintenance standards and joint use agreements with school boards and neighbourhood associations. Section 4 -funding models That the City explore a variety of funding mechanisms, in addition to taxes and development 14 charges, to build and maintain recreation facilities across the city. Section 5 Partnerships That the City pursue a partnership with the private sector to redevelop the Rockway Centre into -to-high density residential building that addresses the heritage value of the property 15and includes a ground floor older adult/community centre (to beoperated by the municipality (CSD-13-051) That the City conduct a comprehensive study of all indoor spaces in the downtown (private and publically owned facilities) to identify opportunities to: gain greater access to existing space for residents, 16 partner in the expansion of existing indoor space accessible by the community, and partner in the creation of new indoor space that would be available to the public. That the City, in partnership with the Waterloo District School Board, study the possibility of 17renovating Cameron Heights pool to provide the City with increased access and full operation of the pool during daytime hours. That the Citypursue a partnership with the school boards or other private partners to construct 18a new gymnasium that is reflective of a "sport friendly" design with floor surfaces, dimensions and ceiling heights that are appropriate for safe play. 11 - 10 Indoor and Outdoor Recreation Facility Priorities for Development Charge (DC) Funding The Development Charges Act and its associated regulation allow municipalities to impose development charges(DCs)to pay for growth-related capital costs to service new development. Facilities eligible for DC funds include general services (libraries, fire protection, indoor recreation, outdoor recreation, public works, parking, cemeteries and growth-related studies) and engineered services (sanitary servicing, roads, water mains, storm/watercourse, intensification allowance and engineering studies). Development charges cannot be used for cultural/entertainment facilities, tourism facilities, parkland acquisition, hospitals and headquarters for general administration(e.g. City Hall). Staffproposed a prioritized list for growth-related indoor and outdoor recreation facilities as part of this report. Factors such asexisting/projected usage rates, estimated population growth, existing facility coverage based on geography, and the all The funding envelope for indoor and outdoor recreation facilities is capped based on a calculation of historic service levels as required by DC legislation. This means there is a limit on how much DC funding will be available over the next 10 years (the DC planning horizon) for growth related indoor and outdoor recreation facilities. By approving a prioritized list of growth related indoor and outdoor recreation facilities, city council is providing clear direction about which facilities are most important and therefore most likely to receive DC funding. It is important to stress that lower priorities may only be partially funded, or not funded at all, depending on the choices council make during the DC process and subsequent budget discussions. As in the past, staff will continue to explore alternative funding sources and partnerships, which could alter the priority of recreation facilities as well. The council approved indoor and outdoor recreation facilities list will be forwarded to the DC process, and facilities will be slotted into the forecast based on having adequate projected DC revenue collections. One further consideration for the timing of projects through the DC process will be site servicing. Some of the growth related facilities require infrastructure that is not currently in place (e.g. water/sanitary servicing). Priority projects will not be budgeted for construction prior to the required site servicing infrastructure being in place. This may cause a lower priority project to proceed ahead of a higher priority project. 11 - 11 Staff recommend that city council approvethe followingspecific list of prioritized indoor and outdoor leisure facilities for consideration as part of the DC Bylaw process: INDOOR OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIESRECREATION FACILITIES Huron-Brigadoon Community Centre 1Indoor pool (RBJ Schlegel Park)1Trails 2Indoor turf (RBJ Schlegel Park)2Sport fields (RBJ Schlegel Park) 3Mill-Courtland community centre expansion3Neighbourhood parks & playgrounds 44 Rosenberg community centreSport fields (general) 55 Forest Heights community centre expansionCity-wide parks The following section provides an overview and leisure facilities forDC funding. Indoor Leisure Facilities: Huron-Brigadoon Community Centre The Huron-Brigadoon community centre will be a joint facility, including educational and community services through a partnership with the Waterloo Region District School Board and the EarlyON family and childcare centre. In June 2019, councildirected staff to include the Huron-Brigadoon community centre in the 2019 development charge background study and 2019 capital budget forecast (CSD-18-089). As outlined in report CSD-18-047, entering into a partnership with the school board to build a joint facility would save the City up to $1.3 million. Further, this jointfacility would allow the City to leverage additional space (double gymnasiums) for community use after school hours.As indicated in report CSD-18-089, the Huron-Brigadoon previousdirection to include the project in the 2019 Development Charge Study and capital forecast. During 2019 LFMP public consultation, residents said there are no available recreation facilities in the southwest area of the city that offer indoor community and multi-purpose space. Further, residents reported the need for a community-hub or multi-use model, which can be achieved through a joint facility with the school board.The Huron-Brigadoon community centre will provide a community space in the southwest, which is expected to grow by 28,787 residents by the year 2041. 11 - 12 1.Aquatic centre (RBJ Schlegel Park) The 2005 LFMP recommended an aquatic facility in the southwest area of the city and it was prioritized in the 2013 LFMP update. Once again, an indoor pool has risen to the top of the list and was ranked as the number one indoor priority by residents and staff. Further, swimming and water sports are the top indoor recreation activities among Kitchener residents according to the public survey. In addition,pools are operating at or near maximumcapacity. According to the utilization datain Figure 2, all pools are operating at more than 90% capacity with the exception of the warm pool at Breithaupt. The warm pools are better utilized during the daytime hours for senior and infant programming. During public consultation, residents expressed a stronginterest in a pool, specifically in the southwestend of the city. An indoor aquatic facility was included in the previously completed Master Plan for Schlegel Park. Prime Time Pool Usage 2018 60120% ЊЉАі ЊЉЉі ВВі ВЎі ВЌі 50100% АВі 4080% 3060% 2040% 1020% 00% Forest HeightsForest Heights 25mCameron Heights*Lyle HallmanBreithaupt warmBreithaupt 25m warm Total hours availableTotal hours booked% Figure 2: pool utilization for prime time hours (weeknights49:30 p.m. and weekends 8 a.m. 9 p.m.) 11 - 13 2.Indoor turf (RBJ Schlegel Park) There is demand for an indoor turf facility to support the growth of soccer and indoor training and development for other field sports, such asbaseball and football. Accordingto the 2019 LFMP public survey, an indoor turf facility was ranked as the third most important indoor recreation priorityby residents.The City has previously made a public commitment to an indoor turf facility at RBJ Schlegel Park through the2013 LFMP and funding is currently allocated in the capital forecast.According to the utilization data in Figure 3, Budd Park is currently operating at maximum capacity on the weekends with limited available space on weeknights. Figure 3: Budd Park utilization for prime time hours (Weeknights 5 to 8 p.m. and week ends 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.)October 1 to February 28 Budd Park Weekday Utilization 60086% БЍіБЍі 84% 500 БЊі 82% АЍі 40080% 78% 300 76% 20074% 72% 100 70% 068% 2015/162016/172017/182018/19 total hrs. availtotal hrs. booked% Budd Park Weekend Usage 460106% ЊЉЍі 104% 450 102% ЊЉЉі 440 100% 430 ВАі 98% 420 ВЋі 96% 410 94% 400 92% 390 90% 380 88% 37086% 2015/162016/172017/182018/19 total hrs. availtotal hrs. booked% 11 - 14 3.Mill-Courtland Community Centre Expansion The Mill-Courtland community centre currently has three active neighbourhood associations and is the third smallest centre owned by the City. Figure 4 shows the Cfive smallest community centres based on square footage. Smallest Community Centres by sq. ft the public domain with funds currently allocated in the capital forecast. Furthermore, Chandler Mowatt conversations with the neighbourhood associations and thedevelopment of a Mill Courtland business casefor this expansionare already underway. Centreville Chicoppee Mill-Courtland is on the outer edge of the Bridgeport downtown, and also serves neighbouring communities like Rockway and Southdale, Williamsburg which means the centre serves a wide demographic with varying interests. Mill- 02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,000 Courtland will continue to experience programming and facility constraints as the Figure 4: smallest community centres based on square footage downtown area intensifies. An expansion to the Mill-Courtland centre wasrecommended in the 2005 LFMP and has been delayed several times based on competing funding needs. 4.Rosenberg community centre An additional community centr significant growth anticipated over the next 20 years. Table 1 shows that the southwest area of Kitchener is expected to increase by 28,787residents by 2041. The 3,000 square foot Williamsburg Community Centre (which is leased) does not provide enough space to meet current programming needs, and this challenge will continue as the population grows. 201620212026203120362041Future Population Growth (2016 base year) Downtown32,30734,09536,33838,47640,49542,54332% Northeast27,11328,16229,28730,19930,88331,95618% East32,01933,53435,73337,65439,11540,71027% Northwest62,16462,76363,51864,24964,83365,4225% Southwest39,33241,96347,16854,94662,44368,11973% Southeast48,84153,76957,77560,97563,70266,32536% Table 1: City of Kitchenerpopulation projection by LFMP study area 11 - 15 5.Forest Heights community centre expansion Forest Heights community centreservices the most populated areaof the city, which contains approximately 62,700 residents. Further, the northwest area of the city, has the highest number of residents(21,594)over the age of 55(see Figure 6).Although this area is already well developed, surrounding areas like Ira Needles continue to growand put pressure on the existing centre.Increased pressure from surrounding neighbourhoods in the northwest corner of the city suggest the Forest Heights community centre would benefit from additional space for the city and community partners to deliver programs and services. The existing gymnasium space is fully utilized for drop-in programs like basketball and pickleball, and outdoor amenities like the courts and playground are well used by the community. An expansion to Forest Heights also provide an opportunity to integrate age-friendly recreation amenities and programming offered by the City and createamulti-purpose spacein an area where a significant number of older adults reside. 2028 Population Based on Age 4500 4135 4126 3998 4000 3476 3500 3000 2603 2500 1734 2000 1522 1500 1000 500 0 55 To 5960 To 6465 To 6970 To 7475 To 7980 To 8485 Or Older North-WestSouth-EastNorth-EastSouth-WestEastDowntown Figure 6: City of Kitchener population projection based on age, 2028 11 - 16 Outdoor Leisure Facilities 1.Trails Community trails are highly valued and the most utilized recreation resource.The trail system provides alternate transportation and recreational enjoyment, health and wellness benefits. Both residents and staff ranked trails as the top outdoor recreation priority. Input from the 2019 LFMP public consultation made it clear that trails are a critical part of recreation and leisure and align with recreation preferences of the changing demographic. Specific trail requirements and investments will be explored in the upcoming Cycling and Trails Master Plan, which is scheduled to be completed by spring 2020. 2.Sport fields at RBJ Schlegel Park The 2013 LFMP update recommended that the Citymove forward with sport fields at RBJ Schlegel Park to accommodate growth in soccer and other field sports, such as field hockey, cricket, football, Ultimate Frisbee and others.During the 2019 LFMP public consultation, residents indicated that sport fields are the third most important outdoor recreation priority. Two artificial turf fields, one natural multi-use field and one natural open space scheduled to open in 2020at RBJ Schlegel Park. In addition to these fields, staff recommend maintaining the commitment tothe second phase of field development, which includes converting the natural field to artificial turf and installing lighting and irrigation. 3.Neighbourhood parks and playgrounds Neighbourhood parks are one of the most frequently used recreation resources. Staff and residents rated neighbourhood parks as a high outdoor recreation priority because of the value they bring to the surrounding community. Neighbourhood parks and playgrounds offer a low- cost (free) recreation space to residents, are within walking distance of homes, promote unstructured play and belonging, and are used by all ages. During the 2019 LFMP public consultation, residents indicated the need for more age-friendly neighbourhood parks, connectivity to trails and improvementsto existing playground infrastructure to promote activity. Specific park requirements and investments will be explored in the upcoming Parks and Open Spaces Master Plan, which is scheduled to be completed in 2020. 4.Sport fields (general) In addition to the fields at RBJ Schlegel Park, staff recommend increasing sport field inventory by the equivalent of up to four fields over the next 10 years. To achieve this additional field capacity, firststaff will review thecurrent scheduling, allocation, maintenance and user fee policies and explore partnerships with the school boardto increase available field hours. Additional inventory could also bemadeavailable by lighting and irrigating existing fields. 5.City-wide parks Similar to trails and Park, Huron Natural Area and Kiwanis Park) are highly valued by the community. More importantly, citywide parks are the most utilized recreation assets in Kitchener. More than 80% ofresidents who completed the 2019 LFMP survey said they have visited a city-wide park in the past 12 months. Parks provide low-cost (free) recreation space to residents, are connected through the trails network and encourage health, fitness and well-being.Specific park 11 - 17 requirements and investments will be explored in the upcoming parks and open spaces master plan. Other Indoor and Outdoor Recreation Facility Priorities The 2013 LFMP update prioritized two other recreation facilities (Rockway Centre and Grand River Park) which are not included on the 2019 prioritized list of indoor and outdoor facilities. Both initiatives remain a priority, and Rockway Centre and Grand River Park will advance without DC funding over the next five years. 1.Grand River Park The Grand River corridor is an important resource for the future development of the community master plans since 1976. This area presents opportunities to create a linear corridor of open space, parks and access points and related outdoor leisure and natural area resources. Staff believe there are sufficient resources in place to advance the creation of this park over the next five years. 2.Rockway centre As previously directed by City Council, the preferred approach to redeveloping the Rockway capital contribution to a new centre. on this property would be funded through the value of the sale of the land as well as some existing non-As a result, staff do not believe additional DC funding is required for this project. 11 - 18 ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: Strategic Priority: Safe and Thriving Neighbourhoods and Sustainable Environment and Infrastructure Strategy: 3.5 Continue to encourage active participation in existing recreational facilities while moving forward with the provision of new recreational opportunities in underserved areas. Strategic Action:CS66 -2019 Leisure Facilities Master Plan FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Funding for the various leisure priorities will be discussed by council duringthe upcoming review of the DC Bylaw, as well asfuture budget processes. The timing of specific facilities will depend on availability of funding from sources such as development charges, property taxes and third party partnerships. Staff will present the development charge rates andfunding scenarios on April 1, 2019. In addition to the DC funded recreation priorities, the 2019 LFMP includes non-growth related facilities. The City will look to other funding mechanisms, in addition to taxes and development charges, to build and maintain recreation facilities across the city. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Michael May, DCAO, Community Services Department 11 - 19 11 - 20 City of Kitchener Leisure Facilities Master Plan March 2019 11 - 21 Acknowledgements City of Kitchener Leisure Facilities Master Plan Project Team Michael May Deputy CAO Kim Kugler Director, Sport Helena Foulds Project Manager, Community Services Bob Cheyne Supervisor, Athletics Alain Pinard Director, Planning Ashley Purvis Sport Development Coordinator Brian Bennett Manager, Business Development Colleen Collins Manager, Corporate Communications and Marketing Cynthia Fletcher Director, Facilities Management Dan Ritz Supervisor, Design and Development Debra Fagerdahl Manager, Financial Planning Denise Keelan Manager, Aquatics Eckhard Pastrik Manager, Maintenance Operations (parks, forests and trails) Janette MacDonald Community Engagement Specialist Jason Winter Director, Asset Management Josh Joseph Supervisor, Neighourhood Development Office Lynda Stewart Manager, Energy Management Niall Lobley Director, Parks and Cemeteries Mark Hildebrand Director, Neighbourhood Programs and Services Paul Pickard Manager, AUD and Arenas Steve Roth Manager, Community Centres Tanya Cable Senior Financial Analyst City of Kitchener Staff Allyson Samms Facility Scheduler (AUD) Beatrice Powell Project Manager, Facility Asset Management Dianne Adams Manager, GIS Jon Amsden Service Data Analyst Leslie McMahon GIS Technician Nancy Stienfield GIS Technician Marianne Schilling Facility Scheduler (sport fields) Rick Farwell Supervisor, Operations (sport fields) *A special thank you to all City of Kitchener staff who attended workshops and information gathering sessions. Public Engagement Street Team Brittany Ceccato Jillian Botting Cameron MacDonald Laura McBride Ceilidh Drysdale Marina Dosen Eric Oosenberg Michelle DenOtter Gina Markle Olivia Curtis 11 - 22 Citizens and Stakeholders The City of Kitchener would like to thank the individuals and organizations who participated in the development 2019 Leisure Facilities Master Plan (LFMP). Thank you for sharing your vision and ideas to help shape a city committed to improving and sustaining the quality of life for all residents. Specifically, the City would like to thank the representatives of the following organizations who contributed input during the stakeholder consultation. Boardwalk Neighbourhood Association KW Diving Club Bridgeport Neighbourhood Association KW Gymnastics Club Christian’s Men Slo Pitch KW Water Polo City of Waterloo KW Youth Basketball Association Conestoga College KW Speed Skating Dinkel Power Skating Little Kickers Downtown Neighbourhood Alliance Mayor’s Advisory Council for Kitchener Seniors Forest Heights Community Association Inc. Mennonite Ladies Slo Pitch Grand River Accessibility Advisory Committee Mill Courtland Neighbourhood Association Huron Community Association Olde Berlin Town Neighbourhood Association Ice Tech Skating Programs Pioneer Park Public School Skating Program Kingsdale Neighbourhood Association Safe and Healthy Community Advisory Committee Kitchener Co-Ed Slo Pitch TopSpin Table Tennis Kitchener Fastball League Tri-City Soccer Kitchener Minor Baseball Association Tri-City Outlaws Football Kitchener Minor Girls Softball Association University of Waterloo Kitchener Minor Hockey Association Waterloo Region Minor Football Kitchener Soccer Club Waterloo Organization of Disc Sports Kitchener Waterloo Oldtimers League Williamsburg Neighbourhood Association Kitchener Waterloo Minor Lacrosse Association Wilfrid Laurier University K-Town Skaters YMCA –Kitchener Waterloo 11 - 23 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................................1 Key Findings........................................................................................................................................................3 1.0 The Role of Recreation and Leisure ..........................................................................................................7 1.1 Service delivery .........................................................................................................................................................................7 1.2 A framework for recreation in Kitchener ........................................................................................................................7 2.0 Demographic Profile.................................................................................................................................10 2.1 Key findings.............................................................................................................................................................................10 2.2 Methodology.......................................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.3 City of Kitchener population growth projections..................................................................................................... 13 2.3.2 City of Kitchener population by age.....................................................................................................................14 2.3.3 Planning areas by age................................................................................................................................................. 14 2.3.4 City of Kitchener population by mother tongue language ......................................................................... 17 3.0 Recreation and Leisure Trends ................................................................................................................18 3.1 Key findings.............................................................................................................................................................................18 3.2 Lifestyle Trends ...................................................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2.1 Participation.................................................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2.2 Higher density living ................................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2.3 Aging population.......................................................................................................................................................... 20 3.2.4 Economic trends ........................................................................................................................................................... 20 3.2.5 Cultural representation .............................................................................................................................................. 20 3.2.6 Health and wellness..................................................................................................................................................... 20 3.2.7 Accessibility for persons with disabilities and inclusion................................................................................ 21 3.2.8 Active transportation .................................................................................................................................................. 21 3.3 Recreation and Sport Participation................................................................................................................................ 21 3.2.1 Field sports......................................................................................................................................................................21 3.3.2 Ice sports.......................................................................................................................................................................... 22 3.3.3 Aquatics............................................................................................................................................................................ 22 3.3.4 Individual and group fitness .................................................................................................................................... 23 3.3.5 Gymnasium and court sports .................................................................................................................................. 23 3.3.6 Wheeled action sports................................................................................................................................................ 23 3.4 Facilities Trends...................................................................................................................................................................... 24 11 - 24 3.4.1 Environmental design.................................................................................................................................................24 3.4.2 Aging Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................................... 24 3.4.3 Multi-use and multi-generational.......................................................................................................................... 25 3.4.4 Elite training and competition facilities...............................................................................................................25 3.5 Service delivery trends........................................................................................................................................................ 26 3.5.1 Municipal responsibilities.......................................................................................................................................... 26 3.5.2 Maximizing existing assets ....................................................................................................................................... 26 3.5.3 Partnership opportunities ......................................................................................................................................... 27 4.0 Recreation and Leisure Assets .................................................................................................................28 4.1.1 Key findings .................................................................................................................................................................... 29 5.0 Utilization and Participation Analysis ....................................................................................................31 5.1 Arenas and outdoor rinks..................................................................................................................................................31 5.1.1 Key findings .................................................................................................................................................................... 31 5.1.2 Inventory.......................................................................................................................................................................... 31 5.1.3 Utilization......................................................................................................................................................................... 32 5.1.4 Analysis............................................................................................................................................................................. 35 5.1.5 Stakeholder input.........................................................................................................................................................35 5.2 Aquatic centres ...................................................................................................................................................................... 37 5.2.1 Key findings .................................................................................................................................................................... 37 5.2.2 Inventory.......................................................................................................................................................................... 37 5.2.3 Utilization......................................................................................................................................................................... 38 5.2.4 Analysis............................................................................................................................................................................. 40 5.2.5 Stakeholder input.........................................................................................................................................................43 5.3 Community Centres ............................................................................................................................................................. 44 5.3.1 Key findings .................................................................................................................................................................... 44 5.3.2 Inventory.......................................................................................................................................................................... 44 4.3.3 Utilization .................................................................................................................................................................... 45 5.3.4 Analysis............................................................................................................................................................................. 46 5.3.5 Stakeholder input.........................................................................................................................................................46 5.4 Sport fields............................................................................................................................................................................... 48 5.4.1 Key findings .................................................................................................................................................................... 48 5.4.2 Inventory.......................................................................................................................................................................... 49 5.4.3 Utilization......................................................................................................................................................................... 50 5.4.4 Analysis............................................................................................................................................................................. 52 11 - 25 5.4.5 Stakeholder input.........................................................................................................................................................52 5.5 Ball Diamonds......................................................................................................................................................................... 53 5.5.1 Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................................... 53 5.5.2 Inventory.......................................................................................................................................................................... 54 5.5.3 Utilization......................................................................................................................................................................... 55 5.5.4 Analysis............................................................................................................................................................................. 57 5.5.5 Stakeholder input.........................................................................................................................................................57 6.0 Financial Operations .................................................................................................................................58 6.1 Municipal funding tools ..................................................................................................................................................... 58 6.2 Capital forecast ...................................................................................................................................................................... 61 6.3 Operating forecast................................................................................................................................................................ 62 7.0 Public Engagement ...................................................................................................................................63 7.1 Key findings.............................................................................................................................................................................63 7.2 Methodology.......................................................................................................................................................................... 63 7.3 Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 65 7.3.1 Demographics................................................................................................................................................................ 65 7.3.2 Recreation preferences .............................................................................................................................................. 67 7.3.3 Facility usage..................................................................................................................................................................70 7.4 Funding priorities.............................................................................................................................................................72 8.0 Recommendations and Facility List ........................................................................................................74 8.1 Draft recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................... 74 8.2 Development charge recreation facility list................................................................................................................77 Appendix A .......................................................................................................................................................78 Appendix B........................................................................................................................................................79 Appendix C........................................................................................................................................................80 Appendix D .......................................................................................................................................................81 Appendix E........................................................................................................................................................82 Appendix F ........................................................................................................................................................83 Appendix G .......................................................................................................................................................84 Appendix H .......................................................................................................................................................85 Appendix I.........................................................................................................................................................87 Appendix J ........................................................................................................................................................88 Appendix K..................................................................................................................................................... 102 11 - 26 Executive Summary Kitchener has a reputation for thinking beyond today. In 1976, Kitchener was one of the first 2 This foresight and willingness to municipalities in Ontario to develop a Parks and Recreation Master Plan. push boundaries has resulted in a community with more recreation facilities, programs and partnerships than other Canadian cities of similar size. Unlike previous Leisure Facilities Master Plans (LFMP) that have focused primarily on building new infrastructure, the 2019 LFMP will also address the need to invest in existing facilities, establish public/private partnerships, and review funding models for future investments. This report offers insights into trends affecting the delivery of recreation services in Kitchener. The report also highlights demographic changes and growth, utilization of existing facilities and input from key stakeholder groups and the public. This report should be reviewed and considered as part of the decision making process related to the 2019 Leisure Facilities Master Plan. A cross-functional and collaborative approach was used to gather and analyze data included in this report. Interestingly, the key findings and challenges were common across many sectors of recreation and leisure at the City of Kitchener. The following major themes emerged from the research and analysis completed as part of the Leisure Facilities Master Plan process: It is clear that the community values Kitchener’s existing recreation facilities and unique neighbourhood model, including community centres, parks and trails. When asked if recreation facilities meet, exceed or do not meet expectations, residents said “meet expectations” in all facility categories (arenas, pools, community centres, parks, trails, rinks, outdoor courts, diamonds and sport fields). Aging parks, recreation and sport infrastructure is an issue faced by many municipalities across Ontario, and Kitchener is no exception. With approximately 650 recreation assets, the City is fortunate to have so many recreation facilities; however, this means significant funding is required to maintain existing infrastructure. Further, some facilities require improvements or re-investment to meet the changing needs of the community. For example, improvements to change rooms and dressing rooms at pools and arenas was one of the most common issues raised during public engagement. Further, 60 per cent of survey respondents said they prefer that the City invest in existing infrastructure compared to 40 per cent who said they prefer the City build new facilities. c) There is a growing shift away from standalone recreation centres. Further, busy lifestyles make it difficult for people to participate in recreation, especially when activities are located at different facilities throughout the city. In the survey, residents noted a need for multi-use facilities where a variety of programs can run at the same time to serve multiple uses and generations. d) According to the survey, residents reported that inconvenient program schedules is the top reason preventing them from participating in recreation programs. This data aligns with the national trend that shows Canadians are less active than ever before due to lack of free time, cost of participation 2 City of Kitchener. (2013). Leisure Facilities Master Plan Update Research Report. Kitchener, ON: F.J. Galloway Management and Planning Consultants. 1 11 - 27 and technology dependence. This has resulted in a need for more unstructured and self-scheduled recreation so people can participate at a time that best suits their lifestyle. This trend also explains the increase in drop-in gymnasium sports at community centres and significant fluctuations in organized minor sport groups. e) Ontario municipalities are facing the reality that development charges and tax-supported funds do not cover the increasing costs of building and maintaining recreation facilities. According to the Canadian Infrastructure Report Card, current reinvestment levels will result in a decline in sport and recreation facilities over time. The City needs to explore alternative funding sources and partnerships for recreation facilities. Some examples of alternate funding sources include public-private partnerships, sponsorship agreements and special capital levies. f) There is a need to build strong partnerships and joint-use opportunities with school boards and the private sector so the City can deliver innovative recreation services and facilities. Many municipalities have engaged in public-private partnerships to help distribute the cost of building and operating facilities. 2 11 - 28 Key Findings Demographics 1. The City of Kitchener will grow by 15.6% over the next 15 years from 241,800 to 286,500 residents. 2. The fastest growing areas of the City include the southwest, downtown and southeast. The southwest will grow at the fastest rate or 28,787 residents and almost double its total population by 2041. The downtown core is expected to grow by 10,236 residents and the southeast will grow by17,484 residents by 2041. 3. Kitchener is a relatively young community with the average age of 39.65 in 2018,increasing to 41.3 years old by 2028. Further, each neighbourhood demonstrates unique age trends. The southwest has a high number of young families. The downtown area has more young adults than other areas and the northwest and southeast have a high number of adults in the 55 to 75+ age group. 4. Kitchener is a diverse community with residents from a wide range ofcultural backgrounds and ethnicities. Aside from English and French, European languages remain the most common in Kitchener; however, Middle Eastern languages like Arabic and Punjabi are becoming more popular in the southwest and east areas of the City. Trends 1. Canadians are less active due to several factors including lack of free time, increased participation costs and technology dependence. This has resulted in the need for more unstructured and self-scheduled recreation so Canadians can participate at a time that best suits their lifestyle. This trend has caused many minor sport registrations to fluctuate,making it difficult to plan for future use and facility needs. 2. There is an increasing demand for new and innovative ways to provide recreation services and facilities, resulting in the need to build strong partnerships and joint-use opportunities with the private sector and school boards. Many municipalities have engaged in public-private partnerships to help distribute facilities and operations across the City. 3. Regional participation in competitive level sport is a growing trend. Canadians have demonstrated a willingness to travel to specialized, higher quality facilities, which may result in sharing and coordinating recreation efforts across neighbouring municipalities. 4. There is a growing shift away from standalone senior centres. Many older adults in the 55 to 69 age group prefer multi-generational facilities that do not label them as “seniors.” 5. The “community-hub” model is becoming a popular method to ensure recreation facilities serve multiple uses and generations. For example, one family member can play hockey while another attends a fitness class. 6. Outdoor recreation is following a new design model where playgrounds are replaced with unique play features, including barrier free components, pathways through parks and braille signage. 7. At the national and provincial level, soccer and baseball/softball remain the most popular field sports and continue to exhibit growth, which aligns with trends reported by City of Kitchener affiliated sport groups. 8. Trends show that hockey registration is declining across the country due to increases in costs, safety concerns, the aging population and a shift in recreation preferences to other sports. 9. All municipalities across Ontario are facing a significant funding gap when it comes to aging recreation infrastructure. Municipalities must prioritize reinvestment activities with other civic infrastructure like roads and sewers. 3 11 - 29 10.Volunteerism is declining across the province, which poses a threat to recreation and sport groups who rely on dedicated volunteers. Municipalities need to recruit and retain dedicated volunteers in order to deliver recreation programing. 1. Kitchener is fortunate to have more community centres compared to other Canadian municipalities of similar size. However, significant financial investment will be required over a 10- year period to maintain the existing inventory. More work needs to be done to accurately determine the required funding to keep the City’s recreation facilities in good condition. 2. There is a growing need to create a multi-year plan to conduct comprehensive building condition assessments for all indoor recreation and leisure facilities. These assessments should include energy, accessibility and technology audits. 3. Understanding total life cycle costs is critical when re-investing in existing facilities or developing new facilities. Asset management plans and a long-term capital investment plan for recreation and leisure will help identify total asset life cycle costs. 1. All ice pads, except the Sportsworld Gay Lea pad due to Victus Academy, have available ice time during non-prime hours (Monday to Friday from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.). 2. All arenas have been operating at nearly 80% during the prime time hours (weeknights and weekends) for the past three years. There was a slight decline in prime time usage during the 2017/2018 season; however, usage is above 85% at all ice pads. 3. According to staff scheduling records, there isnot a significant change in who is using ice time or how many hours they require; however, the demand for prime ice time has increased because players prefer to play on weeknights between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. or Saturdays. 4. Accessibility and size of dressing rooms is the top challenge reported by users and staff. Dressing rooms do not currently meet accessibility and inclusion standards. Change room facilities at Lions and Don McLaren are small compared to other facilities. 1. All aquatic facilities are operating at a capacity of 90% or greater during prime time hours in the summer and school year seasons. 2. All facilities are operating a minimum of 65% capacity during non-prime hours, with some sport group rental and registered programs scheduled as early as 5:30 a.m. 3. Lack of family and accessible change rooms is a common challenge reported by users and staff. Family change areas are not large enough and do not meet accessibility and inclusion standards. 4. According to the online survey, swimming and water sports are the most popular recreation activities among Kitchener residents. Approximately 70% of residents have visited an indoor pool within the past 12 months, and residents ranked an indoor pool as the third priority (next to parks and trails). 4 11 - 30 1. Community centre gymnasiums are operating at a minimum of 80% capacity and there is a clear need for additional gymnasium space and/or available hours. 2. Larger spaces tend to be used more frequently than smaller program rooms and areas with specific design requirements like dance and preschool rooms are used less often due to design constraints. 3. Community centre utilization tends to increase during the summer months when the City takes on a larger role in direct programming. This may offer an opportunity to increase usage at existing centres while also meeting the diverse needs beyond traditional recreation programming. 4. Evenings tend to be the busiest time across most community centres with gymnasium drop-in programs being very popular among youth. There is additional capacity available on the weekends when most community centres are underutilized. 1. Ball diamond rentals show stable usage over the past six seasons and growth in adult and minor leagues is expected over the next few years as field sports become more popular. 2. The City of Kitchener asked the Kitchener Minor Ball Association and other affiliated groups to restrict growth in the 2017 and 2018 seasons. During this time, the City has been working to light existing diamonds to increase inventory and accommodate the increased diamond usage. Sport groups have a desire to grow their programming, which means the City needs to find a solution as the demand for diamonds continues. 3. A1 diamonds account for 40% of all rentals followed by B1 diamonds at 31%. Stakeholders expressed significant demand for additional A1 diamonds to accommodate increased competitive play. 4. The top 10 diamond rentals are all part of multi-diamond facilities, which allows users to deliver programs in a central location. 5. Stakeholders reported diamonds and fields are of high quality and well maintained. However, there is a need to upgrade supporting amenities for safety purposes, including fencing, backstops, dugouts, parking, etc. 1. Sport field rentals for 2018 reached an 86% utilization rate, which is a 13% increase from 2015. 2. B level fields have the highest utilization rate, which is likely due to the number of available fields and rental costs. 3. When full sized fields are used for micro, mini and 9V9 play there are significant maintenance and operations factors related to the increased wear and tear on fields and the surrounding facilities (i.e. parking, washrooms, nearby neighbourhoods). A sport field allocation policy should be considered to address the increased usage and appropriate programming of fields. 4. Residents ranked sport fields among the top five priorities the City should focus on the next 10 to 15 years. There were over 255 comments related to fields; 198 were related to the need for additional fields and 16 were related to improving existing fields. Further, 58% of residents said they have used an outdoor field within the past 12 months. 5 11 - 31 1. Sixty per cent of residents reported that the City should invest in existing infrastructure compared to 40% who said the City should build new recreation facilities. 2. When asked if recreation facilities meet, exceed or do not meet expectations, residents said “meet expectations” in all facility categories. 3. Residents said the top three reasons the City should invest in recreation are: (1) there ishigh community demand, (2) an existing facility requires maintenance, repair or improvement and (3) the cost of participating will be more affordable. 4. Residents identified trails, neighbourhood parks and playgrounds, indoor pools, arenas and sport fields as the top five recreation priorities the City should invest in over the next 10 to 15 years. 5. Inconvenient program schedules is the top reason residents do not participate in recreation activities. Lack of available facility space and the cost of participation are also common challenges that limit people from participation. 6. Parks and trails, including neighbourhood parks, are the most frequently used recreation amenities followed by indoor and outdoor pools, community centres and sport fields. 7. The need for recreation complexes or multi-use facilities was a strong theme that emerged through public consultation. Many residents expressed the need for a facility that offers activities for the whole family and allows for more convenient scheduling. 6 11 - 32 11 - 33 1.0The Role of Recreation and Leisure Kitchener has a longstanding reputation for building a caring community that encourages well-being. Recreation and leisure provide afoundation for healthy and vibrant neighbourhoods through opportunities to build relationships, stay active and develop strong sense of belonging in the community. The Canadian Parks and Recreation Association identifies municipalities as a key contributor to the delivery of recreation services and programming stating that, “local government is the primary supplier of 3 direct recreation services”.The City of Kitchener recognizes the importance of affordable and accessible recreational programming and is committed to the well-being of the community. In 2017, the City of Kitchener established a Corporate Recreation and Leisure Steering Committee to demonstrate its commitment to accessible recreation and lead the development of the 2019 Leisure Facilities Master Plan. This committee includes subject matter experts and senior management who are responsible for planning and delivering core recreation and leisure services. 1.1 Service delivery The City’s role in delivering services includes: -planning, developing and maintaining parks, open spaces and outdoor facilities. -planning, developing and maintaining leisure facilities, including arenas, pools, community centres, pavilions, etc. -delivering programs in recreation facilities that meet the needs of the community. -administering and monitoring major community investment grant programs and affiliation agreements with minor sport and neighbourhood associations. -volunteer recognition and other administrative and developmental support to community service providers and groups. -leisure education, volunteer support, marketing, communications and support for inclusion/accessibility and other specialized services. -planning and strategy development along with administrative and management services. 1.2 A framework for recreation in Kitchener The wasdeveloped in 2015 as a joint initiative between the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association and the Interprovincial Sport and Recreation Council. The provincial and federal governments support this document and encourage municipalities to use the framework as a tool for reflection, discussion and the development of action plans. In fall 2018, the City of Kitchener Corporate Recreation and Leisure Steering Committee adapted the to reflect the valuesand goals of Kitchener. The revised framework is an internal tool intended to guide staff through the decision making process when prioritizing recreation projects and investments. This framework includes avision, values, operating principles and goals to help staff find a common way of thinking about recreation. The framework also provides guidance on how the City of Kitchener will work with residents to ensure the well-being of individuals, communities and our natural and built environments. 3 Canadian Parks and Recreation Association/Interprovincial Sport and Recreation Council (February 2015). A Framework for Recreation in Canada – 2015 to Well-being. Ottawa: Canadian Recreation and Parks Association. 40 pages. www.lin.ca 4 Canadian Parks and Recreation Association/Interprovincial Sport and Recreation Council (February 2015). A Framework for Recreation in Canada – 2015 to Well-being. Ottawa: Canadian Recreation and Parks Association. 40 pages. www.lin.ca 7 11 - 34 Partners in Recreation and Leisure The City of Kitchener works with many community partners, volunteers and organizations across Waterloo Region to deliver relevant and affordable programs. The City counts on these strong partnerships to ensure residents have access to a wide variety of services that are delivered in the most effective and efficient way. Partnerships play a key role in recreation service delivery and Kitchener is fortunate to work alongside organizations that recognize the value of recreation. Some of Kitchener’s partners involved in recreation program delivery include: -Affiliated sport groups -Conestoga College -Neighbourhood Associations -University of Waterloo -Waterloo Region Catholic District School Board -Waterloo Region District School Board -Wilfrid Laurier University -YMCA –Kitchener Waterloo 8 11 - 35 A Framework for Recreation in Kitchener Recreation is the experience that results from freely chosen participation in physical, social, educational, creative and spiritual pursuits that enhance individual and community well-being. VISION Everyone is engaged in meaningful, accessible recreation experiences that fosters: Individual well-being | Community well-being|Well-being of natural and built environments VALUES Lifelong Participation | Access for All | Sustainability OPERATING PRINCIPLES Sustainability | Partnerships | Innovation | Community Engagement | Transparency GOALS Sustainable Environments, Lifelong Participation Access for All Infrastructure & Partnerships Support lifelong participation in Encourage equitable and safe Re-invest in existing physical and social activities from participation in recreation, infrastructure and use spaces for early childhood through to old regardless of age, culture, multiple purposes to ensure age. Encourage structured and socioeconomic status, race, financial and environmental unstructured activities to reduce gender, ability, sexual orientation sustainability. sedentary behaviors, increase Indigenous status or geographic Build for the future by physical literacy and build strong location. incorporating sustainable communities. Work with residents to understand practices and aligning community Integrate social, physical, the needs of the community and initiatives through partnerships educational and cultural spaces ensure affordable, neighbourhood-and collaboration. for lifelong individual and based programs and services. community well-being and belonging. 9 11 - 36 11 - 37 2.0 Demographic Profile This section provides an overview of Kitchener’s demographic profile to demonstrate areas of new growth and changing trends among Kitchener residents. Demographic analysis is required to ensure the Leisure Facilities Master Plan reflects the needs of the community using evidence based principles. 2.1 Key findings 1. The City of Kitchener will grow by 15.6% over the next 15 years from 241,800 to 286,500 residents. 2. The fastest growing areas of the City include the southwest, downtown and southeast. The southwest will grow by 28,787 residents and almost double its total population by 2041. The downtown core is also expected to grow by 32% (10,236 residents) and the southeast will grow by 36% (17,484 residents) by 2041. 3. Kitchener is a relatively young community with the average age of 39.65 in 2018, increasing to 41.3 years old by 2028. Further, each neighbourhood demonstrates unique age trends. The southwest has a high number of young families. The downtown area has more young adults than other areas and the northwest and southeast have a high number of adults in the 55 to 75+ age group. 4. Kitchener is a diverse community with residents from a wide range of cultural backgroundsand ethnicities. Aside from English and French, European languages remain the most common in Kitchener; however, Middle Eastern languages like Arabic and Punjabi are becoming more popular in the southwest and east areas of the City. 2.2 Methodology The Region of Waterloo provided the population projections for the City of Kitchener and associated 5 planning communities.The Region is required to plan for growth according to the population and employment forecasts contained in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe legislated by the Province of Ontario. The figures enclosed in this report do not include 2016 census data; the forecast includes an undercount of approximately 4%. Undercount refers to using a lower number than the actual population to account for individuals who may have been missed or counted twice during the census collection. The Region of Waterloo data set only provided high-level population projections and did not allow for detailed demographic analysis. The City of Kitchener provided the data set for the planning community demographic analysis through an internal tool called Esri, sourced from Environics. Esri allows for detailed analysis of specific geographic areas and was selected as the preferred data set for a closer look at age, household income and ethnicity within each sub area of the City. The geographic boundaries for the Leisure Facilities Master Plan are based on six core areas using Weber St., Strasburg Rd. and Highway 7/8 as the road boundaries to divide the City. Economic Development defines the downtown area as Downtown Proper, plus neighbourhoods that directly borders the central core of the City. All planning communities remain intact to ensure consistent reporting with the City’s 5 Planning communities are geographic boundaries identified by the City of Kitchener Planning division and used in the Growth Management Plan. 10 11 - 38 Growth Management Plan and Development Charge study, which refers to planning community boundaries. Table 1: Geographic study areas by planning community Geographic Study PLANNING COMMUNITIES Area DOWNTOWN Civic Centre Auditorium Mill Courtland Mt. Hope Huron Park City Commercial Core King East Woodside Park Cherry Hill Central Fredrick Cedar Hill Victoria Park EAST Grand River Stanley Park Centreville South Eastwood Chicopee Idlewood NORTHEAST Grand River North Victoria North Bridgeport West Rosemount Heritage Park Bridgeport East Bridgeport North Fairfield Northward NORTHWEST Highland West Westmount KW Hospital Forest Hill Forest Heights Victoria Hills St. Mary's Hospital Meinzinger Park Southdale Rockway Lakeside SOUTHEAST Hidden Valley Alpine Brigadoon Pioneer Tower West Trillium Industrial Country Hills East Pioneer Park Pioneer Tower East Park Country Hills Doon South Lower Doon Vanier SOUTHWEST Laurentian West Country Hills West Dundee Trussler Laurentian Hills Huron Park South Plans Rosenberg Huron South 11 11 - 39 Figure 1: LFMP geographic study areas Source: City of Kitchener, GIS, 2018 12 11 - 40 2.3 City of Kitchener population growth projections 6 Using 2016as the base year, the City of Kitchener will grow by 15.6% or 44,700 residents by 2031. On average, Kitchener’s population will increase by 2,980 people per year for the next 15 years. Table 2: City of Kitchener Population Forecast Pop.Pop.Pop.Pop.Pop.Pop.Pop. 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 City of Kitchener 227,200 241,800 254,300 269,800 286,500 301,470 315,100 Population growth--12,500 28,000 44,700 59,700 73,300 (base year 2016) *Source: Region of Waterloo Forecast for the City of Kitchener, 2017 The southwest area of Kitchener will experience the most significant growth over the next 30 years increasing from 34,230 residents in 2011 to 68,119 residents in 2041. When looking closely at population growth, 13 neighbourhoods have a growth rate of 50% or higher. Neighbourhoods including Brigadoon, City Commercial Core, Country Hills West, Country Hills East, Doon South, Dundee, Grand River South, Hidden Valley, Huron Park, Huron South, Pioneer Tower East, Rosenberg, Trillium Industrial Park and Trussler will all see significant growth over the next 10 years and beyond. Of these 13 neighbourhoods, 11 are located in the south part of the City and six are in the southwest corner. See Table 3 a breakdown of population by planning community. Table 3:City of Kitchener population projection by LFMP study area 2011201620212026203120362041Future Population Growth (2016 base year) Downtown 30,296 32,307 34,095 36,338 38,476 40,495 42,543 32% Northeast 26,435 27,113 28,162 29,287 30,199 30,883 31,956 18% East 29,833 32,019 33,534 35,733 37,654 39,115 40,710 27% Northwest 61,898 62,164 62,763 63,518 64,249 64,833 65,422 5% Southwest 34,320 39,332 41,963 47,168 54,946 62,443 68,119 73% Southeast 44,385 48,841 53,769 57,775 60,975 63,702 66,325 36% *Source: Region of Waterloo Forecast for the City of Kitchener, 2017 6 Excluding the Region’s undercount, the 2016 population estimate for the City of Kitchener is approximately 232,500, which is approximately 700 persons less than the 2016 Census. 13 11 - 41 Figure 2:City of Kitchener population projection by LFMP study area 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 Population 30000 20000 10000 0 North-West South-East North-East South-West East Downtown 2018 2023 2028 *Source: Region of Waterloo Forecast for the City of Kitchener, 2017 2.3.2 City of Kitchener population by age The age demographics across the City of Kitchener will remain consistent for the next 20 to 30 years (see Table 5). The largest age cohort (35-54)remains the same, making up 27% of the total population, over a 15-year period. It is important to note the significant increase in the 70+ age group between 2016 and 2041. The increase from 9% to 16% aligns with aging population trends across Ontario and demonstrates a need to build age friendly communities. Table 5: City of Kitchener population by age Age Cohort 0-910-19 20-34 35-54 55-69 70+ 2011 12%12%23%30%15%9% 2016 12%11%23%28%17%9% 2021 11%12%22%27%18%11% 2026 11%12%21%27%18%12% 2031 11%11%20%27%17%14% 2041 11%11%21%26%16%16% *Source: Region of Waterloo Forecast for the City of Kitchener, 2017 2.3.3 Planning areas by age When analyzing age cohorts inspecific geographic areas, we can determine the recreational needs of each neighbourhood based on the age of its residents. For example, the southwest has the highest number of residents between ages zero to 19 and 30 to 39, which suggests young families occupy a significant part of the neighbourhood. The northwest and southeast not only have the largest populations, they also have the largest portion of adults over the age of 60. The largest age cohort living in the downtown core are people ages 25 to 29, which suggests that young professionals and/or couples 14 11 - 42 are choosing to live downtown.The northwest area has the highest number of households with children, followed by the south areas of the City (see figure 4 and figure 5). Figure 3: Population by Age (2018, 2023, 2028) 2018 Population by age 5000 6000 4500 5000 4000 3500 4000 3000 2500 3000 2000 2000 1500 1000 1000 500 0 0 0 To 4 5 To 9 10 To 15 To 20 To 25 To 30 To 35 To 40 To 45 To 50 To 55 To 60 To 65 To 70 To 75 To 80 To 85 Or 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 Older 2023 Population by age 5000 6000 4500 5000 4000 3500 4000 3000 2500 3000 2000 2000 1500 1000 1000 500 0 0 0 To 4 5 To 9 10 To 15 To 20 To 25 To 30 To 35 To 40 To 45 To 50 To 55 To 60 To 65 To 70 To 75 To 80 To 85 Or 14 19 242934 39 444954 59 646974 79 84Older 2028 Population by age 5000 6000 4500 5000 4000 3500 4000 3000 2500 3000 2000 2000 1500 1000 1000 500 0 0 0 To 4 5 To 9 10 To 15 To 20 To 25 To 30 To 35 To 40 To 45 To 50 To 55 To 60 To 65 To 70 To 75 To 80 To 85 Or 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 Older Sum of Downtown Sum of South-East Sum of North-East Sum of South-West Sum of East Sum of North-West 15 11 - 43 Figure 4: Population breakdown of children from ages 0 to 19 Population by age (0 to 19) 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2018 2023 2028 2018 2023 2028 2018 2023 2028 2018 2023 2028 0 To 4 5 To 9 10 To 14 15 To 19 North-West South-East North-East South-West East Downtown Figure 5: Total number of households with children ages 0 to 19 Number of households with children 9000 8172 7934 8000 7419 6653 6565 7000 6042 6000 4624 5000 4289 4000 3272 3116 3000 2010 1940 2000 1000 0 Northwest Southeast Southwest East Northeast Downtown 2020 2027 16 11 - 44 2.3.4 City of Kitchener population by mother tongue language The City of Kitchener is a diverse community with residents who continue to speak their native language and engage in cultural traditions and experiences. Based on Regional data, German, Punjabi, Spanish, Arabic, Portuguese, Polish, Vietnamese, Persian, Romanian and Serbian are the top 10 non-official languages spoken in Kitchener. The southwest area of the City has the highest percentage of residents who speak languages other than French and English. This trend remains consistent over a 10-year period until 2028. Punjabi and Arabic show a growth trend higher than other languages within the same period. Table 6: 2018 Population by Mother Tongue Language Northwest Southeast Northeast Southwest East Downtown 201820182018201820182018 Italian 0.70% 1.27% 1.78% 0.48% 1.05% 1.13% German 6.26% 7.07% 16.00% 2.51% 7.98% 11.51% Punjabi 3.09% 4.70% 0.93% 6.66% 3.16% 0.56% Cantonese 0.86% 0.70% 0.62% 0.70% 0.90% 1.07% Spanish 9.33% 11.81% 5.80% 13.67% 7.95% 10.49% Arabic 8.32% 5.99% 4.26% 5.10% 6.04% 4.22% Portuguese 4.09% 4.23% 3.81% 5.10% 4.43% 5.70% Polish 4.44% 4.11% 7.39% 4.61% 4.48% 4.01% Mandarin 2.11% 2.60% 0.88% 1.31% 1.43% 3.04% Chinese N.O.S 3.10% 3.25% 1.45% 2.24% 2.02% 7.07% Urdu 2.71% 2.76% 0.61% 3.24% 1.50% 1.63% Vietnamese 4.62% 2.12% 3.25% 3.80% 4.05% 2.19% Ukrainian 0.83% 0.39% 1.21% 0.45% 0.66% 1.13% Persian 5.39% 4.41% 1.57% 3.45% 2.06% 3.49% Russian 1.25% 1.09% 1.57% 0.87% 0.92% 2.22% Dutch 0.78% 0.90% 1.28% 0.53% 0.86% 0.95% Korean 0.89% 0.72% 0.45% 0.59% 0.89% 1.22% Greek 0.79% 1.13% 2.21% 0.56% 2.82% 1.00% Gujarati 2.63% 1.12% 1.83% 1.86% 3.49% 0.59% Romanian 7.35% 7.54% 7.70% 10.00% 7.39% 3.80% Hindi 1.07% 1.27% 0.26% 0.81% 0.71% 1.02% Hungarian 1.30% 1.63% 1.85% 0.99% 1.61% 1.38% Croatian 1.56% 2.30% 4.20% 2.05% 4.39% 1.76% Serbian 4.57% 5.94% 9.43% 7.87% 9.49% 5.49% Japanese 0.18% 0.28% 0.31% 0.19% 0.16% 0.31% Turkish 1.19% 0.76% 0.48% 1.27% 0.71% 0.84% Somali 1.32% 0.74% 0.80% 1.10% 0.36% 1.17% Aboriginal 0.01% 0.04% 0.02% 0.01% 0.02% 0.05% languages Other 16.27% 14.87% 15.52% 15.10% 15.14% 17.59% 17 11 - 45 11 - 46 3.0 Recreation and Leisure Trends In November 2018, consulting firm Monteith-Brown completed a research paper to help the City understand lifestyle, participation, service delivery and funding trends influencing recreation and leisure across Canada. The information in the subsequent sections is taken directly from the , which is available upon request. 3.1 Key findings 1. Canadians are less active due to several factors including lack of free time, increased participation costs and technology dependence. This has resulted in the need for more unstructured and self-scheduled recreation so Canadians can participate at a time that best suits their lifestyle. This trend has caused many minor sport registrations to fluctuate,making it difficult to plan for future use and facility needs. 2. There is an increasing demand for new and innovative ways to provide recreation services and facilities, resulting in the need to build strong partnerships and joint-use opportunities with the private sector and school boards. Many municipalities have engaged in public-private partnerships to help distribute facilities and operations across the City. 3. Regional participation in competitive level sport is a growing trend. Canadians have demonstrated a willingness to travel to specialized, higher quality facilities, which may result in sharing and coordinating recreation efforts across neighbouring municipalities. 4. There is a growing shift away from standalone senior centres. Many older adults in the 55 to 69 age group prefer multi-generational facilities that do not label them as “seniors.” 5. The “community-hub” model is becoming a popular method to ensure recreation facilities serve multiple uses and generations. For example, one family member can play hockey while another attends a fitness class. 6. Outdoor recreation is following a new design model where playgrounds are replaced with unique play features, including barrier free components, pathways through parks and braille signage. 7. At the national and provincial level, soccer and baseball/softball remain the most popular field sports and continue to exhibit growth, which aligns with trends reported by City of Kitchener affiliated sport groups. 8. Trends show that hockey registration is declining across the country due to increased costs, safety concerns, aging populationsand a shift in recreation preferences to other sports. 9. All municipalities across Ontario are facing a significant funding gap when it comes to aging recreation infrastructure. Municipalities must prioritize reinvestment activities with other civic infrastructure like roads and sewers. 10.Volunteerism is declining across the province, which poses a threat to recreation and sport groups who rely on dedicated volunteers. Municipalities need to recruit and retain dedicated volunteers in order to deliver recreation programing. 7 Monteith-Brown Planning Services. (2018). Recreation & Leisure Trends Research Paper. London, ON: Monteith-Brown Planning Services. 18 11 - 47 3.2 Lifestyle Trends 3.2.1 Participation Canadians are generally less active for a variety of reasons, including time constraints, participation costs and technology dependence (i.e., social media, video games, streaming, etc.). This shift in participation has generated increased demand for unstructured, self-scheduled recreation and sport opportunities and has caused minor sport registrations to fluctuate in many communities. Contrastingly, competitive and elite-level sport training and competition has become much more rigid and time- consuming causing additional scheduling and support strain to the municipalities and service providers who facilitate these operations. Prime time demand is evolving. The after-work hours of 4 to 8 p.m. are traditionally reserved for child and youth programming. However, residents’ lives are becoming increasingly busy; as a result, adults, older adults, and seniors are seeking opportunities to use facilities during the same peak hours. Pickleball is a good example of this trend. The sport as seen tremendous growth and an increasing number of working adults want to play in the evenings. Anecdotally, adult recreational sports are growing, particularly activities such as co-ed softball and soccer. However, there is very little shared data on adult leagues, so general participation trends are based on registered youth groups or data provided via specific request. Another participation trend commonly experienced in regional municipalities or suburbs of major urban centres is regional participation. Residents have grownaccustomed to travelling for specialized activities orhigher-quality facilities for elite sports and competition. This may result in sharing and coordinating with neighbouring municipalities to avoid duplication of service. Youth engagement in sports and recreation is a growing trend in many municipalities. The 2018 Participation Report Card indicates that Canadian children and youth are not meeting recommended daily and weekly physical activity levels. Today’s youth are intrinsically tied to technology and social media, which contribute towards sedentary lifestyles, social isolation and mental health issues. Municipalities and private service providers are combatting these challenges by offering dedicated spaces and programs to encourage youth to gather, socialize and recreate in activities that are safe, comfortable and interesting to them. 3.2.2 Higher density living Increasing urban densities and intensification of established neighbourhoods are influencing the waysin which municipalities are providing recreation and sport facilities.Residents living in high and mid-rise units often have little to no personal green space and rely on municipalities to a greater extent than people living in lower density areas. Therefore, parks, recreation and sport facilities are an integral “third place”. As more people move into medium and high-density dwellings,there is greater demand for public spaces to socialize, recreate, and share life’s experiences. In addition to the growing demand for durable, hardscaped, multi-functional sites, municipalities also need to consider amenities that support more social and casual use. Some examples include picnic sites and pop-up farmers’ markets in parks, cafes along trail networks or at scenic vistas, and other social spaces for users to interact through passive recreation. As Ontario municipalities grow, there will be higher demand for innovative ways to provide services and facilities. Land scarcity and cost continue to pose challenges; as a result, municipalities are forming more joint development and joint-use partnership opportunities. 19 11 - 48 3.2.3 Aging population Canada’s aging population is affecting the recreation and sport system. As the Baby Boomer generation moves into retirement, demand is growing for older adult and senior-focused activities, programs and facilities. This shift is emerging through two distinct lenses: 1)healthy, physically-active and social adults wishing to remain active as they age; and 2)persons managing chronic illness, disease and/or old age that are seeking low-impact, therapeutic and rehabilitative programs. Certain municipalities continue to build and operate stand-alone seniors’ centres, though newer designs embody multi-use philosophies that facilitate a range of recreational, cultural, social and educational spaces aimed at sustaining holistic health. However, there isa growing shift away from standalone seniors’ centres. Many older adults in the 55 to 69 year age group prefer multi-generational facilities that do not label them as “seniors” or “older adults.” 3.2.4 Economic trends Income disparity is polarizing communities throughout the Greater Golden Horseshoe and other parts of Ontario. Participation costs are increasing in sport and recreation.Many activities require participants to pay membership dues, registration fees, and related equipment costs in order to play. When combined with the cost of travel to and from practices and games, these factors can negatively influence residents’ ability to join organized sport leagues. 3.2.5 Cultural representation Municipalities are more culturally diverse than ever and are experiencing a shift in demand for non- traditional activities that contain social and cultural representation. For example, communities with high South Asian representation have integrated Bollywood dance into their group fitness and dance programs while gender-specific times have been made to accommodate certain cultural or religious backgrounds. From a facilities perspective, certain municipalities have entered into new types of facilities to reflect localized interest of certain cultural groups. Cricket grounds are a current example with many municipalities constructing dedicated venues for the sport or sometimes overlaying a cricket pitch between two soccer fields. With greater awareness raised regarding Indigenous persons and the federal focus towards truth and reconciliation, municipalities are displaying Indigenous history through public art in community centres and parks, while also exploring programs reflective of First Nations sports and culture. 3.2.6 Health and wellness Many municipalities and leisure service providers are adopting principles of “Physical Literacy”. The principle is centred upon the notion that if people are able to learn and grasp basic physical movement applicable to a variety of sports and activities, they will be better equipped to remain active as they age, regardless of experiences with specific activities. Sport for Life provides the framework to implement the Long-Term Athlete Development Model, focused on encouraging and supporting people of all ages to get active, stay active and reach the highest heights of sport achievement. Leisure service providers from multiple sectors have expanded and diversified their program inventory to offer variety for all age groups, abilities and interests. 20 11 - 49 3.2.7 Accessibility for persons with disabilities and inclusion In response to the Province of Ontario’s (AODA), municipal programs, services and facilities have expanded and adapted to a growing user-base of active residents. The Abilities Centre in Whitby, Ontario is a leading example of a barrier-free sports and fitness complex that was specifically designed for persons with disabilities. This unique facility incorporates a range of assistive devices, aids and features, as well as accessible recreation equipment to ensure that the Abilities Centre is inclusive of all users (its universal philosophy applies to being able to serve any individual, regardless of whether they are able-bodied or disabled). The facility is a partnership between the Town of Whitby (who owns the land) and a non-profit organization (who ownsand operatesthe Abilities Centre). Furthermore, a usage agreement exists between the Abilities Centre and the Town of Whitby to leverage resources and share certain facility components (including those within the town’s Iroquois Park Sports Centre that sits immediately adjacent to the Abilities Centre), thus increasing the range of facility opportunities. Several municipalities are taking steps to remove barriers from outdoor recreation facilities such as replacing playgrounds with new structures containing barrier-free components, grading and paving pathways through parks, and using braille in signage. 3.2.8 Active transportation Active forms of transportation are human-powered modes of travel used for commuting and recreational purposes. Walking, hiking, running/jogging, cycling and dog walking are consistently at the top of surveyed recreational activities. Participation in active transportation helps to reduce the number of cars on the roads, creating less congestion and reducing vehicular emissions. Active travel also has benefits of connecting people with the outdoors and with each other depending upon the mode and route taken. Municipalities encourage greater active transit by providing comfortable and safe amenities along routes. Some examples include trail connectivity, lighting, garbage receptacles, benches and shade structures for rest areas. 3.3 Recreation and Sport Participation 3.2.1 Field sports Popular field sports in Canada primarily encompass soccer and baseball/softball. While there is demand for more special interest or growth sports (e.g., cricket, football, rugby, field hockey, lacrosse), the participation and registration levels of those sports are significantly lower than soccer and baseball/softball. 21 11 - 50 Soccer remains one of the most popular sports across the province, and it continues to exhibit growth potential both locally and throughout Ontario. At the provincial level, Baseball Ontario reported that there were over 14,000 rep/competitive league participants in 2017, which is a growth of 28% compared to 2007. There has also been growth in adult recreational softball, with many leagues across the province reporting higher than anticipated registration over the last few seasons. Cricket has been established in certain pockets throughout Canada for a number of years, including the Greater Golden Horseshoe, due to an increasing number of active newcomers from European, Asian, and Caribbean countries where the sport is typically played. Indoor artificial turf facilities are also growing in popularity, particularly among high-level athletes and sport organizations. Few municipalities have invested in sole-ownership and operation of dedicated indoor turf facilities. Participation in other field sports such as football, rugby, lacrosse and field hockey tend to have significant regional variations in participation. 3.3.2 Ice sports Ice sports (e.g., hockey and figure skating) have been longstanding staples in traditional Canadian winter activities. However, trends suggest that participation in ice sports is declining. Hockey Canada reports that participation in minor hockey has been gradually declining across the country. The decline in participation is driven by a number of factors such as escalating coststo participate, concerns over safety, aging populations, shifting recreation participation preferences, competing lifestyle interests, and population diversification. The growth of hockey academies and private enterprises not affiliated with Hockey Canada is also a factor. Other trends in ice use and allocation illustrate a shift away from non-prime (early morning and late night) hours previously used as practice times for competitive programs or adult recreational use. Prime time ice is in peak demand, with little willingness to shift to other spaces. 3.3.3 Aquatics Overall, aquatic programs and activities remain steady, with no significant changes compared to traditional participation levels. Group swimming lessons continue to be the most popular registered program in aquatics with strong participation exhibited in lane swimming and aquatic fitness. Based on localized user preferences certain municipalities are exploring innovative aqua fit programs geared to a wider range of ages and interests through paddleboard yoga, aqua cycling, aqua Zumba, and more. There has been a noticeable shortage in the number of certified lifeguards in recent years, with leadership course fill rates declining and a number of municipalities having difficulty filling aquatic staff complements, which can affect programming. From an outdoor,open water perspective, flat-water paddle activities are growing in popularity. Outdoor aquatics enthusiasts from across the province have been participating in activities such as canoeing, kayaking, and standup paddle boarding. These activities commonly occur in conservation areas with significant open water, large rivers, municipal waterfronts, public and private beaches and anywhere with access to flat open water. Spray and splash pads continue to be popular and are becoming a common feature in many districts and neighbourhood parks. 22 11 - 51 3.3.4 Individual and group fitness Individual and group fitness activities are experiencing a surge in participation, especially for high- intensity training. Some examples of newly emerging activities are High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT), CrossFit, TRX, and Ninja Warrior training facilities. Other individual and group fitness programs that are growing or maintaining popularity are boot camp, yoga, tai chi, and other aerobic fitness. 3.3.5 Gymnasium and court sports Municipal gymnasiums and sport courts are truly multi-purpose and multi-functional facilities because they are able to host numerous programs throughout the year, ranging from sports (e.g. badminton, basketball, indoor soccer, floor hockey, tennis, pickleball and volleyball) to active living and floor-based fitness, dance and general interest programs. Basketball and volleyball have strong and consistent participation, particularly at a club level throughout the province. Both sports are appealing because they are relatively easy to learn and require little equipment. Many community centre gymnasiums are frequently used for drop-in or pick-up play, but cannot host league play and tournaments due to limitations in appropriate sizing, dimensions and net heights. Tennis and pickleball have recently experienced growth because of the aging population in many Canadian municipalities. The 2016 Canadian Tennis Brand Health Study found that nearly one-in-five Canadians (18%) played tennis in the past year. The same report found that 5% of Canadians reported frequent participation (once a week in season) in tennis, the same percentage as pickleball. Both tennis and pickleball have recently experienced growth in both indoor and outdoor (purpose-built or multi- purpose courts) participation across the province. Pickleball is touted as one of the fastest growing sport in the province. In many municipalities throughout Ontario, a growing population of participants are seeking more court time both indoors and outside. 3.3.6 Wheeled action sports BMX biking, skateboarding, and other wheeled action sports have been steadily growing in popularity. More and more municipalities are considering or have installed skateboard parks, pump tracks and bicycle playgrounds to facilitate on-site participation in wheeled sports. A successful example is the Kolin Smith Memorial Skate Park and Pump Track in Tillsonburg. The wheeled-action sport park is adjacent to other municipal recreation infrastructure including sports fields, swimming pools, a community centre, and arena. Skateboarding elements include a concrete pad and bowls with rails, ledges, a step up, stairs, and a mini ramp while the separate bike area consists of an asphalt pump track. According to a local news report in summer 2017, it was only the third paved pump track in Ontario and had become a destination for enthusiasts around the region. 23 11 - 52 3.4 Facilities Trends This section provides insights as to how indoor and outdoor leisure facilities are being designed in response to expectations of users and best practices in construction. 3.4.1 Environmental design Environmentally conscious facility design has become engrained in the parks and recreation sector. Principles of environmental sustainability are congruent with parks and outdoor leisure activities, while community recreation centres such as arenas and aquatic facilities are often energy intensive buildings where some municipalities see an opportunity to be leading edge in promoting sustainability (both environmentally and financially). Some examples of environmental facility design include green roofs, solar panels, energy conservation, waste reduction, diversion, geothermal heating, and recirculation systems. Some municipal examples of LEED Gold certified facilities are Gore Meadows Community Centre in Brampton, Audley Recreation Centre in Ajax, Stoney Creek Community Centre, YMCA and Library in London, and Legacy Recreation Centre in Lambton Shores. 3.4.2 Aging Infrastructure Aging parks, recreation and sport infrastructure is an issue faced by municipalities across Ontario. While upfront funding is often available to construct recreation facilities through development charges, ongoing maintenance and non-growth related renewals must be funded through internal streams such as taxation, fundraising, donations, and/or user fees; or,through grants from senior levels of government. As a result, municipalities must prioritize renewal and reinvestment activities with other civic infrastructure (e.g. roads, sewers, libraries, etc.) and deferring such works can result in unexpected structural and mechanical failures. Reinvestments in aging infrastructure is also a concern for municipalities when the facilities in question are no longer being used to their optimum potential. A municipality may find that adaptive re-use of an antiquated or underutilized facility creates an opportunity to serve a broader audience or address a more pressing community need compared to the building’s original use. The Kingsdale Community Centre is frequently cited as a best practice across Ontario in this respect where the City of Kitchener committed to repurposing the aging arena (originally built in 1966) into acommunity centre with five program rooms, a large gymnasium and an adjoining commercial kitchen and bar area. Ice sports continue to be accommodated at other arenas while the City and the Kingsdale Neighbourhood Association have been able to substantially expand the range of programs offered to residents in the surrounding area. 24 11 - 53 3.4.3 Multi-use and multi-generational Facilities that were originally built to serve a single purpose (e.g., single pad arenas, standalone community halls, etc.) are being used less frequently. Residents seek a convenient “one-stop-shop” experience when it comes to leisure pursuits, particularly families with multiple active participants. Take for example a family that visits a multi-use community centre where one child participates in swimming lessons, another child goes to hockey practice and the caregiver(s) visits a library, attends a fitness class, or enjoys an indoor walking track or loop. As a result, the majority of modern community centres across Canada are being developed using a multi-use, multi-generational and multi-service hub model. The community-hub model was promoted in recent years by Ontario’s provincial government and has become a popular model for provision of service for both municipal and other sectors. From a recreation and leisure perspective, a hub is typically anchored by a major component such as a swimming pool, gymnasium or ice pad that is supplemented by complementary facilities such as libraries, municipal offices, multi-use spaces, employment offices, health care providers, etc. Outdoor recreation infrastructure and park designs are similarly following multi-use designs to provide something for all residents. 3.4.4 Elite training and competition facilities Athletes and organizations are seeking facilities described as “centres of excellence”,or competition- ready complexes. High performance organizations and athletes require much more than simple use of their primary facility (i.e., soccer fields, swimming pools, arenas). One example of this is a competitive hockey team that requires not only ice time, but an office space for administration, a dedicated dressing room, storage space for equipment, dry-land training space, warm-up areas and more. There is also greater demand from elite athletes for all-season access to their training grounds. This is a transition to year-long training for many sports, from a previous model of only being played “in season”. Some examples include hockey players seeking ice earlier in the fall and later in the spring. Another is competitive soccer teams utilizing outdoor turf fields into November and later (weather pending). Sport tourism is also a major economic generator in many municipalities and relies on high quality, multi-facility complexes. The ability to host major sporting events (local, regional, provincial, national and even international) depends on necessary infrastructure. Municipalities that provide competition- ready facilities are better equipped to host and accommodate high-level sport tourism. 25 11 - 54 3.5 Service delivery trends 3.5.1 Municipal responsibilities Parks, recreation and leisure services departments are experiencing a shift in responsibilities due to increased public demand for programs, facilities and services. There is an evolution from the traditional provision of space and place (e.g. grass cutting on fields, equipment repair and ice resurfacing) towards a community development/facilitator role. In addition to their day-to-day responsibilities, municipal staff are often requested to assist residents with financial subsidy applications, liaise with community groups, explore and facilitate external programming, and seek partnerships. More recently, with the emergence of the multi-service community hub model,many recreation staff are faced with social issues and the lines blur between recreation services and social services in a multi-use community centre setting. Many parks, recreation and sport organizations have been sustained by the generous contributions of dedicated volunteers. However, volunteerism across the region and province is declining. Potential volunteers are more interested in a mutually beneficial relationship, where they provide their services to the club or organization in exchange for something more concrete than their time. Some municipalities have been recruiting and retaining volunteers through the provision of training opportunities, discounted memberships/registrations, or even small tokens of appreciation to ensure volunteers feel valued. Public demand for services and facilities is not limited to the elite athlete sector. Many municipalities are experiencing difficultly accommodating indoor and outdoor facility and service demands, particularly in shoulder seasons. For example, parks and recreation operations staff traditionally worked outdoors in the spring and summer months when arena pads were dry, and assisted with indoor recreation facilities in the winter months when there was less demand for outdoor facilities. However, seasonal shifts and milder springs/falls have prompted public demand for parks to be maintained year round. Arenas are operational year round and indoor sports groups want to extend the available length of time indoor ice. As these competing public demands grow, municipalities may have difficulty finding the required staff resources, especially when special events are added into the mix. 3.5.2 Maximizing existing assets Municipalities are working to maximize functionality and utilization of existing assets. This is achieved in a variety of ways ranging from strategic programming during non-peak hours to repurposing an existing facility to accommodate an emerging or growth activity. Exploring non-traditional ways to maximize available space has been instrumental in supplementing the vitality of existing infrastructure. 26 11 - 55 3.5.3 Partnership opportunities Many municipalities have expanded their operations and agreements to include partnership with private or non-profit organizations. These collaborations enable both parties to benefit from capital cost sharing upfront and an ability to jointly manage facilities moving forward. These agreements also help to increase spatial distribution of facilities throughout a municipality. The Stoney Creek and Bostwick Community Centres in the City of London are successful examples. Both community centres were built and managed in partnership with the City of London, YMCA of Southwestern Ontario and London Public Libraries. They are municipal capital assets, but serve as multi- functional community hubs that provide recreation and fitness programming through the YMCA and jointly offer a local public library branch. Many municipalities have agreements with local school boards that allow use of fields and gymnasiums for league play and recreation programming. Partnerships are also being formed between municipalities and user groups to provide facilities, with indoor soccer facilities exemplifying this trend in particular. There are many examples of municipalities (e.g. Milton, Pickering, Oakville, Aurora) that have collaborated with their local soccer clubs to provide land, facilitate agreements with school boards, or co-sign debt financing for the clubs to build, operate or lease indoor turf fields. 27 11 - 56 11 - 57 4.0 Recreation and Leisure Assets This section provides an overview of the City’s recreation and leisure inventory. The City of Kitchener operates and maintains approximately 650 recreation assets. During consultation, stakeholders reported that recreation facilities are well distributed across the City and Kitchener is fortunate to have a large number of leisure assets. Service level refers to the number of facilities per City of Kitchener resident. For example, Kitchener has one soccer field for every5, 144 residents. Appendices A through Ginclude detailed maps of the indoor and outdoor facilities across the City. Table 7:City of Kitchener recreation and leisure asset inventory, 2018 ASSET TYPE COUNT SERVICE LEVEL ICE PADS 101:24,180 POOLS 41:60,450 COMMUNITY CENTRES 131:18,600 GYMNASTICS/JUDO CENTRE 11:241,800 NEIGHBOURHOOD RINKS 351:6,900 POOLS 41:60,450 SPLASH PADS 71:26,866 BASKETBALL COURTS 271:8,955 TENNIS COURTS 201:12,090 SOCCER FIELDS 471:5,144 BALL DIAMONDS 681:3,555 CITY WIDE PARK 31:60,450 DISTRICT PARK 171:14,220 NATURAL AREA 921:20,150 URBAN GREEN (PARKETTE) 561:5,757 GREENWAY 461:4,169 NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK 1671:1,448 SPORTS MISCALLENEOUS (total) HORSESHOE PITCH 91:26,866 LAWN BOWLING 21:120,900 MULTIPURPOSE PAD 81:30,225 SHUFFLEBOARD COURT 11:241,800 SKATEBOARD PARK 21:120,900 TOBOGGAN HILL 21:120,900 VOLLEYBALL 11:241,800 TOTAL 646 1: 374 *Source:City of Kitchener GIS database, City staff 4.1 Building Condition Assessments 28 11 - 58 The City is fortunate to have so many recreation facilities –more than the vast majority of other comparable Canadian municipalities. However, this means the City requires significant financial investment to maintain good standing of recreation and leisure facilities. At this time, staff have not established enough data to accurately quantify how much money is required to maintain all of the City’s recreation buildings. However, the 2019 Leisure Facilities Master Plan starts the process to understanding investment requirements for Kitchener’s existing recreation facilities. Six building condition assessments were completed as part of the LFMP research process. The purpose of the condition assessments isto: -provide a high-level condition analysis for City owned recreational facilities; -provide projected associated investment requirements for a 0-5 year and 6-10 year timeframe; and, -identify gaps and opportunities for future work-related to facility asset management or facility development. 4.1.1 Key findings After conducting six building condition assessments, the facilities management team determined the following: 1. Kitchener is fortunate to have more recreation facilities compared to other Canadian municipalities of similar size. However, the City’s recreation facilities require significant financial over a 10-year period. More work needs to be done to accurately determine the required funding to keep the City’s recreation facilities in good condition. 2. There is a growing need to create a multi-year plan to conduct comprehensive building condition assessments for all indoor recreation and leisure facilities. These assessments should include energy, accessibility and technology audits. 3. Understanding total life cycle costs is critical when re-investing in existing facilities or developing new facilities. Asset management plans and a long-term capital investment plan for recreation and leisure will help identify total asset life cycle costs. 4. Clarifying roles, responsibilities and funding sources for multi-use facilities, like Kiwanis Park and RBJ Schlegel Park isnecessary to ensure the appropriate allocation of funds for various shared assets. Note, this work should be undertaken as an internal process review, and is not specifically related to a LFMP recommendation. 4.1.2 Methodology 29 11 - 59 Building condition assessments were conducted on six recreation facilities identified by City staff. The sample facilities included: Centreville Chicopee Community CentreCountry Hills Community Centre Breithaupt Centre Idlewood Pool Grand River Arena Activa Sportsplex The facilities listed above were carefully selected by Community Services staff to demonstrate the wide range of Kitchener’s facilities. Staff selected facilities based on size, age and function. The portfolio of facilities used for the benchmarking activity is diverse and reflects the common features of other similar recreation facilities. Uniformat, an industry standard used to classify building specifications, estimate costs and review major building components, was used to report on the six facilities above. Using the sample building information, staff reviewed recreation facilities within each category to extrapolate comparison information, including cost per square foot at the element/component levels. The comparison information was reviewed by staff and used to project investment requirements for a 0-5 year and 6-10 year timeframe. Note that other City of Kitchener facility assets were not included as part of this study, including 43 occupied facilities and over 170 ancillary buildings. Additional funds, time and staff resources are required toaccurately capture building condition assessments for all recreation facilities. 30 11 - 60 11 - 61 5.0 Utilization and Participation Analysis This section includes an overview of facility utilization and participation for arenas, pools, community centres, sport fields and diamonds. 5.1 Arenas and outdoor rinks The City of Kitchener owns and operates 10 indoor ice pads at six arena facilities. Queensmount arena is used for indoor sporting activities (e.g. ball hockey, lacrosse) and special events. The City has 35 outdoor rinks maintained by more than 350 dedicated volunteers. The rinks are dependent on weather conditions and the number of volunteers available to support the program each year. 5.1.1 Key findings 1. All ice pads, except the Sportsworld Gay Lea pad, due to Victus Academy, have available ice time during non-prime hours (Monday to Friday from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.). 2. All arenas have been operating at80%capacity and above during the prime time hours (weeknights and weekends) for the past three years. 3. According to staff scheduling records, there is not a significant change in who is using ice time or how many hours they require; however, the demand for prime ice time has increased because players prefer to play on weeknights between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. or Saturdays. 4. Accessibility and size of dressing rooms is the top challenge reported by users and staff. Dressing rooms do not currently meet accessibility and inclusion standards. In addition, the dressing rooms at Lions and Don McLaren are small compared to other facilities. 5.1.2 Inventory Table 8:City of Kitchener arena inventory, 2018 Facility Name Ice Pad Size Notes Kitchener Memorial Dom Cardillo rink 85’ x 185’ The Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex – Auditorium Complex known as The AUD –is the region’s premier Kinsmen rink 85’ x 200’ sports and entertainment facility. The AUD is (The AUD) home to the Kitchener Rangers Jr. A Hockey Kiwanis rink 85’ x 200 Club, Kitchener Dutchmen Jr. B Hockey Club, K- WBraves Lacrosse Club, KW Titans and Panthers. Activa Sportplex Kitchener Minor 85’x 200’ Activa Sportsplex is a multi-purpose facility with Hockey Association an indoor track that hosts ice sports, summer Alumni rink indoor sports. This facility is home to Waterloo Region Box Academy and KMHA. Patrick J. Doherty rink 85’ x 200’ Sportsworld Arena Gay Lea rink 85’ x 200’ Sportsworld is home to the Kitchener Adult Hockey League, Victus Academy and other Practice rink 85’ x 200’ seasonal users. Don McLaren Arena One ice surface 85’ x 185’ Home to KW Skating Club and other seasonal user groups. Grand River Arena One ice surface 85’ x 185’ Home seasonal user groups. Lions Arena One ice surface 85’ x 185’ Home of Kitchener Ringette Association and seasonal user groups. Outdoor rinks –35 31 11 - 62 5.1.3 Utilization The following charts include the total number of hours of ice time available compared to the total hours booked for prime and non-prime hours. A new data source (ACTIVE Net) was installed in 2017, which influenced the methodology for interpreting the data. The best comparison for usage data is the 16/17 season to 17/18 because both seasons use Active Net. Table 9: Non-prime (Monday to Friday) arena usage, 2014-2017 Non prime, Monday to Friday, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Oct 2013. –Mar. Oct. 2014-Mar. Oct. 2015-Mar. Oct. 2016-Mar. Oct. 2017-Mar. 20142015201620172018 Arena Total Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. hours %%%%% booked booked booked booked booked available Activa Alumni 1040520.45 48%49648%52150%54953%50949% Activa PJD 104057455%39838%46745%56254%692.5 67% Sportsworld Gay 1040152.45 15%19419%20720%55754%974.7 93% Lea* Sportsworld 1040152.15 15%17317%24924%31730%51349% Practice Lions 104027326%26325%21421%25725%56354% Grand River 960521.3 54%47950%36038%42845%61163% Don McLaren 104022321%21320%14614%16516%408.5 40% Dom Cardillo** 1040602.45 58%56755%62060%61659%83985% Kinsmen 96056459%50252%47650%55358%616.5 64% Kiwanis 920492.3 54%44148%35939%45850%349.5 38% *Home to Victus Academy as of September 2016 **Home to Kitchener Rangers ***The above chart includes free school usage during daytime hours Figure 6:Arena usage–total non-prime hours booked, 2014-2018 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1200.00 960 960 920 1000.00 800.00 600.00 400.00 200.00 0.00 2016/17 2017/18 Available (h) 32 11 - 63 Table 10: Prime time (Monday to Friday) arena usage, 2014-2018 Prime: Monday to Friday 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. Oct. 2013 –Mar. Oct. 2014-Mar. Oct. 2015-Mar. Oct. 2016-Mar. Oct. 2017-Mar. 20142015201620172018 Arena Total Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. %%%%% hours booked booked booked booked booked available Activa 78074195%75697%780100%802103%76698% Alumni Activa PJD 78068087%75597%77599%804103%74095% Sportsworld 780800103%829106%814104%845108%72593% Gay Lea Sportsworld 780786101%786101%819105%794102%778100% Practice 78069990%67386%70691%70791%855 Lions 110% Grand River 750750100%72897%64286%74399%68892% 78071792%74495%72893%70891%792 Don 102% McLaren Dom Cardillo 78075497%73794%75997%75196%61598% Kinsmen 60798% 73270096%66190%70396%745102% Kiwanis 60192% 70262389%64391%67396%721103% *Kinsmen and Kiwanis total hours available is less because the ice comes out early for the Home Show and goes in later in one pad resulting in less hours overall. Figure 7: Arena usage prime time (Monday to Friday, 5 p.m. to 11 p.m.) 2014-2018 900.00 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 750 800.00 732 702 700.00 600.00 500.00 400.00 300.00 200.00 100.00 0.00 2016/17 2017/18 Available (h) 33 11 - 64 Table 11: Prime (Saturday/Sunday) arena usage, 2014-2018 Prime: Saturday and Sunday 7 a.m. 11 p.m. Oct. 2013 –Oct. 2014-Mar. Oct. 2015-Mar. Oct. 2016-Mar. Oct. 2017-Mar. Mar. 2014 2015201620172018 Arena Total Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. %%%%% hours booked booked booked booked booked available 83277493%80797%79596%79095%755.75 91% Activa Alumni 83276792%82299%81798%80997%77793% Activa PJD 83276592%74389%76091%77293%755.5 91% Sportsworld Gay Lea 83275090%76592%80296%76392%766.25 92% Sportsworld Practice 83265378%74590%75290%79696%683.5 82% Lions 80075695%79399%71389%798100%691.5 86% Grand River 83276692%78094%832100%70585%70585% Don McLaren 83269183%71886%72687%77293%674.5 81% Dom Cardillo 76867688%69791%72194%74196%681.5 89% Kinsmen 73657378%63186%65689%67492%630.5 86% Kiwanis *Kinsmen and Kiwanis total hours available is less because the ice comes out early for the Home Show and goes in later in one pad resulting in less hours overall. Figure 8: Arena usage –total prime (Saturday/Sunday) total hours booked, 2014-2018 832 832 832 832 832 832 832 900 800 768 736 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2016/17 2017/18 Available (h) 34 11 - 65 5.1.4 Analysis City of Kitchener arenas are operating at 80%capacity and above during prime time hours (weeknights and weekends). Ice time remains available during weekdays at most facilities. Currently, there is enough ice time based on needs expressed by users groups; however, there is not enough prime ice time. Staff reported that there is no significant change in the total number of hours required by user groups over the past three years; however, the demand for prime ice time is increasing. For example, user groups want more ice time on weeknights between 5 p.m. and 4 p.m. and weekends. This does not mean they need additional hours but have increased demand for preferred ice time. ice Kitchener Minor Hockey Association (KMHA) reported the need for an additional 20 hours of time. According to City of Kitchener records, KMHA booked 4.5 fewer hours in the 2018/19 season than the 2016/17 season, which were all early morning practice times. KW Oldtimers Hockey Club also reported a full roster of 30 teams; they do not plan to add any additional teams. The full time roster has remained consistent for the past four years and the part time player list continues to grow by approximately 10 players per year. This aligns with the trend for adult drop-in sports and the desire to play at personal convenience rather than regularly scheduled games. KW Oldtimers does not require additional hours, but has strong preference for additional hours during prime time. Staff are working closely with affiliated and non-affiliated groups to maximize available prime time hours. Further investigation is required to determine the need for a new arena facility. Staff should understand the benefits and risks of adding inventory to accommodate prime ice time needs and what the impact will be to overall ice usage across City. Some arenas cannot be used to their full potential due to facility limitations, including the ice Dom Cardillo and Lions arena.Dom Cardillo host many special events making it difficult to offer consistent scheduling to non-affiliated leagues (i.e. Old Timers) and there is no other place to accommodate this group. The dressing rooms at Lions arena are too small for adult affiliated teams and adult groups who have a large number of participants. 5.1.5 Stakeholder input See Appendix J for additional stakeholder results. Based on feedback from parents, affiliated groups are looking for program consistency (i.e. parents want children to play at the same arena at the same time each week) and are resistant to early/late ice times. There has also been an increased need for specialized, elite level training for youth hockey players and groups offering specialized camps. Rentals from non-affiliated adult seasonal groups are declining because some time slots are considered “too late” for adult participants. The most common challenge reported by staff and user groups was the lack of suitable change room facilities atDon McLaren and Lions arena. Users reported a need for changing areas that accommodate all players, not just males. Further, change rooms do not have adequate warm up space or technology requirements to coach players. All upgrades in change room facilities should be planned according to new accessibility and inclusion standards. Users reported the ice surface size and condition as “good” at all arenas. Some facilities are better suited to tournament play, including the AUD, Sportsworld and Activa due to appropriate seating, parking and concessions. As the City of Kitchener grows, consideration should be given to an arena in the southwest. Staff should conduct a comprehensive analysis of registration trends and projected growth of affiliated ice users and 35 11 - 66 current scheduling practices, which should be completed before the next LFMP (2023) so a decision can be made on the timing of a new arena. Outdoor rinks are a valued neighbourhood asset that support non-programmed play and encourage recreation outside of traditional programmed ice sports. There were many comments about outdoor rinks in the public engagement survey related to lack of rink maintenance. There is a strong interest in using outdoor rinks but the survey suggests a higher level of maintenance. 36 11 - 67 5.2 Aquatic centres Aquatics services a large and diverse population by offering programs from early childhood (infants) to late adulthood (90+). More importantly, swimming is an important and essential life skill, which means most Kitchener residents have likely visited a City pool at some point in their lifetime. Each pool offers a variety of recreational swim programs, aqua fitness classes and swimming lessons for all ages. Specialty programs are also offered including warm pool fitness programs, leadership and lifeguard courses and introduction to water sports. 5.2.1 Key findings 1. All aquatic facilities are operating at a capacity of 90% or greater during prime time hours in the summer and school year seasons. 2. All facilities are operating a minimum of 65% capacity during non-prime hours, with some sport group rental and registered programs scheduled as early as 5:30 a.m. 3. Lack of family and accessible change rooms is a common challenge reported by users and staff. Family change areas are not large enough and do meet accessibility and inclusion standards. 4. According to the online survey, swimming and water sports are the most popular recreation activities among Kitchener residents. Approximately 70% of residents have visited an indoor pool within the past 12 months and residents ranked an indoor pool as the third priority (next to parks and trails). 5.2.2 Inventory Table 12:City of Kitchener aquatic centre inventory, 2018 Indoor Pools (open all year) Facility Name Size Bather capacity Features Breithaupt Centre 22.8m x 10.9 m 138 people –main Warm water exercise pool, diving board, pool small slide, family change room, connected 20 people –warm pool to Breithaupt Centre Cameron Heights Pool 25m x 10.8m 230 people Sauna and diving board. Located within Cameron Heights Collegiate Institute Forest Heights Pool 25m x 12m 230 people-main pool Located beside Kitchener Public Library and 50 people -warm pool Forest Heights Collegiate Institute.Male and female saunas, warm water pool, diving board, accessibility features including two ramps and family change room Lyle Hallman Pool Free form with 175 people Waterslide, sauna, warm water pool, family three 25m lanes change room Outdoor Pools (open June to September) Facility Name Size Bather capacity Features Harry Class Pool 59.4m x 22.8m 600 people Large shallow end, diving boards, water slide Idlewood Pool 22.8m x 10.9m 175 people Large shallow end, located in large park Wilson Pool 18m x 12m 120people Large shallow end (max depth is 4 ft.), located in large park Kiwanis Park Large shallow 1,000 people Sloped beach entry to basin style pool (max circular concrete depth is 4 ft.) located in large park of 119 pool and spray acres of green space. features 37 11 - 68 5.2.3 Utilization Table 13:Non-prime time weekday: September 3, 2017 to June 30, 2018 School Year Non Prime: Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Total hours Total hours % available/week booked/week Forest Heights warm 402665% Forest Heights 25m* 402665% Cameron Heights** 000% Lyle Hallman 403998% Breithaupt warm 402973% Breithaupt 25m*** 4045113% *Forest Heights offers programs beginning as early as 5:30 a.m. **Cameron Heights pool is not available until 4 p.m. on weekdays as per partnership agreement with school board ***Breithaupt offers several rentals beginning at 5:30 a.m. Table 14:Prime time weeknight: September 3, 2017 to June 30, 2018 School Year Prime: Monday to Friday, 4 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Total hours available Total hours booked % Forest Heights warm 27.5 2388% Forest Heights 25m 27.5 2492% Cameron Heights* 27.5 28101% Lyle Hallman 27.5 29105% Breithaupt warm 27.5 2073% Breithaupt 25m 27.5 26.5 96% *Cameron Heights buys back one hour from the school board to accommodate programming needs **Pools over 100% capacity are open past 9:30 p.m. to accommodate programming Table 15:Prime time weekend September 3, 2017 to June 30, 2018 School Year Prime: Saturday Sunday, 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Total hours Total hours % available/week booked/week Forest Heights warm 2630111% Forest Heights 25m 2627104% Cameron Heights* 2629112% Lyle Hallman 2624.5 94% Breithaupt warm 2622.25 86% Breithaupt 25m 2623.5 90% *Cameron Heights has rentals as early as 6:30 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday 38 11 - 69 Table 16:Prime time: summer June 30, 2018 to September 9, 2018 Indoor Pools Summer Prime Sunday through Saturday, 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Total hours Total hours % available/week booked/week Forest Heights Warm 9167.5 74% Forest Heights 25m 9174.5 82% Cameron Heights 9192.5 102% Lyle Hallman 9183 91% Breithaupt Warm 9169 76% 91 81% Breithaupt 25m 74 Outdoor Pools Summer Prime Sunday through Saturday Total hours Total hours % available/week booked/week Harry Class* 52.5 61 116% Wilson** 52.5 46 88% Idlewood* 52.5 52 99% Kiwanis**** 4242 100% *Harry Class opens at 9 a.m. Monday to Friday and noon on Saturday and Sunday **Wilson opens at 12:30 p.m. Monday to Friday and 2 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday ***Idlewood opens at 11:30 a.m. Monday to Friday ****Kiwanis pool hours vary between May and September and is weather dependent. The number shown above is an average week in July. Figure 7: Indoor pool usage based on program type –school year (Sept. 3 to June 30) 20 Breithaupt warm 63.5 0 30.5 Breithaupt 25m 51 21 16.5 Lyle Hallman 71 0 11 Cameron Heights 27 20 22.5 Forest Heights 25m 55 6.5 18 Forest Heights warm 54 0 0 1020304050607080 Tot. Hrs Non-Registered Program Tot. Hrs Registered Program Tot. Hrs Rented 39 11 - 70 Table 17: Bather load counts for 2017/2018 Approx.Approx. Annual Total Busiest Month Weekly Total Daily Total Forest Heights 106,109 11,809 (May) 2, 040 292 Cameron Heights 21,546 2,791 (August) 41459 Cameron Heights 6,501 1,814 (November) 12518 (school use) Lyle Hallman 104,206 10,932 (May) 2,004 286 Breithaupt 82,984 9,815(November) 1,596 228 Wilson 3,462 1,918 (July) 43362 Harry Class 28,599 12,166 (July) 3,574 510 Idlewood 4,865 2,425 (July) 60887 Kiwanis 50, 200 24,635 (July) 4,183 598 *Wilson, Harry Class and Idlewood are based on an 8-week schedule. **Kiwanis Park is based on a 12-week schedule. 5.2.4 Analysis Aquatic facilities typically receive pressure from four primary groups: sport users, rentals (birthday parties/community groups), swimming lessons and recreation users (lane swim, aqua fit). It is becoming increasingly difficult to meet the needs of all users given the current size and number of facilities. The high usage rates during prime time hours (shown in Tables 14-16) demonstrate that most facilities are operating close to maximum capacity. Pool size and the associated amenities, including change rooms and parking make it difficult to increase the number of programs, and available spots, during prime time hours. Bather load is an important variable and should be considered in relation to utilization rates because it demonstrates how many people are physically in the pool during programmed hours. For example, the 25m pool at Forest Heights has an overall utilization rate of 87%during the school year and the Breithaupt 25m pool has an overall utilization rate of 102% during the same time period; however, the daily bather load at Forest Heights is slightly higher. Therefore, even though Forest Heights is programmed for fewer hours more people visit the pool each day than Breithaupt. This data does not suggest that one pool is operated more efficiently than the other; it does indicate that pool size and associated amenities like change rooms and parking impact the way a facility can be used and programmed. Breithaupt Centre Breithaupt Centre is a unique facility due to its multi-purpose functionality. Breithaupt includes a warm pool, 25m pool and a community centre. Currently, the 25m pool is operating at 113% capacity on weekdays, which is likely due to the type of programming and demographic who use this facility during the day. The warm water pool has a capacity of 20 swimmers and people are regularly turned away from some programs like aqua fitness and lessons. The warm pool usage ranges from 73% to 86% during the school year. Although pool hours could be extended to increase utilization, the demographic requesting warm water programs is not likely to attend programs earlier in the morning or later in the evening. In addition, other factors like change room size play a role in how the warm pool is programmed. 40 11 - 71 Further, swimming lessons are at capacity during prime time hours. Additional classes cannot be added due to size limitations of the 25m pool. Five aquatic sport groups and swim teams rent space at Breithaupt Pool on a weekly basis. Breithaupt pool opens as early as 5:30 a.m. six days a week to accommodate these rental groups. Cameron Heights Cameron Heights Secondary School has access to the swimming pool during daytime hours. The City of Kitchener has access to the pool Monday to Friday from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. and Saturdays and Sundays. The pool is currently operating at full capacity (during City use) and borrows one hour of additional pool time from the Waterloo District School Board Monday to Thursday during the school year. This pool is a popular location for sport users (KW Diving Club, Water Polo and swimming clubs). Forest Heights Forest Heights pool is very busy during prime time hours particularly with swimming lessons, which are in high demand. It is becoming more difficult to accommodate citizens requesting lessons at a specific day and time of week.The warm pool at Forest Heights has a capacity of 50 swimmers and has similar utilization and programming challenges as Breithaupt. Change room space is in short supply during prime time hours. Parents with younger children prefer to use our private change stalls in the family change area, which is not large enough to serve everyone. Meanwhile,the open male and female change areas are underutilized. Finally, Forest Heights shares a parking lot with the library and high school, all of which are programmed independently. This can lead to an extreme shortage of parking at certain times, causing disruptions in facility usage during busy times. Lyle Hallman Lyle Hallman Pool is a multi-use facility that includes warm, shallow water zones and an indoor water slide. These features make Lyle Hallman a popular choice for public swimming and draw bathers from beyond the immediate neighbourhood. Swimming lessons are at capacity during prime time hours with waitlists of over 100 participants, which the City cannot accommodate. Adult programming and lessons during non-prime hours (weekdays) is becoming more popular. However, there is a slight decline in winter months due to weather conditions. With only three lanes in the main pool, it is difficult to schedule lessons and adult programming at the same time. Summer camp programs are full and exceeding capacity. The facility shares parking with lawn bowling, baseball diamonds and the Grand River arena facilities making it difficult to expand pool capacity when parking is limited. Further, change rooms and viewing areas are small, which impacts pool capacity. Harry Class pool Harry Class is an outdoor pool with a large shallow end, deep area with a diving board, dedicated lane area and two-story waterslide. The amenities include a large shade structure, a family/gender neutral change area and washrooms. The change area is accessible; however, there are no accessible parking spots and the pool is not accessible. The pool is large, which allows multiple programs to run at the same time including public, family and lane swimming, swim classes, aquatic leadership courses and sport group rentals. Parking is extremely limited with only 25 to 30 dedicated spots making it difficult for 41 11 - 72 residents to find nearby parking. There are approximately 80 to 100 parking spots in an adjacent soccer field but the gate stays locked when there is no attendant. Idlewood pool Idlewood is an outdoor pool, largely used by the residents in its immediate area. Most participants walk or ride their bikes. Staff at this location work diligently to engage youth in a positive way. The presence of this pool in this neighborhood is important in providing affordable accessible recreation. This pool has not reached capacity yet but participation is on the rise due to extensive community engagement. The facility does not have gender neutral or family style change space, and is not accessible although recent changes have improved this. Wilson pool Wilson pool is an outdoor pool located within Wilson Park. It is a shallow pool with a 4 ft. deep end. This facility was renovated in 2010, and now includes a family change area. The pool is not accessible but does have stairs to enter the pool along the shallow end. These amenities attract families with younger children living in the neighborhood. Typically, children over the age of 10 do not attend the pool as frequently as younger children due to the shallowness of the pool. The afternoon public swim and early evening swim lessons are becoming more popular. Staff work with the Kingsdale Community center summer sport camp to attend weekly swims as well as a daily swim for the Royal City soccer camp participants. 42 11 - 73 5.2.5 Stakeholder input See Appendix J for additional stakeholder results. Staff reported increased demand for swimming lessons during prime time hours. Swimming lessons and classes are full every night in most pools. They noted an increase in family swim and the Swim to Survive program as new Canadians join the community and take an interest in aquatic programs. Additionally, access to the warm pools are in high demand for classes like aqua fit and senior programs. Pool size restricts the ability to meet programming needs. Stakeholders expressed a need for an Olympic size pool to accommodate water sports, diving and larger areas for swimming lessons and fitness programming, which would enable more programming during prime time hours. An elite aquatic facility and/or Olympic size pool should be a Regional facility and not the sole responsibility of one municipality. A facility of this scale requires support and input from all municipalities, townships, post-secondary institutions and other partners in Waterloo Region. User groups are leaving KW to swim elsewhere, including the KW Diving Club who practices in Brantford. Staff expressed a strong concern about the lack of accessible change rooms, including gender-neutral options at all aquatic facilities. Supporting amenities like change rooms, parking and viewing areas should be scaled accordingly to accommodate increased traffic through the facility. Residents shared similar challenges and opportunities in the public consultation, including: -the need for a larger, Regional aquatic facility in the south-end; -improved change room facilities; and, -more time for swimming lessons, public and lane swim. 43 11 - 74 5.3 Community Centres Kitchener’s commitment to building safe and thriving neighbourhoods comes from a longstanding vision rooted in neighbourhood oriented programs and services. Many community centres are standalone facilities designed as the central place for neighbourhood building and recreation. In August 2018, a full review of community centre conditions and needs was completed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate enhancement/improvement opportunities necessary for existing community centres and identify any future needs as population grows in the City’s south end. In December 2018, staff took a closer look at the City’s community centre utilization to address facility usage gaps and opportunities. 5.3.1 Key findings 1. Community centre gymnasiums are operating at a minimum of 80% capacity and higher and there is a clear need for additional gymnasium space and/or available hours. 2. Larger spaces tend to be used more frequently than smaller program rooms and areas with specific design requirements like dance and preschool rooms are used less often due to design constraints. 3. Community centre utilization tends to increase during the summer months when the City takes on a larger role in direct programming. This may offer an opportunity to increase usage at existing centres while also meeting the diverse needs beyond traditional recreation programming. 4. Evenings tend to be the busiest time across most community centres with gymnasium drop-in programs being very popular among youth. There is additional capacity available on the weekends when most community centres are underutilized. 5.3.2 Inventory The City of Kitchener operates 13 community centers: Breithaupt centre (see Country Hills centre Mill Courtland centre aquatics section) Doon Pioneer Park centre Rockway centre Bridgeport centre Forest Heights centre Stanley Park centre Centreville Chicopee centre Kingsdale centre Victoria Hills centre Chandler Mowat centre Williamsburg centre 44 11 - 75 Williamsburg 45 Victoria Hills s an Stanley Park programming Rockway . This data show Mill Courtland Kingsdale Forest Heights Weekend Avg Downtown ortant consideration when making Country Hills Chandler Mowat Evening Centreville Chicopee Courtland and Stanley Park community centres are busy - Bridgeport r 2018) e Williamsburg and Mill Afternoon Victoria Hills Stanley Park in programs. This data should be an imp - Rockway Morning 2018 schedules. The information also aligns with key findings from staff who reported that evenings Mill Courtland used for drop and demonstrates that evenings are generally the busiest times at most centres Kingsdale is the busiest in the afternoon, November Forest Heights Weekday Avg Downtown that Rockway Country Hills Chandler Mowat Centreville Chicopee Utilization It is important to note Bridgeport shows facility usage based on time of day 4.3.3 sions. 0 50 300 250 200 150 100 Figure 8: Weekday and weekend total room usage (based on NovemebFigure 8 average number of hours booked based on are often the busiest times where gymnasiums are deciconsistently throughout the day. 11 - 76 5.3.4 Analysis Residents, staff and members of council praise the City for its highly valued and well-maintained network of community centres, and consider them an essential neighbourhood asset. The key findings of this data suggest that there is additional work required to understand how to program and use each community centre more effectively. The data collected through the Leisure Facilities Master Plan project helped uncover where the strengths and gaps exist among community centre operations. Moving forward, Neighbourhood Programs and Services will use this information to make decisions related to programming, policy and other key factors related to the day-to-day operations of the City’s community centres. The current Neighbourhood Affiliation Policy and Use of Space Policy create barriers that prevent residents from accessing available space in community centres. Residents and staff reported that it is difficult to access space when neighbourhood associations frequently book the facility for extended periods. The Neighbourhood Programs and Services team is currently reviewing both policies to address these challenges. In 2019, the City will work closely with neighbourhood associations to find a solution to reduce barriers and increase access to community space. 5.3.5 Stakeholder input Gymnasium organizations indicated that participation is strong within their groups, which they primarily attribute to the affordability of gym-based programs. The Kitchener Waterloo Youth Basketball Association uses school gymnasiums across Kitchener-Waterloo and the gymnasium at RIM Park. They reported over 1,000 youth members between the ages of 4 and 18. Glendon Gymnastics has approximately 3,000 youth, adult participants, and itoffersprograms out of their own facility. Due to space constraints, each group reported that they are unable to take on new participants. Participation in programs offered by neighbourhood associations vary by organization and by location. Neighbourhood associations operate and deliver programs based upon their own philosophies, organizational capacities and perceived understanding of community needs; thus, there is little to no consistency or coordination between them. As a result, a broad range of programs are collectively provided by the neighbourhood associations and tend to be based on traditional recreation programming like dance, basketball, badminton, volleyball, and gymnastics, as well as low-impact fitness (e.g., yoga) and programs that involve parents and toddlers. The three neighbourhood associations that attended the stakeholder input session (Downtown Neighbourhood Alliance,Huron Neighbourhood Association and Boardwalk Neighbourhood Association) all reported that their most popular programs typically have between 10 and 30 registrants with some additional drop-in participants. With respect to existing gymnasium usage, organizations suggested that the City undertake a review of all programs that are currently offered within gymnasiums to ensure that they are provided in appropriate places. Similarly, they suggested that the City identify any programs that may be underperforming to see if there are opportunities to re-program the gymnasium with more in-demand indoor sports and recreation activities. Other ideas to address the provision of gymnasium space or programs were to explore partnership opportunities with neighbourhood associations, school boards, and non-municipal space providers. City staff reported that gymnasiums tend to be booked by neighbourhood associations. However, staff are not aware of how many participants are using the space in a given time or for a specific program. Staff noted that it is challenging to deliver programming requested by the community where times have already been allocated to a neighbourhood association. As mentioned above, the existing Use of Space 46 11 - 77 and Neighbourhood Affiliation Policy create barriers for residents and sport groups trying to book community centre gymnasium space. Neighbourhood associations get the first right to book community centre space and often forget to cancel if a program does not fill up or if the space is no longer required. In addition, there is no way to determine if the gymnasium is the correct space for the planned activity. For example, a neighbourhood association may book a yoga class in the gymnasium and a basketball group might be turned away. Additionally, the City’s gymnasiums have design limitations such as a small floor area and/or low ceiling height (Centreville-Chicopee Community Centre and Mill Courtland Community Centre are examples of the latter). Staff at some of Kitchener’s community centres reported the lack of a gymnasium (e.g., Bridgeport Community Centre, Rockway Centre, and Williamsburg Community Centre) has been a challenge when providing active indoor programs, although staff are able to make due with programming multi-purpose spaces. City of Kitchener staff noted that certain programs delivered in gymnasiums by neighbourhood associations would be better suited in a multi-purpose program room (e.g. cards, board games) and shifting such uses would open up the gyms for more active programs that require the large floor area and ceiling height. In other instances, program participation may be low resulting in inefficient gymnasium use. Often programs that would attract higher participant numbers cannot take place in the gym because other activities are scheduled when they could be relocated to a smaller, multi-purpose area. Re-assigning or relocating such activities would free up space at the gymnasium for active indoor recreation activities. 47 11 - 78 5.4 Sport fields The City of Kitchener has 47 sport fields, including two synthetic turf playing surfaces at Woodside Park and two lit fields (one at Budd Park and one at Centennial Stadium). Two additional turf fields with lights are scheduled for construction in 2020 at Schlegel Park. In September 2018, a demand study of sport fields was completed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the demand and existing utilization of Kitchener’s multi-use fields. The information below is based on the key findings reported by Monteith-Brown. 5.4.1 Key findings 5. Sport field rentals for 2018 reached an 86% utilization rate, which is a 13% increase from 2015. 6. B level fields have the highest utilization rate, which is likely due to the number of available fields and rental costs. 7. When full sized fields are used for micro, mini and 9V9 play there are significant maintenance and operations factors related to the increased wear and tear on fields and the surrounding facilities (i.e. parking, washrooms, nearby neighbourhoods). A sport field allocation policy should be considered to address the increased usage and appropriate programming of fields. 8. Residents ranked sport fields among the top five priorities the City should focus on the next 10 to 15 years. There were over 255 comments related to fields; 198 were related to the need for additional fields and 16 were related to improving existing fields. Further, 58% of residents said they have used an outdoor field within the past 12 months. 48 11 - 79 5.4.2 Inventory Table 19:City of Kitchener rectangular field inventory, 2018 Classification Inventory A1 Field *Budd Park #1 Kaufman Field #1 (18Fields) Budd Park #2 Meinzinger Park (5 x Mini fields) Budd Park #3 (9v9/Full) Resurrection H.S. #1 A1 fields are irrigated and. Field Budd Park #4 (9v9/Full) Resurrection H.S. #2 lighting and washrooms are available *Centennial Stadium Resurrection H.S. #3 at selected locations. Fields are lined Eastwood Collegiate St. Mary’s H.S. Upper weekly and are maintained at 2.5” grass height. Forest Heights Collegiate Main St. Mary’s H.S. Lower Grand River Collegiate #1 *Woodside #1 (synthetic turf) Huron Heights H.S. #1 *Woodside #2 (synthetic turf) Grand River Collegiate #2 Budd # 5 (6 x micro/Full) A2 Field Huron Heights H.S. #2 Budd # 6 (6 x micro/Full) (11 Fields) Kaufman Park #2 Bridgeport #1 A2 fields are unlit and unirrigated. Lion’s Park #1 (9v9/Full) Bridgeport #2 Fields are lined weekly (or as Wilson Park Fisher #1 required) and are maintained at 2.5” grass height.Fisher #2 (6 x micro) Laurentian Park #1 Biehn Park (9v9/Full) B1 Field Laurentian Park #2 Carlyle Park (13 Fields) Morrison Park #1 Cloverdale Park B1 fields are unlit and Morrison Park #2 Eby Park unirrigated. They are maintained Morrison Park #3 Idlewood Park on a two-week rotation. Westheights Park Kiwanis Park Knollwood Park Crestview S1& S2 Field Forest Height Collegiate #4 (1 S1 Field and 4 S2 Fields) Montgomery S2 are cut on a two to three week Rockway School rotation. Some fields are Westheights School maintained by the school board if they’re programed operations take over the cutting * current conditions and dimensions challenge programming. *Source: City of Kitchener sports and operations staff Notes 1. Kiwanis Park has seven ultimate disc fields that are contained in an area roughly in size to where one full rectangular field can fit, and is therefore counted as the equivalent of one rectangular field 2. The following fields are no longer booked and have been excluded from the supply for the purposes of this study: Country Hills Park, Countryside Park, Driftwood Park, Lion’s Park #2, Mackenzie King, Morgan Park, Queensmount Park, Queen Elizabeth School, Rockway School, Smithson, Southridge, St. Dominic Savio, Sunnyside School, Trillium School, Westwood Park field. 3. RBJ Schlegel Park is not reflected inthe inventory, but is anticipated toopen in2020with two synthetic fields (A1) and one multi-use field. 49 11 - 80 5.4.3 Utilization Table 19: Prime time total hours booked on rectangular fields Prime: Monday to Thursday Rectangular 2015201620172018 Fields Number Total Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. of Hours %%%% Booked Booked Booked Booked Fields Available A1 *Lights 270441058%29442%33347%472.5 67% A1 *Woodside #1 1744781105%53872%66189%754101% A1 *Woodside #2 162049580%38262%53586%684110% A11831682474.5 78%244677%263883%2535.5 80% A2111936632.5 33%110657%148477%179092% B1322882515110%3069.5 134%2350103%2142.5 94% S588027031%498.5 57%43750%51158% Totals 5110340757873%833481%8439.09 82%8889.5 86% *Source: ACTIVE Net, City staff Notes: Hours available are based on: Fields with lights: 4 hrs. x 4 days x 22 weeks Fields without lights: 2 hrs. x 4 days x 22 weeks *Woodside 1 &2–April 1 –Nov 1 (31 weeks) Figure 9:Prime time diamond rentals by field classification, 2015 -2018 3500 3168 3000 2288 2500 1936 2000 1500 880 1000 744 704 620 500 0 A1 *Lights A1 *Woodside A1 *Woodside A1 A2 B S #1 #2 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Hours Available 50 11 - 81 Table 20: Non-prime total hours booked on rectangular fields Non Prime: Friday to Sunday Rectangular 2015201620172018 Fields Total Number Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hours %%%% of Fields Booked Booked Booked Booked Available A1 *Lights 2528268.5 51%12123%25548%29957% A1 *Woodside #1 1105444242%39237%42340%44442% A1 *Woodside #2 1102332632%229.5 22%31531%417.5 41% A118396093324%100125%86222%101026% A2112420342.5 14%39116%65727%102042% B132860736.5 26%89231%61522%535.5 19% S51100585%1039%878%10710% Totals 51129453106.5 24%3129.5 24%3214.91 25%383330% *Source: ACTIVE Net, City staff Notes: Hours available are based on: Fields with lights: 4 hrs. x 3 days x 22 weeks Fields without lights: 2 hrs. /Friday x 4 hrs. weekend x 22 weeks *Woodside 1 & 2 –April 1 –Nov 1 (31 weeks) Figure 10:Non-prime time diamond rentals by field classification, 2015 -2018 4500 3960 4000 3500 2860 3000 2420 2500 2000 1500 1054 1023 1100 1000 528 500 0 A1 *Lights A1 *Woodside A1 *Woodside A1 A2 B S #1 #2 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Hours Available 51 11 - 82 5.4.4 Analysis City of Kitchener scheduling staff indicated there is increased weekend usage and demand for early and late prime time hours. Scheduling pressures mean that groups need to be flexible when selecting field times so the non-prime hours can be used more effectively, which will free up space during the prime hours.Staff recognize that a sports field allocation policy may be needed in order to prioritize and allocate sports field time between groups in a fair and transparent manner. Staff suggested that partnerships with schools should be considered in order to leverage school sports fields and alleviate pressures. Staff indicated that discussions with schools have occurred in the past but there has been no formal joint use agreement due to insufficient resources, particularly as school-based field supply and quality is a low priority for school boards. It is recognized that ongoing dialogue between the City, sports groups, and school boards is crucial in order to establish strong partnerships. Further investigation with field user groups is required to determine the drop in 2017 rentals, which may be related to weather conditions, anincreased need for micro fields (more players on one field) and desire to play on higher quality fields. 5.4.5 Stakeholder input During consultation, stakeholders expressed a need for additional A1 fields and/or upgrades to existing B fields to accommodate increasing registration and higher playing standards. City staff were praised for the high quality field maintenance and turf management practices applied to all fields across the City. Groups felt that City’s A1 rectangular sports fields are very high quality and conveniently located. The Kitchener Soccer Club reported that participation increased steadily over the past decade but has recently plateaued and remained stable. The soccer club reported that this is because the organization has not been able to get any additional field time and as a result, they have capped registration and are turning away potential participants. The lack of sufficient indoor field time is also a factor and the soccer club is facing competition from private non-affiliated soccer groups who are competing for the same pool of minor soccer participants. Both lacrosse and football organizations reported stable participation levels for their indoor and outdoor programs. With respect to lacrosse, the organization reported that participation in boys’ lacrosse varies each year, although there is an upward trend in girls’ participation. With respect to football, the organization introduced a flag football program, which has been very popular among younger participants and persons from diverse cultural groups that are less intimidated by safety with the non-tackle game. Staff echoed comments from the sport field user focus groups that there is a strong demand for A1 quality fields for both games and practices. Staff identified a need to replace and update aging fields and their associated amenities. While each location may differ, components that are in need of replacement may include player dugouts (diamonds) and seating, fencing, lighting, and more. The need to accommodate parking was also identified asan issue. This is primarily challenging in multi-field parks or subdivided fields (e.g. 5v5) where concurrent games/practices are taking place. 52 11 - 83 5.5 Ball Diamonds The City of Kitchener has 52 ball diamonds within parks used for organized sport and rentals, plus an additional 16 diamonds located on school board properties. The majority of diamonds are designed to softball specifications with four hardball diamonds located at Breithaupt Park, Lion’s Park and Jack Couch Stadium. A number of non-programmed diamonds exist within neighbourhood parks to facilitate drop-in and programmed play. In September 2018, a demand study of ball diamonds was completed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the demand and utilization of Kitchener’s ball diamonds. The information below is based on the key findings reported by Monteith-Brown. 5.5.1 Key Findings 1. Ball diamond rentals show stable usage over the past six seasons and growth in adult and minor leagues is expected over the next few years as field sports become more popular. 2. The City of Kitchener asked the Kitchener Minor Ball Association and other affiliated groups to restrict growth in the 2017 and 2018 season. During this time, the City has been working to light existing diamonds to increase inventory and accommodate the increaseddiamond usage. Sport groups have a desire to grow their programming, which means the City needs to find a solution as the demand for diamonds continues. 3. A1 diamonds account for 40% of all rentals followed by B1 diamonds at 31%.Stakeholders expressed significant demand for additional A1 diamonds to accommodate increased competitive play. 4. The top 10 diamond rentals are all part of multi-diamond facilities, which allow users to deliver programs in a central location. 5. Stakeholders reported diamonds and fields are of high quality and well maintained. However, there is a need to upgrade supporting amenities for safety purposes, including fencing, backstops, dugouts, parking, etc. 53 11 - 84 5.5.2 Inventory Table 21:City of Kitchener ball diamond inventory, 2018 Classification Inventory A1 Ball Diamond Breithaupt Park #1 *Lions Sports fields Diamond #2 (12 Diamonds) *Peter Hallman Ball Yard Diamond #1 Breithaupt Park #2 *Peter Hallman Ball Yard Diamond #2 Breithaupt Park #3 A1 ball diamonds have a clay or stonedust *Peter Hallman Ball Yard Diamond #3 *Bridgeport -Joe Thompson infield surface, groomed on a daily basis. All *Rosenberg Park Diamond #1 *Rosenberg *Budd Park Diamond #1 fields are irrigated and selected diamonds Park Diamond #2 *Budd Park Diamond #2 have team benches and outfield fencing. Field lighting is available at selected locations. Outfield maintained at 2.5” grass height. Bridgeport Sports fieldsCivitan #1 Southwest Optimist Diamond #4 A2Ball Diamond Bridgeport Sports fields Diamond #2 Southwest Optimist Diamond (13 Diamonds) Bridgeport Sports fields Diamond #3 #5 (T-Ball) A2 ball diamonds have a stone dust infield Lions Sports fields Diamond #1 Wilson Park Diamond #1 surface, groomed on a daily basis. All fields Southwest Optimist Diamond #1 Wilson Park Diamond #2 are irrigated and selected diamonds have Southwest Optimist Diamond #2 Wilson Park Diamond #3 team benches and outfield-fencing Outfield Southwest Optimist Diamond #3 Wilson Park Diamond #4 maintained at 2.5” grass height. Carlyle Park Diamond Hofstetter Park Diamond B1 Ball Diamond Cherry Park Diamond #1 Cherry Idlewood Park Diamond (27 Diamonds) Park Diamond #2 Country Hills Knollwood Park Diamond B1 ball diamonds have a stone dust infield Park Diamond Midland Park Diamond surface. Infield and outfield are maintained Crosby Park Diamond #1 Morrison Park Diamond Queensmount on a weekly basis. Crosby Park Diamond #2 Park Diamond #1 Queensmount Park Driftwood Park Diamond Diamond #2 Rittenhouse Park East Forest Park Diamond #1 Diamond East Forest Park Diamond #2 Rolling Meadows Park Diamond Forest Hill Park Diamond #1 Voisin Park Diamond Franklin Park Diamond Weber Park Diamond Westheights Greengable Park Diamond Park Diamond Westwood Park Gzowski Park Diamond Diamond #1 Hillside Park Diamond Sheppard School Diamond Alpine School Diamond S1 & S2 Ball Diamond Smithson School Diamond Franklin School Diamond #2 (16 Diamonds) Southridge School Diamond Franklin School Diamond #3 S2 ball diamonds have a stone dust infield, St Paul School Diamond John Sweeney School Diamond groomed on a weekly basis. The school St Timothy School Diamond Monsignor Gleason School Diamond board maintains outfield. Sunnyside School Diamond Trillium Monsignor Haller School Diamond School Diamond Pioneer Park School Diamond Wilson Ave School Diamond #1 Queen Elizabeth School Diamond *Source: City of Kitchener sports and operations staff Notes: 1. Hofstetter Park Ball diamond planned to be removed in 2023 as a part of River Road Extension. 2. Supply excludes neighbourhood/scrub diamonds that are not used for organized play as well asthe Unifor diamonds, which are privately owned and have a short-term use agreement. 3. KMAC Jack Couch Diamond is excluded from the supply for the purposes of this analysis. 4. Breithaupt Diamonds 1 and 2 lighting installed in 2019. 5. Monsignor Gleason, will no longer be listed in inventory in 2019, the school has been sold to a developer 54 11 - 85 5.5.3 Utilization Table 22: Prime (Monday to Thursday) total hours booked on ball diamonds Prime: Monday to Thursday Diamonds 2015201620172018 Total Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Number Hrs. Hours %%%% of Fields Booked Booked Booked Booked Available A1 *Lights 93564261673%260173%266075%2767.5 78% A13528544103%596113%584111%551.5 104% A2122112153673%158775%166779%1145.5 54% B284928235848%262053%248550%2742.5 56% S151320765.5 58%103178%102778%1031.5 78% Totals 67124527819.5 63%843568%842368%8238.5 66% *Source: ACTIVE Net, City staff Notes: Hours available are based on: Diamonds with lights: 4.5 hrs. x 4 days x 22 weeks Diamonds without lights: 2 hrs. x 4 days x 22 weeks S diamonds: 2 hrs. x 4 days x 11 weeks Figure 11: Prime time diamond rentals by diamond classification, 2015 -2018 6000 4928 5000 4000 3564 3000 2112 2000 1230 1000 528 0 A1 *Lights A1 A2 B S 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Hours Available 55 11 - 86 Table 23: Non-prime (Friday to Sunday) total hours booked on ball diamonds Non Prime: Friday to Sunday Diamonds 2015201620172018 Total Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Number Hours %%%% of Fields Booked Booked Booked Booked Available A1 *Lights 96534124319%162025%153824%1850.5 28% A131254656.5 52%67554%84067%876.5 70% A212501694819%118324%109122%62913% B281170410659%147313%189516%136412% S1531351946%2026%1926%243.5 8% Totals 67276434106.5 15%515319%555620%4963.5 18% *Source: ACTIVE Net, City staff Notes: Hours available are based on: Diamonds with lights: 33 hrs. x 22 weeks Diamonds without lights: 19 hrs. x 22 weeks S diamonds: 19 hrs. x 11 weeks Figure 12: Non-prime time diamond rentals by classification, 2015 -2018 6000 4928 5000 4000 3564 3000 2112 2000 1230 1000 528 0 A1 *Lights A1 A2 B S 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Hours Available 56 11 - 87 5.5.4 Analysis Demand for diamonds has increased over the last few years, particularly from Monday to Thursday. The peak pressure period occurs during house league season, which runs until the first weekend in July. During this time, the sport users have agreed to use non-prime time including weekend play. An allocation policy would help staff utilize inventory more effectively to better serve users. Scheduling staff worked with diamond users to push practices to weekends and reduce the number of extra bookings previously reserved for make-up games. In addition, staff worked with sport groups to find creative solutions to meet their needs (i.e. play spaces at Midland and Franklin, double headers for T-ball). These changes increased inventory to meet the needs of users with the request that sport groups do not expand their programs. The City anticipates many youth sport teams have an interest and need to expand programs to accommodate growing waitlists, which will increase demand for additional diamond inventory. 5.5.5 Stakeholder input During consultation, stakeholders strongly expressed a need for additional A1 diamonds and/or upgrades to existing B diamonds to accommodate increasing registration and higher playing standards. City staff were praised for the high quality maintenance applied to all diamonds across the City. Kitchener Minor Ball Association indicated that their registration is declining, particularly at the younger age groups. They are competing with neighbourhood associations for the t-ball market and believe that those who register through the neighbourhood associations are less likely to continue playing ball after they are no longer eligible for the neighbourhood-based programs. Compounding their challenge, they are seeing a trend of players moving to private leagues or specialized academies that are unaffiliated with Baseball Canada. All of these competing factors has affected minor ball throughout all age divisions. Kitchener Minor Girls Softball has grown by 25% since 2015 and reports that it has now capped its registration given that it has maximized its diamond allocation. They estimate that they could have grown 5% to 10%this past year if its diamond usage was not restricted. Groups reported that the quality of the City’s A1 diamonds is excellent; and they are proud of the facilities in terms of design and the City’s efforts to maintain them. They hope that a similar level of quality can be extended to the A2 and B1 diamonds, potentially by upgrading and/or enlarging certain ones in order to increase the supply of A1 diamonds. The current state of most B1 and S diamonds do not meet the needs of user groups. Groups observed that the City does not seem to have enough staff to allow more frequent or more skilled maintenance to take place on diamonds at the A2 and B1 level (unkempt warning tracks, non-flat surfaces, and weeds were cited as examples). Moving forward, the organizations hope that the number of quality diamonds –in terms of design and ongoing maintenance –will increase so that they can grow their programs accordingly. 57 11 - 88 11 - 89 6.0 Financial Operations This section provides an overview of the City’s funding sources and associated costs of delivering recreation and leisure services based on 2019 operating and capital budgets. 6.1 Municipal funding tools Like all municipal services, the leisure system requires ongoing resources to construct and maintain facilities, develop and deliver programs, and administer services. This section outlines selected resources that a municipality can draw from. 8 The City of Kitchener has four primary sources of funding,including: Operating budget The operating budget funds the day-to-day costs of the municipality to provide its programs and services. Examples of operating costs include salaries and wages for City employees; utility costs, such as water and electricity; and operating supplies, such as road salt. Capital budget Capital budget funds investments in municipal infrastructure (or assets) that provide a long-term benefit to the community. Examples of capital costs include building or replacing roads, water mains, vehicles, community centres and parks. User fees The City charges user fees for programs and services where customers have a choice to use them, which reduces dependence on property taxes as a funding source. Examples of user fees include swimming lessons and marriage licenses. Development charges Development charges are fees that are collected through the building process in order to address the growth related infrastructure needs of a community. Up to 90% of eligible parks and recreation capital projects may be funded through development charges, with the remaining 10% financed by the municipality through other sources. Funding limitations include replacement of portions of parks and recreation facilities, arts and cultural facilities, historical service level deficiencies, or excesscapacity as a result of the pre-emplacement of facilities. The provides the basis for collecting these growth-related charges. 8 City of Kitchener. (2018). Consolidated budget book. Kitchener, ON: Financial Planning, City of Kitchener. www.kitchener.ca 58 11 - 90 The following examples are alternative options to these commonly used by municipalities to fund recreation and leisure,and they were provided by consultant Monteith Brown in the Recreation & 9 . Leisure Trends Research Paper Partnerships To maximize benefits to the community, the City may consider engaging in collaborations or partnerships with the private sector, non-profit sector, or other levels of government to develop and/or operate various facilities and services. Detailed feasibility studies and the development and use of agreements are required to ensure that these arrangements yield the desired results. Municipal reserves On occasion, municipalities may decide to set aside monies accrued from tax dollars or other revenue sources (such as the sale of surplus parkland) for special projects, such as the development or expansion of a specific community facility or park. In addition, annual lifecycle reserves that are earmarked to fund the maintenance and state-of-good-repair of existing facilities are becoming more common. Grants Municipalities often seek financial support from senior levels of government for major municipal capital projects. In 2017, the Federal budget made commitments towards infrastructure investments in the recreation sector through the “Investing in Canada” Plan –it is anticipated that the Community, Culture and Recreation Infrastructure funding stream (amounting to $407 million across Ontario over 12 years, with up to 40% support for eligible municipal projects) will support new, expanded or renewed facilities. The presence of an approved Master Plan is often a requirement to securing grant funding. Ongoing government programs One example of an ongoing government program is the Federal Gas Tax Fund, which provides municipalities with a long-term funding stream that can be used for the construction and rehabilitation of core public infrastructure, including roads, bridges, drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, and parks facilities (e.g., trails, bike lanes, etc.). Parkland cash-in-Lieu The Ontario establishes a framework for the dedication of parkland and possible alternatives, with implementation policies identified through county and local official plans. One such alternative is the conveyance of cash-in-lieu of parkland generated by development or redevelopment. At a municipality’s discretion, cash-in-lieu may be used to purchase parkland in another area, and acquire associated machinery and/or equipment for parkland development. The also allows municipalities to collect other parkland-related revenues through Section 37/45 (community benefits) and Section 42 (Alternative Rate cash-in-lieu); however, these are more applicable to urban communities with higher development densities. (Bill 73) provide a municipality with less It bears noting that recent amendments to the cash-in lieu relative to the past if applying the alternative dedication rate. Whereas cash-in-lieu of parkland used to be permitted at a rate of 1 hectare per 300 dwelling units, the Planning Act has been amended to allow cash-in lieu to be provided at a rate of 1 hectare per 500 dwelling units, meaning less cash can be conveyed for eligible park uses. Cash-in-lieu collected if applying the Planning Act’s 5% of 9 Monteith-Brown Planning Services. (2018). Recreation & Leisure Trends Research Paper. London, ON: Monteith-Brown Planning Services. 59 11 - 91 gross developable land remains unchanged, as does the conveyance of physical land, which can still be dedicated at 1 hectare per 300 dwelling units. This amendment will likely be most impactful in areas of medium to high-density development. Fundraising, donations and sponsorships The capital and ongoing operational costs of constructing parks and facilities are substantial and inherently place pressures on the municipal budget. Seeking assistance from the community to contribute resources towards the construction and/or operation of parks and facilities can be an effective way to provide services and spaces that are desired by residents. In the past, many local user groups have collected donations and/or participated in fundraising for new facilities, and this practice is expected to continue. The City offers sponsorship and partnership opportunities through the Office of Strategic Partnerships (OSP). Recent examples of additional funds generated through the OSP include RBJ Schlegel Park, Tepperman’s Lounge at Sportsworld arena, the Playball Academy Canada diamonds at Upper Canada Park and the Heffner Lexus Toyota sponsorship neighbourhood camps. Cooperation between neighbouring municipalities Cooperation between municipalities is essential to the effective delivery of parks and recreation services. Residents are not concerned about municipal boundaries as long as their access to and enjoyment of a recreational experience is unencumbered by local politics. Throughout Ontario, municipalities benefit from various types of cooperation, including joint services agreements that allow cost-efficient access to facilities by residents in another municipality. Debenture financing In cases where alternate sources of funding are unavailable, some municipalities have shown a willingness to finance a portion of major capital expenditures. Depending on the municipality’s credit rating, this can be a more expensive funding alternative and can affect the future borrowing rate and fiscal capacity. 60 11 - 92 6.2 Capital forecast The City of Kitchener maintains a ten-year capital forecast, which outlines the expected maintenance and repair of existing community services facilities and sites. According to Figure 18, community centres, arenas, pools, indoor recreation account for $123,000,000 of the total capital budget and parks, trails and forestry account for $54,000,000. 10 Figure 18: 2019 capital budget forecast 10 City of Kitchener. (2018). 2019 final budget at a glance. Kitchener, ON: Financial Planning, www.kitchener.ca 61 11 - 93 6.3 Operating forecast The operating budget supports and maintains the day-to-day delivery of services and programs, including 150 major facilities, 2,000 km of roads, 785 km of water main, 42,700 hours of community centre 11 operations and 1,571 hectares of parks and open space, and more. The 2019 operating budget for the City of Kitchener is $406 million. Recreation and leisure related expenditures account for approximately 10% of the City’s total operating budget. For the purposes of this report, the following assumptions were used to demonstrate total operating costs for recreation and leisure: 1. Table 24 includes the operating costs of the sport, neighbourhood programs and services, parks and cemeteries divisions, which also includes the associated facilities costs. 2. Table 24 does not include operating costs related to general revenues, including general levies, penalties and interest and other general contributions. 3. Table 24 does not include operating costs related to Kitchener Fire, special events, other non- recreation facility maintenance and other non-recreation and leisure divisions across the City. 12 Table 24: 2019 operating budget for recreation and leisure Arenas, Pools CommunityParks Trails Administration NeighbourhoodProgramsTotal &Other Centres & Forestry Development& Indoor Office Services Facilities Total 16,815 6,936 12,020 3,022 6233,268 42,378 Expenses Tax 7,4595,731 9,161 3,020 6232,063 28,451 Revenue 9,360 1,205 2,859 2,000 -1,204 13,931 Figure 19: 2019 operating budget for recreation and leisure based on tax vs. revenue 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Arenas, Pools and Community Centres Parks Trails and Administration Neighbourhood Programs & Services Indoor Facilities Forestry Tax Revenue 11 City of Kitchener. (2018). Consolidated budget book. Kitchener, ON: Financial Planning, www.kitchener.ca 12 City of Kitchener. (2018). 2019 operating budget. Kitchener, ON. Financial Planning. 62 11 - 94 11 - 95 7.0 Public Engagement This section includes the results of the public engagement campaign. The campaign was called and resulted in 1,400 survey responses. 7.1 Key findings 1. Sixty per cent of residents reported that the City should invest in existing infrastructure compared to 40% who said the City should build new recreation facilities. 2. When asked if recreation facilities meet, exceed or do not meet expectations, residents said “meet expectations” in all facility categories, including arenas, pools (indoor and outdoor), community centres, fields, diamonds, parks, trails, courts, dog parks and outdoor rinks. 3. Residents said the top three reasons the City should invest in recreation are: (1) high community demand, (2) an existing facility requires maintenance, repair or improvement and (3) the cost of participating will be more affordable. 4. Residents identified trails, neighbourhood parks and playgrounds, indoor pools, arenas and sport fields as the top five recreation priorities the City should invest in over the next 10 to 15 years. 5. Parks and trails, including neighbourhood parks, are the most frequently used recreation amenities followed by indoor and outdoor pools, community centres and sport fields. The following chart includes an overview of the number of people engaged during the campaign. How did we engage? Results Online survey 746 completed surveys Interactive facility map 321 comments (Engage Kitchener) Paper survey 654 completed surveys Street team visits 35 visits at 22 facilities Ballot boxes at Kitchener Breithaupt Centre Rockway Centre Activa Sportplex Centerville Chicopee CC Sportsworld arena facilities at 22 locations Stanley Park CC Chandler Mowat CC The AUD Victoria Hills CC Country Hills CC Don McLaren arena Williamsburg CC Forest Heights CC Lion’s arena Cameron Heights pool Kingsdale CC Queensmount Lyle Hallman pool Mill Courland CC arena Forest Heights pool Victoria Hills CC Budd Park Social media 1,039 Facebook link clicks 2,401 tweet engagements 1,923 Twitter poll votes Emails and networking 120+ emails sent Workshops 2 workshops with 10 attendees 7.2 Methodology 63 11 - 96 The eight-week community engagement campaign, called , provided residents an opportunity to share their input about the places they use for recreation, sport and well-being.The focus of the campaign was to encourage residents to complete the survey, which was used as the primary evaluation tool to gauge public opinion. The survey questions encouraged residents to think about how and when they engage with the City’s recreation facilities and programs, and what the future looks like for recreation in Kitchener. The campaign ran from November 27, 2018 to January 25, 2019 and included the following engagement tools: Engage Kitchener (online survey): The new Engage Kitchener tool included a detailed landing page with a survey and map feature where residents could drop a pin on a facility they like/love or think needs improvement. The platform also included an opportunity for residents to share stories and ask questions. (www.engagewr.ca/play) Social media: Social media was used to collect comments and votes on specific topics using the polling tool. Social media was also used to promote upcoming events like the public workshops. Street team: Kitchener staff made a visit to each community centre, pool and arena, plus Budd Park, the gymnastics club, the Kitchener Market and two Ranger’s Games to collect feedback from people while using a City of Kitchener recreation facility. Ballot boxes and paper surveys: A ballot box and paper survey was placed at each indoor City of Kitchener recreation facility. Public workshops: Two public workshops were held on January 16 to give the public an opportunity to talk with City staff and share feedback. Emails and networking:City of Kitchener staff shared the online survey with their networks via email and promoted the campaign to affiliated sport groups and other users of City facilities. Marketing and advertising: a mixed media campaign was used to promote public engagement events and the online survey, including print ads Kitchener Life and Active Kitchener, online ads through the Weather Network and Cineplex.com, radio ads and media coverage through the Waterloo Record. 64 11 - 97 7.3 Analysis This section includes a detailed analysis of the survey responses and outlines the opportunities and challenges identified by the public. See Appendix L for the full version of the online and paper survey. 7.3.1 Demographics Both the online and paper survey asked demographic questions to help the City understand who is using Kitchener’s recreation facilities. Further, the City wanted to ensure that the feedback was collected from Kitchener residents who 17% contribute to the tax base, even though many residents from neighbouring 9% municipalities and townships use Kitchener 1% 8% facilities. 72% Figure 20 shows that 72% of respondents live in Kitchener. Further, an additional 17% did not provide their postal code and some of these responses account for Kitchener Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge Other Unverified residents. The responses from the “other” Figure 20: survey responses based on postal category include municipalities outside the d Region of Waterloo. Figure 21 is a heat map that shows each survey response based on postal code. Areas with red and yellow indicate a high number of responses in a specific area. This visual representation of survey responses shows that residents from across the City participated in the campaign, including the south end of Kitchener where there are fewer recreation facilities. Figure 21: survey responses based on postal code distribution 65 11 - 98 The survey asked residents to provide the number of people within each age group per household. The purpose of this question wasto help the City understand the age of people using Kitchener recreation facilities and programs. Figure 22 clearly shows there is a wide age range among respondents, which suggests Kitchener should work towards providing age-friendly recreation opportunities to meet the need of a diverse and changing community. Further, the age breakdown collected from survey respondents generally aligns with the data provided by the Region of Waterloo forecast. However, there are minor differences in the data, including the lack of respondents in the 70+ age group, which does not align with population growth trends. Of the surveys completed, there were 104 residents accounted for in the 70+ age group, which could suggest a greater need for older adult programming and age-friendly facilities. Figure 22: household age breakdown How many people within each age group live in your household? 1400 1200 1000 587 583 800 438 435 600 305 400 277 245 200 119 67 18 0 0-4 years 5- 9 years 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+ years years years years years years years years 1 person 2 people 3 people Total number of famalies 66 11 - 99 7.3.2 Recreation preferences To understand recreation trends and preferred activities among Kitchener residents, the City asked the public to select the indoor and outdoor activities they participated in within the past 12 months. The results can be used to determine if the City has the appropriate facilities to meet residents’ preferred recreation activities. Further, this data can be used to determine if specific sports are declining or increasing in popularity, and if they align with provincial and national trends. Figure 23 shows that aquatic activities, including swimming lessons, lane swim, aqua fit and water sports, are the most popular among Kitchener residents. Fitness classes, ice skating, social events and hockey are the next most popular. Figure 23: indoor activities ranked from most to least popular Indoor Recreation Activities Swimming (lessons, water sports, aqua fit, lane swim) Fitness classes (yoga, boot camp) Ice skating (lessons or public skate) Social events (community gatherings) Hockey Indoor walking or running Creative arts (music, pottery, theatre) Gymnasium sports (basketball, volleyball, pickleball,… Dance Gymnastics Games (cards, shuffleboard) Other, please specify Meeting space Martial arts Indoor soccer Curling Roller blading (roller skating, derby, inline skating) Lacrosse 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 67 11 - 100 The most popular outdoor recreation activities include free or low cost activities such as visiting a neighbourhood park or playground, running/jogging/walking, taking the dog to the park and outdoor skating. Soccer is the most popular sport followed by baseball/softball, which aligns with provincial trends and feedback from affiliated sport groups. Interestingly, cricket was ranked at the bottom of the list; however, this sport as seen significant growth across Ontario and staff have heard from residents that there is a need for cricket facilities in the Region. Figure 24: outdoor activities ranked from most to least popular Outdoor Recreation Acivities Visiting a neighbourhood park/playground Swimming (outdoor pool/splash pad) Running/jogging Cycling (BMX, mountain biking, road cycling) Walking for leisure Soccer Picnic, social gathering Ball (baseball, fast ball, slo-pitch, T-ball) Golf Skiing/snowboarding Dog parks Basketball Outdoor (winter skating) Volleyball/beach volleyball Track and field Tennis Roller blading (roller skating, inline skating) Community gardening Disc sports (ultimate Frisbee, disc golf) Football Skateboarding Pickle ball Badminton Rugby Other, please specify Lacrosse Cricket 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 68 11 - 101 The City also asked residents what prevents or limits them from participating in recreation programs. The top reasons people do not participate in City run recreation programs are due to inconvenient program times and schedules followed by lack of facility space. These challenges should be addressed through the Neighbourhood Association Policy review. Many residents provided comments related to inconvenient swimming schedules, lane/open swims, and ice times. Figure 25: top reasons preventing residents from participating in recreation programs What limits you from particpating in recreation activities? Inconvenient times/scheduling Lack of facilities or facility space Cost of participating Not enough time Unaware of what is available Lack of programming options Age/health issues Transportation barriers Nothing Lack of interest Other, please specify 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 The majority of residents said the preferred method for participating in recreation activities is scheduled programs and activities. There is a significant number of people who prefer self-led and drop-in programs, which require less commitment and allow flexibility to accommodate busy lifestyles. This aligns with the provincial and national trends highlighted in section 3.2.1. Further, community centre staff reported that gymnasium drop-in times are very popular among youth,and hockey is seeing an increase in the number of players who want to play shinny or register as a part-time player. Figure 26: preferred method of participating in recreation activities How do you prefer to particapte in recreation activities? Scheduled programs/activities Self-led activities Drop-in programs/activities Competitive programs/activities Instructor led programs/activities Other, please specify 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 69 11 - 102 Residents had an opportunity to comment on facilities and programs missing within the City of Kitchener. Approximately 125 people noted the need for a track facility, which was not included in the survey. Two types of track facilities were mentioned, including a competitive track and field facility for sport and training as well as safe walking/running surfaces for recreational use and the aging population. There were 250 comments about pools with a strong emphasis on building an aquatic centre in the south-end. Indoor turf and the need for additional fields was another common theme. Residents noted that fields should be used for more than one sport and there is a strong interest in upgrading existing fields to turf with lights to extend the playing season. Many comments were related to the need for multi-use facilities or a campus recreation model where families can participate in several activities at once. Residents feel there are too many standalone facilities making it difficult to fit recreation into an already busy schedule. Parents are looking for facilities that offer adult recreation opportunities while children are participating in an activity. For example, yoga classes while their child is swimming or walking trails while another child is playing soccer. 7.3.3 Facility usage The survey asked residents to identify the facilities they, or a member of their household, have visited within the past 12 months. The purpose of this question is to understand the most frequently visited facilities and to confirm that the number of existing assets within each facility category aligns with the current demand. Figure 27 shows that parks and trails are the most frequently used outdoor facilities, which supports the most popular outdoor activities reported by residents. Indoor pools and community centres are the most commonly visited indoor facilities, which also aligns with the significant number of people who participate in swimming and water activities, fitness classes and social gatherings. There are more people who do not use dog parks, ball diamonds and outdoor courts compared to those who do, and arenas show an even split between the number of people who do use this type of facility versus those who do not. Figure 27: number of respondents who have or have not visited each facility type Have you visited this type of facility in the past 12 months? 595 593 579 565 546 527 700 497 451451450 435 600 375374 372 371 500 311 296 295295 249 219 400 200 181 167 153 151 300 200 100 0 Yes No 70 11 - 103 Kitchener places a strong emphasis 250 on its neighbourhood model where 203 200 recreation facilities like community 169 centres, neighbourhood parks and 143 131 150 128 126 outdoor courts are close to home. 112 96 92 90 Some facilities are, and should be, 84 81 100 70 62 neighbourhood based whereas others 43 50 serve a Citywide need and are placed 20 further apart. Residents were asked 0 how far they are willing to travel to Arenas Community Centre Indoor Pools Indoor Turf different types of facilities, which will Sum of 1 to 3 km Sum of 4 to 6 km help the City understand if a facility is Sum of 7 to 9 km Sum of More than 9 km better suited to a neighbourhood or Citywide need. Figure 28: willingness to travel to indoor facilities According to the survey, most facilities have a relatively equal distribution of how far residents are willing to travel with a few exceptions. Residents expect neighbourhood playgrounds, trails and outdoor courts to be within 1 to 3 km of their home. Most people prefer that outdoor pools and splash pads are within the neighbourhood radius, but are willing to travel up to 6 km for these facilities. Residents are willing to travel more than 7 km for arenas, sport fields and indoor turf. The majority of residents expect indoor pool facilities to be within 4 to 6 km of their home but a significant number of people are willing to travel Citywide. Figure 29: willingness to travel to outdoor facilities 450 381 400 350 300 233 212 250 169 149 145145 138 138 135 200 132 128 120 113 112 108 106 105 150 96 93 87 85 84 78 75 70 68 67 60 55 54 51 4949 48 100 36 35 27 2727 50 0 Sum of 1 to 3 km Sum of 4 to 6 km Sum of 7 to 9 km Sum of More than 9 km 71 11 - 104 7.4 Funding priorities Kitchener has a significant number of recreation facilities that require maintenance, and in some cases further investment. However, the City is also growing and new facilities are necessary to meet increased demand. Residents were asked several questions related to prioritizing recreation facilities based on the limited resources allocated to recreation and leisure. The purpose of these questions is to help staff understand what facilities residents’ view as most valuable and how they want the City to spend their tax dollars. Further, staff wanted a better understanding of how important existing facilities are versus building new facilities. Figure 31 shows that 60% of residents feel investing and maintaining existing infrastructure is more important than building new facilities. A Twitter poll also showed the same results with 60% of 40% respondents indicating a preference for maintaining existing facilities. Many residents 60% commented that Kitchener has a good variety and distribution of facilities; however, they do require upgrades and investment. New facilities should be built in areas of growth like the south-end. Residents also said the City should carefully review the Building new recreation facilities Investing in existing recreation facilities costs of investing in existing infrastructure Figure 30: funding preferences -building new or invest in versus building new when the cost of an existing infrastructure older building becomes too expensive to maintain it might make sense to build new. Figure 31: funding preferences –how should the City invest in recreation facilities 1000 866 900 845 800 743 700 600 464 500 439 400 292 300 200 100 0 There is a high An existing facility The facility and/or The city can partner The facility does not The facility will bring community demand needs program will provide with another exist in the City of non-local spending to repair/improvement affordable options to organization to Kitchener the city (sport residents reduce costs tourism, visitors) 72 11 - 105 Further, residents said the City should invest in recreation facilities when there is high community demand or an existing facility needs improvement. Figure 32 also shows that affordability is a top concern for residents who prefer the City invest in recreation to make programs and services more accessible. Residents said that trails, neighbourhood parks/playgrounds and indoor pools are the top recreation priorities for the next 10 years. Each respondent was asked to select three options from the list in Figure 33 to help staff understand the most important priorities. The results support the most popular recreation activities and facility usage. A track (competitive and leisure) was not on this list because the City does not currently have a dedicated track facility; however, comments from residents indicate there is a strong desire for a track and field facility. Figure 32: prioritized recreation facilities over the next 10 years What are the top three priorities the city should invest in over the next 10 years? Trails and walkways 535 Neighbourhood parks and playgrounds 495 Pools (indoor) 417 Arenas (ice pads) 325 Sport fields (natural grass and turf) 289 Indoor multi-purpose space for community events/gatherings 279 Indoor turf 238 Gymnasium facility (basketball, volleyball, badminton) 179 Outdoor multi-purpose space for community events/gatherings 171 Ball diamonds 155 Splash pads 144 Pools (outdoor) 141 Outdoor courts (tennis, basketball, pickleball) 141 Outdoor rinks 119 BMX/bike parks 83 Skateboard parks 34 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 73 11 - 106 11 - 107 8.0 Recommendations and Facility List This section includes the 2019 Leisure Facilities Master Plan recommendations. The following recommendations are intended to help the City provide recreation programs and services that foster lifelong participation, access for all, and sustainable environments, infrastructure and partnerships. The recommendations will be referred to future business plans for implementation. 8.1 Draft recommendations The 2019 LFMP includes 18 recommendations grouped into five main categories: (1) existing leisure facility commitments, (2) investing in, and maintaining existing infrastructure, (3) future leisure facilities and initiatives, (4) funding models and (5) partnerships. Section 1 Existing leisure facility commitments In an effort to respond to the current and projected growth in aquatic activities over the next 10 years, the City should maintain its previous commitment to build an indoor aquatic centre at RBJ Schlegel Park. That the City maintain its commitment to build an indoor turf facility at RBJ Schlegel Park. That the City maintain its previous commitments to build or enhance existing community centres in the following neighbourhoods: Huron –Brigadoon (partnership with the WRDSB on Tartan Avenue) Rosenberg Mill-Courtland (expand existing centre) Section 2 investing in, and maintaining existing recreation infrastructure That a feasibility study/business case be completed to examine the possible expansion of the Forest Heights Community Centre to provide additional space for City and community-led programming that will serve the diverse needs of the area, including the older adult population living in the northwest area of the city. That the City develop a multi-year strategy to increase family change rooms at all aquatic facilities and dressing rooms at all arenas to meet the need for accessible change areas. That the City implement a multi-year plan to conduct comprehensive building condition assessments, which include energy, accessibility and technology audits for all recreation facilities and minimize operating costs through sustainability efforts. 74 11 - 108 That the City create asset management plans for all of its recreation facilities, as well as a long-term capital investment plan for those facilities, which clearly articulates the total asset life cycle costs. Section 3 Future leisure facilities and initiatives That the following prioritized list of growth related recreation facilities be referred to the 2019 Development Charge Study and by-law update for consideration of specific funding allocations and timing: INDOOR OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES RECREATION FACILITIES Huron-Brigadoon Community Centre 1Indoor pool (RBJ Schlegel Park) 1Trails 2Indoor turf (RBJ Schlegel Park) 2Sport fields (RBJ Schlegel Park) 3Mill-Courtland community centre expansion 3Neighbourhood parks & playgrounds 4Rosenberg community centre 4Sport fields (general) 5Forest Heights community centre expansion 5City-wide parks That the City develop a strategy within 18 months for the future replacement of the Budd Park sport campus. In order to respond to the current and projected growth in activities requiring sports fields and ball diamonds, over the next 10 years the City should: increase the inventory of multi-use fields (up to four) by: (1) reviewing and updating current scheduling, allocation, maintenance and user fee policies, (2) partnering with school boards to improve condition and access to school fields, (3) lighting and irrigating existing fields, (4) converting natural grass to artificial turf, and, if necessary, (5) constructing new fields with appropriate infrastructure; increase the inventory of ball diamonds (up to six) by: (1) reviewing and updating current scheduling, allocation, maintenance and user fee policies, (2) partnering with school boards to improve condition and access to school diamonds, and (3) lighting and irrigating existing diamonds. That the City conduct a detailed business case regarding the construction of a new arena in the southwest portion of the city that includes a comprehensive ice demand study and a decommissioning strategy for an existing arena, and makes a recommendation on the appropriate timing and detailed costing of the new arena. In an effort to complement existing neighbourhood association programming and increase usage of the City’s community centres, the City should increase the programs/services it offers in community centres to respond to the growing diversity of needs within our neighbourhoods. 75 11 - 109 That the City conduct a demand study of outdoor court facilities, including a review of existing court conditions and locations, to establish maintenance standards and joint use agreements with school boards and neighbourhood associations. Section 4 funding models That the City explore a variety of funding mechanisms, in addition to taxes and development charges, to build and maintain recreation facilities across the city. Section 5 Partnerships That the City pursue a partnership with the private sector to redevelop the Rockway Centre into “a medium-to-high density residential building that addresses the heritage value of the property and includes a ground floor older adult/community centre (to be operated by the municipality with the option to own), as well as possible ancillary medical/dental, retail and office type uses.” (CSD-13-051) That the City conduct a comprehensive study of all indoor spaces in the downtown (private and publically owned facilities) to identify opportunities to: gain greater access to existing space for residents, partner in the expansion of existing indoor space accessible by the community, and partner in the creation of new indoor space that would be available to the public. That the City, in partnership with the Waterloo District School Board, study the possibility of renovating Cameron Heights pool to provide the City with increased access and full operation of the pool during daytime hours. That the City pursue a partnership with the school boards or other private partners to construct a new gymnasium that is reflective of a "sport friendly" design with floor surfaces, dimensions and ceiling heights that are appropriate for safe play. 76 11 - 110 8.2 Development charge recreation facility list The Leisure Facilities Master Plan serves as a key input to the Development Charge Study. In order to determine the appropriate funding for recreation facilities related to development charges, the financial planning division requires a prioritized list of indoor and outdoor facilities planned for the next 10 years. The following list includes the recreation projects identified through the Leisure Facilities Master Planning process. These priorities will be used to populate the 2020 capital budget, and the timing of projects will be determined by funding availability. Staff recommend the following list of indoor and outdoor recreation facilities: Indoor Recreation Facilities Outdoor Recreation Facilities Huron-Brigadoon community centre (CSD-18-089) 1.Indoor pool (RBJ Schlegel Park) 1.Trails 2.Indoor turf (RBJ Schlegel Park) 2.Sport fields (RBJ Schlegel Park) 3.Mill-Courtland community centre expansion 3.Neighbourhood parks and playgrounds 4.Rosenberg community centre 4.Sport fields (general) 5.City wide parks (Victoria Park, McLennan Park, Huron 5.Forest Heights community centre expansion Natural Area, Kiwanis Park) 77 11 - 111 11 - 112 Appendix A City of Kitchener indoor recreation facilities 78 11 - 113 79 Downtown Study Area – outdoor recreation facilities Appendix B City of Kitchener 11 - 114 80 East Study Area – outdoor recreation facilities Appendix C City of Kitchener 11 - 115 81 ea Northwest Study Ar – outdoor recreation facilities Appendix D City of Kitchener 11 - 116 Appendix E City of Kitchener outdoor recreation facilities –Northeast Study Area 82 11 - 117 Appendix F City of Kitchener outdoor recreation facilities –Southeast Study Area 83 11 - 118 Appendix G City of Kitchener outdoor recreation facilities –Southwest Study Area 84 11 - 119 Appendix H Stakeholder engagement-user group questionnaire SECTION ONE –INFORMATION 1. Organization Name: 2. First Name: 3. Last Name: 4. Did you complete this survey with other members of your organization? a. Yes (please list their names) b. No SECTION 2 –INVENTORY AND CAPACITY 5. Do the recreation and leisure facilities used by your group offer enough hours to meet your current programming needs? a. Yes b. No 6. If NO, how many additional hours are required to meet your needs. 7. If NO, how are the limited number of facility hours affecting your organization/program? a. Unable to reduce waitlist b. Unable to offer new programs c. Unable to market/advertise to new users d. Unable to adapt to outside influences (accessibility standards, sport trends, etc.) e. Other 8. How many additional hours do you currently have for growth or new programming? 9. By what year will you reach full capacity based on available facility hours? 10.If your organization were able to access additional facility hours and/or space, what resources are available by your organization to deliver programs and services? Check all that apply. a. Staff b. Coaches c. Instructors d. Officials e. Volunteers f. Operating funds g. Other 11.What are your registration numbers for the past three years: a. 2015: b. 2016: c. 2017: 12.What are the primary age groups of your participants? You may pick more than one. a. 0-4 years b. 5-9 y ears c. 10-19 years 85 11 - 120 d. 20-34 years e.35-54 years f.55–74 years g. 75+ years 13.What percentage of your participants are Kitchener residents? SECTION 3 –FACILITY FEATURES 14.What type of facilities do you use? 15.List the names of the facilities that MEET your needs. 16.List the names of the facilities that EXCEED your needs. 17.List the names of the facilities that DO NOT meet your needs. 18.Please describe why the above facilities do NOT meet your needs (for example, field size, parking, washrooms/change rooms, etc.). SECTION 4 –FUTURE TRENDS AND CHALLENGES 19.What are the current and future trends or challenges that affect your programs or services? SECTION 5 –FUNDING 20.How do you think facility improvements, expansions and/or the development of new facilities should be funded? a.Fundraising b. Increase user fees with a surcharge for capital facility improvements c. Increase property taxes d. Partnerships e.Other 86 11 - 121 Appendix I Stakeholder engagement -interview/workshop questions 1. What are the strengths of recreation and leisure facilities and/or services in Kitchener? 2. What current concerns, gaps or constraints exist for leisure and recreation facilities and/or services? 3. How do you think the City, it’s people and it’s neighbourhoods, will change in 5-10 years and how will this impact recreation and leisure services provided by the City? 4. What do you believe are the top three priorities the LFMP should consider? 5. Rank the following priorities from most important to least important a. Invest in existing infrastructure b. Build new infrastructure c. Improve internal processes for better service delivery d. Establish Regional partnerships to share new and existing recreation and leisure facilities e. Consider new creation and leisure funding models for capital funding and revenue generation 6.What criteria do you think staff should use to prioritize the recommendations in the LFMP? 87 11 - 122 Appendix J Stakeholder engagement results Stakeholder consultation was a significant part of the LFMP process. Approximately 142 user groups and 100 staff from across the organization were invited to provide feedback and share strengths, gaps and priorities related to indoor and outdoor recreation facilities. Note, a detailed spreadsheet with all stakeholder comments is available. Key findings 1. Investing in and maintaining existing infrastructure is the top priority for staff, council and the corporate leadership team. User groups also indicated improvements to existing infrastructure would help meet programming needs. 2. The City of Kitchener has a good distribution and number of recreation facilities. 3. Lack of gender-neutral change rooms at arena and aquatic facilities is a primary concern. 4. There is high demand for more A1 fields and ball diamonds. 5. Field and turf maintenance is exceptional. However, the surrounding amenities such as parking, washrooms, fencing require upgrades and investment. 6. Access to gymnasium space is a significant challenge with a large portion of time allocated to neighbourhood associations and lack of appropriately sized gymnasiums for sport. 7. There is a high level of interest to build a new pool and an arena in the southwest area of Kitchener. 8. Staff and council should carefully consider the total life cycle cost and cost of ownership of assets when making decisions on new capital investments and recreation infrastructure. 9. Recreation facilities and programs should reflect the needs of our changing community, including emerging sport and recreation trends like cricket. 10.Multi-use facilities should be considered to ensure financial, environmental and social sustainability. 88 11 - 123 Methodology The consultation program for the 2019 LFMP includes the following components: Tactic Audience Purpose User group questionnaire Sport users (arenas, pools, Understand registration numbers and trends gymnasiums, ball diamonds, sport of sport user groups; gather feedback on fields) specific facilities that are/are not working well. Focus groups Sport users (gymnasiums, ball Understand needs, challenges, opportunities diamonds, sport fields) and trends of users. Focus groups -staff City of Kitchener staff at all Understand general needs, challenges and levels/divisions impacted by the opportunities of recreation/leisure. building, maintenance, operations and delivery of recreation/leisure Address specific challenges with gymnasium, services. ball diamond and sport field utilization. Staff questionnaire Staff groups who could not attend a Understand who is using specific facilities and focus group. gather feedback on facilities that are /are not working well. Interviews/One-to-one City council Understand strengths, gaps and priorities meetings Corporate Leadership Team related to recreation and leisure. Staff Gather feedback from staff groups who were not able to attend focus group sessions. User group engagement User Group Name Total # of # of online survey# of focus groupTotal organizations respondents attendees response rate Arenas 228N/A 36% Aquatics 112N/A 18% Ball Diamonds 385321% Gymnasiums 111336% Neighbourhood Associations 273633% Sport fields 334324% Total 142231728% 89 11 - 124 Arena users Key findings Of the groups that participated, Kitchener residents make up 50 to 75%of users. Generally, ice surfaces are meeting needs of user groups. There is a strong interest in increasing the change room size at Lions, Don McLaren and Grand River arenas. However, this work should be aligned with new inclusion and accessibility legislation. Kitchener Minor Hockey Association reported the need for 20 additional prime time hours; however, staff reported a decrease in weekend prime time ice usage. Non-affiliated groups are experiencing a decline in registration due to (a) lack of ice availability and (b) lack of desirable ice times (too late or too early). Contact sports (speed skating and hockey) are facing policy changes due to concussion management and prevention and safety equipment changes, which may affect participation rates. Groups are willing to support facility improvements through increased property taxes and partnerships. Some groups are not willing to increase user fees but expressed that pricing should be equal across all user groups. KW Speed Skating Club requires one additional hour per week to meet current demand, and expressed interest in an Olympic size ice pad. Some organizations are experiencing a decline in the number of volunteers making it difficult for volunteer programs to operate. Arena users were invited by email to provide feedback through Engage Kitchener. Appendix I includes the online form distributed to stakeholders. The individual responses are not included in this report but are available to arena and community services staff for further investigation if required. Respondents included: Kitchener Minor Hockey Kitchener Waterloo Oldtimers League Ice Tech Skating Programs KW Speed Skating Three adult seasonal user groups The most common challenge reported by user groups was lack of suitable change room facilities. Users reported a need for changing areas that accommodate all players, not just males. Further, change rooms do not have adequate warm up space or technology requirements to teach/coach players. Users reported the ice surface size and condition as “good” at all arenas. Some facilities are better suited to tournament play, including the AUD, Sportsworld and Activa due to appropriate seating, parking and concessions. 90 11 - 125 Aquatics users Key Findings Change rooms at all facilities need to be upgraded to accommodate gender-neutral changing areas. There is a strong interest in building an Olympic size or elite swimming facility in the south end to accommodate water sports and attract talent. Outdoor pool facilities could use upgrades (Wilson and Idlewood) to make them a more attractive and family friendly place. There is an interest in extending pool hours on weekends and weeknights. Aquatic users were invited by email to provide feedback through Engage Kitchener. Appendix I includes the online form distributed to stakeholders. The individual responses are not included in this report but are available to aquatic and community services staff for further investigation if required. Respondents included: KW Diving Club KW Water Polo Water polo reported a slight decline in registration from 90 to 70 participants since 2015. KW Water Polo currently uses Cameron Heights, Breithaupt and Harry Class. Lyle Hallman is not a suitable facility because the pool does not offer the appropriate size and depth. KW Diving Club currently uses Waterloo Region Memorial Complex, which is meeting their needs. City of Kitchener pools are not designed for diving because they do not have 3-metre boards or a diving platform. This group travels to Brantford to access 7.5-metre and 10-metre diving boards. Ball diamond users Key Findings Participation has been slowly declining for the two ball diamond organizations in attendance but has increased for others. There is a desire for more high quality ball diamonds, as well as multi-diamond diamonds in order to accommodate tournament play. There is a need for indoor gymnasium space for winter training and practices. Communication is an area that can be improved between the City of Kitchener and ball diamond organizations. Diamond users were invited by email to provide feedback through Engage Kitchener. Appendix I includes the online form distributed to stakeholders. The individual responses are not included in this report but are available to sport and community services staff for further investigation if required. 91 11 - 126 On August 14, 2018, the City of Kitchener and Monteith Brown Planning Consultants Ltd. hosted a focus group that was attended by Kitchener Minor Baseball Association (KMBA) and Kitchener Fastball League (KFL). The goal of this discussion was to gain insight into specific user group needs and preferences across a range of age groups. Respondents included: Christian Men’s Slo Pitch Kitchener Minor Girls Softball Association Guelph District Christian Schools Tri-County Slo Pitch Co-ed Slo-Pitch Kitchener Fastball League Kitchener Minor Ball Association Mennonite Ladies Slo Pitch User groups expressed appreciation for the effort made by City staff to engage in regular communications and meetings with them to ensure the most effective use of ball diamonds and hope this practice continues. Groups also suggested working with neighbourhood associations to explore how they might serve as a “feeder system” into minor ball so the programs are not competing directly with one another. Sport field users Key findings There is a growing trend of participants that require financial support to participate in rectangular sport field activities. There is a desire to improve the number of A1 rectangular sports fields in the City of Kitchener. Rectangular sport field organizations are open to collaborate with the City of Kitchener to assist with improving its sport field supply through financial or physical support, or other means. User groups would like an improved process for scheduling rectangular sports fields such as an online system that allows users to view and book available sport fields and to book or submit requests. User groups would like to see more lit full-size artificial turf fields that can accommodate a range of field sports including soccer, football, and lacrosse. User groups would like to see more multi-field complexes to support simultaneous games and tournaments, specific sport field configurations cited included complexes with 7v7 and 9v9 fields. Sport field users were invited by email to provide feedback through Engage Kitchener. Appendix I includes the online form distributed to stakeholders. The individual responses are not included in this report but are available to sport and community services staff for further investigation if required. On August 15, 2018, the City of Kitchener and Monteith Brown Planning Consultants Ltd. hosted a user input session with rectangular sport field groups operating within the Kitchener-Waterloo area. Four representatives attended from sports organizations including Kitchener-Waterloo Lacrosse, Kitchener Soccer Club, Twin Cities Tackle Football and the Waterloo Organization of Disc Sports. The goal of this discussion was to gain insight into specific user group needs and preferences. 92 11 - 127 Respondents included: Little Kickers Tri-City Soccer Tri-City Men’s Soccer League Kitchener Soccer Club Waterloo Region Minor Football Academy Ultimate Waterloo Organization of Disc Sports Kitchener-Waterloo Minor Lacrosse Association Trends show that groups have observed the growing diversity of its participants, which is expected to continue as the city’s population continues to become more diverse. Additionally, organizations have recognized that there has been a growing number of participants who require financial assistance. Organizations expressed their commitment to providing financial assistance to those in need through financial support, providing participants with equipment, and referring participants to support programs (e.g., Canadian Tire Jumpstart). Staff results (ball diamonds and sport fields) On August 15, 2018, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants facilitated an input session with the selected sport field management, supervisory and front-line staff from the City of Kitchener. Eleven staff members were in attendance whose responsibilities spanned planning and design, operations and maintenance, scheduling and booking, and sport development. The goal of the workshop was to leverage the knowledge of City staff to assist with the sport field needs assessments. The workshop covered rectangular fields, ball diamonds and circular fields (cricket pitches). Key findings Field and turf maintenance practices are exceptional There is a demand for high quality, A1 sport fields There is a growing uptake in weekend sport field usage in order to accommodate demands. Sport field amenities need to be improved. Operational staff are limited in the ability to absorb the maintenance of new sport fields or to increase the level of maintenance of existing fields. Demand for cricket pitches have not yet been observed in Kitchener. There is a growing preference to develop parks that contain multiple fields, which makes it more appealing for user groups to schedule their programs and tournaments while generating economies of scale in operations and maintenance for municipalities. Parks are also then large enough to accommodate vehicular parking lots and consolidate field infrastructure and amenities, making them “self-contained” units. Other sports that are increasing in popularity within Kitchener include ultimate frisbee, flag football, ross- field, rugby, and field hockey. The growth of a variety of field sports emphasizes the need for multi- purpose sport fields to maximize the use of fields and strategies to accommodate user groups. The City is aware of ongoing pressures from cricket users and the lack of circular fields to accommodate this sport. The RBJ Schlegel Park concept includes a plan for a circular field to address the cricket concern. Trends related to sport tourism were also discussed and staff noted that Kitchener’s high quality fields offer a suitable place to host tournaments. Operations staff also noted that tournament infrastructure requires a greater time and financial investment to maintain the facilities at a high quality, which could detract from 93 11 - 128 maintenance of other fields if operating resources are not also expanded to handle tournament-hosting requirements. Gymnasium and community centre users Key findings Participation is strong among gymnasium sports groups. Gymnasiums are used for a broad range of activities, which are provided, by community sports organizations and Neighbourhood Associations. There was consensus that there is a need for additional gymnasiums that are appropriately sized and contain amenities so that organizations can deliver programming to the community while growing their capacity to provide services into the future. There is a need to ensure that the City of Kitchener’s gymnasiums are being used efficiently. On August 14, 2018, the City of Kitchener and Monteith Brown Planning Consultants Ltd. hosted a focus group with gymnasium users operating within the Kitchener-Waterloo area. Four representatives attended from sports organizations including TopSpin Table Tennis of Kitchener-Waterloo; Kitchener-Waterloo Youth Basketball Association (KWYBA); and Glendon Gymnastics. Another three representatives from Boardwalk Neighbourhood Association, Huron Neighbourhood Association, and the Downtown Neighbourhood Alliance also participated. In addition, all diamond users were invited to provide feedback by email. Respondents included: KW Gymnastics Club Kitchener Youth Basketball Association TopSpin Table Tennis Doon Pioneer Park Neighbourhood Association Downtown Neighbourhood Alliance Huron Neighbourhood Association Boardwalk Neighbourhood Association Forest Heights Community Association Inc. Williamsburg Neighbourhood Association (emailed responses) Settler’s Grove Neighbourhood Association (emailed responses) Mill Courtland Neighbourhood Association (emailed responses) Organizations have experienced challenges finding gymnasium space within Kitchener’s community centres and as a result, they are limited in the number and type of programs they can provide. Kitchener Waterloo Youth Basketball Association expressed a significant constraint to accessing gymnasium space in Kitchener. The City of Kitchener has very few gymnasiums that are designed as full size gyms with appropriate playout lines, ceiling heights or areas for spectators. They stated that the only adequately sized municipally operated gym is at the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex, which, as an event-focused venue, is cost prohibitive for multiple bookings. The use of school gymnasium was mixed. Some organizations currently use school gymnasiums during the week, although challenges were reported with respect to available and affordable usage during the weekend and summer. One organization expressed challenges with respect to having insurance for the use of school gymnasiums, while another organization indicated that some school gymnasiums were only available after 6:30 p.m., which is not ideal for program participants such as older adults or those with young children. Forest Heights Community Association Inc. expressed a strong need for additional gymnasium space. They reported that pickleball and youth drop-in programs are extremely popular and the centre can no 94 11 - 129 longer accommodate the demand for these programs. They also noted an outdoor court facility for pickleball would be very popular among residents. Staff results On August 15, 2018, the City of Kitchener in partnership with Monteith Brown Planning Consultants Ltd. hosted an inter-institutional workshop of municipal, school board and post-secondary education providers of gymnasium space. Seventeen participants attended the session including 12 City staff members and representatives from Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU), City of Waterloo, YMCA of Cambridge & Kitchener- Waterloo, Waterloo Catholic District School Board, and Waterloo Region District School Board. The goal of the workshop was to leverage the substantial knowledge of staff from the various agencies and institutions in order to inform the gymnasium assessment. It also served to discuss the holistic needs of the community using the perspectives of providers that serve many facets of the community, and to understand the ways in which each organization schedules and allocates time. Key findings There is a broad spectrum of gymnasium users that vary by each community centre location. Non-municipal community gymnasiums located at schools and the YMCA are used frequently for a variety of youth to older adult programs. There are some community centres that do not have gymnasiums (e.g., Bridgeport Community Centre, Rockway Centre, Williamsburg Community Centre), or centres with undersized gymnasiums (Centreville-Chicopee Community Centre and Mill Courtland Community Centre) resulting in challenges to provide active indoor programs. While active indoor recreation programs should be prioritized for gymnasium use, staff reported that some gymnasiums are being used for activities that may be delivered within multi-purpose spaces. Challenges were reported with the ability to accommodate user group requests for gymnasium time as a large portion of time is utilized by neighbourhood associations. The City of Waterloo noted that it does not have a neighbourhood association model similar to Kitchener’s and is largely able to deliver its own programs based on its discretion of need and allocation practices. However, many of its gyms have high quality hardwood floors and thus the City limits the types of activities that can take place in order to protect the surfaces (e.g., it avoids uses that would scratch or damage the floors). With respect to school gymnasium usage, school board staff indicated that older schools typically have smaller gymnasiums, which is an important consideration when organizations are seeking rental space. They recognize that rental costs can be an issue for some users. However, they need to recover costs for items such as custodian time (particularly on the weekends). WLU reports that its gymnasiums are fully utilized between September and April during the peak post- secondary school months. As a result, community-based rentals are minimal during that time and there is little to no opportunity for them to make time available for non-university use. All organizations touched on partnership potential or opportunities to jointly construct or operate gymnasiums. However, apart from the City of Waterloo, none noted any plans to construct new gymnasiums (WLU noted that they have discussed fixing up the Seagram Stadium gym and that they could probably use another triple gymnasium elsewhere on or near campus). Other priorities to address future needs that were discussed included: Future gymnasiums should be co-located with large multi-purpose spaces to ensure that programs and activities can be located in appropriate spaces. Dividing walls should be soundproof, or 95 11 - 130 consideration should be given to simultaneous programming to ensure program compatibility, and sufficient storage should be provided. City of Kitchener staff suggested that the pressures for time at its gymnasium time might be alleviated by updating the City’s affiliation policy to ensure that it is consistent with current needs, as well as working with neighbourhood associations to enhance gymnasium usage and program opportunities, such as combining programs. 96 11 - 131 City Staff, council and committee engagement Throughout July and August, the LFMP project team hosted a staff workshop with approximately 52 attendees, interviewed 10 City councillors, the Mayor, and interviewed all members of the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT). The goal of staff and council engagement was tounderstand the priorities and challenges from the various groups. The one-to-one discussion and staff workshop provided an opportunity to speak openly about the City’s approach to recreation and leisure and educate groups about the broad scope of services and programs the City delivers. The information was analyzed to verify if council, staff and CLT have similar priorities and how these align with the needs of our user groups. Each groups was asked the same set of questions (Appendix J). Key Findings Investing in and improving existing infrastructure is a recurring theme and top priority. All groups (staff, council, users and CLT) agree that City of Kitchener staff are our greatest strength. Maintenance costs of aging infrastructure is a growing concern. Kitchener has the best turf and field maintenance practices in Ontario. There is a need for recreation/leisure facilities in the southwest area of Kitchener. Overall, Kitchener has a good variety and distribution of recreation/leisure facilities. Sustainability and environmental impacts should be a consideration in facility development. Partnerships are critical to the development of new facilities. There is a growing desire for multi-use facilities with innovative designs. Decisions for new facilities and investments in existing infrastructure should be made based on data and evidence that demonstrates a need. Recreation and leisure services should be accessible, affordable and equally distributed across the City. There is a need for increased sport tourism and elite, tournament style facilities to help make Kitchener an attractive place to live and work. Recreation and leisure services should reflect the needs of the community. All groups were asked to rank the same priorities and the results showed consistency across the number one priority. Council Staff CLT Invest in existing infrastructure Invest in existing infrastructure Invest in existing infrastructure Establish partnerships Improve internal processes Establish partnerships Build new infrastructure Establish partnerships Improve internal processes Improve internal processes Build new infrastructure Build new infrastructure 97 11 - 132 98 maintenance ’s philosophy/mandate of recreation City taxes AODA compliance (genderless Affordable programming to meet a wide range of community needs Exceptional field and turf Good financial support and inclusion services Lack of flexible programming space Challenging relationships with NAs Lack of washrooms/change rooms) No cricket pitch Significant gaps in trail network Increase Capital levy Sport tourism Increase revenue through rentals Take percentage of NA profits Upgrade facilities to reduce maintenance costs New funding strategies or models Defining the and leisure Sustainability Existing priorities Community engagement ------------------- peak times - City facilities utilized during non operating and maintenance maintained, clean and safe - People/staff Good distribution of facilities across the Facilities are wellStrong partnerships with volunteers, NAs, tenants and sport users Too many standalone facilities A lot of aging infrastructure that requires maintenance Lack of funding for Program fees do not match operating costs Some facilities are not fully User fees Grants Do less Public/private partnerships Charge NAs for space Corporate sponsorship Maintaining and improving existing Process improvement New facilities Cost Demand (usage and growth) Asset inventory Lack of accessibility by public/active transit Response --------------------- - Question What are the strengths of Kitchener’srecreation/leisure facilities andservices? What are the gaps or concerns ofKitchener’s recreation/leisure facilities and services? How might we fund recreation/leisureservices? What are the top three priorities thatshould be considered in the LFMP? What criteria should staff use to prioritize recommendations in the LFMP? Stakeholder Engagement Overview 11 - 133 99 ort tourism sp are they in the right place based on – – D/C, user fees, funds that don’t come – use facilities - should be considered public spaces, not just playgrounds Good maintenance processes Creative program offerings Strong relationships with NAs and volunteers Distribution of facilities population and need? Lack of multiLack of energy efficient facilities Lack of service level definition Inability to respond to the neigbourhoods’ needs Aligning internal processes Transparency Innovative and futuristic view Parks Funding strategies to offset capital and maintenance costs Sustainability (social, economic, financial, environmental) Partnerships Funding sources through the tax base Economic development ----------------- area southwest of our size ment/tourism facility City even distribution – we need to address areas of high use facilities - – energy/sustainability vidence to drive decisions People/staff High number of facilities for a Neighbourhood based facilities and easy access for residents Lack of funding to maintain large network of facilities A lot of aging infrastructure and lack of replacement plan Lack of accessibility to facilities by public and active transit No competitive sports/entertainLack of consistent branding Lack of services and facilities in the Proper budgeting and lifecycle replacement plans Leaders in Partnerships Finding a balance on where we place small neighbourhood amenities vs. district multiService level definition Demand (usage/growth) demand Data and eSupports inequitable areas Cost Response ------------------ Question What are the strengths ofKitchener’s recreation/leisure facilitiesand services? What are the gaps or concerns of Kitchener’s recreation/leisure facilitiesand services? What are the top three priorities that should beconsidered in the LFMP? What criteria should staff use to prioritizerecommendations in the LFMP? 11 - 134 100 easing Courtland - are met based on City use facilities and complexes - Facilities are well maintained Good relationships with NAs and sport groups Strong neighbourhood model No Olympic size pool/diving facility Lack of multiLack of open community space for meetings, gatherings, etc. Expanded or new community centre in MillImprovements and redevelopment of Rockway Indoor and outdoor soccer facilities Cricket pitch/facility Ensuring the needs of the whole demand Affordability for users Accessibility for users Cost Partnerships Growing demands on Victoria Park and DCC with incrdowntown intensification Lack of gymnasium space (groups getting kicked out of school space) NA relationships and structure can create inequity among neighbourhoods --------------- --- West area - of our size City transportation we need to address areas – West (pool, arena and CC) - soccer fields Good mix of facilities People/staff High number of facilities for a Lack of services and facilities in the SouthNo cricket pitch/facility Indoor Replacement strategy for Budd Park Lack of sport tourism opportunities Lack of hard surface courts (basketball) Innovative and sustainable solutions to recreation needs Facilities in the SouthPartnerships Operating and maintaining existing facilities Connecting trails and active Demographic data Location of current assets Demand (usage/growth) of high demand Equity Response ------------------ f use to priorities that Question What are the strengths of Kitchener’srecreation/leisure facilities andservices? What are the gaps or concerns ofKitchener’s recreation/leisure facilitiesand services? What are the top three should be considered in the LFMP? What criteria should stafprioritize recommendations in the LFMP? 11 - 135 101 City ty centre rentals is too high Facilities are distributed across the Facilities are well maintained Some programs don’t meet the changing needs of the neighbourhoods Better communication and promotion of programs Keep services and programs within the neighbourhood and easy to access Build age friendly facilities and programs Filling in the gaps where facilities don’t exist ------- Good variety of programming Pool facilities have good availability No cricket facility Cost of communiMaintain existing infrastructure Change room facilities at pools ------- not just youth or – pools City that are strategically placed across ng use of space affordable and inclusive programs People/staff Variety of programs offered Leisure Access Card Lack of accessible transportation to facilities Some facilities are overcrowded Need to focus on family leisure seniors. Increase awareness so people know what is available Provide Affordable investments Maximizi not just physical but all barriers. Response ---------- – City Lots of community centres the PAL Card Facilities are fairly accessible and easy to access for mobility devices Lack of gymnasium space for sport use Wheel chair lifts are not available at Wayfinding and signage is difficult to find and read at most facilities, especially parks and trails Safety Affordability Inclusivity Accessibility Accessibility Response ----------- eisure facilities prioritize sidered in the LFMP? Question What are the strengths of Kitchener’srecreation/leisure facilities and services? What are the gaps or concerns of Kitchener’srecreation/leisure facilities and services? What are the top three priorities that should be considered in the LFMP? What criteria should staff use to prioritizerecommendations in the LFMP? Question What are the strengths ofKitchener’s recreation/leisure facilitiesand services? What are the gaps or concerns of Kitchener’s recreation/land services? What are the top three priorities that should beconWhat criteria should staff use to recommendations in the LFMP? 11 - 136 Appendix K Have a Say Where You Play -online survey SECTION 1 -RECREATION PREFENCES 1.Select the INDOOR activities that you or 2.Select the OUTDOOR activities that you or members of your household have members of your household have participated participated in during the previous 12 in during the previous 12 months.* months.* o Badminton o Creative arts o Ball (baseball, fast ball, slo-pitch, T-ball) o Curling o Basketball o Dance o Cricket o Fitness classes (yoga, boot camp) o Cycling (BMX, mountain biking, road o Games (cards, shuffleboard, billiards) cycling) o Gymnastics o Community gardening o Gymnasium sports (basketball, o Disc sports (ultimate Frisbee, disc golf) pickleball, badminton) o Dog parks o Hockey o Football o Ice skating (lessons or public skate) o Golf o Indoor walking or running o Walking for leisure o Lacrosse o Lacrosse o Martial arts o Outdoor (winter) skating o Roller blading (roller skating, derby, o Pickleball inline skating) o Picnic, social gathering o Social events (community gatherings) o Rugby o Swimming lessons o Roller blading (roller skating, inline skating) o Swimming -fitness (water sports, aqua o Running/jogging fit, lane swim, family swim) o Soccer o Other, please specify o Skateboarding o Skiing/snowboarding o Swimming (outdoor pool/splash pad) o Tennis o Track and field o Volleyball/beach volleyball o Visiting a neighbourhood park or playground o Other, please specify 102 11 - 137 3. How do you prefer to participate in recreation/leisure activities?* o Scheduled programs/activities (same time and location for several weeks) o Drop-in programs/activities (public skate, lane swim, basketball) o Competitive programs/activities o Self-led activities (walking, running, cycling, splash pads) o Instructor led programs/activities o Other, please specify 4. What, if anything, LIMITS you and/or members of your household from participating in recreation opportunities?* o Age/health issues o Cost of participating o Lack of facilities or facility space o Lack of interest o Lack of programming options o Not enough time o Transportation barriers o Unaware of what is available o Nothing o Other, please specify 5. What types of recreation programs are missing in the City of Kitchener? SECTION 2 –FACILITY USAGE 6. What types of recreation facilities are missing in the City of Kitchener? 7. Do you or a member of your household 11.Do you or a member of your household use use ARENAS? BALL DIAMONDS? *ice pads used for hockey, skating, ringette, o Yes etc. o No o Yes 12.Do you or a member of your household use o No SPORT FIELDS? 8. Do you or a member of your household *soccer, football, lacrosse, ultimate Frisbee, etc. use INDOOR POOLS? o Yes o Yes o No o No 13.Do you or a member of your household use 9. Do you or a member of your household SPLASH PADS? use INDOOR TURF/SPORTS FIELDS? o Yes o Yes o No o No 103 11 - 138 10.Do you or a member of your household 14.Do you or a member of your household use use COMMUNITY CENTRES? OUTDOOR POOLS? *community centres are local gathering o Yes places that offer fitness programing and o No social programs 15.Do you or a member of your household use o Yes OUTDOOR RINKS? o No o Yes o No 16.Do you or a member of your household use OUTDOOR COURTS? **For each question, if YES…. *basketball, tennis, pickleball o Yes o No 1. How far are you willing to travel to 17.Do you or a member of your household use this type of facility? NEIGHBOURHOOD PARKS/PLAYGROUNDS? o 0 to 3 km o Yes o 4 to 6 km o No o 7 to 9 km 18.Do you or a member of your household use o More than 9km TRAILS? o Yes 2. Do the facilities in this category o No meet your expectations? 19.Do you or a member of your household use o Meet expectation CITY WIDE PARKS (Victoria Park, Kiwanis o Exceed expectations Park, McLennan Park)? o Do not meet expectations o Yes o No 3. What facilities do not meet your 20.Do you or a member of your household use expectations? DOG PARKS? o Yes o No SECTION 3 –PRIORITIES 21.How should the City invest in recreation facilities? (select three) The City should spend money on recreation when: o There is a high community demand o The facility and/or program will provide affordable options to residents o The City can partner with another organization to reduce costs o An existing facility needs repair/improvement o The facility will bring non-local spending to the City (sport tourism) o The facility does not exist in the City of Kitchener 22.Which of the following is more important?* o Building new recreation facilities o Investing in existing recreation facilities 104 11 - 139 23.Considering the City’s limited funding resources to operate, maintain, improve and build new recreation facilities, select the top three priorities you would like the City to focus on in the next 10 years. o Arenas (ice pads) o Ball diamonds o BMX/bike parks o Gymnasium facility (basketball, volleyball, badminton) o Indoor multi-purpose space for community events/gatherings o Indoor turf o Neighbourhood parks and playgrounds o Outdoor courts (tennis, basketball, pickleball) o Outdoor multi-purpose space for community events/gatherings o Outdoor rinks o Pools (indoor) o Pools (outdoor) o Skateboard parks o Splash pads o Sport fields o Trails and walkways SECTION 4 –ABOUT YOU 24.What is your postal code?* 25.Please describe your household by recording the number of members in each age group.* o 0-4 years o 5-9 years o 20-29 years o 30-39 years o 40-49 years o 50-59 years o 50-59 years o 60-69 years o 70-79 yeas o 80+ years 26.Do you want to enter our name in the contest for a chance to win 1 of 8 weekly draws and the grand prize draw?* o Yes o No 27.Additional comments 105 11 - 140