HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-08-068 - Bridgeport Community Centre Expansion Business Case1
R ''
Community Services
Report To: Community Services Committee
Date of Meeting: September 29, 2008
Submitted By: Mark Hildebrand, Director Community Programs and Services
ext. 2687
Prepared By: Janet Cote, District Facilitator Victoria Hills Community Centre
Ward(s) Involved: Ward 1
Date of Report: September 12, 2008
Report No.: CSD-08-068
Subject: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE EXPANSION
BUSINESS CASE
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Bridgeport Community Centre (BCC) expansion business case, as attached to
report CSD-08-068, presented by Monteith Brown Planning Consultants and Green Propeller
Design be approved; and,
That the proposed building expansion and renovations, outlined in the BCC expansion
business case, be implemented using a phased development approach; and,
That, subject to 2009 capital budget deliberations, phase 1 of the proposed community
centre expansion be implemented in 2009; and,
That, subject to 2009 capital budget deliberations, phase 2 of the proposed community
centre expansion be budgeted for in 2015; and,
That prior to the implementation of phase 2, staff review the BCC expansion business case
and the needs in the community to ensure that the information and recommendations
contained in the business case are still relevant.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Kitchener has invested in the development and support of neighbourhood based
recreation and leisure services for close to three decades. The 2005 Leisure Facilities Master Plan
(LFMP) proposes the City create "a diverse array of accessible leisure participation opportunities
that encourage community capacity building, resident health and well-being and strengthen the
City's neighbourhoods." Community Resource Centres are the "foundation upon which
neighbourhoods and districts are supported, volunteer-based delivery is facilitated and community
Report No. CSD-08-068 Page 2
programs are delivered" and are the means to achieving the vision of community development and
citizen engagement.
The Community Resource Centre model is consistent with the Plan for a Healthy Kitchener, and
earlier documents including Compass Kitchener, the Youth Opportunities Plan, and the Corporate
Plan. Plan for a Healthy Kitchener offers a strategic approach in six key areas -quality of life;
diversity; and leadership and community engagement being the most relevant to community centre
development.
REPORT:
The Bridgeport Community Centre (BCC), is a 5,454 sq.ft. facility that has been in operation since
1970. The Bridgeport area has a deep rooted history of community members identifying and
responding to the needs of the community. In approximately, 1943 Levi Snyder willed $7,200 of his
estate for future generations of Bridgeport. In 1968, the Bridgeport Council matched Levi Snyder's
funds as well as using several provincial grants, to establish an outdoor ice rink and building that
was constructed with a shelter, wash rooms, lunch bar and tables. In 1970, the Bridgeport local
Lion's Club and the Bridgeport Veteran's Association donated monies to enlarge the building so it
could be used as a meeting place. In 1974, the Village of Bridgeport was annexed with the City of
Kitchener. In 1979, it was resolved by City Council that the Bridgeport Community Association
(BCA) would oversee the operations of the Centre. In 1980 and 2002, the BCA and City Council re-
affirmedthe 1979 Council resolution regarding the Operating of the BCC by the BCA.
Monteith Brown Planning Consultants were contracted to complete the Bridgeport Community
Centre expansion business case, to determine the most appropriate size, location and configuration
of the BCC in order to accommodate future demand for leisure programming, community space and
social services. The business case focused both on the short and long term needs of the
community. It reviewed the community profile and growth projections, as well as broad-based
trends in recreation. The completion of the business case was a participatory process with the
involvement of local residents and key stakeholders, using multiple methods to solicit input and
engage citizens. Public consultations indicated general support for an expansion and confirmed the
need and demand for additional space to meet recreational, social, health and well-being needs.
The LFMP identifies several criteria to be applied when considering the development or expansion
of community resource centres. These include a successful history of volunteerism and program
delivery; a defined service area; maximized use of other community facilities; interim use of portable
facilities when appropriate; and awell-documented business case supporting the development.
The business case demonstrates that an expansion at the BCC is supported by the LFMP criteria.
Demonstrated Need
Research and public input indicates there is a "gap" between the type of facility that is currently
provided at the BCC and the needs of the community. Growth projections indicate that the
community will grow by 44% over the next 25 years. The current community centre includes a large
hall, small meeting room, storage areas, office, kitchen and bar area, washrooms and equipment
room. A small renovation was completed in 2001 updating the front portion of the facility, including
the washrooms. It was found in the business case that BCC is lacking amid-sized meeting room,
additional offices and storage, as well as a gymnasium for active play.
Report No. CSD-08-068 Paae 3
Proposed Facility Expansion
Input from multiple stakeholders showed significant support for having the Community Centre
remain at its current location and expanding, rather than building a new facility in another part of the
community. Familiarity with the location, proximity to Schaeffer Park and the Grand River and the
perceived needs of the community were all contributing factors. However, the BCC is located within
a floodway regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). This is of note because
GRCA policy restricts the allowable size of the building expansion to a maximum of 1,076 sq.ft. The
City's Zoning By-Law also restricts expansion to 25% of the current floor area (1,364 sq.ft.). The
City may apply for relief from one or both of these policies, with approval (which is not guaranteed)
required from the GRCA Board, and City Council or committee of adjustment. More details
regarding site restrictions and expansion options can be found on page 27 of the business case.
Although there are site constraints it still may be possible to meet the space needs as described in
the business case through a combination of expanding and renovating the current facility. The
following indoor spaces, in priority order, have been recommended:
1. Medium sized meeting/activity room,
2. Additional storage,
3. Additional office space,
4. Single gymnasium, and
5. Improved lounge/lobby.
There currently is not adequate funding to support the recommended expansion elements outlined
in the business case. To help mitigate the funding challenges it is being suggested that the
proposed building improvements could be undertaken through a phased development approach as
the need for a medium sized meeting room and storage space is the most pressing. The following
is being proposed in each phase:
Phase 1- 890 sq ft expansion; 330 sq ft renovation
Addition of a mid sized meeting room, storage area,
Internal renovations, including a reconfiguration of internal space, addition of storage space.
Phase 2 - 650 sq ft expansion; 3,500 sq ft renovation
Creation of second office and additional storage,
Conversion of existing hall into a divisible gymnasium.
If the project is divided into 2 phases, the estimated cost, in 2008 dollars, is $2.161 million, $0.499
million in phase 1 and $1.662 million in phase 2. However estimating 3% inflation, if phase 2 was
scheduled to be completed in 2015, the cost of this phase would increase to approximately $1.985
million for a total cost of $2.484 million. If the project was completed in its entirety, without phasing
the development, the total cost is estimated to be $2.128 million (2008 dollars). All estimates are
considered "D" class estimates. If the project is split into two phases, additional consultation with
the community should be pursued prior to launching phase 2 to ensure that the information and
recommendations in the business case are still relevant.
Report No. CSD-08-068 Page 4
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Costs
Three hundred sixteen thousand dollars was identified in the 2008 capital budget to provide an
expansion to the Bridgeport Community Centre. Page thirty-nine of the business case provides a
full preliminary capital budget for phase 1 and 2. An additional $183,000 is required in order to
complete phase 1 of this project which is being referred to 2009 capital budget deliberations. Staff
is suggesting that it may be possible to fund $105,000 of this amount from existing capital budgets,
from projects reaching their conclusion with balances remaining. Specifically staff are suggesting
that $100,000 could be used from the Victoria Hills Community Centre expansion budget, and
$5,000 from the Chandler Mowat Community Centre construction budget. This would leave an
additional $78,000 that would be requested during 2009 budget deliberations.
Staff is also suggesting that $1.985 million be placed in the capital budget forecast in 2015 to
complete phase 2 of the development.
Operating Costs:
No new operating dollars outside a 3% inflationary increase are expected in the 2009 budget year.
However staff anticipates that, if phase 1 is approved for completion in 2009, additional operating
dollars will be requested during 2010 budget deliberations.
Mark Hildebrand
Director, Community Programs and Services
Community Services Department
~IS111~S~S ~S@
Bridgeport Community Centre -Expansion
August 26, 2008
Table of Contents
Sertinn
P~
1. Executive Summa
rY, ..................................................................................... 1
.......................
2. Background 3
Problem l 0 ortuni
Pp tY------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
-----------------------
Brill a ort Communit Centre Histo
9 P Y rY------------------------------------------------------- 3
-----------------------
Community Profile & Growth Projections 4
Broad-based Trends in Community Services & Recreation 8
3. Key Supporting Information, ........................................................................ ......................12
Community Resource Centres' Mandate, .................................................. .....................,12
LFMP Decision Making Criteria---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------.13
4. Project Description ....................................................................................... ......................19
Project Objectives------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------.19
Facility Design Objectives------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- 20
Program & Facility Utilization,-------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- 21
Facility Components--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- 23
Site Restrictions & Expansion Options ...................................................... .....................27
Community Centre Site Evaluation, ........................................................... .....................29
Stakeholders,-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------.30
Partnerships--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------.31
Timeframe 31
Out of Scope,-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------.32
5. Strategic Alignment ..................................................................................... ......................33
6. Environmental Context 35
Project Location---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------.35
Facilities in Bridgeport and the Surrounding Neighbourhood ..................... .....................,35
7. Project Risk Assessment ............................................................................. ......................37
Risks to the Project----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------.37
Risk of Not Proceeding with Project (Status Quo), ..................................... .....................,38
8. Economic & Community ImpactAnalysis, .................................................. .....................,39
Quantitative Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------.39
Qualitative Analysis,---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------46
9. Conclusions 48
Appendices
A- Map of the Bridgeport Planning Area
B -Public Consultation Summary
C - BCA Historic Program Registration Data and Scheduling
D -BCC Expansion -Conceptual Layouts
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE -EXPANSION
AUGUST 2008
Business Case
Bridgeport Community Centre -Expansion
The Strategy
The City of Kitchener has fourteen community centres that serve as recreational and community hubs, most of
which are programmed by neighbourhood associations and local partners with support from the City. The
Bridgeport Community Centre (BCC) is somewhat unique in that the Bridgeport Community Association (BCA}
not only provides programs in the Centre, but also is responsible for the general operation (which is normally a
municipal responsibility); this arrangement has served the Bridgeport area well.
The purpose of this Business Case is to identify the optimal expansion programme for the Bridgeport Community
Centre. The lack of space at the BCC has hindered the ability of the Bridgeport Community Association to offer
additional programs and has restricted certain groups, particularly those that require space for "active play".
Additionally, the current layout of the Centre is not ideal for simultaneous programming as it only offers two
rooms, one of which is quite small. Future population growth in the area is also expected to create additional and
new pressures on program space at the facility.
The success of the programming offered by the BCA -coupled with the growth projections for the community
and the existing limits on program variety - makes a strong case for expanding the BCC. Please note that no
recommendations are made with regard to the BCC operating arrangement as this is outside the study scope, as
are major changes to the outdoor elements of the site and the adjacent park.
The recommendations inthis Business Case are supported by the City's Leisure Facilities Master Plan and are in
concert with the directions of the Plan for a Healthy Kitchener, the City's Corporate Plan, Compass Kitchener, and
Youth Opportunities Plan.
Present Situation
The Bridgeport Community Centre -located at 20 Tyson Drive adjacent to Tyson Parkin City of Kitchener U11ard
One -has been in operation since 1970, when groups such as the local Lion's Club and the Bridgeport Veterans
Association provided financial assistance to construct the existing building as a complement to the outdoor rink.
Many Bridgeport residents spent their childhood participating in programs at the Centre and have become
community leaders in adulthood. Continuing to respect local history and promoting the use of the BCC by
multiple generations of families is of the utmost importance to the community.
The front portion of the Centre (including washrooms} was upgraded in 2001. The BCC is currently 5,454 square
feet in size, and includes a: large hall; small meeting room; two storage areas; warming kitchen and bar; office;
washrooms; janitor's storage and equipment room; and outdoor space containing an outdoor rink (natural) with
basketball nets, and two small parking lots. Tyson Park is immediately to the west of the Centre and contains
play equipment and open space.
The Bridgeport Community Association and a committed group of volunteers provide all of the leisure programs
offered at the BCC. In 2007, the BCA offered over 20 seasonal programs such as guitar lessons, youth drop-in,
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGEI
AUGUST 2008
yoga, and karate. The facility is also used by several community groups (e.g., Beavers, Lion's Club, etc.) and
rented for events such as stag and does, corporate functions, and community gatherings. Registered programs,
user groups, and events accounted for nearly 4,000 visits to the Centre in 2007 (rentals excluded).
The development of this Business Case is focused on both the short and long-term needs of the community. The
2006 Census identified a population of 4,200 in Bridgeport, but growth forecasts from the Region of Waterloo
indicate that the area will approach 6,000 people in twenty years time and has an ultimate capacity of 7,400 to
7,700 people. Bridgeport is a unique community in Kitchener, in part related to its heritage as a village separate
from the City. It was noted throughout the public consultation that Bridgeport is afamily-focused community that
offers a "small town" feel where everyone is welcome. This philosophy translates into a community with a range
of demographic characteristics, including income, age, and education. Bridgeport is not an immigrant recipient
community, nor is there a large transient population.
Present Challenge
This Business Case considers several factors in evaluating space, program and design options, not the least of
which was the input provided by residents, stakeholder organizations, volunteers, City staff, and members of the
Bridgeport Community Association. Research and input from the public indicates that there is a gap between the
type of facility that is currently provided at the Bridgeport Community Centre and the needs of the community.
While the BCC can accommodate a variety of groups, the facility is lacking amedium-sized meeting room and a
gymnasium for active play. With the expansion of the BCC, ancillary amenities such as storage and office space
should also be improved.
The Community Centre is located within a floodway regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority
(GRCA). GRCA policies restrict the allowable size of the building expansion to a maximum of 1,076 square feet.
The City's Zoning By-law also restricts expansion to 25% of the current floor area (approximately 1,364 square
feet). The City may apply for relief from one or both of these policies, with approval (which is not guaranteed)
required from the GRCA Board and City Council or Committee of Adjustment.
Resulting Opportunity
The expansion of the BCC would provide additional capacity to the BCA to offer recreation and leisure programs
to the community. The BCA has an excellent track record of providing meaningful programming and at the same
time augmenting the local community values of Bridgeport. This project will allow the Community Centre to
continue to be a true focal point for the Bridgeport area.
The expansion project presented in this report calls for an addition of 1,534 square feet and the renovation of
3,827 square feet through a staged construction approach. Phase 1 largely consists of the addition of a mid-size
activity room and storage, while Phase 2 involves the conversion of the hall into a gymnasium. Varying degrees
of internal renovations are required for both phases.
The entire capital cost is estimated at $2.13 to $2.16 million, depending on project phasing; this includes
construction, site development, soft costs, and contingencies. Phase 1 is estimated at $0.50 million and Phase 2
at $1.66 million. Furthermore, a facility expansion is likely to affect the Centre's operating budget - a portion of
which is addressed by City grants -with increases generally being commensurate with the additional floor space.
Additional funding will be required to complete this project. Presently, Council has $0.32 million allocated in the
2008 capital budget to the expansion of the Bridgeport Centre. Phase 1 requires $0.18 million more than what is
in the City's capital budget forthis project; this phase is likely to be eligible for Development Charge funding.
Should funding be made available, the first phase could be completed as early as Fall 2009. If the City decides
not to phase the project and undertake all improvements at once, the entire project could be completed within a
12-month period. If the project is split into two stages, additional consultation with the community should be
pursued prior to launching Phase 2, particularly given the amount of time that could lapse between phases.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE2
AUGUST 2008
Problem /Opportunity
The up rpose of the Business Case is to determine the most appropriate size, location and configuration of
the Bridgeport Community Centre to accommodate demand for leisure programming, community space,
and social services. The Business Case also provides a detailed concept plan and associated cost
estimates. The ob~ective is to provide the community with amulti-use and multi-generational facility that
responds to the current and future characteristics of the Bridgeport community.
Bridgeport is a well established community within the City of Kitchener, and is recognized as a unique
community with character and personality. The residents who make up the Bridgeport Community have a
strong sense of their past, and a keen interest in maintaining a broad range of services for the
neighbourhood. However, the area around Bridgeport is changing to include a wider demographic range,
which impacts the type of leisure and social services that could be provided through the Community Centre.
Additionally, growth projections indicate that the community will grow by 44% over the next 25 years.
Bridgeport Community Centre History
In 1968, money willed to the Bridgeport community from Levi and Hannah Snyder in the 1940s, was
allocated towards the construction of an outdoor ice rink. Following the Village of Bridgeport Council's
decision to supply a shelter, washrooms, lunch bar, and tables for the rink, the Lions Club and Bridgeport
Veterans Association pledged monies to enlarge the building to accommodate meeting space. The centre
was opened to the community in 1970. When the Village of Bridgeport was annexed to the City of
Kitchener in 1974, the Bridgeport Community Centre ("BCC") became the responsibility of the City.
In 1979, City of Kitchener Council passed a resolution to allow the Bridgeport Community Association
("BCA") to operate the Bridgeport Community Centre; this direction was subsequently reaffirmed by the City
in both 1980 and 2002. The BCA is avolunteer-based, non-profit organization that maintains the BCC,
provides leisure and educational programming at the Centre, and coordinates facilities rentals. In 1994, the
BCA requested that the Bridgeport Community Association staff manager be on the City's payroll as there
were not enough volunteers to run the Centre. While the request was not granted, the Association
continued to manage all aspects of the Centre with funding through annual operating grants and with the
support of City staff. It is important to note that the BCA is the only community association in Kitchener that
is charged with the mandate of operating the community centre in which they offer programming. The City
does assist with indoor repairs and outdoor maintenance. This report does not make any recommendations
with regard to the BCC operating arrangement as this is outside the study scope.
The City of Kitchener upgraded the BCC in 2001, reorganizing the front section of the Centre. The BCC is
currently 5,454 square feet, and includes a large hall, small meeting room, warming kitchen, office,
washrooms, and an outdoor rink. There is a playground adjacent to the BCC that is maintained by the City.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE3
AUGUST 2008
Time Period Significant Actions
1943 (approx.) Levi Snyder wills $7,200 of his estate for future generations of Bridgeport children.
1968 Bridgeport Village Council matches Levi and Hannah Snyder's legacy and, using
several provincial grants, plans are made to construct an outdoor ice rink at 20 Tyson
Drive, complete with a shelter, washrooms, lunch bar, and tables.
1970 In addition to monies donated by the Bridgeport VeteransRssociation, the Bridgeport
Lion's Club donated funds to complete the building in May so that it could be used for
their meetings.
1970-1973 Bridgeport Community Centre is operated by the Lion's Club and the community.
1974 Bridgeport Village is annexed with the City of Kitchener.
1979 On August 7, a recommendation that the BCA (then the Bridgeport Community
Recreational Association) be responsible for the operation of the Bridgeport Community
Centre was approved by Kitchener Council.
1980 1979 resolution of Kitchener Council that the BCA operate the Centre was reaffirmed by
the City of Kitchener after a review process.
1991 The roles and responsibilities were specified for the Bridgeport Community Association
and the City of Kitchener with regards to the Bridgeport Community Centre.
1994 Due to lack of volunteers, a requestwas made to Council that a Bridgeport Community
Association staff member be placed on the City's payroll. The request was denied, but
the Association continued to manage all aspects of the Centre, with funding through
annual operating grants and with the support of City staff.
2000-2001 A $90,000 facility renovation is completed.
2001 Bridgeport Community Association requests for continued responsibility for overall
operations and programming at the Centre.
2002 Bridgeport Community Association and City Council re-affirmed the 1979 Council
Resolution regarding the operation of the Bridgeport Community Centre by the BCA.
Community Profile 8~ Growth Projections
To assist in developing a business case for the Bridgeport Community Centre expansion, it is essential to
have a comprehensive understanding of the demographic composition of the community. It is also important
to understand whether Bridgeport is similar to the composition of the City of Kitchener as a whole. This
section identifies past, current and projected population profiles, along with other socio-economic
considerations, to assess the implications of trends which may impact the provision of leisure services and
facilities in Bridgeport.
The main sources of information for this section, unless otherwise stated, are the 2001 and 2006 Census
and population projections from the Region of Waterloo.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE4
AUGUST 2008
Current and Forecasted Population
^ The population of the Bridgeport planning community grew considerably between 2001 and 2006 from
3,090 to 4,200 - a growth rate of 36% -due largely to new housing developments. In the context of
entire City of Kitchener, 1,100 new residents may not seem like a lot, but it is creating a very noticeable
difference at the community level.
^ Bridgeport has a population density of 7.7 people per hectare, an increase from 5.7 people per hectare
in 2001, making it one of the least dense planning districts in the City (out of 53 Planning Communities).
^ The Bridgeport planning area is projected to grow to 7,400-7,700 people by full build-out, which is
expected at some point beyond 2031. Looking over the next twenty years, the area is forecasted to
grow by approximately 1,500 people, representing an increase of 34% over its current population.
^ The removal of the development freeze in the Bridgeport area could increase the rate of population
growth in the near future.
Figure 2-1: Historical and Forecasted Population Growth, Bridgeport Planning Area
8, 000
.7,4a
7, 000
6,045....._......
6, 000
~ 5, 000 4, 640 5, 725
5, 030
~ 4, 000
~ 3,090 4,200
~ 3, 000 2, 530 _
a _w _
2, 846
2, 000
2, 240
1, 000
0
1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Build
0 ut
Year
Source: Statistics Canada, 2006; Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing and Community Services Department, January 2008
Local Implications: Additional growth will create increased demand for existing and new recreation
programs and community rentals. The forecasted rate of growth is relatively steady over the next twenty
or more years, suggesting that demand will build steadily over time. With a lower built density,
transportation may be a barrier to participation for many Bridgeport residents.
Notes: The population forecasts are provided by the Region of Waterloo Planning, Housing and Community
Services Department. The forecast accounts for the anticipated implications of the recent "Places to
Grow" legislation and the removal of the local development freeze between 2011 to 2016 (subject to
the redevelopment of the Bridge on Bridge Street}.
The Region has indicated that the forecast was formulated from a long term, Region-wide model,
and may not accurately reflect development activity in the near term. While the Region is
reasonably confident in the "ultimate" projection (i.e., capacity of the area}, the actual rate of growth
could vary significantly.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE -EXPANSION PAGE 5
AUGUST 2008
Current and Forecasted Age Composition
Age can be a significant factor in determining what kinds of community services are required -younger age
groups tend to partake in more physically active forms of recreation while the propensity to participate in
more passive activities tends to increase as a person ages. Key age-related statistics include:
^ The City's overall population is aging, with the "Baby Boom" generation (currently 44 to 62 years of
age} approaching their senior years. Projections indicate that the number of residents 50 years of age
or older in the City will increase from 28% to 34% of the total population over the next 15 years.
^ Seniors over the age of 50 constitute 24% of Bridgeport's population, compared to 29% across the
entire City. The number of seniors will be significantly greater as the aging trend continues.
^ Youth under the age of 19 comprise 28% of Bridgeport's population - by comparison, youth represent
26% of the city-wide population.
^ Population forecasts indicate that the strongest local growth will occur in the 35 plus age cohorts (see
Figure 2-2), while the size of the 0 to 14 age group is not expected to change to any considerable
degree. Figure 2-2 illustrates the historic and forecasted age-related changes in the three Bridgeport
planning communities from 1996 to 2026.
Figure 2-2: Bridgeport Age Structure (1996 to 2026)
1,000
800
N
~ 600
.y
~ 400
L
m
Z 200
0
D~ ~~` D~ ~ D~ ~ D~ D~ ~ x
ova ~a Doti ~ ~ ~o~ ~ h ~ ~ ~~;~ h
h ,~h ~~ ~h ~~ hh
Age Cohort
®1996 2006 ^ 2016 ^ 2026
Source: Statistics Canada, 1996 & 2006; Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing and Community Services Dept., January 2008
Local Implications: The large proportion of "Baby Boomers" entering their retirement years will demand
different activities than previous generations of seniors -they are predicted to maintain more active
lifestyles and will generally have the financial resources to participate in desired activities.
While the population in Bridgeport is aging, new families will still be moving to the community as new
subdivisions are built. It was noted through the consultation that many who grew up in Bridgeport and
moved away are coming back to start families.
Youth-oriented programming should continue to be a high priority for programming and drop-in activities,
although new focus should be given to "active" programming such as basketball.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE -EXPANSION PAGE 6
AUGUST 2008
Neighbourhood Characteristics & Building Composition
The following are some key facts pertaining to the Bridgeport community based on the 2001 Census Data
(similar data is not yet available from the 2006 Census):
79% of the dwellings in Bridgeport are owner-occupied, which is significantly higher than the City
average of 66%.
^ 71 % of occupied private dwellings are single detached dwellings; the City average is 58%.
^ Lone-parent families constitute 29% of Bridgeport's households, compared to 24% for the City - lone-
parenthouseholds may be less able to access community facilities and services due to income and time
constraints.
Local Implications: The composition of the area is a stable one, with a low transient population; this
increases the potential for residents to establish and maintain connections to community facilities.
Household Income & Education
Research indicates that a correlation exists between income and participation in recreational or cultural
activities, whereby higher incomes are often associated with higher participation rates. Also of note,
Statistics Canada research shows that wealth and family income increases with age, implying that older
adults still in the work force have higher levels of savings relative to others. Level of schooling is another
indicator of leisure participation, as the more educated a community is, the more physically active it will tend
to be. The following are some key statistics from the 2001 Census pertaining to income and education
(similar data is not yet available from the 2006 Census):
^ The median household income for the Bridgeport community is $55,480 which is above the $50,887
average household income across the City of Kitchener.
^ Approximately 21 % of residents in Bridgeport possess a trades certificate or university degree, which is
slightly below the City average of 24%.
Local Implications: The Bridgeport area has a higher than average median household income level, which
suggests that residents may have a higher than average interest in recreational participation.
Nevertheless, there are geographic pockets with lower or moderate income households; therefore,
program pricing must remain affordable.
Ethnicity & Language
^ Ethnic diversity is increasing in the City of Kitchener -the percentage of residents whose mother
tongue is neither French nor English has increased from approximately 25% to 29% between 2001 and
2006. However, English is the first language for 82% of residents in Bridgeport (2001 Census). Other
prominent languages include: German (6%), Spanish (2%), and Polish (2%).
^ In 2001,16% of residents in Bridgeport had immigrated to Canada; however, the majority of immigrants
arrived in Canada prior to 1980. In 2006, 26% of the City's population was recorded as being foreign-
born.
Local Implications: This information suggests that typical barriers to participation, such as income and
language, maybe lower in Bridgeport as the community has amedium-high income level and lower level
of ethnic diversity. This should not, however, preclude the consideration of providing social services in
Bridgeport, as the need for such services cannot be fully predicted by these indicators.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE -EXPANSION PAGE 7
AUGUST 2008
Broad-based Trends in Community Services & Recreation
This section contains a summary of some key trends and best practices in service delivery, participation,
and facility design that should be considered in determining the appropriate type and size of expansion
required to meet the current and future needs of the Bridgeport community. Information is primarily collected
from provincial and national research, with references to local implications or data where appropriate.
Growing Inactivity among Children and Youth
^ In 2005, only 52% of Canadians age 12 and over were considered to be "active or moderately active" in
leisure-time physical activity, meaning that nearly one-half are insufficiently active for optimal health
benefits2.
^ Teenagers aged 15 to 19 are more likely to be sedentary than those aged 12 to 14.
^ Girls between the ages of 12 and 14 are least likely to participate in structured recreational activities.
Local Implications: With increased health-related issues associated with high levels of physical inactivity
(such as obesity, diabetes, chronic ailments, etc.), the importance of recreation opportunities at the
neighbourhood-level is higher than ever.
Lack of Free Time is the Main Barrier to Participation
^ Canadians have - in every survey conducted by the Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute
since 1988 -identified "lack of time" as the most significant variable affecting participation in leisure
activities.
^ The 2002 CFLRI Physical Activity Monitor found that 75% of adults cite "lack of time" as a barrier to
physical activity, followed by "lack of energy" (64%), "lack of interest" (62%), and "illness or disability"
(57%).
^ Lack of time as a barrier to participation in leisure activities is largely a result of the evolving
employment and family structures in Canada, as well as commuting, home-based occupations, night-
shiftsand weekend work.
^ The Province has launched the "Active2010" program aiming to increase personal health by raising
awareness of the benefits of physical activity and motivating people to get active.
Local Implications: Increased demands on people's time has implications on the provision of recreation
facilities and services, including the demand for services during non-traditional hours, drop-in activities,
and the continued popularity of multi-purpose facilities that provide cross-programming opportunities
serving more than one family member.
2 Statistics Canada. Leisure-time physical activity, by age group and sex, household population aged 12 and
over, Canada, provinces, terrrtories, health regions (June 2005 boundaries) and peer groups, every 2 years
(CANSIM Table105-0433). Ottawa, Statistics Canada, 2006.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE -EXPANSION PAGE 8
AUGUST 2008
Polarization of Income Groups leaves Leisure Activities Unaffordable to Many
Statistics Canada has identified that the richest 10% of the Canadian population have seen an increase in
their income by 14%, while the poorest 10% have seen an income increase of less than 1 % (2001 Census).
Local Implications: While the higher than average household income levels in Bridgeport suggest that the
majority of residents are able to access leisure programs, there may be households in Bridgeport that
require assistance to participate. Affordable pricing should remain part of the local mandate.
Awareness and Understanding of Challenges Confronting Persons with Disabilities
A barrier to participation is defined by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act as anything that
prevents a person with a disability from fully participating in all aspects of society because of his or her
disability, including physical, architectural, informational, communicational, attitudinal, technological, or
policylpracticebarrler.
For leisure facilities, this could include ramps to entrances, proper lighting, clearly marked identification
signs, and the inclusion of handrails.
Local Implications: An expansion to the BCC should continue to be cognizant of the opportunities to
improve accessibility (including meeting the provincial requirements).
Participation in Organized Sports is Declining
^ Participation in sport has declined significantly in Canada during the last decade (although there are
exceptions, such as soccer}.
^ Sport participation levels decline with age, beginning at the age of 12 and dropping off considerably
beyond the age of 20.
^ There are gender preferences for sport; favoured activities for women are generally swimming,
baseball and volleyball, while men generally prefer hockey, baseball or basketball.
^ Children whose parents participate in sport are more likely to be active (two-thirds of active children
have one or more parent engaged in sport).
Local Implications: With rising interest in informal leisure activities, as well as self improvement and
fitness-related activities, the BCC must be poised to respond to the changing needs and expectations of
local residents.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE9
AUGUST 2008
"Active Living" Opportunities are Being Embraced by Older Adults
^ The "baby boomer" population will reach retirement age over the next 5-plus years.
^ There will be a shift away from participation in traditional leisure activities towards activities that are
more informal, casual and self scheduled; in this regard, it is expected that older adults will prefer a
drop-in approach to activities.
^ "Active Living" focuses on improving overall personal health by encompassing a range of traditional and
emerging pursuits that may be less strenuous but equally as beneficial as active recreation -high
quality multi-use facilities are capitalizing on this trend by offering activities such as swimming, fitness,
yoga, etc. at a single, convenient location.
^ In general, "younger" seniors of today and tomorrow are expected to be wealthier and more physically
active than those from past generations.
Local Implications: There will likely be a greater demand for programs and activities aimed at older adults.
Younger seniors may not be as interested in participating in traditional activities favoured by current senior
citizens.
Volunteering on the Rise, but remains under Pressure
Volunteers are essential to the operation of a large number of leisure programs, including special events
and programs for children, and many municipalities rely heavily on their assistance. The 2004 National
Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating findings include:
^ 18% of the volunteer hours in Canada are in the sports and recreation sector.
^ Approximately 45% of Canadians (15 years or older) volunteered in 2004. While this is an increase
from the previous survey completed in 2000, it must be noted that the absolute average volunteer
hours per year only increased from 162 hours per year to 168 hours (the increases may be related to
the recent addition of mandatory volunteer hours for high school students, as part of their curriculum}.
^ The volunteer rate is highest in the 19-24 age bracket (55%} and those with a University education and
a salary over $100,000 are more likely to volunteer.
Local Implications: Volunteers are a critical element of leisure delivery and this resource needs to
continually be trained and replenished for services to be effectively provided. The City of Kitchener has a
Volunteer Resources section that provides assistance to various groups and is also in the midst of
preparing a Volunteer Support Strategy.
Funding, User Fees & Partnerships
^ A survey undertaken by the Sport Alliance of Ontario identified "revenue to operate programs" as the
single greatest challenge facing sport in their community.
^ User fees and rental rates are rising across the province, as are insurance costs -the challenge is to
maintain equity and fairness and to ensure that lower income households are not excluded.
^ Partnerships, alliances and cost sharing relationships of varying types are required in this day and age
to effectively and efficiently provide forthe leisure needs of citizens.
Local Implications: A variety of funding sources must continue to be utilized to minimize the financial risk
faced by both funders and providers. The BCA should continue to be open to beneficial partnerships that
improve service to local residents.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE 10
AUGUST 2008
School Board Funding a Growing Concern
As school boards face increasing monetary pressure, due primarily to changes in their funding formulas,
there has been a downloading of costs to community groups and municipalities that rely heavily on school
facilities. Access to schools has been identified as a major concern for many non-profit groups. Province-
widefees imposed on these user groups increased by 138% between 1998 and 2003 across Ontario.
In 2005, the Provincial Government launched a program that makes community access after school and on
weekends somewhat more affordable to local citizens, although the savings vary from municipality to
municipality. Like any government program, the long-term availability of this funding is not guaranteed.
Local Implications: The importance of access to school facilities after-hours for the delivery of municipally
run and volunteer-driven programs should be recognized. Nevertheless, the use of local school facilities is
not guaranteed and has proven to be a barrier for many groups and residents.
Indoor Facility Planning
There are several key trends related to indoorfacility planning:
^ The desire for multi-purpose facilities to serve cross-programming demands, family recreation outings
and rising expectations for quality service and value for money.
^ Multi-purpose facilities are being recognized as `community hubs' which provide opportunities for the
integration of other municipal services and third party services (e.g. library, YMCA, day care,
medicaUhealthlwellness, employment services, etc.).
^ There is a need for flexible space (e.g. multi-purpose rooms, gymnasiums with retractable walls) to
provide a range of opportunities for the increased segmentation in demand due in part to the changes
in community composition.
^ As the younger, fitter, senior ("aging boomer") becomes a more significant cohort, the traditional stand-
aloneseniors centre cannot meet all of the programming needs of this age group. Integrating activities
for older adults into multi-use and multi-generational community centres is the preferred approach.
While we envision the "active" senior, eventually facilities will have to deal with increasing numbers of
"special needs" senior citizens - a factor that must be taken into consideration in facility design.
Accessibility for residents of all ages is paramount.
Local Implications: Any expansion of the Bridgeport Community Centre should consider opportunities to
ensure that the space is multi-use, multi-purpose, and multi-generational.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE 11
AUGUST 2008
Community Resource Centres' Mandate
The City of Kitchener's 2005 Leisure Facilities Master Plan (LFMP} proposes that the City of Kitchener
create: "a diverse array of accessible leisure participation opportunities that encourage community capacity
building, resident health and well-being and strengthen the city's neighbourhoods". The City of Kitchener
continues to invest in community resource centres as a means of achieving this vision.
The LFMP proposes athree-tiered delivery model that reflects a continuing commitment to neighbourhood
level leisure service opportunities, "not just of a recreational perspective, but on wellness, social services
and related parameters."
Figure 3-1: LFMP Three-Tiered Delivery Model
Resource Centre
District Recreation Centres
~ Specialized Community Facilities ~
The BCC, which provides leisure programming and facility rentals, falls within the Resource
Centre/Neighbourhood Program Centre description as noted in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Criteria to Meet Resource Centre Model
Criteria Meets Criteria
Service one or possibly two defined neighbourhoods or service areas/planning communities ~/
Provide meeting, program delivery (multi-use, rentable, gymnasium and related type spaces for
localized leisure and partner-oriented and funded social services program delivery.
Can be connected to a branch library, school or related community facility, but do not themselves partial)
Y
focus on servicing district areas of the city.
Are sized in terms of floor space and building features to reflect the numbers of people who live in
the defined service area, the types of programs and services needed and the alternative spaces
that are available within the community. They would generally be between 2,000 square feet and
20,000 square feet.
They would be operated within a partnership framework with the City of Kitchener Community
Services Department and local groups, neighbourhood or community associations, etc., with the
governance and operating model being developed based on local capacities, history, city policies,
etc.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE 12
AUGUST 2008
Community centres, such as the BCC, are "the foundation upon which neighbourhoods and districts are
supported, volunteer-based delivery is facilitated, and community programs are delivered'. The City of
Kitchener operates and maintains ten community resource centres and has unique
agreements/partnerships with four additional centres (including the BCC). In the winter of 2005,
neighbourhood associations and other partners connected to these facilities offered over 450 programs
across the City.
The Resource Centre model is also consistent with the directions of the recently completed "Plan for a
Healthy Kitchener (2007-2027". This document unifies the work of Compass Kitchener and the Healthy
Community Plan Working Group and provides a single strategic approach to delivering results in six key
areas: quality of life; leadership and community engagement; diversity; development; dynamic downtown;
and environment. A discussion of those strategic directions identified by the "Plan for a Healthy Kitchener"
that are relevant to this Business Case are addressed in Section 5: Strategic Alignment.
LFMP Decision Making Criteria
The Leisure Facilities Master Plan (LFMP) identifies that, "emerging resource centre requests, such as for
the Bridgeport Resource Centre expansion, be tested against the various criteria outlined in this Plan, and
determinations made as to whether these Business Plans identify appropriate need, fit and value". The
LFMP also maintains that "there has been recognition of a possible need to expand the Bridgeport
Resource Centre."
The LFMP states that decision-making about new and expanded resource centres needs to be based on a
consistent set of criteria. The LFMP development criteria support the expansion of the BCC, as identified in
the LFMP and through the discussion below.
The Bridgeport Community Association (formerly the Bridgeport Community Recreational Association) is
one of the oldest neighbourhood associations in the City, having operated the Centre since 1979. Their
Mission Statement indicates that they serve "the Bridgeport community by providing public recreation in co-
operation with existing community non profit groups, so that a coordinated program of activities results."
For the better part of the last decade, the BCA has focussed on the delivery of recreation programming at
the BCC, working with local groups such as the Lion's Club and the Women's Institute, and coordinating
facility rentals. The Association offers programs to a variety of age groups and interest areas. The ability to
offer recreation programming with low user fees is a result of the numerous committed volunteers.
The BCA Executive has four (4) executive positions filled at present (not including the City's District
Facilitator), all of which are volunteer roles. Additionally, numerous volunteers have assisted for many years
with programming and coordinating facility rentals. Many of the volunteers that assist at the BCC grew up
participating in programs at the Centre. The BCA also employs one (1) full-time and five (5) part-time staff
through revenues generated from programming, rentals, and City grants.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE 13
AUGUST 2008
Bridgeport is a tight knit community that is committed to ensuring the local leisure opportunities are available
and accessible to all residents. The BCA has a proven track record of this commitment, having operated at
the BCC since 1979. It is also important to note that many of the leaders/staff of the BCA attended
programs at the BCC as children. This positive cycle of leadership illustrates the value of the BCA/BCC in
the community, as well as the importance that the BCA places on nurturing local relationships and
embracing local history.
The Bridgeport Community Centre is located at 20 Tyson Drive, in the "village" of Bridgeport (see Appendix
A}. The Bridgeport Community Centre is the only indoor public recreation and leisure facility in the
Bridgeport area and currently includes a large hall, meeting room, storage space, and warming kitchen.
Outside the building are outdoor rink and a playground (to the east and west, respectively).
The Bridgeport area is defined by Woolwich Street to the west; Highway 85 to the South; the Grand River to
the North; and Bridge Street creating the South-East Border. As noted in Section 2.0, the Bridgeport area is
unique in that residents tend to associate themselves with Bridgeport as opposed to the City of Kitchener.
The area has a wealth of history and pride, in part from its origins as a village.
The community to the west (Mt. Hope-Breithaupt Park) is serviced by the Breithaupt Community Centre.
While the Breithaupt Community Centre is approximately 3 kilometres from the Bridgeport Community
Centre, it is not regarded by Bridgeport residents as a local facility. The Breithaupt Community Centre
includes two indoor pools, meeting rooms, and a gymnasium. The Mount Hope Breithaupt Neighbourhood
Association offers programs through this facility, including Family Movie Night and youth programs.
The community to the southeast of Bridgeport is not served by a neighbourhood association as the lands
are predominately zoned as either a business park or heavy industrial and are not generally intended for
residential development. The Bingemans Centre, which includes an outdoor water park, is located in this
area, but as a private "destination" facility it does meet the recreational, leisure, or social needs of the
Bridgeport community.
As a result of the unique history of the Bridgeport Community Centre and the Bridgeport area, the Centre
does not unduly infringe on the service area of Mt. Hope-Breithaupt and the proposed facility expansion will
not create undue overlaps.
Places of worship are the primarily facility resource in the Bridgeport Community, aside from the Bridgeport
Public School and the Bridgeport Community Centre. The Bridgeport Community Association does not
currently offer leisure or social service programming at the local places of worship or the Bridgeport Public
School. The following table identifies existing facilities in the Bridgeport area and related facility components,
as confirmed through direct consultation with school and faith centre representatives. The locations of these
facilities are identified in Appendix A.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE 14
AUGUST 2008
Or anizationlFacilit
9 y Facilit Components
y Ability to Accommodate
Additional Pro rammin ?
Yes, although cost,
Brill a ort Public School
g p Gymnasium -currently used two nights a week availability, and usage
for Boy Scouts and adult volleyball. restrictions may limit degree
of additional programming
Bridgeport United Church Church hall. No
St. Peter & Paul Greek Orthodox Banquet hall available for rental Possibl
y
Chruch
Croatian RC Parish Holy Family Banquet hall with capacity for 600 people. Do not No
Church offer pro rammin .
Spiritual, cultural and social spaces -currently
Ram Dham Hindu Temple used for yoga (2 times per week), summer camp Limited
(o ic), and facilit rentals to members onl .
Church of Lord Jesus Christ Information not available nla
St. Paul's Lutheran Church Information not available n/a
KW Montessori School Information not available nla
The ability to use the Bridgeport Public School as a community resource for leisure and social programming
exists, but is somewhat limited due to various scheduling and usage restrictions. In 2004 the Province of
Ontario announced funding for school boards to facilitate community use of schools and required every
school board to enter into an agreement with the Ministry of Education. The Waterloo District Public School
Board and the Waterloo District Catholic School Board reached an agreement with the Ministry in January
2005. The agreements provide limited free use of school facilities after regular school hours for non-profit
community groups catering to children and ,~ung adults only. While the agreements also allow for the City
to continue using school facilities for direct programming already in place, there are no existing programs at
the Bridgeport Public School that are offered by the City of Kitchener. This arrangement does not increase
the capacity of available space, but rather has the potential to reduce rental fees.
While it is important to determine whether there is sufficient space available in local places of worship,
schools, and other facilities to meet community needs, it is not the only factor to consider. Research
suggests that leisure or social programming at certain types of facilities, such as places of worship, can
deter certain residents from participating. The most significant barrier to participation is that some
participants may not feel welcome in certain schools or places of worship if their family does not belong to
that institution. Other barriers include:
^ Rental and lease costs that increase participant fees;
^ Programs are `bumped' when other activities occur;
^ Moving programs from one facility to another year after year can create confusion; and
^ Instructors must transport any equipment or supplies.
An expansion to the Bridgeport Community Centre would provide an opportunity for local schools and
places of worship to focus on outreach services and faith-based activities. Reduced reliance of
neighbourhood facilities for structured programs will also provide community and cultural groups with more
chances to access these facilities.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE 15
AUGUST 2008
As previously noted, the BCA has a long standing history of operating, providing general upkeep (e.g.,
cleaning), and programming the Bridgeport Community Centre. Third party rentals are coordinated by the
BCA and are primarily related to hall rentals for events and functions. While these limited third party rentals
are anticipated to occur at the Bridgeport Community Centre (e.g., hall and meeting space rentals for social
gatherings, etc.), this does not form a significant part of the business case.
For more information about the program, service, and facility needs of the area, please refer to Section 4:
Project Description.
The purpose of the proposed facility expansion is to provide a larger facility that will meet the current and
future needs of the Bridgeport community. Expanding the existing space at the Bridgeport Community
Centre will allow for a greater range of leisure programming to meet the interest of various age groups and
skill levels at convenient time slots. A focus will be placed on serving pre-schoolers, children, youth, adults,
seniors, and lower-income households. Objectives have been developed for the facility -see Section 4:
Project Description for more information.
The current programming offered through the Bridgeport Community Centre is aligned with the City of
Kitchener's commitment to neighbourhood level programming and the development of partnerships. The
City and the Bridgeport Community Association have continuously demonstrated a commitment to the
Bridgeport area and the successful operation of the Bridgeport Community Centre. As noted through the
consultation for this Business Case, the Bridgeport Community Association is highly respected and valued
by the community.
There are five key areas in which the Bridgeport Community Association is unable to meet current or
anticipated user demands, including:
^ Requests for active programming, including youth and adult sports requiring a gymnasium;
^ A sprung floor for aerobic and dance classes;
^ Additional programming in the evening prime time hours (generally 6:00 to 9:OOPM) for all ages
(including seniors);
^ Medium-sized meeting space for various activities and multiple /simultaneous bookings; and
^ SociaUoutreach services (more of a future consideration than a present need).
In addition to the gaps in facility components, the Centre is generally at capacity in "prime time", particularly
for registered programs and user groups which occur on Monday to Thursday evenings. Requests for new
programs are often denied as there is not the appropriate space to accommodate the activities.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE 16
AUGUST 2008
National, Provincial, and local trends clearly suggest that the aging of the baby boomer population will place
additional demands on municipal services, including leisure facilities. Given that forecasts identify the
strongest population growth rates in the 50+ age groups (84% growth between 2006 and 2031) and that the
area's population is expected to grow by 44% over the next twenty-five years, the Bridgeport Community
Centre must be poised to accommodate increased demands from all age groups, including older adults.
For more information about the program, service, and facility needs of the area, please refer to Section 4:
Project Description.
Refer to Section 8: Economic and Community Impact Analysis.
Refer to LFMP Criterion 4 and Section 6: Environmental Context
Refer to Appendix D for the proposed Bridgeport Community Centre conceptual layout.
The City of Kitchener Community Centre Feasibility Study (2000) and the LFMP (2005) identify the need to
consider upgrading or expanding the Bridgeport Community Centre to accommodate local needs.
Additionally, as noted in Criterion 4, the local churches and schools are either at capacity, offer restricted
access, or do not have the appropriate space for programming. The expansion of the Bridgeport
Community Centre will allow for a broader range of programming at a single location and will provide an
effective response to identified community needs.
For more details, please refer to Section 4: Project Description and Section 8: Economic and
Community Impact Analysis.
More information on this subject is contained in Section 8: Economic and Community Impact Analysis.
In keeping with Council's resolution in 1979 (which was reaffirmed in 2002), the Bridgeport Community
Association operates the Bridgeport Community Centre, including facility rentals (Community Services
Department Report CDS-02-158). In terms of roles and responsibilities, it is established that the BCA:
^ "Oversees the operation of the Bridgeport Community Centre, including facility rentals;
^ Retains revenues generated from rentals;
^ Oversees both the capital and operational budgets of the Centre;
^ Is held accountable for the City grant to operate the Centre;
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE 17
AUGUST 2008
^ Hires and pays staff who are responsible for the management, supervision, cleaning, and some
maintenance to the building;
^ Encourages the best use of the facilities, and the improvement or development of new uses;
^ Partners and co-operates with non-profit groups in the area so that a well co-ordinated schedule of
activities results;
^ Facilitates the provision of community meeting space for meetings requested about proposed and
planned changes affecting the area;
^ Promotes a positive image of the Centre and the Association; and
^ Recruits volunteers for the Association. "3
The roles and responsibilities of the City of Kitchener Community Services Department are as follows:
^ "Liaison with the BCA, providing a representative at meetings of the BCA (ex-officio};
^ Arranges for the payment of grant money, as approved by council, to the Association in instalments;
^ Responsible for good public relations and representation of the City Community services Department;
^ Provided that the Association complies with the above and meets the criteria set by Council and/or the
City's insurer, names the Association as an "affiliated group" and therefore covered by any third party
liability insurance the City has for such groups."4
Any recommended changes to the facility and program mix will be accompanied by an analysis of the
impact on staffing (excluding elements related to the facility's governance structure). Refer to Section 8:
Economic and Community Impact Analysis.
As illustrated by the discussion in this section, this investment is consistent with the City's Leisure Facilities
Master Plan. Refer to Section 5: Strategic Alignment for an assessment of the correlation to other
strategic City planning documents, such as the Plan for a Healthy Kitchener.
The proposed project is for the expansion of the existing Bridgeport Community Centre, which has been in
operated for 38 consecutive years. Combined, the existing demands and future growth in the Bridgeport
community will ensure the continued need for leisure facilities and programs in the area.
The City of Kitchener identified $316,000 in its 2008 capital budget to upgrade the Bridgeport Community
Centre, with $284,000 of this amount being allocated from Development Charges. Development Charges
can fund part of the cost associated with a facility expansion, but not building renovations or replacement.
The level of contribution to this projectfrom grants and/or fundraising, if any, has not been determined at this
point.
For more information, please refer to Section 8: Economic and Community Impact Analysis.
3 City of Kitchener Report No. CSD-02-158, November 12, 2002
a Ibid.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE 18
AUGUST 2008
Project Objectives
The purpose of establishing objectives for the Business Case is to guide the City and the BCA in evaluating
the various types of leisure and social space that could be added to the BCC. Every person who attended
the public meeting on May 5, 2008 concurred that a largerlexpanded Bridgeport Community Centre would
be beneficial to the area. The recommended objectives are largely based on community consultation,
trends, and the community profile and were confirmed at the public meeting held on May 5, 2008.
Programming Objectives
a) The primary focus for programming at the BCC is affordable, introductory-level recreational and
wellness programs for Bridgeport residents of all ages, income levels, and abilities. Programs should
include unstructured, drop-in opportunities that encourage personal development for pre-schoolers,
children, youth, adults, and seniors.
b) The secondary focus is the rental of the facility and facilitating events that are community and family-
oriented.
c) Tertiary objectives for programming include educational workshops, artslculture activities, and
social/outreach services as needed.
Facility Expansion Objectives
a) To create appropriately designed spaces for intended activities (e.g., mid-sized room for many
programs, better floor for fitness classes, etc.).
b) To expand recreational programming for all ages in order to improve physical activity levels and build a
healthy community.
c) To offer opportunities for more active programming, particularly for youth and active adults (including
indoor events related to the summer playground programs).
d) To accommodate multiple events and/or activities at the same time, particularly in the prime time
hours.
e) To create a larger (yet cozy and informal) gathering space that encourages socialization and promotes
the Centre as a `community hub'.
fl To provide flexible space for future uses (e.g. social/outreach, seniors club, etc.).
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE 19
AUGUST 2008
Facility Design Objectives
The Bridgeport Community Centre is recognized by residents as an integral component of the community.
The success of the Centre is a result of the invaluable efforts of the Bridgeport Community Association, the
volunteers, and the staff (both BCA and City). Together, this collection of committed individuals has created
a welcoming and "homey" feel that is appreciated by residents. In expanding the Centre, these qualities
should not be lost.
Key objectives of the facility design are identified below:
a) To maximize the footprint of the community centre building given site restrictions resulting from its
location in the floodplain.
b) To provide additional community space to meet current and future community needs, including the
possibility of meeting rooms, lounge/lobby, gymnasium, office space, storage, etc.
c) To create versatile multi-use, multi-purpose, and multi-generational space.
d) To reduce barriers to physical accessibility (e.g. relationship to parking lot, enlargement of front
entrance, etc.).
e) To create a welcoming atmosphere in the Centre.
~ To be accessible and safe to all people regardless of age, ability, income, culture andlor denomination.
g) To ensure that sustainable design and construction practices are followed in relation to the Centre's
future design, renovation, and construction.
h) To improve the interface and visual connection between the inside and outside elements of the site
(e.g., access, visibility, etc.}.
Additional considerations relating to the design of the expanded and renovated facility include the following,
which should be accommodated where possible:
^ The entrance of the Centre should promote a welcoming atmosphere, including warm lighting, larger
front doors, open and casual front desk, and alounge/lobby area.
^ The front door should be visible from the approaches to the building and the visibility of the entire
exterior is important also for passive safety and security.
^ The expansion should encourage opportunities for casual interaction, including space for parents
waiting for children in programs.
^ The "multi-purpose" spaces should be designed with a series of specific uses in mind, despite the need
to have them multi-functional. Where possible, each "multi-purpose" space should have access to the
main hall of the Centre, as well as access to a sink for washing/clean-up.
^ The layout needs to be sensitive to certain user groups' anticipated use, for instance by providing
opportunities for seniors' activities and youth programs which do not cause conflict or discomfort for
either group.
^ The flooring for each "multi-purpose" space should be reflective of the type of activities envisioned for
the space.
^ Although out of scope, it was suggested through the public consultation program that there may be
opportunities to better integrate the Centre with the activities taking place on the adjacent Grand River
Trail system or to promote environmental stewardship through its location within the floodplain. This
would reinforce the Centre as a unique contributor to the Bridgeport area and the Kitchener community.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE20
AUGUST 2008
A conceptual layout depicting the expanded Bridgeport Community Centre, taking into account the facility
design objectives and considerations noted above, has been provided in Appendix D.
Program 8~ Facility Utilization
In identifying the additional space and service needs for the BCC, it is necessary to have an understanding
of the types of programs and services that are currently offered at the facility and to identify gaps in services
and/or programs.
The Bridgeport Community Association has provided registrant and utilization data for the years 2005, 2006,
and 2007. This information can be used to demonstrate the range of programming currently offered and the
popularity of certain types of programs. Current programs include:
Events
^ Youth Drop-in
^ Dance Parties (children & youth)
^ Sunday Movie Matinees
^ Card Party
^ Variety Show
^ Christmas Tree Trimming Party
^ Bridgeport Reunion
^ Spring Celebration
^ Bridgeport School Skating Party
Registered Programs
^ Guitar (Youth & Adult)
^ Karate (Kinder & Youth)
^ Yoga
^ Aerobics
^ Tai Chi
^ Pottery for Kids
^ Pilates (Beginner & Intermediate)
^ Cartooning (General & Advanced)
^ Red Cross Babysitting
^ Boat Pro Certification
^ Simple Sewing
^ Still Life Drawing
User Groups
^ Women's Institute
^ Bridgeport Community Association
^ Lions Club
^ Beavers
^ Brownies
^ Waterloo Active Living Club
^ Private Rentals
^ Scouts Group Committee
^ Quitters
^ Summer Playground Programs (3)
Appendix C contains data recorded on number of participant and event hours at the BCC between 2005
and 2007. Overall, the number of participant hours (defined as the number of person hours spent in the
building; this data excludes the summer playground programs) has increased from 8,839 in 2005 to 9,955 in
2007 - a growth of 13% (see the chart on the following page). Much of this growth can be attributed to
improved attendance at special events, increased usage by the Waterloo Active Living Club, Lions' Club,
and Brownies, as well as the growing popularity of programs such as pilates. The number of program and
event participants has declined slightly over the past two years; however, those that are using the Centre
are using it for longer periods of time, on average.
The facility utilization data, which was compiled by Centre staff, also indicates that the hall and meeting
room were utilized for a total of 907 hours in 2007 (excluding the summer playground programs), which
represents a 10% increase over 2005. The ratio of hours utilized for programs levents /user groups in
relation to private rentals is approximately 3:2.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE21
AUGUST 2008
Participant Hours -BCC Programs & Events (2005-07)
4,500
4,000
~..
...
3,500
L 3,000
0
= 2,500
_ __.
a 2,000
.~
a 1,500
1,000
500
0
2005 2006 2007
Year
E~nts ~ Registered Programs User Groups
Typical schedules for the BCC hall and meeting room were prepared (see Appendix C) using information
from recent BCA newsletters. Although there can be much variation in terms of scheduling and program
offerings from one season to the next, some patterns and inferences can be extracted from this information.
The community is considerably better used than the small meeting room. Utilization of the hall is
greatest in the summer (due largely to two of the summer playground programs, which use daytime hours
from Monday to Friday during asix-week period}. The hall is generally used for registered programs and
user groups five days a week, with limited usage on Fridays and Sundays. Friday and Saturday evenings
are used by the occasional private rental (approximately one night every two weeks for licensed events);
unlicensed rentals occur nearly as frequently, but are more sporadic in terms of scheduling. Evening usage
is greaterthandaytime usage. If "prime time" is defined as being between 6pm and 9pm, Monday to Friday,
more than half of this time is used by programslrentals, on average. Due to scheduling and cleaninglsetup
requirements, only about four (4) one-hour blocks remain available for additional programming (representing
25% of available prime-time}, as well as the occasional Friday evening when the hall is not rented.
Although there remains some capacity in the community hall to accommodate additional usage (in one to
finro hour blocks), full utilization of this space is not likely given its limitations (e.g., size, amenities, etc.) and
alignment to other activity/program demands (e.g., active sports, functions requiring a smaller space, etc.).
The BCA is continuously looking for new program ideas (as facilitated through their recent household survey
and other means) and has indicated a willingness to offer additional programs where possible.
The meeting room is used primarily by user groups (e.g., Lion's Club, Women's Institute, Bridgeport
Community Association, etc.) and to a lesser degree for registered programs (e.g., guitar, drawing, etc.). As
mentioned, it is not used as frequently as the hall, but this is largely a result of its small size and lack of
flexibility. Usage predominantly occurs on weekday evenings. Like the community hall, significantly greater
utilization of the meeting room is unlikely due to its constraints; nevertheless, it remains an essential
component as it offers a much needed "smaller space" option to the large hall.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE22
AUGUST 2008
Facility Components
Program & Service Pressures
It was noted that the Bridgeport Community Association is interested in extending the number and scope of
programs currently offered; however, they are largely limited by the existing space at the Centre. The
Association has had to refuse requests for programs that require active space (particularly for young teens)
and gymnasium-related activities. As such, it is likely that there is unfulfilled demand for several programs in
the community.
Areas where programming is currently non-existent or limited -but that could present opportunities in the
future based on public input and an analysis of participation trends -include (but should not be limited to)
the following:
^ Active indoor programming for youth (e.g. basketball, floor hockey);
^ Adult and older adult programming, particularly for post-secondary students and men;
^ Wellness and active living for older adults (possibly building off of the Waterloo Active Living Club);
^ Introductory fitness programs;
^ Activities for pre-schoolers and young children;
^ Indoor sports activities (e.g. co-ed volleyball);
^ Appropriate and discreet space to offer certain social and outreach services on an as-needed basis in
the future; and
^ Facility rentals for mid-sized family gatherings, bridal showers, community dancesldinners, etc.
Swimming opportunities were also identified as an activity gap in the area by several organizations;
however, the City's Leisure Facilities Master Plan does not provide support for this type of investment in the
Bridgeport community and the scale and cost of swimming facilities are too significant for inclusion in this
project.
Proposed Facility Components
In determining which facility components should be added to the Centre, the following information was
considered:
i) the input received from the public and stakeholders;
ii) an understanding of the existing spaces at the Centre and how they are used;
iii} review of other community centres in Kitchener;
iv) the demographic profile and forecast of the Bridgeport community;
v) trends in leisure and social service programs and utilization;
vi) the experiences, programming, and evolution of the Bridgeport Community Centre since its
establishment in 1970; and
vii) opportunities and barriers in accessing existing spaceslservices in and around the community.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE23
AUGUST 2008
It is important to note that a key focus of this Business Case is to ensure that the BCC is poised to meet not
only current needs, but also anticipated future demand based on the growing population profile of the
Bridgeport community.
Based on the foregoing, the following indoor spaces (generally presented in priority order} are
recommended for reasons discussed below. Further evaluation regarding design, component size, and
support amenities can be found later in this report.
1) Medium-Sized Meeting/Activity Room (approximately 600-800 square feet)
^ There are two meeting spaces currently provided at the BCC for programming and facility rentals. The
small meeting room (approximately 290 square feet) is able to accommodate up to 20 people, at most,
while the hall (3,000 square feet) has a capacity of 224. This creates a significant gap in appropriately
sized space for certain community programs and facility rentals.
^ Both the BCA and several stakeholders expressed an interest in the Centre having amedium-sized
meeting room that could be used for programming, multiple bookings, and rented out for gatherings and
parties.
^ Programs and facility rentals currently offered at the Centre that are suited towards amedium-sized
meeting include:
o youth drop-in (depending on number of youth);
o guitar lessons;
o fitness programs;
o first aid;
o summer playground programs (particularly the Adventure Program on rainy days when the hall
is occupied);
o babysitting course; and
o committee meetings (especially dinner meetings).
^ New programs and facility rentals that could utilize amedium-sized meeting include:
o baby and bridal showers;
o family gatherings;
o dance classes;
o women's or men's support group;
o wellness programs;
o seniors programs; and
o seminars and presentations.
2) Additional Storage
The development of additional program space would create an increase in the amount of supplies and
equipment stored at the BCC. Given that the existing storage at the BCC is at capacity, additional space
would be required to accommodate the expanded programmable space.
It was also noted through the consultation that should certain social services be provided at the BCC,
secured storage would be required for items such as personal files and donated materials.
3) Additional Office Space
^ While the number of offices should be determined once the staffing structure is reviewed/confirmed, a
minimum of finro (2) sufficiently-sized offices should be considered. Community resource centres that
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE24
AUGUST 2008
are staffed by the City typically contain a minimum of three (3) offices: two (2) for city staff and one to
finro (1 to 2) for the neighbourhood association; some also contain offices for outreach and/or playground
programs. As this report does not address modifications to the roles and responsibilities of the City and
BCA regarding the operation and management of the facility, recommendation of a third office is outside
the scope of this report.
^ The two (2} offices could provide organizational space for the BCA, as well as a communal office for
primary community groups (e.g., Lions Club, Women's Institute, Quitters).
^ Additional office space should also be considered if there is a commitment from a social service partner
to locate at the BCC or if there is a change in the Centre's operational agreement. To date, no
significant interest in this regard has been identified; however, request of this nature often crystallize
later in the facility planning process when more details are available.
4) Single Gymnasium
^ The household survey found that 34% of households would be more likely to use the BCC if a
gymnasium was added to the Centre; this was the most desired facility additionlimprovement.
^ Access to the gymnasium at the Bridgeport Public School is limited as it is only available after school
has finished for the day and users may be "bumped" by school-related extra-curricular events on short
notice. This, along with a lack of dedicated storage and continuous facility staffing, limits the type of
community programming that can be offered at this location, especially after-school programs.
^ The rental cost for school gymnasiums is currently being offset by a provincial grant, but the long-term
availability of this funding is unknown.
^ Groups that offer "active play" for younger teens and youth are unable to offer programs at the BCC due
to the low height of the hall's ceiling and its general design. As a result, some of these groups are
currently offering their programs at local schools, churches, or at facilities beyond the neighbourhood
and access to some facilities is becoming more and more restricted. It was noted that the existing
space is limited in the community for these types of programs, including the potential to accommodate
the City's summer adventure playground program on rainy days.
^ Gymnasiums are multi-purpose in nature, being able to accommodate a wide range of activities such as
adult and older adult fitness, self defence, sports, drop-in, dances, event rentals, day camps, etc. Proper
flooring, lighting, and acoustics that could accommodate a range of uses -while remaining sensitive to
the aesthetics desired for social events -are imperative.
^ It is anticipated that a gymnasium at the BCC could be used for active sports (e.g., basketball, volleyball,
floor hockey, etc.}, after school drop-in activities, fitness classes, large community gatherings, dances,
etc. A gymnasium would provide the BCA with the opportunity to begin programming for a broader
range of users, including male adults (e.g., pick-up floor hockey).
^ If a single gymnasium were built, this space could also be used for party rentals (e.g., stag and does,
receptions, training sessions, etc.}, which would render the existing community hall redundant. The
potential to convert the existing hall into a gymnasium is examined later in this report.
^ At the May 5, 2008 public meeting, there was some concern expressed that a gymnasium would be less
appealing than the current hall for family rentals. Nevertheless, three-fifths of those in attendance at this
meeting preferred the option of converting the hall into a gymnasium with dividers, as opposed to simply
adding amulti-purpose room and retaining the hall. Youth, who are most often the heaviest user of gym
space, were not directly represented at public meeting.
^ While no unequivocal evidence of the need for a gymnasium was presented (e.g., there have not been
any user groups requesting a significant amount of time, nor has the BCA experienced heavy
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE25
AUGUST 2008
community pressure for such a facility), trends and experiences in other communities strongly suggest
that a gymnasium is something that the Bridgeport area will benefit from as it grows and interests in the
community change.
5) Improved Lounge, Lobby, and Entrance
^ A reoccurring theme from the public and community stakeholder meetings was the provision of an open
and welcoming lobby and entrance area with sufficient seating for informal socialization and as a waiting
area.
^ It was felt that the entryway sets the tone for the facility and it needs to be comfortable space for people
to congregate and pass through. This could be achieved by designing for an open and highly visible
reception desk, wider hallways, double front doors, and natural light in the corridors.
^ It was envisioned that the lounge/lobby area (comfortable seating and tables) would provide an
opportunity for:
o Parents to wait for children in programs;
o Promoting the BCC as a community hub, where residents are able to "drop-in" to the facility; and
o Encouraging seniors to visit the BCC to simply interact with other community members.
^ Should a need be identified, the lobby could also provide space for a public use computer (ConnectKV~.
6) Other Considerations
The BCC currently has a warming kitchen that cannot be used for food preparation. While this has
generally met user needs to date, some interest was expressed by renters for the addition of a commercial
kitchen that would allow for food preparation. Although a commercial kitchen rated moderately through the
household survey (23% indicated that they would be likely to use the centre more if it was included, ranking
6t" out of 13 options), there appears to be little interest for cooking classes in the community. It would
appear that a commercial kitchen is most desired by third party renters and, given that one of the criteria for
community centre expansions is not to create a dependency on secondary uses (i.e., uses other than BCA
programming or City uses), the inclusion of a commercial kitchen is not recommended.
Although outside the scope of this study, ap~g limitations were noted by several consulted groups and
individuals as being a weakness of the current centre. Facility expansion and increases to its intensity of
use have the potential to exacerbate the situation. In addition, those consulted expressed a high level of
support for expanding the outdoor amenities at the BCC site. It was suggested that any future design must
consider options to improve the amount of parking, the design of the parking lots, and the provision of
outdoor amenities. The location and size of the outdoor spaces will largely be dependent on the final facility
design. The community expressed interest for the playground, ice rink, and park space to remain on site (in
one form or another); this should be explored further at the design stage.
Given community familiarity with the existing BCC location on Tyson Drive and the possibility of retaining a
viable community structure, it is preferred that the community centre remain at its current location. It was
noted through the community consultation that the benefits of the existing location include the proximity to
Schaeffer Park and the Grand River (aesthetics and trail link). Should the proposed facility expansion
require more space or be of a configuration that is not sustainable on the existing site, further investigation
as to options and alternatives may be required. Challenges with the existing site include floodplain
regulations and its placement on a local road with limited visibility.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE26
AUGUST 2008
Site Restrictions & Expansion Options
The Bridgeport Community Centre, located at 20 Tyson Drive, is situated in the regulatory floodplain and -
more specifically -with the floodway of a "Two Zone Policy Area" regulated by the Grand River
Conservation Authority (GRCA}. Being within the "floodway", the One Zone Policy Area policies apply to the
site. Although the property is appropriately designated and zoned by the City for its current use, the GRCA
regulations take precedent over municipal land use controls where they are in conflict.
Policies applicable to the BCC site are contained in the GRCA's "Policies for the Administration of the
Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation
(Ontario Regulation 150/06)".
Sections 8.1.2 and 8.1.10 of this GRCA policy document are of particular relevance to this project.
8.1.2 Development associated with existing uses located within a Riverine Flooding Hazard may be
permitted in accordance with the policies in Sections 7.1.2-7.1.3 -General Policies, and where it can
be demonstrated that:
a) there is no feasible alternative site outside the Riverine Flooding Hazard,
b) the site is not subject to frequent flooding,
c) ingress and egress is "dry" where this standard can be practically achieved, or floodproofed to an
elevation which is practical and feasible, but no less than "safe';
d) floodproofing is undertaken to the extent practical, where floodproofing to the elevation of the
Regulatory Flood is not technically feasible, and
e) there is no risk of structural failure due to potential hydrostatic/dynamic pressures.
The preceding policy suggests that an expansion or other such alteration to the BCC could be permitted if
the five criteria can be adequately addressed.
In terms of the nature of the BCC expansion, Section 8.1.10 (see below) indicates that a maximum of 1,076
square feet can be added onto the existing building. It is understood that new construction at the BCC can
be at the existing floor level. This could increase the size of the Centre to approximately 6,530 square feet
in total.
8.1.10 Additions to existing commercial~ndustrial~nstitutional buildings or structures may be permitted in
accordance with the policies in Section 8.1.2 -Policies for One-Zone Policy Areas, and where it can
be demonstrated that:
a) the addition is 50 percent or less of the original ground floor area of the building or structure to a
maximum of 100 m2 (1, 076 ft2), or in the case of multiple additions, all additions combined are
equal to or less than 50 per cent of the original ground floor area of the building or structure to a
maximum of 100 m2 (1, 076 ft2), and
b) no basement is proposed and any crawl space is designed to facilitate services only.
Any development at the BCC site requires the approval of the GRCA which, if the proposal meets the policy
requirements, would be granted. The CityIBCA is free to apply for a permit to build a larger expansion; the
decision of whether or not to approve this permit would be up to the GRCA Board. As there are no formal
guidelines for making such a decision, there is no guarantee that a larger expansion would be approved.
Nevertheless, a preliminary proposal showing a 1,470 square foot expansion was circulated to the GRCA
planning staff in an effort to understand how such a proposal would be received. GRCA planning staff
indicated that this proposal -although it is not in full compliance with their policies -could be supported at
the staff level due to its particular circumstances (e.g., non-residential use; City is the applicant; building
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE27
AUGUST 2008
configuration would not unduly impact the flood flow, etc.). In summary, there is a good chance that an
expansion in the 1,100 to 1,500 square foot range would be approved by the GRCA. A formal
application would still be required, however, as would approval from the GRCA Board.
Although no significant demand was identified through this study, it may be important to note that GRCA
policy 7.1.6 prohibits the current BCC site from being used as a day care orpre-school if there is a threat to
the safe evacuation of the young.
It also bears noting that the option exists for the BCC to add a second storey as long as it does not result in
amain floor expansion exceeding 1,076 square feet. This option is not preferred, however, as it would:
require considerable capital investment (including the installation of an elevator}; not result in a significant
addition of space (particularly if the hall was converted to a gymnasium with greater height requirements,
thereby limiting development to the front portion of the building); and create considerable challenges relating
to user supervision and staffing requirements.
Any development on the site should also be in compliance with City of Kitchener land use policies and
regulations. The site is designated "open space" under the City's Official Plan and "existing development
below the regional flood line" in the Bridgeport East Secondary Plan. It is our understanding that an
expansion to the community centre would be consistent with the policies in both the Official Plan and
Secondary Plan if appropriate approvals are received from the GRCA.
In addition, the property is zoned E-1 in the City's Zoning By-law, which restricts an addition to 25% of the
existing gross floor area (or approximately 1,364 square feet}; other restrictions (e.g., setbacks, parking
requirements, etc.} may also apply. Like the GRCA policies, an application can be made to seek relief from
this regulation through either an amendment to the Zoning By-law or a Minor Variance, which would be
decided upon by City Council or Committee of Adjustment, respectively.
Proposed Concept Plan
Based on the preceding information, a concept plan has been put forward for an expanded Bridgeport
Community Centre. Previous versions of this concept were presented to the community at a public meeting
on May 5, 2008 (attended by approximately 30 residents). To the degree possible, input received at that
meeting influenced the components and designs put forward in the concept, most notably suggestions to:
• expand the Centre to the east side (rather than the west) and overtake a small portion of the outdoor
skating rink; and
• improve the flexibility of the loungellobby area as a programmable space;
• improving the flexibility of the hall through options such as converting to a gymnasium with a
movable divider.
A follow-up Public Information Session was held on August 20, 2008 to present the concept plan proposed
in this report. Although not very well attended, input at this session was extremely positive and included
comments such as "thank you for listening to us" and "the expansion looks great and is where we asked".
These proposed building improvements could be undertaken through a phased development approach as
the need is most pressing for the multi-purpose room at this point in time and funding may be limited. If the
project is split into two stages, additional consultation with the community should be pursued prior to
launching Phase 2 to ensure that the information and recommendations of this report are still relevant,
particularly given the amount of time and degree of changes that could occur between phases.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE28
AUGUST 2008
The proposed design concept (both phases) will result in an expansion of 1,534 square feet, bringing the
total size of the Bridgeport Community Centre to approximately 6,988 square feet.
The proposed building programme includes the following:
Phase 1
• the addition of amid-size multi-purpose room (approximately 610 square feet); and
• an internal reconfiguration (approximately 330 square feet) that creates access to the new activity
room; as a result, some storage space is transferred from the existing building to the expanded area
(approximately 280 square feet).
Note: Phase 1 results in an expansion of 890 square feet and internal renovations of approximately
330 square feet. An expansion of this size would be consistent with current land use
regulations.
Phase 2
• an internal reconfiguration (approximately 900 square feet} that allows for the creation of a second
office and additional storage, as well as the relocation of the bar to the centre of the building; and
• the conversion of the hall into a divisible gym, resulting in an expansion of approximately 644 square
feet.
Note: Phase 2 results in an expansion of 645 square feet and internal renovations of approximately
3500 square feet. Combined with Phase 1, an expansion of this size would likely require special
approval from the GRCA and City as the 1, 534 square foot total expansion is greater than what
current land use regulations allow.
The conceptual layout can be found in Appendix D. It bears noting that the design presented in this
Business Case is intended to be conceptual only and is subject to change as this project moves forward; all
square footage figures are approximate. A detailed design would be prepared following a tender process
and should give consideration to the findings of this report, as well as matters such as CPTED (Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design; including emergency procedures and robbery prevention),
compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, the City's new FM standards for
facilities, etc.
Community Centre Site Options
As mentioned earlier, it is possible to expand the existing BCC by up to 1,076 square feet (to a total gross
floor area of 6,530 square feet) on its current site, based on applicable planning regulations. A larger
expansion could be sought, but would need to be judged on its own merits by the GRCA Board and possibly
City CouncillCommittee of Adjustment (should an expansion greater than 1,364 square feet be proposed,
as is the case with the Phase 2 component).
It is the expectation of this Business Case that the Centre will remain at its current location. Should a
decision ultimately be made contrary to this, alternate sites within the Bridgeport area should be identified
and evaluated for their ability to accommodate a brand new community centre. The option to develop a
larger and new community centre on a new site outside of the floodplain was considered through this
Business Case process, but was not endorsed at this time by the Steering Committee due to concerns over
cost, familiarity with the existing location, and lack of potential sites. Furthermore, input from the public
meeting strongly favoured expansion on the current site over moving to a brand new location.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE29
AUGUST 2008
Stakeholders
The BCC's stakeholders are vital to the sustained management of both the construction project and the
operation of the future community centre. In order to better understand current arrangements and identify
future opportunities, numerous stakeholders were consulted for this project through interviews, meetings,
surveys, andlor workshops. See Appendix B for a complete listing of the public consultation initiatives.
Existing Stakeholders: Function 1 Overview of Business Requirements
City of Kitchener, Community Services
Department:
Provides liaison and support to the Community Centre staff and partners,
Community Programs & Services, including the BCA. Note: The role and function of the District Facilitatoris
District Facilitator currently under review with the City's Legal Department as it relates to the
unique arrangements and operation of the Centre by the BCA.
Operations, Facilities Management Liaises with the BCA through the Association's monthly meetings,
processes work orders for building maintenance, and conducts health
and safety inspections.
Responsible for the delivery of recreation programs and neighbourhood
Bridgeport Community Association representation, janitorial services, facility administration, marketing, and
hall rentals.
~,
City of Kitchener:
Playground, provide park planning, parkland development enhancement,
Parks Operations snow removal, parking repairs, etc.
Purchasing Majority of equipment purchases.
Fire Department Fire codes, regulations, approval of safety plans, room capacity
Security, Facilities Management Security/monitoring services
Information Technology Computers and technical support
Planning Department Zoning and Site Plan requirements
Building Department Building permit
City Council Represent interest of the City of Kitchener.
Summer Playground Programs Use the Centre in July and August (daytime) for asix-week period
~,
Grand River Conservation Authority
Flood regulations and Permits for site development
Waterloo Active Living Club Use the Centre as a base for a low impact exercise programme.
Brownies Use the Centre for meetings.
Lion's Club Use the Centre for meetings.
Women's Institute Use the Centre for meetings.
Beavers Use the Centre for meetings.
Quitters Use the large hall for quilting
Rink Committee Coordinate the outdoor rink.
Bridgeport Public School Skating Party Use the Centre as a rental.
Various private renters Use the Centre as a rental (some regularly, some occasionally)
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE30
AUGUST 2008
Partnerships
The expansion of the BCC will provide the opportunity to increase programming as well as facility and
program rentals. To assist the BCA in effectively and efficiently providing opportunities in the expanded
facility, the Association should consider establishing partnerships organizations, such as, but not limited to,
the following groups. Several of these organizations have been contacted to provide input into this study
and, although none have indicated interest in becoming a partner (e.g., as a funderlsponsor, tenant,
coordinator, or regular user) in the expanded Bridgeport Community Centre at this time, it is still too early in
the planning process to dismiss them as possibilities.
^ Local health network (e.g. wellness classes)
^ Outreach andlor social service provider
^ Bridgeport Public School
^ YWCA Childcare
^ Grand River Conservation Authority (e.g. nature walkslseminars)
^ Big Brothers, Big Sisters
^ Others, as appropriate
Timeframe
In ideal terms, the timelines on the following page depict the process that the City would follow to have the
Bridgeport Community Centre expansion completed as soon as possible. Although this Business Case has
established that this is a priority project that should be undertaken as soon as possible, there are a number
of factors that could affectthe project's timing (including the need for budget and planning approvals).
As the construction cost exceeds the current approved budget allocation of $316,000 (see Section 8),
approval to proceed is assumed to occur in early January 2009.
Also of note, opportunities for keeping portions of the Bridgeport Community Centre open during
construction should be explored -this may include the rental and installation of a temporary trailer.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE31
AUGUST 2008
Timeframe for Construction -Phased
2009
Activity Time Required Janua Februa March Aril Ma June Jul August September October November December
5 121926 2 9 1623 2 9 162330 6 132021 4 111825 1 8 152229 6 132021 310172431 7142128 5121926 2 9162330 7142128
Phase 1
(890sf expansion; 327sf renovation)
Approval to Proceed n/a •
Architect Selection 4 weeks
Schematic design 6 weeks
Prepare applications 2 weeks
GRCAIPIanning Permit(s) 4 weeks
Cost Estimate 3 weeks
Approval to Proceed n/a •
Construction Documents 6 weeks
Tender Phase 1 5 weeks
Construction Phase 1 12 weeks
Phase 2
(644sf expansion; 3,500sf renovation)
Approval to Proceed n/a
Architect Selection 4 weeks
Schematic design 6 weeks
Prepare applications 2 weeks
GRCAIPIanning Approval(s) 8 weeks
Cost Estimate 3 weeks
Approval to Proceed n/a
Construction Documents 9 weeks
Tender Phase 2 5 weeks
Construction Phase 2: 5-6 months 21 weeks
Notes:
The schematic design and construction documents for both Phases could be prepared at the same time in order to accelerate Phase 2 construction (this would increase the front-end costs).
Subsequent approval of construction costs for Phase 2 will dictate timing far Phase 2 construction (if phased approach desired).
Timeframe for Construction -Not Phased
2009
Activity Time Required Janua Februa March Aril Ma June Jul August September October November December
5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28
(1,534sf expansion; 3,827sf renovation)
Approval to Proceed n/a •
Architect Selection 4 weeks
Schematic design 6 weeks
Cost Estimate 3 weeks
Approval to Proceed n/a •
Prepare applications 2 weeks
GRCAIPIanning Approval(s) 8 weeks
Construction Documents 9 weeks
Cost Estimate 3 weeks
Approval to Proceed n/a •
Tender 5 weeks
Construction 21 weeks
Out of Scope
Items that are specifically excluded from the project and the estimated project costs:
^ Local awarenesslmarketing of the Centre, the programs, and signage;
^ Changes to Tyson Park and playground;
^ Changes to Tyson Drive and traffic flow;
^ Changes to the parking lots, exceptfor restoration required as a result of building construction;
^ Upgrades to the outdoor rink, except for restoration required as a result of building construction; and
^ Any change to the roles and responsibilities of the City and Bridgeport Community Association
regarding the operation and management of the facility.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE32
AUGUST 2008
This section provides a summary of key strategic documents that guide various aspects of service delivery
in the City of Kitchener. In doing so, relevant policies of these documents are identified in order to provide an
understanding of how they align in the context of the Bridgeport Community Centre Expansion Business
Case.
The Corporate Plan
Strate /Goal
gY Level of
Impact Explanation (if required)
Communit confidence and trust in the
y The Bridgeport Community Association and the City have
City of Kitchener. Medium worked co-operatively for the past 30 years in operating and
maintainin the Brid a ort Communit Centre.
9 9p y
Timely provision of quality infrastructure Hi h
g The existing space at the Centre is limited in its ability to meet
and valued service. community needs.
An organization that clearly understands
and anticipates public needs and
High Communi rowth and latent demand identifies the need for
~ g
priorities. additional program and meeting space.
Effective ublic discussions occur
p The expansion of the Bridgeport Community Centre has been
around important issues. Medium the subject of extensive study (through this report) involving
public consultation and discussion.
Compass Kitchener
Strate 1 Goal
gY Level of
Impact Explanation (if required)
Community Vision - "Together we will
build an innovative and vibrant The ex ansion of the Brid a ort Communit Centre will
p g p y
Kitchener with safe and thrivin
g High continue to place a priority on providing local services and
„
neighbourhoods
promoting community pride and ownership.
Strategic Direction # 1- "We will This Business Case meets the criteria established in the City's
develop decision-making and Leisure Facilities Master Plan for determining the
management processes that respond to Medium appropriateness of expanding a community centre. Bridgeport
the issues, direction, values and vision residents, stakeholders, City staff, and volunteers have and will
of our community." continue to be highly involved in the planning process.
Strategic Direction # 4 - "We will work in There is swell-established working relationship between the
partnership with community members, Hi h
g Bridgeport Community Association and City of Kitchener,
agencies and providers to promote well- which ensures that the community has access to affordable
being and a healthy community." leisure programs.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE33
AUGUST 2008
The Region's Growth Management Strategy
Strate /Goal
gY Level of
Impact Ex lanation if re uired
p ~ q ~
Goal # 2 -Building Vibrant Urban
Places through: The BCC and its partners have demonstrated their
• creating safe communities High commitment to community development and safety through
• respecting diversity of cultures the expansion ofneighbourhood-based programming.
• encouraging new investment in
existing urban areas
Goal # 3 -Providing Greater
Transportation Choice through:
• improving access to jobs and Reco nizin the trend of low ph sical activit levels, the
g g y y
services
• im rovin transit service
p g Medium Business Case assesses opportunities to enhance
• increasing physical activity opportunities for active play at the Bridgeport Community
Centre.
• enhancing cycling facilities
• creating more pedestrian-friendly
environments
A Plan for a Healthv Kitchener (2007-2027)1 Healthv Community Plan
Strate /Goal
9Y Level of
Impact Ex lanation if re uired
p ~ q ~
That the City develop an overall This oal reco nizes the im ortance of communi
g g p ~
strategy to support its civic engagement Low contributions to a project.
policy
Develop a volunteer strategy, youth Services to youth and seniors, as well as the engagement of
strategy, seniors strategy and leisure Medium volunteers, will be a continued priority for the Bridgeport
access strategy as per the LFMP Community Centre.
Partner with local funders in order to The BCA can continue to seek fundin o ortunities that are
g pp
support community priorities at a Medium supportive of their mandate.
s stematic level
y
That the City partners with citizens,
business, agencies, organizations, The City of Kitchener and the BCA have worked together since
school boards and all orders of High 1980 to ensure appropriate opportunities are available for
government, as appropriate, in all Bridgeport residents to engage in healthy lifestyles.
Healthy Community initiatives.
That the City's efforts to engage the
public in initiatives and decisions that The expansion of the Bridgeport Community Centre has been
affect them include communication and Medium the subject of extensive study (through this report) involving
outreach appropriate for, and accessible public consultation and discussion.
to, diverse audiences.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE34
AUGUST 2008
Project Location
The community of Bridgeport is defined by Woolwich Street to the west; Highway 85 to the South; the Grand
River to the North; and Bridge Street creating the southeast border. For a Map of the Bridgeport
Community boundary, please see Appendix A.
Facilities in Bridgeport and the Surrounding Neighbourhoods
In assessing the need to expand the Bridgeport Community Centre, the study included an assessment of
local facilities that may be either currently providing or interested in providing leisure and/or social services
to the Bridgeport community. Section 3 noted that the majority of facilities in the area are either churches or
schools, although the Breithaupt Community Centre is approximately three (3) kilometres from the
Bridgeport Community Centre in another planning area.
A description of the facilities located within the Bridgeport Community Association's area can be found in the
following table:
Facilit Address Distance to BCC Facilit Components
Bridgeport Public School 59 Bridge St. W. 0.6km Gymansium
Bridgeport United Church 40 Bridge St. W. 0.6km Hall
St. Paul's Lutheran 544 Bridgeport Rd. 1.2km Information not available
St. Peter & Paul Greek
Orthodox 527 Bridgeport Rd. 1.2km Banquet Hall
KW Montessori School 527 Bridgeport Rd. 1.2km Information not available
Church of Lord Jesus Christ 420 Bridgeport Rd. 1.6km Information not available
Croatian RC Parish Holy
Family 180 Schweitzer St. 1.9km Banquet hall for 600 people
Ram Dham Hindu Temple 525 Bridge St. E 2.Okm Hub of spiritual, cultural and social
activities. Yoga (2 times per week);
facility rentals to members; summer
camp (yogic)
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE35
AUGUST 2008
A description of the facilities located near (but not within) the Bridgeport Community can be found in the
following table:
Facilit Address Distance to BCC Facilit Components
Bechtel Park (Waterloo) 185 Bridge Street 1.4km Indoor Soccer Facility, outdoor sports
fields
St. Teresa's School 260 Edwin St. 2.4km Gymnasium, walking track, and
playground
St. Teresa's Church 260 Edwin St. 2.4km Banquet hall for 100 people, but not
looking to offer programming
Prueter Public School 40 Prueter Ave. 2.5km Information not available
Northside Community Church 55 Leonard St. 2.6km Information not available
New Dawn School 100 Fairfield Ave. 2.7km Information not available
Bluevale Collegiate 80 Bluevale Ave. N. 2.9km Gymnasium
Breithaupt Community Centre* 350 Margaret Avenue 3.5km Multi-service community centre with
two indoor pools, meeting room
facilities, and a gymnasium
L'Ecole Harmonie 158 Bridgeport Rd. E. 3.5km Auditorium for 240 people
12 classrooms. Offer reading,
basketball, drawing, and chess club to
students over the lunch hour
RIM Park (Waterloo) 2001 University 5.1 km Multiple ice pads, gymnasium,
Avenue banquet rooms, golf course, and
sports fields
* Programs at the Breithaupt Community Cente include swimming, fitness, pre-school, parent, babysitting
courses, PD Program, Summer and March Break Day Camps, programs for adults 50+, special events and
activities, and youth programs. Support Services include a foot care clinic, Snack Bar, arthritis and osteoporosis
support groups, and National Child Care Benefit Outreach Program. While the Mount Hope Breithaupt
Neighbourhood Association has an office located in this building and offers programs such as the Family Movie
Night and youth programs, the City of Kitchener is responsible for the operation of the facility. The Centre is open
on Monday to Friday from Sam to 9pm, Saturdays from 12:30pm to 8:30pm, and Sundays 12:45pm to 8:OOpm. Access
to this facility by Bridgeport residents is constrained by barriers such as Conestoga Parkway, lack of direct transit route,
and distance from new growth areas.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE36
AUGUST 2008
This section highlights risk factors, along with strategies to minimize such risks, which may arise through the
expansion of the community centre in the Bridgeport area.
Risks to the Project
Project Risk Assessment Probability Impact
Risk 1-Funding from the City of Kitchener's capital budget is not sufficient to meet
the scope of the proposed project and/or significant cost overruns are experienced.
Mitigation Strategy-A) Reduce the size and/orscope ofthe expansion project B) High Medium
Considerphasing ofconstruction. C) Inform the community of fiscal challenges and
attempt fundraising efforts. D) Revise construction timelines to better meet funding
availability. E) Request additional funding from Council.
Risk 2 -Funding is deferred past currently forecasted date.
Medium High
Mitigation Strategy -Continue operating at status quo.
Risk 3-The Bridgeport Community Association are unable to maintain their
operational responsibilities for the Centre and/or the BCA Executive Board's
succession plan is not successful.
Low High
Mitigation Strategy - A) City to provide additional assistance to the BCA, as
appropriate. B) Develop other collaborative partnerships, as appropriate. C) Modify
the City's roles and responsibilities asthey relate to the Centre.
Risk 4 -The planning approvals (if required) from the Grand River Conservation
Authority and/or City of Kitchener Zoning By-law due to the building's location in the
floodplain are not supported. This would not likely apply to the first phase of the
project, if a phased approach is pursued. Low to
Mitigation Strategy -Consult with the Conservation Authonty and City Planning
Medium
Medium
Department to explore options, which could include undertaking the first phase only.
Continue operating at status quo over the short term and seek a site and funding for
anew facility in the long-term.
Risk 5-Expansion is completed and space is not fully utilized.
Mitigation Strategy- Work with the Bridgeport Community Association to identify Low Medium
and implement opportunities to increase facility utilization.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE37
AUGUST 2008
Risk of Not Proceeding with Project (Status Quo)
Project Risk Assessment Probability Impact
Risk 1- Lack of expansion potential for existing programs and services.
Mitigation Strategy- Furtherlimit private rentals to maximize program opportunities High High
and strengthen relationships with otherlocal program sites (e.g., schools, churches)
to collaborate on program delivery or facility utilization.
Risk 2 - Unable to offer additional capacity and/or new programs to serve new
residents in the community.
Mitigation Strategy- Furtherlimit private rentals to maximize program opportunities High High
and strengthen relationships with otherlocal program sites (e.g., schools, churches)
to collaborate on program delivery or facility utilization.
Risk 3-Reduced community morale, public disappointment and lack of trust in
municipal practice if project is delayed or deferred.
Medium Medium
Mitigation Strategy - Work to maintain and reinforce relationships between the City,
BCA and the community to restore the public's trust and confidence.
Risk 4 -Condition and functionality of the existing Centre will deteriorate over time,
becoming a detriment to local programming and services.
Medium Medium
Mitigation Strategy -Continue operating at status quo. Enhance preventative
maintenance practices.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE38
AUGUST 2008
Quantitative Analysis
Preliminary Capital Costs
The preliminary costs of the proposed BCC expansion project are presented in the following table.
PHASED APPROACH NON-PHASED
Phase 1 Phase 2 TOTAL APPROACH -TOTAL
Topographical Survey $2,500 $0 $2,500 $2,500
Structural Analysis or other specialty reports $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $6,000
Geotechnical investigation $2,500 $0 $2,500 $2,500
Approvals, processing fees and permits from various
levels of government and agencies (GRCA, Site Plan
App, Bldg Permit, C of A}
$8,333
$16,667
$25,000
$25,000
Total -General $15,333 $20,667 $36,000 $36,000
~ - ~
Approx. size of addition (square feet) 890 644 1,534 1,534
Approx. renovation area (square feet) 327 881 1,208 1,208
Conversion of hall to gymnasium (square feet) 0 2,600 2,600 2,600
Addition @ $2501 sf $222,500 $161,000 $383,500 $383,500
Renovation @ $1001 sf (Phase 1) $32,700 $0 $32,700 $32,700
Renovation @ $150 / sf (Phase 2) $0 $132,150 $132,150 $132,150
Conversion @ $2501 sf $0 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000
Voice & Data Cabling $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $20,000
Subtotal $265,200 $953,150 $1,218,350 $1,218,350
LEED Gold Compliance (10%) $0 $95,315 $95,315 $95,315
Furnishings, Fixtures & Equipment (5%) $13,260 $47,658 $60,918 $60,918
Consulting Fees (10-15%) $39,780 $114,378 $154,158 $121,835
Project Management Fees (3%) $7,956 $28,595 $36,551 $36,551
Public Art (1 %) $2,652 $9,532 $12,184 $12,184
Contingency (10%} -Construction $26,520 $95,315 $121,835 $121,835
Contingency (10%} -Design $26,520 $95,315 $121,835 $121,835
Subtotal $116,688 $486,107 $602,795 $570,472
Total -Construction $381,888 $1,439,257 $1,821,145 $1,788,822
~ ~~
Site Development (on property) $66,667 $133,333 $200,000 $200,000
Utility upgrades, relocations or extensions (sanitary, $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
storm, water, hydro, gas, bell, cable}
Surface removals, restoration, upgrades, extensions $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $20,000
(road, sidewalk, boulevards, driveways, trees}
Other (rink restoration) $25,000 $0 $25,000 $25,000
Total -Site Develo ment $101,667 $193,333 $295,000 $295,000
Temporary Trailer -Installation $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Temporary Trailer -Rental ($1,5001month) $0 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000
Total Project Estimate $498,888 $1,662,257 $2,161,145 $2,128,822
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE39
AUGUST 2008
If the project is divided into 2 phases, it is estimated to cost 2.161 million ($0.499 million in phase
one and $1.662 million in phase two). Due to the nature of the work, it is expected that only limited
project efficiencies would be realized by undertaking the full construction program at one time; the non-
phased project is estimated to cost $2.128 million.
Notes pertaining to Capital Costs:
• The construction costs noted above include building materials and labour for indoor building
components.
• Costs are also presented for outdoor site development associated with the building, including
restoration of the rink as a result of the building expansion. Costs do not include any works
associated with the adjacent Tyson Park.
• Costs include temporary accommodations for community programslrentals (i.e., rental and
installation of a trailer), which would be required in the project's second phase.
• Costs are shown in 2008 dollars. For construction in subsequent years, add 6% per year escalation.
Actual market conditions may be different. Phased construction could increase costs.
• Phase 1 is not considered to be a major expansion and would not require LEED compliance, but
would include sustainable design and construction practices. Phase 2 is considered to be a major
renovation and - in accordance with a recent Council resolution -would be expected to be
compliant with LEED Gold.
• These are Class "D" estimated for budgeting purposes only and should be refined at the next project
stage.
Funding Sources - Capifal
The City of Kitchener identified $316,000 in its 2008 capital budget to upgrade the Bridgeport Community
Centre, with $284,000 (90%) of this amount being allocated from Development Charges (DC).
Development Charges can fund up to 90% of the cost associated with a facility expansion intended to serve
new growth, but cannot be used for building renovations or replacement. The level of contribution to this
project from grants and/or fundraising, if any, has not been determined at this point.
Additional funding is required for this project, although a phased approach may assist in mitigating this
funding challenge. Given that the proposed Phase 1 relates entirely to an expansion made necessary due
to new population growth in the area, it is likely that this phase would be eligible for funding through
Development Changes. An additional $183,000 is required (on top of the $316,000 currently
earmarked for the project) in order to complete Phase 1.
Funding has not been allocated to Phase 2 of this project. As much of this phase involves the conversion /
renovation of existing space, it is anticipated that a portion of the work would not be eligible for Development
Charge funding.
Of note, the City of Kitchener is completing a DC background study (scheduled completion date 2009) that
will define a cap for all DC spending in each service area (including indoor recreation facilities) based on
historical service standards. With capital funding having already been committed to other projects, it is not
known if additional funding will be available for the Bridgeport Community Centre expansion. Any request
for additional DC funding would have to be rationalized against the other projects competing for funds over
the same time horizon with the understanding that any increase in the allocation to the BCC project may
reduce available funding for other projects.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE40
AUGUST 2008
Operating Budget Analysis
Note: The Bridgeport Community Association works in close partnership with the City of Kitchener and the
terms of this arrangement have been applied to the operating model proposed in this Business Case.
BCC Operating Budget
The BCC is operated on arevenue-neutral model, with any positive year-end balance going towards a
modest facility contingency fund. As noted in below, municipal grants account for the majority of the
Centre's "revenue".
In 2007, the BCC derived 81% of its revenue ($52,667} from City grants and the remaining 19% ($12,174}
from room rentals; both of these were increases over 2006 (27% and 35%, respectively). In 200612007,
wages and benefits accounted for approximately 75% of all expenses (excluding the facility contingency),
although it is noted that staffing costs are likely to increase in 2008 due to a rise in the minimum wage rate.
Utilities, building materials, office supplies, and licensing fees account for the remainder of the Centre's
expenses. Full data is not available for 2008.
As illustrated in the following table, in 2006 expenses for the BCC equated to approximately $9.00 per
square foot (excluding the facility contingency). Data forthree similarly sized but municipally-run community
centres (Centreville-Chicopee, Doon Pioneer Park, and Mill Courtland), reveals that expenses for these
facilities average approximately $27.40 per square foot. As well, wages at the City facilities were nearly
three times as much, whereas revenue from room rentals was greater at the BCC on a square foot basis.
Operating Budget Comparison, BCC and Selected Municipally-operated Community Centres (2006)
Bridgeport
Communit Centre Average
(Doon Pioneer Park, Centreville-
Chicopee, Mill Courtland)
Size (square feet) 5,454 8,330
Total Expenses per square foot $9.01 $27.40
WageslBenefits Expenses per square foot $6.99 $19.03
Room Rental Revenue per square foot $1.65 $0.96
Source: City of Kitchener and Bridgeport Community Association, 2006 Budgets.
Note: Budget data includes both Community Services and Facilities Management, where applicable.
The following table contains a comparison of all City community centres, based on the 2008 proposed
operating budgets. The City's expenses for the Bridgeport Community Centre are expected to increase to
$10.13/sf in 2008; this is nearly half the cost of the next most cost-effective facility (the Downtown
Community Centre at $18.40/sf). The BCC's cost per square foot is the lowest of all community centres.
This table also shows that the average community centre size in the City is 12,579 square feet (more than
twice as large as the Bridgeport Community Centre). Although the BCC provides an estimated 1.2 square
feet for every person within its service area (second highest behind the Downtown Community Centre), this
does not necessarily suggest that the area is over-served, rather it is a reflection of the Bridgeport
community being the smallest area in the City to have its own community centre.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE41
AUGUST 2008
Operating Budget Comparison, All City Community Centres (2008)
Facility
Square
Feet
Programming
Costs (Net) Facilities
Maintenance
Costs Total
Budgeted
Costs Cost Per
Square
Foot Square Feet per
Population
Served
Bridgeport 5,454 $55,226 $0 $55,226 $10.13 1.2
Kingsdale (portables) 6,000 $65,007 $53,166 $118,173 $19.70 0.3
Centreville Chicoppee 7,329 $148,002 $71,786 $219,788 $29.99 0.6
M i I I Cou rtland 7, 824 $109, 336 $66, 987 $176, 323 $22.54 0.4
Chandler Mowatt 9,312 $192,461 $67,728 $260,189 $27.94 0.8
Doon Pioneer Park 9,356 $176,450 $72,025 $248,475 $26.56 0.7
Forest Heights 10,424 $224,022 $73,496 $297,518 $28.54 0.4
Country Hills 15,129 $224,265 $103,187 $327,452 $21.64 0.7
Victoria Hills 16,372 $344,406 $115,470 $459,876 $28.09 0.7
Stan ley Park 16, 945 $259, 014 $94, 854 $353, 868 $20.88 0.5
Downtown Community
Centre 34,222 $433,429 $196,241 $629,670 $18.40 1.3
Totals 138,367 $2,231,618 $914,940 $3,146,558 -- --
Average 12,579 $202,874 $83,176 $286,051 $22.74 0.7
City Contributions
In 2007, the City of Kitchener contributed $52,667 towards the operation of the Bridgeport Community
Centre (this amount is expected to increase by nearly 5% in 2008). Of this amount, $45,119 (86%) was
provided by the City through quarterly grants and ayear-end residual grant to offset the Centre's operations.
The remaining 14% went towards items such as wageslbenefits, building maintenance materials, computer
rentals, etc.
The City's financial contribution to the BCC is considerably lower than other similar -but municipally-
operated -community resource centres. For example, the average net budget for Centreville-Chicopee,
Chandler Mowatt, Doon Pioneer Park, and Mill Courtland Community Centres was approximately $244,000
in 2007 (including both community services and facilities management}, which is more than four times
greater than the City's contribution to the BCC. A cost per square foot evaluation yields similar results.
Notwithstanding this disparity, the City's contribution to the BCC has increased by 166% over the last ten
years, with the largest escalations taking place in 1998 and 2007 to coincide primarily with increases in
wages.
Impact of Proposed Expansion
Due to the unique operating arrangement of the Bridgeport Community Centre, it is not within the scope of
this study to predict fully the impact of the proposed facility expansion on the financial operating position of
the BCC. Nevertheless, a number of items that may have an impact on the Centre's operating budget have
been identified based on related research and consultation:
• As discussed in more detail later in this section, a facility expansion is expected to generate more
visits to the Centre and will result in the need for additional staff hours over time. As wages and
benefits generally account for 70-75% of total expenses, this is likely the area where the largest
expenditure increase can be expected, particularly if the gymnasium is added to the Centre
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE42
AUGUST 2008
• An increase in utility costs should be anticipated, generally commensurate with the size of the facility
expansion. The increasing market cost of energy is another factor that will lead to higher
expenditures over time.
• Despite a new additional, much of the facility is of older construction; therefore, costs and wages
associated with facility management can be anticipated. If these costs rise year after year without a
corresponding increase to the City's grant contribution to the BCA, it could take funding away from
other Centre operations.
• With an expansion to the Centre and the number of programs, it is expected that costs for building
materials and office supplies will also increase slightly.
• Greater revenues can be expected as more program space is added to the Centre. The addition of
a gymnasium to the Bridgeport Community Centre could be expected to generate more rental
revenue than the addition of a mid-size program room due to greater community demand and the
higher rental rate, although this is largely dependent on the degree to which these spaces are made
available for rental.
A 16% increase in building area (representing a 890 square foot addition to the 5,454 square foot facility,
consistent with the recommended Phase 1 development} is likely to require an increase in the Centre's
operating budget of approximately the same magnitude. As a result of the factors identified in the previous
bullets, when the gymnasium is added to the Centre in Phase 2 in place of the hall (representing a 10%
increase in floor area over the Phase 1 footprint), the Centre's operating budget will likely have to increase
by more than 10% to keep pace with the extra demand and hours of operation.
Nevertheless, past history would suggest that aBCA-run community centre could be operated more cost
effectively than aCity-run community centre, although this is largely a result of the different staffing models.
A determination of the preferred staff complement for the expanded BCC is required in order to properly
assess operating budget implications.
Staffing & Operational Implications of Proposed Expansion
The Bridgeport Community Centre is one of the only City facilities that does not employ City of Kitchener
administrative staff - a City grant goes towards offsetting the facility's full-time Centre Manager (30 hours
per week), who is an employee of the Bridgeport Community Association. Facility attendants and janitorial
staff are also employed by the BCA on an as-needed basis, as are contract instructors and volunteers
(indirect of the City of Kitchener). A full list of the BCA's responsibilities relative to the Centre can be found
in Section 3 of this report (under LFMP Criterion 5.9).
The BCC's unique operational arrangement continues to serve the Bridgeport area well, but -like
everything -its does have its advantages and disadvantages. For instance, the BCA is proud of their cost-
effective approach to facility management and believe that they offer very good value for the dollar (relative
to both program/rentals fees and the City's grant}. The wide range of BCA responsibilities not only
promotes greater financial accountability, but also greater transparency at the local level and
responsiveness to community needs. The high degree of BCA involvement has also contributed to the
establishment of strong ties and partnerships with the community and local organizations.
At the same time, the current arrangement can create some challenges, although they are not
insurmountable. The BCC's current staffcomplement is leanerthan most municipal community centres and
this places limits on the Centre's hours and administrative capabilities. For example, with increasing data
management and reporting requirements at the municipal level (e.g., budgeting, business planning,
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE43
AUGUST 2008
provincially-mandated programs such as MPMP and OMBI, etc.), there is a need to ensure that the BCC's
record-keeping is consistent with that of other community centres. Customer service and facility rentals may
also be impacted by the absence of a connection to City of Kitchener facility schedulinglbooking software.
Key considerations relating to volunteer management and liabilitylrisk management are discussed later in
this section.
While each of these challenges can be considered minor in nature at the present time, facility expansion will
result in a greater intensity of use and has the potential to heighten these issues. Expansion of program
space at the BCC will also require the Bridgeport Community Association to broaden the scope or number
of services that they offer, as there is a constant need to maintain a financially sustainable bottom-line. As
supported by the City's Leisure Facilities Master Plan, this needs to be manifested primarily through a
growth in registered programs and community events, as opposed to facility rentals. This will inevitably
require greater efforts on the part of the BCA and may require the Association to build the additional
capacity required to take on an enhanced role in the Centre's management.
Staffing
Although each City community centre is different, the typical staffing model for a small to medium-size
Kitchener Community Resource Centre consists of the following positions:
• Resource Centre Coordinator (1 FT)
• Office Coordinator (1 PT)
• Resource Centre Clerk (1 PT)
• Community Centre Attendants (PT)
In addition, each community centre would also have access to a District Facilitator that is shared between
several centres (as is currently the case with the BCC).
The BCC currently has an Centre Manager (30 hours per week) that is responsible for functions similar to
both the Resource Centre Coordinator and Office Coordinator in the municipal facility model. The BCC also
employs Community Centre Attendants as required, as well as janitorial staff. Furthermore, the current BCA
Executive plays a very active role in the management of the Community Centre.
As mentioned earlier, the BCC's staffing model is much leaner than a typical municipal model, but is
consistent with the operational parameters associated with the Centre. Over time, the move towards an
expanded Bridgeport Community Centre will likely require an increase to the staffing budget for the following
reasons:
• a greater intensity of use will require additional customer service and administrative support
resources;
• extended and more consistent hours may be required as the BCA works to maximize usage,
particularly during the daytime and weekends where current usage is sporadic;
• for safety measures, it would be prudent to have two staff persons at the Centre during high-use
times, particularly if there is an increase in drop-in programs;
• as the Bridgeport area grows in population, it is possible that additional community development
initiatives will be required, necessitating increased attention and resources; and
• the BCA President and other Board members contribute immensely to the Centre's operational
success; if the unique blend of skills and talents cannot be replaced when these individuals move
on, additional staff may be required to take over responsibilities that have historically been
addressed by volunteers.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE44
AUGUST 2008
At a minimum, it is expected that the Centre Manager position will need to be elevated to 35-40 hours per
week (from 30 hours at present} and renamed "Facility Coordinator" to be in keeping with the scope of
responsibilities. Furthermore, it is likely that some degree of part-time administrative support for the Facility
Coordinator will be required outside of the Attendants, particularly during high-use periods.
This staffing increase can be phased in over time, in keeping with the demands being placed on the Centre
and its current staff complement. The greatest change in staffing demand is expected to be seen when the
Phase 2 construction is complete; the impact of Phase 1 (mid-size activity room) is expected to be minimal.
1/nl~ ~ntPPr~
The Bridgeport Community Association relies on volunteers to manage their Board of Directors and to run
several programs; furthermore, most of the Centre's user groups are led by volunteers. The City considers
neighbourhood association volunteers to be "indirect", which are different in their roles and responsibilities
from "direct" volunteers associated with City-run programs or events. The volunteer role and related
assistance from the City is currently under review for the BCC, particularly as it relates to Bill C-45
(amendment to the Canadian Criminal Code relating to legal duties for workplace health and safety}.
The following are some key considerations, challenges, and opportunities relating to volunteers and their
potential relationship with the BCA.
• According to the City's Volunteer Support Strategy Discussion Paper, volunteer sustainability hinges
on four key dimensions: planning and leadership; relationships and partnerships; organizational
culture; and organizational relevance.
• While an assessment of the BCA's volunteer capacity is beyond the scope of this study, it is clear
that for the group to maintain their role, they will continue to require support and assistance from the
City, both financially and administratively.
• For many of the reasons outlined in the following section on liability and risk management, the
pressures being placed on the BCA are increasing. With growth forecasted in not only the number
of Bridgeport residents, but also the breath of leisure interests, it is expected that even greater
demands will be placed on the BCA. This pressure will only increase if the BCC is expanded.
• Recent nationwide studies (e.g., National Survey of Giving Volunteering and Participating) indicate
that people are becoming more hesitant to volunteer in formal ways and with community-run
organizations. While this may or may not be the experience with the BCA at present, it is a trend -
alongwith volunteer burnout -that deserves attention and a proactive response from all parties.
Liability & Risk Management
Requirements and guidelines relating to liability and risk management are becoming more complex for all
types of organizations, including the Bridgeport Community Association. Examples of liability and risk
management matters include, but may not be limited to, the following:
• health and safety, including Bill C-45, fire code, WHMIS, etc.;
• insurance requirements (the BCA has some coverage under the City's third-party liability insurance;
specifically excluded from this policy is Director's liability insurance, financial insurance, and BCA
property/content insurance);
• legal advice (note: the City's Legal Department or Community Services staff cannot provide legal
advice to neighbourhood associations or any outside entity);
• privacy and information management;
• policies and practices regarding alcohol-related events;
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE45
AUGUST 2008
• hiring practices, instructor certification, and volunteer reference checks;
• accessibility for people with disabilities, including compliance with the legislative requires of the new
AODA (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act);
• financial assistance;
• use of mandatory protective equipment for high risk activities;
• book keeping practices and financial accountability;
• emergency procedures, medical response, and incident reporting;
• facility maintenance;
• food handling requirements;
• licensing; and
• booking policies.
Each of the aforementioned items will affect the operations of the BCC/BCA to one degree or another, either
at present or in the near future. While the City of Kitchener is able to provide existing resources and sharing
of direct program practices to assist the BCA in developing their own policies, it is clear that the BCA's
responsibilities and level of diligence in several areas will need to keep pace with increasingly stringent
requirements.
Qualitative Analysis
Some of the costs and benefits associated with the proposed building project are not easily quantifiable,
but many are more important than just dollars and cents and need to be recognized as justification for
moving forward with:
Benefits Description
1. Community centres Community gathering and recreation facilities form a focal point for
create a neighbourhood neighbourhoods and cities. These facilities encourage social interaction
destination. among residents and foster a sense of pride which can ultimately lead to
increased levels of community involvement in civic activities and services.
The current Bridgeport Community Centre, while a destination for some, is
not a focal point for the majority of new residents in the area.
2. The propensity of the Community centres encourage physical activity and creative thought which
community to participate brings numerous health benefits that reduce direct and indirect costs of
in recreational and being sedentary (e.g., costs associated with health care, socially
cultural opportunities destructive behaviours, etc.). An expanded facility will provide the
tends to increase once Bridgeport community with greater access to recreational programs for all
facilities are developed. age groups, many of which are under-served at the present time.
3. Recreation and Multi-use centres allow for informal drop-in activities for youth and are
opportunities for creative conducive to accommodating their spontaneous demands. Participation in
expression encourage leisure activities has been shown to deter youth from socially undesirable
youth, especially `youth- activities, instil confidence and a sense of values, encourage community
at-risk', to make positive involvement and raise overall fitness and cognitive levels. Additionally, with
choices. many young families, there is a need for youth-oriented programming that
can be easily accessed without crossing major barriers such as the
expressway.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE46
AUGUST 2008
Benefits Description
4. Activities favoured by Active living and wellness opportunities are readily promoted through the
older adults and seniors development ofmulti-use facilities, which respond well to the needs of the
are easily aging population. Encouraging older adults and senior citizens to continue
accommodated through to socialize and exercise will lead to healthier lifestyles. Bridgeport's
cross-programming population, while young, also exhibits an aging trend and there is a
opportunities. significant proportion of seniors in the area.
5. The proper provision of The establishment of community centres in demonstrated underserved
facilities can improve a neighbourhoods can improve the municipal image among residents and
municipality's image in foster a sense that the City is working to serve the community as best as
the eyes of its public and, possible. Additionally, residents are able to see the municipality's
in turn, maximize the commitment to recreation and community services and are more likely to
capacity of a commit their energies towards these opportunities as well. The Bridgeport
neighbourhood. Community Association has been very vocal in its desire for an expanded
community centre -anew facility would validate the neighbourhood's
efforts and would encourage increased volunteerism due to an expanded
breadth of programs and interest areas.
6. Community centres can The inclusion of social support services as part of multi-purpose facilities
be a source of social provides a gateway for access to a wide variety of essential resources.
supports for vulnerable Depending on the scale/type of facility, supports may consist of social
members of the workers, counsellors, educators, peer supports, etc. which can aid
neighbourhood. residents facing extenuating challenges (but also require additional staff
and financial resources in order to provide or facilitate). Many of these
challenges are not highly prevalent in Bridgeport at present, but could
become more evident over time.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE47
AUGUST 2008
The Bridgeport Community Centre Expansion Business Case contains a detailed assessment of local
recreation facility needs, based heavily on the area's demographic profile, recognized activity trends, and
input from local residents and stakeholders. Viewed in its entirety, this collection of information and opinions
provides a compelling case to move forward with the expansion of the Bridgeport Community Centre.
There are a number of key findings within this report that support the expansion of recreational space within
the community. Most notable is the population data for the area, which indicates that Bridgeport has been
experiencing relatively rapid growth (36% between 2001 and 2006) and is projected to grow by 34% more
by the year 2026. Furthermore, trends indicate a growing impetus for people of all ages to participate in
physical activities; compounded by increases in the number of residents, Bridgeport is poised to see
additional demand for recreation and leisure opportunities.
The Bridgeport Community Association operates the Centre and facilitates its programs and rentals. This
arrangement has served the City well as it has led to many strong and successful community programs and
events. A lack of space at the Centre is restricting the Association from significantly expanding its programs.
Just as important, the design of the Bridgeport Community Centre - built in 1970 -cannot support all forms
of community recreation, nor is it ideal for many programs that are currently offered. Additional investment
is required in order to ensure that the Centre is able to meet local needs for the next twenty or more years.
The consultation program and needs assessment identified support for the addition of a mid-sized multi-
purpose room (listed in the concept plan as 611 square feet) that could accommodate a range of
programming. Justification was also found for the development of more storage and office space, a
gymnasium (through the conversion of the hall}, and improvements to the lounge/lobby and entrance area.
Expansion to the existing Community Centre building (as opposed to brand new development on an
alternative site) was deemed to be the most prudent approach. The current site at 20 Tyson Drive,
however, is located within the regulatory floodplain and is restricted by the Grand River Conservation
Authority and City of Kitchener. Relief from development policies is likely to be required if the Centre is to be
expanded beyond 1,076 square feet as is recommended through the second construction phase.
Based on input received from the public and Steering Committee (which included representatives of the
Bridgeport Community Association and City of Kitchener), a conceptual design has been put forward for
consideration. The design consists of 1,534 square feet of additional space (for a total building size of
approximately 7,000 square feet}, including the addition of amulti-purpose room, support space, and
conversion of the existing hall into a gymnasium.
The cost to expand and renovate the Centre is estimated to be $2.13 to $2.16 million in current year dollars;
this includes construction, soft costs, and site development. These figures are more than what is presently
allocated for this project in the City's long-range forecast. To better align to funding availability and local
demand factors, staging of construction has been considered. Phase 1 -which would consist of the
addition of a mid-size multi-purpose room and storage space -would cost $0.50 million, which is $0.18
million more than what is in the City's capital budget for this project ($0.32 million). Phase 1 is likely to be
eligible for Development Charge funding, whereas much of Phase 2 (conversion of the existing hall into a
gymnasium and internal renovations} is not. Additional funding is required forthis project.
If the project is split into two stages, additional consultation with the community should be pursued prior to
launching Phase 2, particularly given the amount of time that could lapse between phases.
BUSINESS CASE: BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY CENTRE-EXPANSION PAGE48
AUGUST 2008
APPENDIX A
Bridgeport Business Case
Map of Bridgeport Planning Area
Y
Community
C I~
LOR
C
WATERL
~~
B
PUBLI
B
PUB I'
',,I
CpNES~pGA
~,~~
D
TOWNSHIP OF
WOOLWICH
*,~
.~
~d
APPENDIX B
Bridgeport Business Case
Public Consultation Summary
APPENDIX B -PUBLIC CONSULTATION INITIATIVES
A special thank-you is extended to the Bridgeport Community Association members and staff,
as well as City of Kitchener staff, for their assistance in coordinating and advertising the public
consultation initiatives.
B-1: Household Survey
August, 2007
As an update to the BCA's 2000 survey, the Association delivered a stratified random sample
survey to every third household in the Bridgeport community during the last two weeks of
August, 2007. Questionnaires were delivered by way of mail boxes or doors with a date for
pick-up. Surveyors provided up to two reminders at each household.
The purpose of the survey was to assist the BCA in its future program planning; questions
pertaining directly to the Centre's expansion were also included to aid this Business Case.
In total, 78 households completed the survey, with 8% for Bridgeport North, 18% from
Bridgeport West, and 27% from Bridgeport East. It is important to note that the household
survey is not considered statistically significant.
Household Composition
^ 50% of households have children living in the home. The percentage of households with
each age cohort is:
of All Households
Under 2 years 9.1
2 to 6 years 18.2%
7-12 years 28.4%
13-18 years 20.5%
^ 33% of households have lived in Bridgeport less than 5 years, while 46% have lived in the
community for over 10 years.
Recreational Facility Usage
^ 27.3% of households surveyed have participated in BCC programs in the past year, while
43.2% have used other recreational facilities in the past year.
^ Aside from the BCC, Breithaupt Community Centre and RIM Park are the most commonly
used recreational facilities for Bridgeport residents.
^ 12.5% of households stated that they use other recreational facilities to swim.
^ When asked if other facilities have better amenities, 17.0% of household circled `yes'.
Top Preferences for Programming byAge Group
^ Pre-school Age Group -Music for Tots, Parents & Tots, Roll & Tumble, Crafty Kids,
^ Children Age Group- Child Dance, Marital Arts, Drama, Pickup Sports
^ Youth Age Group- Bikers Club, Guitar
^ Older Youth and Adult Age Group -Yoga, Boxercise, Fitness, Dancing, Christmas Crafts,
Horseshoes, Strength Training, Scrapbooking, Guitar, Pick-up Sports, Self-Defence, and
Pottery
^ Older AdultAge Group- Fitness, Quilting and Painting.
Barriers to Participation
Barriers to participation for Bridgeport residents includes (in order of influence):
o Lack of programs at convenient times;
o No programs of interest;
o No one to participate with;
o Need program information; and
o No child care.
Potential Facility Improvements
Households were asked to indicate whether they would use the BCC more if a variety of
facility components were added to the Centre. The responses are as follows:
Facility Component Percent Likely to Use Centre More
Often if Facilit Component Added
Gymnasium 34.1
Improve Existin Rink 30.6%
Dance Fitness Studio 29.5%
More Outdoor Facilities 25.0%
More Parking 22.7%
Cooking Kitchen 22.7%
Computer or Study Space 20.4%
Pre-School Room 13.6%
Mid-Sized Room 11.4%
Youth Lounge 10.2%
Seniors Lounge 9.0%
Better Physical Access 6.8%
More Storage 5.7%
48% of households stated that the BCC should be expanded at the existing location; as
opposed to 17% of households that indicated that the Centre should be re-build in a new
location.
B-2: Focus Group Meetings
January 14t" (Evening) and 15t" (Afternoon and Evening), 2008
Attendees
^ Winter Rink Committee
^ Outreach
^ Lions Club
^ Bridgeport Women's I nstitute
^ KW Counselling
^ Bridgeport Reunion
^ 6 residents of the Bridgeport Community (not affiliated with specific group)
What makes Bridgeport Unique?
^ Bridgeport amalgamated with the City of Kitchener in 1973.
^ A variety of little communities - Macville is comprised of little cottages; old section of
Bridgeport; new communities (i.e. River Ridge).
^ A lot of people move back once they start their own families.
^ Small town feel.
^ Residents love the feel of Bridgeport, but being close to the amenities that are offered in
Kitchener/Waterloo.
^ Very accepting community with a little bit of everything- there is a whole row of Habitat for
Humanity homes.
^ Not at all a transient community.
^ There is a "rich" heritage in Bridgeport.
^ There are a lot of new homes being built.
^ A lot of ownership in the community. Parents actively participation in programming.
^ The community is very local - if someone says they need something, the community will
make it happen.
^ Many volunteers in the community.
^ The community is divided by the Grand River.
^ The new roundabout may make the community scut-through.
^ Bridgeport is one of the few areas where residential uses front onto the Grand River.
^ Easy going community-"live and let live".
^ Not a primary immigrant receiving community.
^ Some commuters to Guelph.
^ Diverse land uses in the community due to its evolution over many years. A lot of large
residential lots.
^ Orginially, the site contained just the outdoor rink. The Lions Club assisted in having the
Centre built in the 1970s'. A renovation was made to the front of the building in 2001.
About the Bridgeport Community Centre?
^ Programming at the BCC ramped up in 2001.
^ The outdoor rink is popular all year long. In the spring/summer/fall, the rink is used for ball
hockey. Sometimes users play until 12:OOam (2-3 nights a week), even though the
floodlights only stay on until 11:OOpm. Users are mostly men in their 20s and 30s, but they
appear to come from all overthe City.
^ The rink is said to be the best in the City.
^ Free skating times are posted on the wall, but sometimes have to tell the hockey players to
get off.
^ The rink also provides overflow parking for events at the BCC.
^ Difficult to get volunteers to help with flooding the rink every night. Volunteers are really
related to the age of their children.
^ There are nets, but may need to be replaced soon.
^ Discourage use of outdoor rink for in-line skating due to cracks in the floor.
^ Lions Club paid to have a mobile skateboard park set up on the rink for one week.
^ Basketball net used by the youth drop-in program.
^ Would not want to see the rink go to accommodate an expansion to the BCC. The site was
originally constructed forthe rink, so it would be sad to see it go.
^ River Ridge now has their own rink.
^ Fellowship at the BCC makes it unique.
^ The Lions Club meets twice a month at the Centre.
^ Big Christmas Tree trimming party with over 100 people.
^ The Variety Show has over 125 kids (held once a year by the Lions Club).
^ The BCC is a gathering place forthe community.
^ The hall has a warm feeling -not institutional.
^ Prefer everything to be located on one floor.
^ Like that the programs are run by the community.
^ The Women's Institute (declining membership) and Lion's Club (stable membership) have
met at the BCC for years.
Trends
^ Having trouble getting awareness to River Ridge as there are no mail boxes to deliver
newsletters and flyers.
^ River Ridge residents may not feel as though they are a part of Bridgeport. May have
different demographics.
^ Evening programs are most popular.
^ Membership in senior programs is generally declining (e.g. Women's Institute is down to 7
members from 100).
^ The WALC program is very popular.
^ Use of the facilities is probably 50150 between seniors and young people.
^ Should plan forthe boomers.
^ Should be more families with children as the new subdivisions are built.
^ Development will explode once the roundabout is built.
^ Will new residents just want to put kids in programs that are already organized or will they
be interested in the "grass-roots" approach?
Gaps in Service
^ Seniors would like some programming in the evening.
^ Turn people away because there is no gymnasium -for example, the BCC can not have
boy's scouts because there is not opportunity for active play.
^ Daytime slots are hard to fill -not as many people are interested in participating during the
daytime.
^ Would prefer better floors for fitness classes.
^ Would be nice to have a lounge area for moms.
^ It does not appear as though municipal funds are being given to the Bridgeport community
for recreation and leisure.
^ The Boys Scouts offered at the local church is getting very expensive.
^ Gymnastics would be a great program to have at the Centre.
^ Schaefer Park needs upgrading.
^ Potential for expansion of the playground?
^ The facility could be more accessible.
^ There are not a lot of youth programs.
^ Lower income families from Bridgeport must go the Breithaupt to get financial assistance
(often hard to get to that facility}. There could be value in bringing this service to BCC.
Although there are concerns about the visibility of having social services in a small tight-knit
community such as Bridgeport (confidentiality). Would have to apply for a social worker to
be located at the BCC.
^ If it rains in the summer, the groups in the summer program struggle to have enough indoor
space forthe children.
What would you like the Bridgeport Community Centre to look like?
^ Ultimately would like a gymnasium (caters to all age groups} and an additional meeting
room.
^ The Centre should be inviting. The current entrance is too small and tight when
programming is occurring.
^ A sitting area with chairs and tables.
^ Certain group sizes are too large forthe existing meeting room, yet too small for the hall.
^ Anew meeting space could be used for guitar lessons, Lion's Club dinner meetings, art
class, small family parties, etc.
^ New programs: dance, scrapbooking, and nature programs.
^ The BCA is not able to offer many programs to teens as there is not an opportunity for
active play (e.g. basketball, volleyball).
^ Would like the playground to be accessible for children, so that they do not have to cross
the parking lot.
^ Additional offices would be great - up to 4 in total.
^ Rink floor could be fixed up, as well as nets and boards.
^ Would an artificial rink be possible?
^ More parking is needed.
^ More visible sign directing traffic to BCC.
^ Additional storage.
^ The Centre Attendant should have access to rental schedules at City of Kitchener
Community Centres.
^ Lounge area is very important, particularly for parents waiting fortheir children.
^ Would not be hard to fill the additional space with programs, just need to make sure there is
staffing available to support this.
^ If adding a gymnasium and a meeting room, would need to have supportive facilities such
as more washrooms, parking, storage, and offices.
^ Need to look 10 years in the future, not just now.
^ Wish list would include: gymnasium, fitness studio, outdoor amenities, basketball court,
storage, office space, washrooms, parking, viewing space, youth andlor senior space, and
lounge area.
^ Splash pad would be nice for children.
^ The design of the new building should be in keeping with the community (e.g. stone, wood,
etc.)
^ Preference forthe facility to be operated by the community.
Is this the best location for the Bridgeport Community Centre?
^ The Centre is the focal point on the community.
^ Do not believe there is anywhere else to put the Centre.
^ Some houses could be torn down to expand.
^ Could the Centre be located in Kiwanis Park?
^ The bridge is a barrierto participation.
^ Unless the site cannot accommodate what is needed, the Centre should remain in the
current location.
^ Residents in River Ridge may not be aware that the BCC is here.
^ Like the location right across from the Grand River, and close to the trails.
B-3: Surveys andlor Interviews
January to April, 2008
A wide range of stakeholders were consulted during this planning effort in order to confirm
information regarding their organization, to gather insight into the needs of the Bridgeport
community, and to better understand their ideas regarding the future of the Bridgeport
Community Centre. As each interviewlsurvey was unique to the interests of the stakeholder,
the individual results have not been recorded herein, but rather have been integrated into the
Business Plan, where appropriate.
Groupsllndividualsgarticipating in Telephone Interviews:
^ Ram Dham Hindu Temple
^ Croatian RC Parish Holy Family
^ Bridgeport Public School
^ Waterloo Region District School Board
^ St. Teresa Catholic Elementary School
^ Waterloo Active Living Club
^ District Facilitator, City of Kitchener
^ Facilities Management, City of Kitchener
Groups completing a Written Survey
^ YWCA Bridgeport Childcare Centre
^ 1St Bridgeport Brownies
^ 1St Bridgeport Beavers
^ 1St Bridgeport Sparks
^ 1St Bridgeport Scout Group
^ Bridgeport Summer Playgrounds
^ DeKaron Ent. "Tim Hortons"
^ Bluevale Collegiate
^ St. Teresa Catholic Elementary School
^ The Greek Orthodox Community of Saints Peter and Paul Church
Summary of Responses to General Questions on the Written Survey
How would you characterize the Bridgeport community?
^ Outskirts of Kitchenerwith a mix of old and new housing
^ There is a lot of growth
^ Strong community with a focus on family
^ A lot of open space; linkage with the river (trails)
^ Diverse, young population
^ Quiet
What are the most pressing issues in Bridgeport?
^ Bridge rehabilitation /traffic overthe bridge
^ Rapid growth and inadequate facilities for youth
^ Need for a second large program room to accommodate groups
^ The area needs to be spruced up
^ Should be building up instead of out
What are you thoughts about the Centre's current location?
^ Great location, the playground could be upgraded to meet all CSA standards.
^ Better parking is needed.
^ One way street signs are not obeyed
What leisure activities are missing in the community?
^ Swimming (mentioned in 3 surveys)
^ Gym (mentioned in 3 surveys}
^ Community dances, dinners, entertainment for kids (indoor and outdoor)
^ Park space
^ Need programs for universitylcollege students.
What other facilities are available in the Bridgeport Community?
^ Bridgeport United Church has spacelhall in the basement
^ School and churches are not renting space anymore
^ RIM Park
^ St. Agnes Church
^ St. Paul's Lutheran Church (basement)
Extensive efforts were made to obtain input from all identified stakeholders, unfortunately
responses were not received from all groups, agencies, or providers.
B-4: Public Meeting
May 5, 2008
Attendance: approximately 30 residents, two representatives of the City of Kitchener, and 4
representatives of the Bridgeport Community Association/Centre
Facilitated by: Monteith Brown Planning Consultants and Green Propeller Design
Note: Input from public meeting and written comment sheetslsubmissions have been combined.
Floodplain Development Limit
o What has GRCA (Grand River Conservation Authority) said about homes in the
floodplains (recent development of large homes in the area)?
o How was the 20% building expansion potential determined? How much of an addition is
this?
o Would the constraints prevent building up, rather than out?
o Can the GRCA make an exception for development in flood plains?
o Floodplain issues -wasn't purpose of berm to contain water and reduce flooding risk? If
so there should be concessions made to the extension of the community centre.
o Request for the GRCA and local councillor to be present and available to answer all
questions.
Outdoor Rink
o Currently the outdoor rink is not fully used because parts of it are difficult to flood and the
ice doesn't form properly.
o The rink is currently used for a very small part of the year, and desperately requires
repair. Would there be funds leftover to improve the outdoor rink? What about
renovations in the future? Could the City add rink improvements to their budget?
o The rink should be roofed for year-round use. This would make the rink truly multi-use
(i.e. roller rink vs. ice rink). How hard does the community need to push to have the rink
covered outside?
o Enjoy playground and rink - creates a sense of community in facility.
o Need a better rink shed.
Community Centre Location
o Why not build on a completely different site? Who provided the input that said the money
should be spent on the existing community centre?
o Were stakeholder survey recipients aware of the 20% expansion cap? If not, opinions
may have differed to some degree -they might have decided that a new facility would be
better than expansion.
o Should build a new community centre, leave existing Bridgeport CC alone.
o Keep CC on existing site, just expand slightly
Direction of Expansion 1 Site Impacts
o Why are most plans building out to the west (over greenspace}? Could use part of the
outdoor rink (and improve the remaining rink space for greater use - it is not a big deal if
the rink is no longer "regulation size").
o How much of the playground will be replaced with parking (playground can't be moved
due to noise concerns from residents}?The park is already small, but can't relocate too
much closer to homes because of noise issues.
o The proposal would only gain a small number of parking spots for a large loss of green
space.
o What about putting a gym on top of the existing hall, with lots of windows to capture the
view over the river?
o Increasing height would create issues with neighbours.
o Support expansion onto the rink side, saving as much green space as possible.
o Prefer option 1 & 2 (no gym), but design is too close to the front, should be moved to the
rear of the building.
o Keep expansion to the front because of noise issues for surrounding houses.
o Concerned that not enough people were in attendance that lived on the "rinkside" of the
Centre and, therefore, were underrepresented.
o Concern about smoking, parties outside of Centre interfering with neighbouring houses.
Kitchen and Lounge
o Issue with Options 2 & 3 having lounge in front but kitchen and bar in back -but children
in between? If lounge used for coffee clubs etc, shouldn't kitchen be closer to the
lounge? The kitchen/bar should be moved to the front/centre of the building so that it is
accessible to all rooms.
o Misconceptions with naming of "Lounge" -actually an informal gathering space.
Confusion over purpose of lounge.
o Is the lounge creating wasted space, given the potential space constraints? The social
area (lounge) will not provide enough use for the space it requires.
o Would the lounge be better used if it were a rentable space?
Provision of gymnasium
o Why is there a need for gym? Only certain activities require gym space.
o A gym will help to draw children in and increase use of Centre. Children prefer non-
structured play. Can't do much currently.
o Gym would be great for both kids and adults alike.
o Worry about gym providing space for more physical activities, but pushing out existing
users. If gym becomes busy, what will happen to the groups currently using the space -
willthey be pushed out in favour of gym activities?
o Centre underutilized for pre-schoolers and younger children, especially during the
daytime. Option 3 (gym) has the most scope for both children and adults. Currently there
is little programming interest for pre-schoolers. Must look to other Community Centres
for examples of well utilized facilitieslprogramming. Priority should be to get children
together because this builds communities.
o Gymnasium should have a divider.
o Gym would begreat-divided or whole.
o A benefit of the gym would be better flooring for more activities.
o A gymnasium is a waste of money -don't need a gymnasium for 5 kids.
o There will be limited use of the gym by children because they won't be allowed by their
parents to travel from the River Ridge area.
o Prefer Option 3 (gym} because most programs require some kind of gym facility. Better
flooring is needed.
o The two gyms at Bridgeport school should be used more. Why aren't school gyms part
of the city infrastructure? Never used at night time. (it was suggested that the gyms not
used because caretakers do not want to stay late)
MeetinglActivitySpace
o Will the meeting room provide enough space? Need for good quality sliding panels to
separate the area.
o Couldn't the existing hall remain and dividing panels be installed?
o Was there an extra meeting room in Option 3 (gym) -this would be useful.
o Need for more space to allow for concurrent activities at the Centre.
o Could the floor be changed with the existing layout and meeting room?
Requests for Further Consultation
o Did not feel as though they had been consulted enough on this matter (too much input
from River Ridge residents?).
o Multiple people angry at roundabout issue -felt that they weren't consulted and do not
want the roundabout. Comparison of process with this one; do not want the same lack of
consultation experienced in the roundabout issue.
o Want more input into this project. Agreement was reached on holding another meeting in
July (despite the summer timeframe).
o Would like to see a full report at the next public consultation meeting.
o Would like to have some kind of mailing list to be informed of the progress and the
recommended design.
o The Centre staff should have some say in the final design because they have an idea of
what everyone wants (in the best interests of a large group of people)
o Want more consultation for neighbours of Centre; should be more focus on residents
than community groups.
o Would like Councillor, GRCA, and Kitchener Planning Department representative to be
in attendance atfurther public meetings.
Other Input
o How much money is allocated to the expansion project? Will the proposed plans exceed
the $300 K provided?
o Issue with one-way direction of road in front of CC -parking along the road could be a
hazard.
o In summer, the rink is utilized for approximately 30 parking spaces. Wonder if people
may not realize where parking spaces are?
o How long will it take for construction project -especially raising the roof for a gym?
o There is heavy support by volunteers in the community to run the Centre, but there is a
lack of volunteers in the community. Need to stop depending on volunteers -either
through provision of more money, or have Kitchener take over volunteer's role.
o What is the approximate time frame of the facility expansion?
o Concern that a small expansion now will reduce the chance of getting a larger
community centre in the future.
o Should wait to decide fate of Centre until roundabout is completed because residents
may not feel comfortable walking to the Centre.
o More attentionlmoneyshnuld be given to River Ridge residents.
SHOW OF HANDS (approximation)
1. Community Centre Expansion Options
100% were in favour of doing something to the centre (either expanding on the current
site or developing in a new location}
5:1 preferred expanding the community centre versus moving to a brand new location
2. Direction of Expansion
9:1 preferred expanding east (rink side) versus west (park side)
3. Type of Expansion
3:2 preferred convert the hall to a gymnasium with dividers versus just adding a multi-
purpose room
4. Kitchen/bar reconfiguration
16:1 preferred moving the kitchen/bar to the centre of the building (if possible) versus
leaving it where it is
5. Loungelgatheringspace
3:2 preferred adding a lounge area versus not adding a lounge area
B-5: Public Information Session
August 20, 2008
Attendance: three residents, three representatives of the City of Kitchener, and two
representatives of the Bridgeport Community Association/Centre
Facilitated by: Monteith Brown Planning Consultants and Green Propeller Design
The presentation boards from this Session are contained on the following pages.
a~o~ #o ~#ton~. ch~~ ~~,~ y„ ..,,~~ ~„ ~ +,.,,,~~ ~ vu «.~ ~ v~ ~vu ~..I V~ VVIJI I V A~iIIVG
~oodeve (Committee ,Administrator) at 519-'
-..
equest a aeiegauor7.
r capital budget for a modest facility expan this matter.
identify the optimal expansion programme f current and future needs. Specifically, the omponents & layout; location; cost estimat
~CdVCI ~, DI UWI IIC~, l.(UIILCI J, VVUI I ICI I J II IJ
parties, movies, card parties, youth drop-in,
and unlicensed events)
DEPORT COMMUNITY
ed community with moderate growth potenti
00-7,700 by build-out (post-2031).
fined by municipal boundaries, river, expres :ity, Bridgeport has slightly higher incomes,
~unger age profile than rest of City, but most
Ilage feel" and prides itself on its focus on f
~s needed.
;signed spaces for intended activities (e.g.,
fitness classes, etc.).
~ogramming for all ages in order to improve
more active programming, particularly for y ie summer playground programs).
events and/or activities at the same time,
zy and informal) gathering space that enco `community hub'.
for future uses (e.g. social/outreach, senio
~7VVIQI QII~I VlrI~IGQVII ~7GI VIVG~7
medium-sized meeting/activity room
multi-use gymnasium
~y and enhancing the lobby
r rink as a result of the community centre e
nents to parking and the outdoor rink were
~I S
~A-regulated floodplain.
~--+
U
0
U
r
APPENDIX C
Bridgeport Business Case
BCA Historic Program Registration Data and Scheduling
.3
C
t4
++
'++
t4
L
i+
N
.~
d
E
t4
L
~1
0
L
a
L
0
r
N
2
Q
U
00
C
'+'~
~ E
~ 0
~ 0
~
R ~
C
3
~
~
r L
C *'
v C
> 0
W E
v R
> v
0 V
~ C
0
~
C
r
GI C
C 0
C o N
~
Y
L
~
~~ ~'
,~
~
E
N v
o
a
•.
R
~
_
'C
v O
o: c
-a N .~ ~
++
~ C - U
c v ~•_*_
>
~ v 0 +. L
0
= O N
a~>,
~, U ~
MMl4
L W
i~ N '0 N v C
.~v~~o
~ N ~ ~ E
> C U ~
L G) ~ ;
a ~ ~
c
r
vE
~ 0
- Q' ~
c
_
0
~
~
R ~
E
~ 0
~
.L
0
2
c
a,
~
•3
~ L
'3
~
~ ~
w
J 30
U
>~
~
N E
W
.~
N ~
D
3
t
~
_
0
_
i
>
~
v
00
4J
~
R N
~
4J R
~a
~
~.
C
~/C~ C
C O
C 0 V/
y N
y
,~
~
N
v ~~
E
N a
E
N a
E
N
C
~
w
~
R
_
_
L
U
~
a
0
~
r
3
0
}
~
ai
o
}
~
C
+,
Ol E N ~{
C '6 ,..•
v v C N
Y
p 3 N v
~ p
~ +. N v
3 N ~3
~,
m
~
N _
~
E
N ~C~-a
~ v M
m v
~
v
>
~
_
`~ v
>
•-
~
Q ~
C
a >_
C J
N
v
~c
3
~ N
v
~
'a
v
C
v m .~
m
C
a+
v ~
0
~ 0 L
~
!_'
~
t
++
f6
41 +0-~
E 3 ~l(
"~
3 C Y
V N v
3
~ C
3 Gl 0 +' +.
~
R E
N } ~ J ~ ~
~
C
0
~
_
~
E
•3
fl
v
+~
~
Y
L
3
0
}
~
*'
R
R
Y
~
~~
LL
E
~
0
M
Q~
i
O
O
G1
R
o
0
O
r
i
O
M
C1 E
o
r~
r
~
O
O
O
T E
0
o
r
~
O
M
O
r E
0
M
r
~
O
O
r
r E
0
o
r
~
O
M
r
r E
o
M
~
~
O
O
N
r
E
o
0
r
~
D
M
N
r
E
0
M
r
i
O
O
r
E
0
O
N
i
O
M
T
E
0
M
N
i
O
O
N
E
0
O
M
i
O
M
N
E
0
O
~
i
O
M
M
E
0
M
~
i
O
O
~
E
a
0
O
lf1
i
O
M
~
E
0
M
If1
i
D
D
1{7
E
a
0
O
l0
i
O
M
N
E
s
0
M
l0
i
O
O
tO
E
0
O
h
i
O
M
CO
E
0
M
I~
i
O
O
I~
E
a
0
O
00
i
O
M
n
E
0
M
00
i
O
O
CO
E
a
0
D
Q1
i
D
M
CO
E
0
M
Q~
i
O
O
~
a
o
0
C
r
i
O
M
~
m
N
C
N
~.
N
3
r
0
m
N
C
N
U
.C
3
N
L
3
O
L
i
CO
E
O
L
.~
C
L`
E
`o
Y
N
m
3
r
U
[6
N
f0
C
N
N
C
0
w
0
m
rn
m
L
>
C
N
N
N
r
N
N
t
U
N
N
c
O
N
w
.C
N
O
C
N
rn
c
.~
m
m
T
m
m
N
L
O
r
L
[6
N
C
m
m
a`
•3
C
t4
++
•++
t4
L
i+
N
.~
d
E
t4
L
~1
0
L
a
L
0
r
N
2
Q
U
00
~1
C
+~
~ E
~
0
~ 0
a
R A
N
C
3
~
m
r t
C *'
v ~
~ 0
W E
v c3
~ v
0 V
~ ~
0
01
C
;.,
GI E N
~
Y
L
C O
C o
m~ Q
~'
c~
~
E
~ ~
~'
o
a
•.
~
~
a,
Nc
o,~
Ua ~
r~-°'
cv~.~~
v>c
~vo3r
-a .NVc
~ ~
Ml3
W ~ a ~ ~ E
~ ~ V L
L 4I o
a ~ ,'4
a~
c
r
mE
~
c
c
~ 0
_~ 0
~
a
R R
E
~ R
U
.L
2
~2_
,J
E
o
o
- ~
w
a
~
N R
E
N J
-_
r
N
3
t
~
v
00
Ul
'a
E ~~ ~~
C o
C O V/ V/
,~
~
v ~~
E
N a
E
~ a
E
N
c
~
v
~
_
z
U
~
a
o
p
r
3
0
}
~
o~
o
}
~
C D
.3
~
~
L
Q N
C
~
Gl
++
~
O
~°
~
w {+
3N
~ ~
E
N J
N Q
m
v
7
~
~
2 v
~
•-
~
Q 01
C
N •)
~ J
N
v
C
~
p
N
~
~
a
-
v
3 m
m
c
mE ~
~
t7
~
v ° ~
~~
UNa°1i
0
~o
t
E~ 3
~~'
R ~ +'
3 ~ ~
G7 ~ L
0 +' a.
a
R E
N } ~ J ~~
C
0
~
2
~
E
'+.
'~
U
~
~
Y
r
3
0
}
E
m
0
M
Oa
i
O
O
O1
m
o
0
O
r
i
O
M
G1 E
o
M
DT
~
D
D
C
r E
0
o
••
r
~
O
M
G
r E
0
M
••
T
~
O
O
r
T E
0
o
r
~
O
M
r
r E
o
M
~
~
O
O
N
r
a
o
0
r
~
O
M
N
r
E
0
M
r
i
O
O
r
E
a
0
D
N
i
D
M
r
E
0
M
N
i
O
O
N
E
a
0
O
M
i
O
M
N
E
0
O
~
i
O
M
M
E
0
M
~
i
O
O
~
E
0
O
ltd
i
O
M
~
E
a
0
M
lt1
i
O
O
lCJ
E
0
O
t0
i
O
M
~
E
a
0
M
l0
i
D
D
tO
E
0
O
h
i
O
M
CD
E
a
0
M
f~
i
O
O
n
E
0
O
00
i
O
M
~
E
0
M
00
i
O
O
OO
E
0
O
Ci
i
O
M
OD
E
a
0
M
Oa
i
O
O
~
a
o
0
C
r
i
O
M
~
m
w
c
m
:.
0
0
m
w
c
m
U
.~
7
L
7
O
L
i
M
O
L
.~
L`
E
Q
Y
Ul
N
t
U
f6
N
f0
C
N
L
Q
0
m
rn
m
L
.~
.3
C
t4
t4
++
t4
0
r
t4
L
i+
N
.~
d
E
t4
L
~1
0
L
a
~L
Q
i+
N
2
U
m
C
.~
p E
m
0
~ 0
~ 0
N
C
7
~
=
r ~
L *"
v ~
~ o
W E
v 0
~ v
0 V
~ ~
0
~
C
•~,
v E N
~
Y
p
o
~~ W
~,
v
A
~
3 ~ p
a
•.
~
_
p
s
Nc
o,~
U N ~
rc-v
cvp.~~
> c
~ v o 3L
~ w v c
2 ~
~ Q
41 f6
~m v
..v~a~o
f6 N U R
~ C V ~
a~°>
c
'vE
v ~
vc
uo
~ o
~ c o
~ ~
~
c~ ~
N QU
.L
~
~
L [ C
p
2 0 ~
E
E
~ ~ 0
N ~a E
a 3
N
~
~
. ~
~3
°' E
°~
~
o
~ o
-_~ v
w
~
~
~
N R
E
N J
~
r
N
7
t
~
~,
L ~ C
N 3 E 0
i
1
_ ~ ~
~ ~ 0 ~ y
~ ~
c4
3 aL
u~~aaE
a 3
N v
m a
~
~
v E ~
c
v
g o
o
_ ~
v
m
N
v ~
~
E
N
a
E
c
~
~ C ~ ~
~ ~
v ~ o
s
C
~
3
~
_ E ~ ` v U ~ ~
~
~ ~ a ~
a y ~ m
a
~
•+~-,
Gl E N aS
~ ~
41 v C N
Y
0 ~ N v
~ 0
o +' N v
~Na~3
~
R
.0
N E
N U v M
v
m
v
3
~
~
C
~ y
)
r
V
aa,
~
~
L C~ C
v3 0
N
~ N
~
~
'a
~
_ O
~, UI .~
N> ~ 0 ~ ~
Eo,oE ~
3 L
v
C
>,
~
a C J
a 7 >, L
~maE
a ~ 0
m ~
'a,
,
~ N m
E L
'
U
L
i~+
'
Nv
o
~o
-~
~
.~ (7
= 3
way
~ c~
>,
R ~
N } Q J v ~
C
0
~
~
p
0
~
~
L~~~
0
0 3
~
L
w
~
N N
~
2
p
~
R C
~ m
E p L L
E ~~v
O~ p~
N _ a ~
Y
~
N
C
c~
~ 0
0
a a N } ~
E
ca
D
M
T
i
O
O
O1
~
o
D
D
r
i
D
M
G1 E
o
M
OT
~
O
O
C
r E
0
o
r
~
O
M
G
T E
0
r~
T
~
O
O
r
T E
0
o
r
~
O
M
r
r E
o
M
~
~
O
O
N
r
E
o
D
r
~
O
M
N
r
E
D
M
r
i
O
O
r
E
D
D
N
i
D
M
r
E
D
M
N
i
O
O
N
E
D
O
M
i
O
M
N
E
D
O
~
i
O
M
M
E
D
M
~
i
O
O
~
E
D
O
l0
i
O
M
~
E
D
M
lt1
i
O
O
lt1
E
D
O
t0
i
O
M
lCl
E
D
M
l0
i
D
D
tO
E
Q.
D
O
f~
i
O
M
tO
E
D
M
f~
i
O
O
n
E
D
O
0~
i
O
M
n
E
D
M
OD
i
O
O
OD
E
a
D
O
Q1
i
O
M
OO
E
D
M
T
i
O
O
~
a
o
D
C
r
i
D
M
~
ti
O
O
N
L
N
a
~L
.~.
ti
O
1
~ N
0' ~ ~ ~ N a0 0 p
.U 0 OrOtfl In ti
~ 2 CO~IAO r M
R
a
L
Q)
Q ~
p 0 lA 0 0 ltd ~
N y
3 W N N N N N ~
0
0
0
N `~
0
L N
~ ~
~ C C C C C C
OW
Z
N
C
0. N (fl (0 ~ O 00
Of~0a0 ti
~ ~ ~ N ~ O
~ ~
m
a
c
~ N
0. L O p 0 0 0 N
a
L
Q ~
0 0 In O O l() ~
N y
3 W N N N N N ~
0
2
O
O
N `~
0
i N
Q) ~
~ C C C C C C
3W
Z
N
C
p,000lAOJ pMp
'V OOrf~ O ~j
~(ONr r
~ ~
m
a
c
~ N
0' L CO ~ N O c~ N
V 3 CO~rf~ r O
~_ COTdOIAN ~
a
L
Q)
Q ~
0 0 In O O l() ~
N y
3 W N N N N N ~
0
2
O
O ~
N 0
i N
Q) ~
~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ N ~
~ C C C~ C C
OW
Z
N
C
~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~
~r040 M
~ ~ (0 ~ N O 00
~ ~
m
a
c ~
•' m
o W `m
N ~
+, L QJ O (0 d
0 ~ U •- U ~ ~
~ 7 ~ Q ~ ~ ++
W }p~(nUH
c
~ y
!i
V 3
=
t6
N
W
r
O
(0
r
N
('~
~
0
~
~
~
~
r
~
~
r
N
10
N
0
~
~
(O
N
N
r
('7
O~
N
r
O
~
~
pip
N
N
i
0 L
~ ~
Q
i
~ 3
oU
J
J
~
O
~
0
~
~
~
O
~
J
J
J
O
~
~
N
~
~
N
L
3
0
U
0
'~
N
'~
O
r
r
N
7
7
0
7
7
7
N
O
r
N
M
N
C
~
O.
'V
O
O
r
N
r
O
~
O
r
O
~
~
O
O
r
r
M
r
J
O
'7
J
O
h
N
a
c
!. L
~ 3
=
~
r
~
N
O
ln
~
r
N
Crl
O
U7
O
~
M
~
r
~
M
N
M
~
N
~
C~
(D
r
0
0
0
M
N
O L
~ ~
Q N
~ 3
0 U
J
~
~
J
O
O
O
~
~
~
~
J
J
J
0
0
0
~
r
N y
L
3
0
U
0
'~
'~
'~
N
r
r
O
M
7
r
N
7
7
7
0
0
0
M
N
C
•Q'
O
W
~
W
~
~
O
~
~
0
~
0
~
~
0
0
0
r
N
a
c
~N
U. O
=
R
(0
M
c~
~
O
N
0
~
ln
(O
r
N
N
W
r
~
0
c'7
~
~
~
r
0~
0
N
~
0
~
N
W
r
~
0
0
0
~
~
N
~
O L
~ ~
Q
L
~ 3
0 U
J
O
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
0
J
J
0
0
0
~
r
r
N
L
0
U
0
(+~
(+~
(+~
(+~
C7
C7
r
M
M
r
C7
r
N
r
0
0
0
M
~n
C
~
O.
'V
~
r
r
r
t~
r
0
0
p
r
O
r
~
O
r
~
O
N
r
N
r
0
0
0
r
M
M
a
N
E ~
~
.
`m
~
O
~
~
al ~
~ ~
(~ ~
~
~
U N
~
O
~ C
O
o
~
y ~
O
c
~
~ ~
N
~
-
~
tII
~
~
m ~
~
Y
~ ~
~,
m
U
c -
d
~
an ~
+~
~
d ~
N
m
~ °
~
U c
•-
m
~
•3
~
L
N m
m Y
N ~
~ ~
m ~ ~
~
L o
~ o
d ,
O ~
~ ~
~ ~
U ~
~
~ ~
N
-
0 +~
~
0 ~
._ fII
O ~
N ~
E L
+~
~
O ~
~
+~ ' 1
U
N N
~
0 +~
fII
0 O
L
(II ~
+~
N ~
N ~
E J
_
+~ ~
._ }Ri
0
~ } Y } Q Q } ~ ~ d m U ~ m ~ Q c~ cn H
~
la y
3
- O
~
r
~
N
O
p
_
0~0
C7
O
~
0~0
C7
0
0
N
M
~ c
t6 y
! 3
= 0
N
~ c
~ N
'~ 3
O
c\6
C
N
C
~
C
=
~C r r M =
!C 01 ~' _
t4
a
L
~ L
~ L '6
~
r
fQ y
L ~
'0
~
'O
N
N
r
O
~I
o0
r
=
M
Cfl
1CJ ~
= ~
~ ~
~
O
r
O
~
N
~
~
M
O W ~ ~~
0 0~
0 ~
0 ~ ~
0 ~ `.
O 0
N 0
N
`~
O
y
~ y
O
p
~
N
N
N
O
r
M C y
~ y
~ N
Q ~
(0
0
t0
~ N c'~ c~ c~ ~ N > p ~ ~ N M ~
OW yW OW
Z
r
C
~
0.
'V
O
D
~
D
N
~
O
~
7
~ ~
C
~
Q
'V
M
Y'1
~ ~
C
~
0-
.U
Q
C
0
C
~
C
'C
a ~
a N ~
a
~
~ y
-=
N
N
CO
Ip
O
r
M
(V
~ c
E N
O c
~ y
=
C
C
C
~ r MJ =
t4 01 ~
t4
a
L
~ L
~ L '6
~
++
i ~
7
~
O
N
N
r
7
~
~
N
=
Cfl
h
4 ~
= ~
~
N
f`
~
O
t0
47
N
O W ~ 7 ~ ~ r
0 0 N
~
~
O ~ ~
O ~
O
N
~
N
N
~
N
~c y
~
p
p
~
N
N
C7
N
C7
N
C7
r
r
~
r ~ U1
~ ~
N'
~
~ N
~ ~
~
d0
r
('7
N
r
~
C
p W y W C
CO W
Z
~
C
!0
Q-
~(~
'C
a
p
r
O
N
r
p
~
r
p
p
r
M
O
~
r ~
C
l3
0-
(~
~
a
~p
OG
N ~
C
IC
0-
~V
~
a
\6
C
N
C
~
C
~
!' ~
U 0
~
N
(~
0
CO
r
0
p
~
00
(0
~
0
f`
0
0
r
0
N
N
O
~ c
: ~
V 0
M
~ c
Q 3
V 0
(Q
C
(0
C
~
C
_
~ T =
~E pp ~ 2
t4
a
L
~ L
~ L '~
~
~+
U) y
~
~
~
O
N
N
O
h
~
00
~
=
OD
~ ~
= ~
E
O
~
(0
t0
M
O
OW ~ ~ N
~ ~ N
O ~
O ~
O
0 O
N
N O
N ~
0
L N
y
N
N
t0 C N
0
~
~ i N
~
~
u7
N
~
~ O O N c'~ c~ O r r CO N ~ p ~
~ ~ N M ~
~W yW ~W
Z
r
C
~
.U
~
N
r
D
N
r
O
r
r
O
`
r
O
~
r ~
C
R
Q
V
~
M ~
C
t6
Q
(,~
\6
A
N
C
~
C
~
a ~
a N ~
a
N
~ C
>_
J
N _
y
R
W ~
~
7 Q Q w N a1 ~ W
0
`
(~ ~n
c ~
U
~ ~
.~ w
~
N ~
~
O
N ~ ~
J~
p
y ~
= -~
m
`m
N
~
>OO
Q
U
c
O
~
O
3
O
~
>> O
U>
>
a
U
r
0
~~
O X +~+
~
d O
•~
~
~
C
U
~
p
~ > m J m m > Y (n H H :- Q' ~ J ~
~~
N
c
O
N
N
0
`m
E
z
x
c
a
U
m
u
c
Q
.~
.~
3
0
U
0
Q
a
C
m
y
APPENDIX D
BCC Expansion -
Conceptual Layouts
EXISTING BUILDING: 5454 S.F.
T
green propeller design
A~d~M~l~.. • ono s«do~
BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY
CENTRE -BUSINESS CASE/
CONCEPT STUDY
20 TYSON DRNE
EXISTING PLAN
A-1
AllG 14, 2008
o[] o
VESTIBULE OFFICE OD
186 S.F.
~ W ~N ~ W ~ ~ MEETING MEETING
~~nn ROOM ROOM
~ ~-~LJ ~ 321 S.F. 611 S.F.
CHANG
EGEPTIO rae~E
PAY
PHONE
~~~
II
II
LL ~ II II
II
II II
LOUNGE
STORAGE STORAGE
125 S.F. ZflT $.F.
STAGE
BAR
AREA=104.9 SQ.F.
EXISTING BUILDING: 5454 S.F.
EXIST.
SERVICE EXIST.
KITCHEN EXIST.
MAINTENANCE
NEW ADDITION: PHASE 1- 890 S.F.
ROOM AREA=282.5SQ.F. ROOM
AREA=115 SQ.F. AREA=100 SQ.F.
RENQVATION AREA: 327 S.F.
green propeller design
Architecture ~ building Services
BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY
CENTRE -BUSINESS CASE/
CONCEPT STUDY
20 TYSON DRNE
FLOOR PLAN -PHASE 1 A-2
AllG 26.2008
0 0
VESTIBULE OFFICE O
1 a9 S.F.
~ ~ O OMAN o MENS O M~~N6 MEETING
~ ~~,' ~ W.C. W.C. ROOM ROOM
Q ~ 0 321 S.F. 611 S.F.
c~ANc
TABLE
~~ ~~ LOU o
~~~ PFIONE
~~
i~
~__~
~~ C~~
~ i~~l i ~ I I III $~~~
~i i
-----____-~ ~ k=====----- ----------=====a ~~ '~~~ 276 SF.
RECEPTION STQRp(~ ' ~I BAR
135 S.F. 157 SF. ~ ' 87 S.F. '~ ~I
i i li
i
ii
ii
ii
ii
II
ii
ii
ii
ii
HALL'A' HALL'B' '~ ~~ PHASE 2
~ ~ ADDITION
u
p D ~ ii
it
0 ~ 'il~ N
D
0 ~ ~~~ rn
D 'I ~~
4 4 ~I
II
AREA=320.4. SQ.F. ~~ ~
i
ii
ii
ii
Jli
i~~~~-~ ~ ~-J i
~~ i i
I~ L i ~ J ~ ~
i ~
~i~
i ~
'~ ~
EXISTING BUILDING: 5454 S.F.
NEW BUILDING: 6988 S.F. epprox
EXIST. EXIST. EXIST.
SERVICE KITCHEN MAINTENANCE NEW ADDITION: PHASE 2 - 644 S.F.
ROOM AREA=282.5SQ.F. ROOM RENOVATION AREA: 900 S.F. BppI~ODc
AREA=115 SQ.F. AREA=100 SQ.F. GYM RENO AREA : 2800 S.F.
r propeller
Architecture ~ building Services
BRIDGEPORT COMMUNITY
CENTRE -BUSINESS CASE/
CONCEPT STUDY
20 TYSON DRNE
FLOOR PLAN -PHASE 2 A~
AllG 26.2008
v
rn
z
r ~
.~~~
i.^~~~~
i~
i,
~i
rn •
~ I
v
rn
z I
~ •
r
< "" „ ~ ~
~ ~
Z
~
- -
F ~ ~ ~
f ~
~ ~
,
\
~ C X /
i
,~
~ v~
Zz
~ ~
~
~
~_ _ y
4 yZ ~ ~
vm ~ --~ ----~
vg
0
z
n
~ nm~
m
ITl ~ D r"
c-z
Z ~?~
~ ~'zo
~c~~
~
D m
v
_~~~J
i
I
i
i
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
i
I
i
I
i
I
i
i
I
i
I
i
I
O
Z
v
m
~~~
m