Staff Report March 9, 2011

RECOMMENDATION(S) :

1. That the Draft Parks Plan be amended to address the issues raised in this report.

2. That policy recommendation 7.1.1 regarding the Draft Parks Plan funding proposals be tabled until further review of the Draft Parks Plan is completed.

3. Staff respectfully recommends that policy recommendation 7.1.2 regarding park land dedication is redundant; therefore should be deleted.

4. That notification by way of standard form letter is sent by staff to property owners adjacent to any project identified within the approved 5 year capital projects plan notifying them of that planning and design investigations will be taking place in order to identify proposed development schedules for new public amenities on public lands (operational recommendation 7.2.1).

5. That the Parks Commission with support from Staff review the District’s Planned Giving Brochure and Park Donations website information and bring forward recommendations to Council that would include that a quick link be added on the District website (operational recommendation 7.2.2).

6. That upon completion of the Staff review of the District’s volunteer information concerning Parks activities, that the District website be enhanced to help promote more participation in ongoing and future initiatives (operational recommendation 7.2.3).

7. That staff identifies a selection, description, notification strategy, scheduling strategy and cost implications of additional volunteer projects that they would like to see implemented within the 5 year financial plan and that the Parks Commission be asked to review and comment on the strategy (operational recommendation 7.2.3).

8. That the Parks Commission annually appoint Commission members to act as liaisons and attend regular meetings of the Friends of Dominion Brook Park Society and the District’s Free Ride Bike Jump Park Committee (operational recommendation 7.2.3).

9. That the Parks Commission with support from Staff provides Council with an annual report that covers Membership and Activity Highlights (operational recommendation 7.2.4).

10. That no action be taken at this time regarding creation of a list of potential properties for parks acquisitions (operational recommendation 7.2.5).

11. That Staff and the Parks Commission combine their lists of volunteers and update this combined list annually (operational recommendation 7.2.6).

12. That the subject of a sensitive ecosystem brochure as it relates to park amenities be referred back to the Parks Commission to identify subject matter and terms of reference they feel would be pertinent in such a publication (operational recommendation 7.2.7).

13. That operational recommendation 7.2.8 to provide copies of the Draft Parks Plan to outside agencies be deferred until the Draft Parks Plan is adopted.

14. That Council direct staff to review and update the District Cycling Network Plan and include a section within the Parks Plan relating to the subject.

15. That Council requests the Cycling Committee to recommend priority cycling infrastructure projects for inclusion in the 2012 five year financial plan.

16. That Council requests the Parks Commission to recommend a communication strategy with questions specific to park locations, types of amenities, methods of notification, and timelines to evaluate responses to solicit input from the public for Council to consider with regards to the creation of a seniors’ park, should Council wish to pursue the development of a seniors’ park.

17. That Council advise staff if they want Bylaw 830 amended to delegate operational authorities to the Parks Commission and to prepare a report on how to separate this function from current staff responsibilities along with staffing and operational considerations.

18. That the draft 2011 Parks Capital Projects list dated March 14, 2011 identifying $53,000 for Parks capital expenditures be referred to Budget Committee.

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLICATIONS:

The Draft Parks Plan (attachment #1) compliments the District’s strategic priorities by protecting rural and environmental habitats, contributes to building a strong sense of community and strives to maintain a safe and vibrant community.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to replace the staff report dated December 6, 2010 (attachment #2) which was presented to Committee of the Whole on December13, 2010 and which Council passed Resolution #594 at the December 20, 2010 Council meeting which states:

“ That the Draft Parks Plan be deferred to a future Committee of the Whole meeting for further consideration with:

a) An additional report by the Parks Commission on their project priorities for a COW meeting in January

b) A report on all potential funding options by the Director of Financial Services “

Through this report staff has now had the opportunity to review the Draft Parks Plan along with the Policy and Operational recommendations set out within the plan and has made recommendations accordingly.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:

The Parks Commission is an advisory body established by District Council through Bylaw No. 830. Matters to be considered are referred by District Council as identified in Section 3 items (a) through (i).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED

3. The duties and powers of the Parks Commission shall be as follows:

(a) submit recommendations to Council on matters relating to the acquisition, disposal, enlargement, maintenance, protection and development of municipal parks;

(b) advance recommendations relating to municipal parks to Council on an annual basis prior to budget preparation;

(c) provide direction with respect to parkland dedication when requested to do so by the Approving Officer;

(d) submit recommendations to Council concerning any expenditure of monies in the parkland acquisition revenue fund;

(e) work with resident groups and local service clubs interested in assisting with specific park improvement projects approved by Council;

(f) recommend site-specific park improvement concepts for submission to Council prior to construction of such improvements;

(g) identify job creation projects for trail improvements and other worthwhile park projects which may be eligible for senior government funding, and in conjunction with the Municipal Treasurer, or other designated member of staff, prepare a draft funding application for approval by Council;

(h) provide recommendations regarding any park-related matter referred by Council.

(i) submit recommendations to Council on matters relating to the establishment or enhancement of cycle paths or lanes within the District of North Saanich.

In 2009 Council requested that the Parks Commission review the 1993 Parks Plan and while no terms of reference were established, guidance was provided by Council during an informal review of the initial draft on June 29, 2009.

At the December 13, 2010 Committee of the Whole meeting the Draft Parks Plan (not including appendices A, B, C & D) was submitted to Council along with a joint staff report dated December 6, 2010. Resolution No. 168-COW was moved and stated;

“That the Draft Parks Plan be deferred to a future Committee of the Whole meeting for further consideration with:

a) An additional report by the Parks Commission of their project priorities for COW meeting in January

b) A report on all potential funding options by the Director of Financial Services.”

This resolution was adopted as #594 as noted above at the December 20, 2010 Council meeting.

At the January 24, 2011 Committee of the Whole meeting, the Parks Commission presented a list of priority projects identified within the plan covering a five year period as well as a presentation on volunteer participation strategies. No resolutions came forward from the Committee out of these presentations.

SCOPE OF WORK:

The purpose of the plan as identified on page 8 of the draft is to:

a) Implement the objectives and policies for parks and parks amenities as outlined in the Official Community Plan (OCP) and

b) To follow the District’s 3 year Strategic Plan as it relates to parks.

The Draft Parks Plan has identified local liveability, an adequate range of amenities, interconnectivity of neighbourhoods through walking and cycling routes and community building opportunities through volunteerism as the guiding factors in developing the plan.

Through much of 2009 and 2010 the Parks Commission spent significant time identifying all existing and potential Parks amenities within the District. They then made distinctions between potential projects considered significant for the entire community and those that had value to local neighbourhoods. This excellent work is included as appendices A & B of the Draft Plan and will prove valuable for Council when considering all future planning and project considerations although a further review of Appendix B is being recommended by staff to ensure accuracy of information.

Two public consultation exercises were conducted in 2010. A newsletter in the spring was a direct mail out campaign to approximately 4350 properties which resulted in 341 formal responses. The Open House on June 19, 2010 included a formal project ranking exercise of the projects identified from the newsletter responses. Attendance at the Open House was near 100 people with 88 ranking sheets submitted. Continuing feedback opportunities on the District web site are still available with minimal enquiries noted to date. The Public Feedback Responses and Project Ranking Analysis are included as appendices C & D respectively of the Draft Parks Plan.

The development of the Draft Parks Plan has resulted in a 3 page executive summary, a 32 page document which concludes with 2 Policy, and 8 Operational recommendations being brought forward for Council’s consideration. It also contains 4 appendices as noted above totaling an additional 130 pages.

DISCUSSION

Senior staff has reviewed the documents and have noted some discrepancies of information and misinterpretations of existing protocols and policies most notably concerning budget and funding, volunteer contributions and opportunities, Neighbourhood Inventory Reports and the Parks Commission mandate. Comments have also been identified around the recommendations provided.

Staff is recommending that they be given an opportunity to revise the document or engage the services of a consultant to review, comment, and suggest revisions on the existing document.

There appears to be some confusion with regards to whether or not the Commission is only an advisory body or whether there is an intention by Council that the Commission has some operational capacity which would entitle them to implement their mandate without specific referrals from Council, give direction to staff, consult with outside organizations, or to engage the public at their own discretion prior to forwarding their recommendations to Council.

Staff is recommending that Council advise staff if they want Bylaw No. 830 “A Bylaw to Establish a Parks Commission” amended to delegate operational authorities to the Parks Commission.

Policy Recommendations:

    1.  Funding to Enhance Park Amenities

The Parks Commission is suggesting there is a need to generate additional funds over the next 5 years to support completion of a significant portion of the projects identified within the Draft Parks Plan. They support a $48 per year property parcel levy/tax or similar vehicle to realize this. A detailed analysis of funding options is included under the Financial Implications Section of this report. A $48 parcel tax equates to a 4% increase in the 2011 general municipal property tax portion of the tax bill.
Through the 2011 Budget Committee deliberations, a ceiling of a 5% increase for general operating taxation has been set. As Council is aware there are many competing interdepartmental priorities yet to be discussed at committee (as well as the need to begin establishing infrastructure renewal reserves) and therefore it would appear at this time, this request is unreasonable.

Staff recommends to Council that the Parks Commissions policy recommendation 7.1.1 be tabled until further review of the Draft Parks Plan is completed. 

    2.  Parkland Dedication

The Parks Commission wishes to see parkland dedication as the preferred choice in lieu of cash when the District considers subdivision approvals. The Parks Commission recommends that in the event funds are accepted instead of land; that these funds are requested to be placed within the Parks Acquisition Fund. Staff notes that this is already the case.

Strategies are currently outlined within the parkland dedication policies within the OCP (See Section 9.0 pages 24-26) and are governed by requirements pursuant to the Local Government Act. Bylaw No. 168 adopted in 1974 which establishes a statutory reserve fund for the acquisition of public parkland and public recreation facilities, acknowledges that all payments to be made by an applicant for subdivision shall be set aside in the Parks Acquisition and Recreation Reserve.

Staff respectfully recommends that this Policy recommendation 7.1.2 is redundant. 


Operational Recommendations:

    1.  Parks Capital Projects Public Consultation Process
 
It is recognized that a public consultation process was identified by Council as a priority to be addressed within the parks plan. Staff’s experience with past public concerns, and interpretation of Council’s request, was that Council specifically wanted to address new capital development projects regarding undeveloped public lands where new amenities such as trails, viewpoints, and beach accesses may have an impact on the immediate residents adjacent to these public lands. Past feedback from such residents indicated that because no public process was in place that identified and prioritized new projects; they felt development of specific projects was being driven by special interest groups with no accountability and that the lack of an approved parks plan made it difficult to understand the justification for some projects. Staff would suggest that the good work done by the Parks Commission to inventory and identify future projects and through the newsletter and open house, has done much to achieve this goal. There will also be more public meetings and notification opportunities as Council considers final adoption of the plan. Once the plan is adopted the projects identified will have followed a very transparent public process.

The annual parks capital projects public consultation process as outlined in the Draft Parks Plan, does not follow the time lines of the Budget Committee deliberation process which in essence, would be the determining venue for recommending projects for Council’s approval usually completed in May each year, which is in itself, a public consultation process. It would also create an inconsistency in the deliberation process of the many other capital projects identified annually by the other 8 municipal departments.

Many of the 30 projects (attachment #3) identified within the 5 year plan identified by the Parks Commission from the public feedback they received require a significant amount of planning, design, cost, and perhaps regulatory implications that may require interdepartmental resources or consulting support that may take longer than a 12 month period. Staff has also started preliminary analysis of the 30 projects. There is a concern that some of projects would appear not to be able to move forward within the next 5 years. As an example: developing a public beach access at location B-4 along the 8600 block of Lochside Drive identified for completion in 2011 has significant issues. A sample of the type of preliminary evaluation report (attachment #4) Staff is suggesting for these projects will be a useful exercise to better prioritize future projects. Staff anticipates it will take the remainder of 2011 to complete this preliminary analysis on all the 30 projects, and will therefore be recommending a revised capital projects list for the 2011 Budget deliberations which will be noted under the financial implications section of this report.

After completion of the preliminary analysis and confirmation of which projects could move ahead within the 5 year Parks Capital Plan; Staff are suggesting some form of notification as a courtesy to property owners adjacent to proposed projects on currently undeveloped public lands take place, and that this would outline the consultation process thus hoping to alleviate some of the concerns residents might have when seeing the planning and design on site activity by staff. This could be done by way of a standard form letter (attachment #5).

The District also has a public involvement hand book that is in need of review, and this handbook may be the most informative way of engaging the public and encouraging involvement in the process of community decision making. The adoption of the Draft Parks Plan by Council, which will then become a public document, will identify the future capital projects developed through public consultation thus providing the guiding justification for the identification and implementation of projects.

Staff recommends to Council regarding operational recommendation 7.2.1 that notification by way of standard form letter be sent to property owners immediately adjacent to any project identified within the approved 5 year capital projects plan notifying them that planning and design investigations will be taking place in order to identify proposed costs and development schedules for new public amenities on public lands.

    2.  Planned Giving Program

Currently the District has 4 areas within the organization where donations from the public are identified. Finance Policy #3008.1 Charitable Donations and Gifts Policy, Parks Policy #5005.1 Park Bench Dedications, a brochure entitled “Your Legacy in North Saanich” (Attachment #6) and a Parks Donations link (attachment #7) on the District website. Staff is currently reviewing District policies at this time, and it is recommended that these 4 strategies be reviewed together to ensure that they reflect current policy, and that they complement each other.

Staff recommends to Council regarding operational recommendation 7.2.2, that the Parks Commission with support from Staff, review the District’s Planned Giving Brochure and Park Donations website information, and bring forward recommendations to Council that would include a quick link be added on the District website.

    3.  Volunteering

Currently the District has an initiative on Volunteering under the Adopt-A- Park section of the Parks Department webpage identifying the two groups that have  formal stewardship agreements (attachment #8) with the District under the specific parks they represent. Volunteering can also be located within the Public Involvement Handbook located on the website. This is an area previously noted within this report that staff would like to revisit. There needs to be more emphasis placed on risk management, task descriptions, and labour relation protocols that have evolved over the past years that will have a definite impact on existing operational capacities should Council wish to enhance the volunteer initiatives in other areas within the District.

This is an area that the District has excelled in the past, for example, a UBCM award for Excellence in recognition of the partnership involved in the Free Ride Bike Jump Park as well as a Provincial Capital Commission partnership award for Dominion Brook Park.

It should be noted that the Parks Commission is eager to enhance volunteer opportunities throughout the District and is specifically interested in establishing more annual special event opportunities. At the January 20, 2011 Parks Commission meeting resolution 5-PC stated.

        “That Staff be directed to create a list of proposed volunteer projects and schedules for 2011.”

The Staff recommendation to Council was that this motion was best addressed within this Staff report as it is directly related to the operational recommendation 7.2.3. The staff recommendation was adopted at the March 7, 2011 Council meeting.

As mentioned previously, there needs to be a review and revisions made to Sections 5.3 Volunteer Contributions and 6.5 Volunteer Opportunities within the Draft Parks Plan. The inference that volunteers can engage in certain activities that would reduce impacts on budgets and work load demands on staff, is not accurate. Most volunteer activities (other than reporting on amenity conditions or concerns during passive use of the District’s parks and trails system) do require staff supervision and task orientation to meet risk management, labour relations with union staff and liability concerns. For example, all volunteer work parties that take place within Dominion Brook Park (Wednesday mornings March to October approximately 28 events in 2010) and The Free Ride Bike Jump Park (5 evening and weekend events in 2010) were supervised and supported by District Staff. While the accomplishments of these volunteers certainly could not have been achieved within existing operational budgets, adding even more special events outside of these 2 formal arrangements as the Parks Commission is requesting that Staff identify and create schedules for, cannot be achieved without additional Staff resources.

The District has entered into Stewardship agreements with both The Friends of Dominion Brook Park Society and The Friends of the North Saanich Mountain Bike Park Society (Attachment #8). These formal agreements also include letters of understanding that set conditions and responsibilities of the District as well as the Society. Both of these agreements state that a member of the Parks Commission will be appointed annually by the Parks Commission as a liaison to the regularly scheduled meetings of these 2 groups. While this has not happened regularly in the past; it is the best approach to having the Society activities reported on for Council (through the Parks Commission minutes or within an annual report) and the way to bring forward other initiatives to Council that may develop and are not identified in the current agreements.

Staff recommends to Council regarding operational recommendation 7.2.3, that upon completion of the Staff review of the volunteer information concerning Parks activities within the Parks Plan, that the District website be enhanced to help promote more participation of ongoing and future projects.

Staff further recommends to Council regarding operational recommendation7.2.3, that staff identifies a selection of, description of, notification strategy, scheduling strategy and cost implications of additional volunteer projects that they would like to see implemented within the 5 year financial plan and that the Parks commission be asked to review and comment on the strategy.

Staff further recommends to Council regarding operational recommendation7.2.3, that the Parks Commission annually appoint Commission members to act as liaisons and attend regular meetings of the Friends of Dominion Brook Park Society and the District’s Free Ride Bike Jump Park Committee.


    4.  Parks Commission Annual Report

During the January 20, 2011 Parks Commission Meeting the following motion was forwarded to Council.

4-PC
That the draft Annual Parks Performance Report for 2010 as proposed in the Draft Parks Plan be submitted to Council for approval for general form and content prior to its completion in April 2011.

The staff report dated February 17, 2011 recommended the Parks Commission resolution # 4-PC be referred to staff to review in the context of the proposed new Parks Master Plan staff report. This recommendation was moved by Committee of the Whole on February 28, 2011.

Staff has reviewed the general form and content of the Parks Annual Performance Report (Attachment #9) which is broken down into 5 sections, those being Membership, Activity Highlights, 2010 Capital Projects, Parks Plan 2011-2015, and Activity Plan for 2011. The first 3 sections cover previous year’s activities and with the assistance of staff would be easily produced as an attachment to minutes of a meeting held the following year once the previous year’s yearend financial statements were completed.

Staff would suggest that under Section 2 staff be requested to supply the information from the 2010 volunteer activities that were accomplished within District Parks. Section 4 regarding the Parks Plan can be combined under Section 2. Section 5 Activity Plan for 2011 implies that the Parks Commission has an operational role to fulfill within their mandate and clarification from Council is needed in this regard.

Staff recommends to Council regarding operational recommendation 7.2.4, that the Parks Commission with support from Staff provide Council with an annual report that covers Membership and Activity Highlights.

    5.  List of Desirable Properties That Should be Acquired

This recommendation may not be appropriate within the context of a plan of this type. There may be issues which need to be considered should private properties be identified and made public. Staff notes that property acquisition matters are identified as one of the subjects that Council can address at in-camera meetings. This is generally regarded as prudent and in the public interest to be a confidential matter.

Staff recommends to Council regarding operational recommendation 7.2.5, that no action be taken at this time.

    6.  Parks Volunteers Identified During the Public Consultation Initiatives 

The District currently has a list of over 100 individuals who have actively participated in special events or are currently engaged in trail monitoring activities. This list is added to as new applications are submitted. It is reasonable that staff blend this list with the new applications received through the Parks Commission public consultation initiatives. It may be interesting to note how many of the applications compiled by the Parks Commission have participated in Volunteer opportunities in the past.

Staff recommends to Council regarding operational recommendation 7.2.6, that staff combines the list of volunteers received through the Parks Commission public consultation initiatives with the current District list, and that the list be updated in consultation with the Parks Commission annually. 

    7.  Protecting Sensitive Ecosystems Information Brochure

Public educational and stewardship initiatives are supported within the current District strategic plan, specifically identifying invasive species management, and sensitive marine and intertidal habitat preservation and protection. While the Draft Parks Plan has identified this operational recommendation, the body of the plan does not expand on the issue, but should. Recently, a consultant has completed an inventory of sensitive and significant areas along the District’s shore line. As well, another consultant is reviewing the District’s wildfire area strategy which has identified areas of higher risk which can include sensitive upland ecosystems. Also, the CRD natural areas atlas shows sensitive areas throughout our area that may not be accurately ground truthed. These sensitive areas should be considered and identified when identifying future park amenities in previously undeveloped areas as they may identify concerns that could justify cancellation or delay of a project.

Development of a brochure with no terms of reference on such a broad topic could have significant impacts on staff resources and financial implications that would need to be addressed.

Staff recommends to Council regarding operational recommendation 7.2.7, that the subject of a sensitive ecosystem brochure as it relates to park amenities, be referred back to the Parks Commission to identify subject matter and terms of reference they feel would be pertinent in such a publication.
 
    8.  Distribution of the Parks Plan for Comment from Other Agencies

Once Council has received the Draft Parks Plan they have the choice of whether or not to adopt the plan for implementation. Council has the choice on whether they want to distribute the plan for comment or information. If they choose to distribute for comment, this may further delay implementation of the plan. As staff is recommending a further review of the content of the plan, this recommendation should be deferred until the plan is finalized.

Staff recommends to Council regarding operational recommendation 7.2.8; be deferred until the Draft Parks Plan is adopted.

Cycling Infrastructure

Historically, there was a North Saanich Cycling Sub Committee community group that kept Council apprised of, and worked with staff on cycling infrastructure and safety strategies within the District. In 2004, this group disbanded and in 2005 Bylaw No. 1078 was adopted by Council and added “matters relating to the establishment and enhancement of cycle paths or lanes within the District of North Saanich” to the Parks Commission mandate. The Parks Commission re-established a Cycling Committee within their own membership as well as a Staff and Council liaison appointed by Council.

The Cycling Committee prepared a Multi-Year Cycling Network Plan that was adopted by Council in 2008 which identified a listing of 10 priority projects. To date the majority of the identified projects within the Cycling Network Plan have been implemented by staff or other agencies. The capital funding requests, grant applications, and implementation for on road infrastructure has always been the responsibility of the Director of Infrastructure Services, as on-road cycle lane construction often compliments road rehabilitation projects and is not identified as a parks capital initiative. By maintaining the status quo and keeping on-road cycling network infrastructure development responsibilities with the Infrastructure Services Department, some of the justification for the Parks Commission funding strategy falls away. Currently, identified within the 2011 General Capital Fund and supported by a grant funding application submission of an equal value, is $100,000.00 for phase 1 of cycling lanes on West Saanich Road from McTavish Road to Ardmore Drive.

As noted previously many of the identified cycling infrastructure projects have been completed since 2008 which shows Council’s commitment to this initiative and Staff’s success in receiving grants to move the projects forward that have been identified within the plan. It is now time to revisit the plan and have the Cycling Committee identify new capital projects with implementation and funding strategies remaining a staff responsibility.

Staff recommends to Council that staff be directed to review and update the District Cycling Network Plan and include a section within the Parks Plan relating to the subject.

Staff recommends to Council that the Cycling Committee be requested to recommend additional priority cycling infrastructure projects for inclusion in the 2012 five year financial plan.


Creation of a Seniors’ Park

Council was presented with a Notice of Motion at the November 1, 2010 Council meeting which stated:

“That given that in the near future the demographics of our community will include a large increase in senior and elderly residents, that the Parks Commission consider, with Staff input, the creation of a “Seniors’ Park” which may or may not include a lawn bowling facility, putting greens, flat paved walking paths; horseshoe pit; view points, benches, picnic area (possibly covered), vegetation, bird watching area, ect.”

This motion was adopted by Council as resolution No. 531 and at the December 15, 2010 Parks Commission meeting motion 47PC stated:

“That the Parks Commission solicits public input and investigate all aspects of creating seniors’ facilities or improvements in North Saanich parks for the benefit of seniors.”

At the January 10, 2011 Committee of the Whole, the December 15, 2010 Parks Commission minutes were received and referred to Staff for a report through Resolution # 179 COW.

The Staff report dated January 17, 2011 recommended to Council that:

“That the Parks Commission resolution # 47PC be referred to staff to review in the context of the proposed new Parks Master Plan”

At the February 7, 2011 Council meeting Council adopted the staff recommendation through Resolution #19.

It should be noted that this is a significant park proposal and is not identified within the Draft Parks Plan. The Parks Commission motion requests that they be given the authority to solicit public input and investigate all aspects of creating seniors’ facilities or improvements to District parks. With due respect to the enthusiasm and passion of the Commission members, this could not be achieved without support from staff as alluded to in Council’s original Notice of Motion. This causes confusion around accountability and responsibility for staff who take direction from the CAO who is responsible to Council.

While staff appreciates the Notice of Motion of Council, all the suggested Seniors’ Parks amenities listed, currently exist on the Saanich Peninsula in one form or another, with many opportunities available in North Saanich. Staff suggests it would be prudent to solicit feedback from the residents to see whether or not there is an interest to pursue this initiative, and what amenities and locations might be desirable should Council decide to move forward.

This could be done by way of a question or questions directed to the residents via the District website, a future newsletter feature, or a newspaper article. Should the public feedback from the communication strategy be significant and positive, then a section should be included within the Parks Plan identifying strategies for future implementation.

Should Council wish to further consider a seniors’ park, Staff recommends to Council they request the Parks Commission to develop a communication strategy with questions specific to park locations, types of amenities, methods of notification, and timelines to evaluate responses to solicit input from the public for Council to consider with regard to the creation of a seniors’ park.

Should Council approve the Parks Commission recommendations for the communication strategy, it could then be forwarded to staff for a report on resources required to implement.

Role of the Commission:

As Council is aware, a significant part of the Draft Parks Plan contemplates the Commission becoming an operational body within the District. If Council wishes to give this further consideration, staff offers the following comments.

There is authority in the Community Charter for Council to revise the Parks Establishment Bylaw to give the Commission operational authority. If this is done, that part of the municipal operations should be transferred to the Commission in order to preserve clear accountability and responsibility. Currently staff are responsible (and therefore accountable) to Council for Parks Operations through the Infrastructure Services Department. Staffs have been hired with specific skills for managing the operation and are responsible for ensuring compliance with WCB regulations, addressing labour relations (union issues) and generally managing risk and liability. In comparison, Commission members have been selected to provide advice to Council rather than manage programs.

If Council wishes to establish the Parks Commission as an operational body, consideration as to the skills and competencies of the Commission members would be appropriate. It may well be that the current Commission members have the necessary skills for managing a municipal operation, but staff do not have this information.

Budget and staffing for a revised Commission would also be a significant consideration. An operational Commission would need to have its own staffing resources to ensure that staff have a clear understanding of who they report to and to ensure that the delegated operations are solely the responsibility of the Commission.

The District also operates within a union environment with an established Collective Agreement with Local No. 374 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Should operational authority be granted to the Parks Commission, this may have a significant effect on current labour/management relations and require legal consultations to ensure that no breach of contract occurs through the changes in accountability and responsibility.

However, as stated in the recommendations, there are several activities (see recommendations 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16,) that, with the support from Staff, the Parks Commission can begin work on immediately should Council move adoption of the Staff recommendations.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The Parks Commission’s funding strategy is based on the desire to commit $250,000 of funds annually over the next five years to fund 30 projects or a portion thereof that have been identified within the Draft Parks Plan. The justification for this amount of funding is based very loosely on projected project costs with no actual preliminary investigation being completed. As the review proceeds and project implementation plans are more accurately developed, there may be the need for more or less funds in a given year to complete approved projects. By committing to a significant increase in funding for capital projects now, it will help to build the Parks Capital Reserve even if projects don’t move ahead within the time frame identified. These reserves will certainly make grant applications and identifying funding partners easier knowing that the District’s contribution is available should opportunities arise in the future.

The Park Commission has also been very transparent through the Public Consultation process that the main strategy for raising funds to create more public amenities was a dedicated $48 per year levy or parcel tax for 5 years. According to appendix C which analyzed the 341 responses from the newsletter questionnaire, 37% of the respondents indicated they were not in favor of an increase in dedicated parks funding. While this does not appear to be a significant negative response, in the context to the limited returns of the questionnaire (4350 direct mail outs and only 341 responses 7.8%), Council may still wish to consider if there is justification for a 4% increase in taxation in 2011 to implement this funding strategy.

While this strategy is identified for new parks projects, staffs are making similar requests to build reserves for infrastructure renewal projects as part of the Tangible Capital Asset program the District is required to implement through legislation. Staff would respectfully suggest the more urgent need is to establish infrastructure replacement reserves which include existing parks infrastructure. Staff is also aware of the many budget requests from the other 8 departments within the organization and the realization that Council placed a ceiling of a 5% general tax increase on the municipal portion of the tax bill to be reviewed during the 2011 budget deliberations. With this in mind Staff is recommending to retain the 2010 Parks capital budget level of $53,000 and has prepared a list of projects that could be realized within the funds identified (Attachment #10). This has identified projects in all areas but the Central Neighbourhood.

The need to develop more cycling lanes as an alternative mode of transportation has been a strategic commitment that the District has given priority to for well over 10 years and Infrastructure Services Staff has been very successful in receiving grants from several funding sources. As mentioned previously in this report there is the need to prioritize the next set of projects which can be undertaken by the Cycling Committee. West Saanich road from McTavish Road through to the Tseycum First Nations is one of the remaining priorities from the 2008 Cycling plan and staff have identified $100,000 from the Districts gas tax reserve, and have applied for matching cycling infrastructure funding from the provincial government for 2011. If the funding application is successful combined with the $100,000 identified from the District Gas Tax Reserve plus the $53,000 budget request for other Parks capital projects, the District could realize approximately $250,000 for these Capital Projects in 2011 with no increase in taxation. As previously stated the implementation of on road cycling lanes has always been a function of the Infrastructure Services Department and should continue to be so. Therefore, some of the justification for funding that the Parks Commissions is suggesting is no longer required for their strategy.

The Financial Services Department has developed a spread sheet with several options to look at increasing the Parks Capital funding over time but without a clear understanding of which projects and their costs, it is difficult to present an accurate strategy of either borrowing and establishing a debt strategy, or a graduated parcel tax/levy (Attachment #11). As staff completes the preliminary evaluation of the 30 projects later this year, Council will be in a better position to make an informed decision on the funding request recommended by the Parks Commission.

Another consideration is whether or not Council feels there is significant public desire to implement new projects on such an ambitious time schedule as the Parks Commission is suggesting. This was the concern that Staff was trying to identify with the recommendation for a borrowing referendum in the December 6, 2010 staff report. By taking the question to the electorate, this would give Council the confidence to move forward with the Parks Commissions Policy recommendation 7.1.1 should the results from a significantly larger sample of the population support it. As mentioned during that meeting the idea of an all or nothing approach was not fully supported by the Parks Commission or Council and therefore that recommendation has not been included within this report.

Staff recommends to Council that the draft 2011 Parks Capital Projects list dated March 14, 2011 be referred to Budget Committee.


LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

Should Council wish to move forward and give the Parks Commission operational authority, bylaw No. 830 should be amended to establish this authority.

CONSULTATIONS:

Ongoing consultations are recommended with respect to finalizing and implementing the Draft Parks Plan.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL INVOLVEMENT/IMPLICATIONS:

Infrastructure Services, Corporate Services, Financial Services, Planning and Community Services and the IT/GIS department all have varying roles in implementing the recommendations noted within this report.

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION:

Staff has reviewed the Draft Parks Plan dated November 5, 2010 as well as Appendices A, B, C, &D and is recommending that staff or a consultant make further revisions based on comments and a series of recommendations contained in this report.

Staff commends the Parks Commission for the hard work involved in identifying existing and future park amenities and for an excellent transparent Public Consultation Process, which then allowed them to identify 30 capital projects for Council’s consideration.

Once staff has completed a preliminary evaluation of the 30 projects, Council will be in a better position to endorse a funding strategy that could be presented within the 2012 Five Year Capital Plan.

In the interim, for 2011 Staff is recommending that Council forward the 2011 Proposed Parks Capital Projects with a $53,000 budget to the 2011 Budget deliberations.

Council should also carefully consider whether or not there is a desire for changes within the Parks Commission mandate that would identify an operational role rather than the existing advisory role.

In the interim, staff has recommended to Council a list of activities that the Parks Commission can undertake (some with the support of staff) that complements the Draft Parks Plan, supports existing and new volunteer initiatives, and enhances local liveability and the Parks experience in North Saanich.