recreation master plan...developing a new recreation master plan to establish a sustainable...

RECREATION MASTER PLAN

SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS REPORT

County of Brant

May 2017

RECREATION MASTER PLAN

SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS REPORT

County of Brant

May 2017

Prepared for:

County of Brant Community Services 15 Curtis Ave. North Paris, ON N3L 3W1

Prepared by:

GSP Group Inc. 72 Victoria St. S., Suite 201 Kitchener, ON N2G 4Y9 F.J. Galloway Associates Inc. 350 Oxford Street W. #203 London, ON N6H 1T3

Recreation Master Plan | Situational Analysis Report i

GSP Group Inc. & F.J. Galloway Associates Inc. | Final – May 2017

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

2. COMMUNITY DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ........................................................................... 3

2.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Population Growth ....................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Age Profile................................................................................................................... 4

2.4 Income ........................................................................................................................ 7

2.5 Ethnicity....................................................................................................................... 7

2.6 Employment and Commuting ...................................................................................... 8

2.7 Development Activity and Growth Management Planning ......................................... 9

3. PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES PROFILE ............................................................... 14

3.1 Parks and Recreation Facilities Inventory ................................................................. 14

3.2 Parkland .................................................................................................................... 14

3.3 Sports Fields ............................................................................................................. 23

3.4 Playgrounds .............................................................................................................. 34

3.5 Aquatic Facilities ....................................................................................................... 36

3.6 Arenas, Community Centres, Community Halls, and Indoor Turf ............................. 38

3.7 Gymnasiums ............................................................................................................. 47

3.8 Other Recreation Facilities ........................................................................................ 50

3.9 River Access and Trails ............................................................................................ 53

4. FINANCIAL & SERVICE DELIVERY REVIEW .................................................................. 57

4.1 Parks and Recreation Facilities Operating Financial Profile ..................................... 57

4.2 Financial Operating Perspectives ............................................................................. 61

4.3 Community Hall Operations ...................................................................................... 63

4.4 Capital Investments and Sources ............................................................................. 65

4.5 Capital Sources ......................................................................................................... 66

Recreation Master Plan | Situational Analysis Report ii


4.6 Service Delivery Model ............................................................................................. 67

4.7 Organizational Structure ........................................................................................... 69

5. AGREEMENT, POLICY & DOCUMENT REVIEW ............................................................. 71

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 71

5.2 Joint Use of Facilities Agreements ............................................................................ 71

5.3 Sport Facility Allocation Policy .................................................................................. 71

5.4 County of Brant Fees and Charges By-Law, April 26, 2016 ..................................... 72

5.5 Affiliation Package, September 2, 2008 .................................................................... 79

5.6 Concussion Policy, June 24, 2014 ............................................................................ 81

5.7 Respect and Responsibilities Policy, February 17, 2015 .......................................... 81

5.8 County of Brant Official Plan (2012 Consolidation) ................................................... 82

5.9 County of Brant Asset Management Plan 2013 ........................................................ 92

5.10 Trails Master Plan (2010) and Transportation Master Plan (2008, 2016) ................. 93

5.11 Ontario Cycling Strategy, 2014 ............................................................................... 103

5.12 Pathways to Wellbeing: A Framework for Recreation in Canada 2015 .................. 105

5.13 Pathways to Recreation: Learning about Ontario’s Accessibility Standard for the

Design of Public Spaces ......................................................................................... 106

5.14 The Youth Services Strategy .................................................................................. 106

5.15 A Master Aging Plan for Brantford and the County of Brant ................................... 107

5.16 All in, All Active, The Development of Access to Recreation Policy ........................ 107

5.17 Outdoor Winter Activity Policy ................................................................................. 108

5.18 County of Brant Aquatic Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study ........................ 109

6. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION ...................................................................................... 110

6.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 110

6.2 Stakeholder Focus Groups & Interviews ................................................................. 110

6.3 Community Survey .................................................................................................. 124

7. TRENDS & STRATEGIES ............................................................................................... 135

7.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 135

Recreation Master Plan | Situational Analysis Report iii


7.2 Societal and Leisure Participation ........................................................................... 135

7.3 Specific Activity Trends ........................................................................................... 156

7.4 Parks/Facilities Design and Development Trends .................................................. 170

8. EMERGING FINANCING AND SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS ..................................... 179

8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 179

8.2 Municipal Service Delivery ...................................................................................... 179

8.3 School Board Partnerships ..................................................................................... 180

8.4 Third Party Facility Services Delivery ...................................................................... 182

8.5 Private Facilities ...................................................................................................... 183

8.6 Rental Capital Surcharges ...................................................................................... 185

8.7 Public Private Partnerships ..................................................................................... 186

8.8 Corporate Naming Rights ........................................................................................ 187

8.9 Summary ................................................................................................................. 187

9. Conclusions & Strategic themes ...................................................................................... 189

9.1 Strategic Themes .................................................................................................... 189

9.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 193

APPENDIX A: County of Brant Parks – Inventory of Facilities & Amenities

APPENDIX B: Detailed Consultation Summary and County of Brant Recreation Programs Survey

APPENDIX C: County of Brant Trails Master Plan – Potential Trail Network Map and Individual

Community Maps

Recreation Master Plan | Situational Analysis Report iv


MAPS:

MAP 1 Parks and Recreation Facility Locations

1a Paris, Glen Morris, New Durham, Harrisburg

1b Burford, Oakhill, Onondaga

1c Mount Pleasant, St. George

1d Cainsville, Scotland, Oakland

MAP 2 Trails Map

2a Paris, Glen Morris, New Durham, Harrisburg

2b Burford, Oakhill, Onondaga

2c Mount Pleasant, St. George

2d Cainsville, Scotland, Oakland

MAP 3 Paris Burford and St. George: 400m and 800m Walkability – Playgrounds

MAP 4 Paris Burford and St. George: 500m Walkability – Parks and Schools

MAP 5 2011 Population Density by Dissemination Area

MAP 6 2011 Population Age Profile by Dissemination Area – Ages Under 9

MAP 7 2011 Population Age Profile by Dissemination Area – Ages 10-19



MAP 10 2011 Population Age Profile by Dissemination Area – Ages 60+

MAP 11 2011 Median Age

MAP 12 Population Change by Dissemination Area Between 2006-2011 (Number)

MAP 13 Population Change by Dissemination Area Between 2006-2011 (Percent)

Parks & Recreation Master Plan | Situation Analysis Report 1


1. INTRODUCTION

Brant County is a growing urban and rural municipality with a wide range of indoor and

outdoor recreational opportunities in a variety of natural and built settings. Brant County is

developing a new Recreation Master Plan to establish a sustainable framework to prioritize

future development and improvements to parks, open spaces, recreation programs,

facilities and services, and tourism in the community over the next 10 years.

The current population of the County is approximately 36,7001, and is distributed among

several settlement areas of varying sizes and throughout the rural area. Paris is the largest

urban centre with a 2016 census population of 12,310, followed by St. George (2016

census population of 3,255) and Burford (1,615) 1. The balance of the population is

distributed throughout the smaller settlement areas of Cainsville, Glen Morris, Harrisburg,

Mount Pleasant, New Durham, Oakhill, Oakland, Onondaga, and Scotland, as well as

numerous historic hamlets and throughout the rural area. Continued population growth is

anticipated and will be focused within the serviced settlement areas of Paris and St.

George, and will continue to generate increasing demands for community services

including parks and recreation.

Brant County is a single-tier municipality that surrounds the City of Brantford and adjoins

the Region of Waterloo to the north, the City of Hamilton to the east, Haldimand County

and the Six Nations of the Grand River and Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation

reserves to the south-east, Norfolk County to the south and Oxford County to the west.

With a wide geography encompassing a land area of more than 840 square kilometres and

access to the higher order transportation network (Highway 403 and 24) that provides

relatively short travel times to larger urban centres such as Brantford, Cambridge and

Hamilton, the range and proximity of recreational facilities and programs varies across the

County and is also influenced by the availability of facilities and programs in adjoining

municipalities.

Through a boundary adjustment agreement with the City of Brantford, approximately 2,500

hectares of land has been annexed by the City from the County for future urban

development to accommodate the forecast population and employment growth in Brantford.

The re-shaping of the municipal boundary to expand the City limits and future development

of these areas for housing and employment will influence the future need for, and location

of, recreational facilities in the City and cross-boundary recreation facility usage and

program participation patterns. This may also present future opportunities to continue to

develop and enhance joint service delivery, partnership and tourism initiatives that may

benefit residents, businesses and visitors of both municipalities.

1 2016 Census Population, from Statistics Canada Census Profile, 2016.



Current municipal indoor recreation facilities in the County include four community centres

(Brant Sports Complex and Syl Apps in Paris, South Dumfries in St. George and the

Burford Community Centre) involving three arenas with a total of four ice pads, one former

ice pad that has been re-purposed to an indoor turf facility (Syl Apps), as well as multi-

purpose rooms and meeting rooms, seven community halls, and the Paris and St. George

lawn bowling clubhouses. Municipal outdoor recreation facilities include an array of sports

fields, playgrounds, open spaces, river access points, three splash pads, a

bandshell/amphitheatre, picnic areas and a range of other facilities and amenities

distributed across more than 50 park and facility locations. Recreational programs are

offered directly by the County and through volunteer and non-profit organizations, involving

the use of County and school facilities. Trails are also an important recreational resource in

the community, and are provided by the County, services clubs and the Grand River

Conservation Authority.

Parks and recreation services are increasingly an integral contributor to vibrant, healthy

and creative communities. They represent services and participation opportunities that are

important to residents from several key benefit perspectives: health and wellness; skills and

personal development goals; developing community capacity, affinity, volunteerism and

pride; enhancing the design and character of built-up areas; and in support of community

economic prospects and initiatives.

The County initiated a Recreation Master Plan as a basis to plan, prioritize, and build

community capacity for future parks and recreation facilities, programs and services. A

Master Plan is a policy, strategy and implementation framework intended to identify what

facilities and services are required, where they should be provided, the timing of their

development and how they can be delivered. This framework will guide and direct the

planning and development of recreation programs, facilities, services, parks, sports fields,

trails and open spaces in the County over the next 10 years.

This Situational Analysis Report summarizes the research undertaken in support of the

Master Plan development, including: a review of community demographics and trends; an

extensive community and stakeholder consultation program; an analysis of the inventory of

available parks, facilities, programs and special events; an examination of service delivery

and operational management needs related to staffing and resourcing and the roles of

other service providers; and, a review of related policies, plans and initiatives.



2. COMMUNITY DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

2.1 Overview

The County has seen steady population growth over the past two decades, and will

continue to grow into the future. In addition to population growth itself, there are a number

of factors related to the changing population profile, the form of future development and

how growth is planned and managed that will impact recreational participation and related

facility and parkland needs. This chapter documents the community’s current and forecast

population growth, demographic characteristics and development activity and highlights key

related considerations for the Recreation Master Plan.

2.2 Population Growth

The County of Brant has experienced moderate growth rates averaging 1.1% annually over

the last 20 years between the 1991 and 2011 censuses. The rate dropped to 0.6% between

the 2011 and 2016 censuses but is expected to rise again. The 2013 amendment to the

Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe directs that the County to plan

for growth in Brant’s population to 49,000 by 2031, 53,000 by 2036 and 57,000 by 2041.

The population growth between the 2011 census and the 2041 Provincial Growth Plan has

been interpolated at the fixed growth rate (1.6% annually) necessary to achieve the

Provincial target population forecast for Brant County. Table 2-1 and the accompanying

graph illustrate the historic, current and forecast population of the County based on these

assumptions.

Table 2-1: Historic, Current and Forecast Population, County of Brant

Sources: 1996-2016: Statistics Canada Census: Community Profiles

2021-2026: GSP Group Inc. interpolated fixed annual growth rate (1.6%) 2031-2041: Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

Year Population % Increase

1991 28,809 N/A

1996 29,800 3.4%

2001 31,669 6.3%

2006 34,415 8.7%

2011 35,638 3.6%

2016 36,707 3.0%

2021 39,748 8.3%

2026 43,042 8.3%

2031 49,000 8.3%

2036 53,000 8.2%

2041 57,000 7.5%

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Actual Forecast



For the purposes of the Recreation Master Plan, which will focus on parks and recreational

facility and service needs over the next 10 years, a 2026 forecast population of 43,042 will

be used to assist in estimating parkland and facility needs for the 10 year period of 2016-

2026. The majority of the County of Brant is rural in nature with average population density

of less than 10 persons per hectare. There are 3 urban areas that comprised 47% of Brant

County’s population in 2016; Paris (2016 population: 12,310), St. George (3,255) and

Burford (1,615). The trend of population migration to the urban areas is anticipated to

continue.

Map 5 illustrates the 2011 census population distribution and density (persons per hectare)

by dissemination area within Brant County with a more detailed view of the Paris urban

area. The highest population densities are found within existing and new developing

neighbourhoods in Paris while other settlement areas in the County are characterized by

lower density neighbourhoods. In general, areas with higher population densities typically

have less private open space available and generate the greatest need for local access to

public parks and recreation facilities. The County’s Official Plan contains policies/criteria to

direct high density residential development to areas with adequate local access to

community facilities and parks and open spaces. Related service standards, current

provision levels, and the geographic distribution of parks and recreation facilities are

reviewed in Chapter 3 of this report.

Population growth and change throughout the Brant-Brantford region will continue to

influence recreational facility and service needs in both municipalities. The City’s population

is expected to grow at a similar to somewhat faster rate than the County’s, from a 2016

census population of 97,496 to a forecast 2041 population of 163,000, or approximately

2.7% annually.2 In total, the combined populations of Brant and Brantford are expected to

grow by an estimated 86,000 residents over the next 25 years.

The municipal boundary changes with the City of Brantford result in a slight adjustment to

the current County population, with an estimated 770 persons residing in the areas that

have been transferred to the City. The majority of this population resides in the Tutela

Heights community, where there is one existing municipal park (Farringdon Park) that has

been transferred to the City.

2.3 Age Profile

Ontario’s population is aging and this trend is widely observed and recognized throughout

most urban and rural communities across the province. The first baby boomers reached 65

years old in 2011 and their aging will drive the median age of the population upward.

2 2041 City of Brantford Population Forecast from Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.



The median age of the population of Brant (42.9 years in 2011) is higher than the provincial

median (40.4 years in 2011) and it has also been climbing faster than its provincial analog.

Over the last 10 years the difference between the median age of the population of Brant

County and that of the Province of Ontario has risen from 4.6% higher in 2001 to 6.2%

higher in 2011. The effects of an aging population will be more pronounced in Brant than

the provincial average.

Table 2-2 and the accompanying graph illustrate the median age of the County’s residents

compared to Ontario as a whole from 2001 to 2011.

Table 2-2: Median Age of Population,

County of Brant and Province of Ontario, 2001 to 2011

Source: 2001-2011: Statistics Canada Census Community Profiles

The growth in the County of Brant’s population over the last fifteen years (1996 to 2011)

has come primarily from the population aged 55 years and older (‘Baby Boomers’). All age

cohorts below age 55 declined in percentage of total population, based on the age

groupings shown in Table 2-3. Overall growth in the population has offset some of these

declines with the 0-9 and 20-34 age cohorts showing small nominal growth (1.5% and 2.3%

respectively) while the 10-19 and 35-54 populations actually shrank (-6.1% and -1.9%

respectively) between the 2006 and 2011 censuses. This contrasts with large growths in

both the 55-69 and 70+age cohorts (growing 22.7% and 6.3% respectively). It is expected

that going forward there will be small nominal growth in the younger cohorts while the older

population will expand rapidly.

While youth (aged 0-19) recreation activities will continue to be a significant need and high

priority, youth representation in the population declined from 29% in 1996 to 25% in 2011.

The population aged 55 years and over has grown from 23% of Brant County’s total

population in 1996 to 30% in 2011. As this latter trend is expected to continue due to both

aging Baby Boomers and immigration patterns this will result in increased demand for older

adult and senior recreational activities.

Table 2-3 and the accompanying graph illustrate the changing age profile of the County of

Brant’s population from 1996 to 2011.

Median Age

Year Brant Ontario Difference

2001 38.9 37.2 +4.6%

2006 41.1 39.0 +5.4%

2011 42.9 40.4 +6.2%

30

35

40

45

50

2001 2006 2011Brant Ontario



Table 2-3: Population Age Profile, County of Brant, 1996 to 2011

Source: Statistics Canada.

1996-2011 Census: Community Profiles.

Several demographic maps portraying the geographic distribution of the various age

cohorts by census dissemination area were prepared. The maps show the entire County

with an inset showing Paris in greater detail. The maps are colour-coded to illustrate the

distribution of each age cohort as a percentage of the total population.

Map 6 shows the distribution of the 0 to 9 years of age cohort (children). Of note, the higher

values of this age cohort are concentrated in the newly developed suburban areas on the

periphery of Paris. The area at the northeast of Paris that has the lowest percentage of this

age cohort due to the presence of seniors’ residences which skews the age distribution

higher.

Map 7 shows the distribution of the 10 to 19 years of age cohort (youth). This map shows

some concentration in the outlying areas of the County which are more sparsely populated

hence represent fewer total numbers.

Map 8 shows the distribution of the 20-49 years of age cohort (adult). As with the child and

youth population the distribution is concentrated near the developing areas on the

periphery of the urban areas of Paris, Burford and Scotland.

Map 9 shows the distribution of the 50-59 years of age cohort (older adult). This age cohort

predominates in the rural and ex-urban areas of the County in inverse distribution to the

younger demographic.

Map 10 shows the distribution of the 60+ years of age cohort (senior). Similar to the older

adult cohort this group is concentrated in the outlying areas of the County. As noted above,

there is an area of concentration in the northeast of Paris due to the presence of seniors’

residences.

Age

Range

(years)

Population by Age

as a Percent of

Total Population

1996 2006 2011

0-9 14% 11% 11%

10-19 15% 15% 13%

20-34 18% 16% 16%

35-54 30% 31% 29%

55-69 13% 17% 20%

70+ 9% 10% 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

0-9

10-19

20-34

35-54

55-69

70+

2011

2006

1996



Map 11 shows the 2011 median population age, which does not vary significantly by

geography across the County, but reflects the younger age profiles of some newer

residential neighbourhoods located in the settlement areas, as compared with the rural

area of the County where the population generally has a higher median age. The area with

the highest median age is in north-east Paris due to the presence of seniors’ residences.

As the median age of the population rises, it is likely that an increasing percentage of

seniors will move to the urban areas to be nearer amenities and facilities. This will tend to

skew the median age of the urban areas higher. Senior recreational facilities and programs

will be increasingly in demand as growth in the population will be largely concentrated in

this group.

The aging population trend is also expected to continue in the rural area of the County as

the majority of residential development appealing to young families is focused within the

County’s urban areas.

2.4 Income

As reported in the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS), the median household income

in the County of Brant was $74,998 compared to the provincial median of $66,358. A 2015

demographic overview of Brant3 showed Brant compared favourably with respect to

average income of surrounding areas, with the 6th highest average household income of 15

surrounding municipalities over 10,000 in population. The same report indicated that when

compared to the 15 surrounding municipalities, Brant has the 5th lowest percentage of the

population with an average household income less than $30,000 (11.9%) as well as less

than $40,000 (18.1%). The study showed that Brant had the 3rd highest percentage of

home ownership (89.8%) of the comparative municipalities.

Despite the general financial strength of Brant's population it is important to continue to

provide a balance of recreational facilities and services, and to promote and support

available financial assistance programs for recreational participation, particularly for those

lower income families that reside in the County. Through the provision of low-cost or free

recreational opportunities, the County’s parks provide an essential service and assist those

residents who may not otherwise be able to afford recreation opportunities.

2.5 Ethnicity

The 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) reported that 9.1% of the population of Brant

were immigrants compared to 28.5% of the provincial population. The majority of the

3 An Overview of the Demographics of the County of Brant, December, 2014: A Report prepared by Environics Analytics for the

County of Brant Library



immigrant population arrived prior to 1991 (7.5%) with 1.6% of Brant’s 2011 population

comprised of immigrants arriving since 1991.

The immigrant population is predominantly from Europe (6.9%) followed by the Americas

(1.5% of which 1.0% came from the United States of America), Asia (0.4%), Africa (0.2%)

and other places of origin (0.1%). The countries most represented in the immigrant

population are the United Kingdom (2.6%), the Netherlands (1.1%), the United States

(1.0%), Germany (0.8%) and Poland (0.6%).

Nonetheless, it is anticipated that cultural diversity will become an increasingly important

consideration in parks and recreation planning and ensuring flexibility and variety in the

range of activities that can be accommodated by the Municipality’s parks and facilities

should be considered among the objectives of the Recreation Master Plan.

2.6 Employment and Commuting

National Household Survey data from 2011 indicated that the 5 most important industries in

Brant County (employing 50% of the working population) were: manufacturing (16%),

health care and social assistance (11%), retail trade (10%), construction (7%) and

agriculture (6%). These five industries are expected to continue to influence employment

opportunities in the County in the future. Agriculture will continue to be the primary land use

and economic activity outside of the County’s settlement areas.

The 2011 National Household Survey reported that 67% of Brant County’s resident working

population (with a fixed place of work) commuted to work outside the Municipality. Of

particular note is the large cross-flow between Brant County and the City of Brantford. One

third (33%) of Brant residents with a fixed place of employment commute to Brantford.

Conversely, just over a third (36%) of those who work at a fixed location in Brant commute

from Brantford. This large back and forth flow suggests a similar cross-flow between the

two communities in the use of recreational facilities.

A further 21% of Brant residents with fixed places of employment commuted to the adjacent

cities of Hamilton, Cambridge and Kitchener. From a parks planning perspective, with two

thirds of the working population commuting to employment outside the County, this means

that there is more time spent commuting and thus less leisure time to recreate. A higher

percentage of commuters results in residents seeking recreation opportunities that

commence after 6:30 or 7:00 pm on weekdays.



Table 2-4: Commuting Characteristics of Working Residents,

County of Brant, 2011

Source: Statistics Canada: National Household Survey 2011.

Table 2-5 and the accompanying graph illustrate the communities from which those with

fixed places of work in County of Brant commuted in 2011.

Table 2-5: Commuting Characteristics of Those Employed in County of Brant, 2011

Source: Statistics Canada: National Household Survey 2011.

2.7 Development Activity and Growth Management Planning

Maps 12 and 13 illustrate the change in population by dissemination area in the County

from 2006 to 2011. As expected, the largest population increases occurred in new

development areas in Paris and St. George. The Oakhill area also experienced growth with

new residential subdivision development during that time. The data indicates some

population decline in older residential neighbourhoods and in parts of the rural area.

The growth management strategy established in the County’s Official Plan continues to

direct the majority of future population and employment growth to the fully serviced primary

urban settlement areas of Paris, St. George and Cainsville / Brant East. Due to servicing

Place of

Work

Brant Residents

by Place of Work

# %

Brant 3,860 26%

Brantford 4,845 33%

Tri-Cities 2,065 14%

Hamilton 1,275 9%

Other 2,600 18%

Total 14,645 100%

Place of

Residence

Working in

Brant

# %

Brant 3,860 42%

Brantford 3,355 36%

Norfolk County 515 6%

Hamilton 400 4%

Tri-Cities 375 4%

Other 700 8%

Total 9,205 100%

26%

33%

14%

9%

18%

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Brant Brantford Tri-Cities Hamilton Other

42%

36%

6% 4% 4%8%

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

Brant Brantford NorfolkCounty

Hamilton Tri-Cities Other



and/or other constraints, the County Official Plan provides for limited future development in

the identified secondary urban settlement areas of Burford, Mount Pleasant, Oakhill/Airport,

Scotland and the Highway 403/County Road 25 interchange employment area. Other

hamlets, villages and rural residential areas in the County are also identified in the Official

Plan and future development is limited in these areas.

Many residents rely on automobile travel to access parks and recreation facilities given the

larger travel distances due to the County’s broad geographic area and population

distribution, and opportunities for cycling and walking to these destinations are more limited

particularly for rural residents. Some parks and recreation facilities are County-wide

destinations and also draw usage from the surrounding region (e.g. arenas, sports fields)

while others have more defined community- or neighbourhood-based service areas (e.g.

neighbourhood parks).

Population growth in the County is largely accommodated through new ground-related low-

and medium-density housing developments in the primary urban settlement areas. This

form of development has been driven by a range of factors from historic trends to market

preferences to the relatively low cost of land. In areas having larger residential lot sizes

there is generally more private amenity space associated with each dwelling and this

reduces overall reliance on public parkland as the principal greenspace opportunity for

casual and unstructured play and other activities.

In the future, with a greater mix of housing types and more emphasis on intensification of

the existing built-up areas, local access to adequate parkland and facilities will become

increasingly important with higher population densities due to the greater concentration of

population in the area and potentially smaller private amenity spaces in new developments,

particularly in the County’s primary urban areas. With this shift, there is a need for greater

emphasis on renewing and improving existing parks and recreation facilities to develop and

maintain the capacity to address increasing demands with the growing population, and also

given the more limited land opportunities for new park and recreation facility development.

There are a number of active and proposed developments in the County that generate a

need and opportunity for the acquisition and development of additional municipal parkland

through Planning Act land dedication requirements.

Current development activity and planning applications in process for new housing in

County of Brant are listed in Table 2-6.



Table 2-6: Active and Proposed Housing Developments, County of Brant

Development/

Location

Approved or Proposed

Housing Units

Future Parkland and Potential

Facilities / Concept

Paris

Brookfield –

Pinehurst (Watt’s

Pond Road /

Pinehurst Road)

Northwest Paris

Area Plan

Phase 1: 238 units

Phase 2: 175 Units

848 Watt’s Pond Rd: 294 units

Oak Ave.: 20 units + future

836 Watt’s Pond Rd: 75 units

Total: 800 units+

2 Neighbourhood Parks

Phase 1 Park (1.3 ha)

Jr./Sr. play equipment

Multi-use court

3m asphalt trails

Benches/seating

Shade structure

Bike racks

Open space

Potential “skate spot”

Phase 2 Park (0.36 ha)

Linear park/greenspace

Part of larger future neighbourhood

park (1.76 ha)

Open Space Blocks (0.71 ha, 8.67 ha

including Watt’s Pond)

Nature trails

West natural areas / open spaces /

wetlands

Rest Acres Road /

Powerline Road

Mile Hill: ~ 300 units

Pinevest (1039-1067 Rest

Acres Rd): 286 units

Total: 2,000 units+

Mile Hill Neighbourhood Park (1.223 ha)

Sports field (soccer)

Trails

Parking

Pinevest (1039-1067 Rest Acres Rd)

Neighbourhood Park (0.59 ha)

Play equipment, swings

Shelter

Seating

Trails

Activa (1044-1058 Rest Acres Road)

Future parks to be determined

Grandville Estates Total: 1,076 units Grandville Park

Trails



Development/

Location

Approved or Proposed

Housing Units

Future Parkland and Potential

Facilities / Concept

Open space

Future Neighbourhood Park (west)

Play equipment

Multi-use court

Trails

Shelter

Seating

East Parkland Block (Crawford Place)

Play equipment

Walkway connection

Nith Peninsula Total: 400 units Improvements to existing Victoria Park

Phase 1 Parkland (0.077 ha)

Phase 4 Parkland (0.397 ha)

Play equipment

Multi-use court

Trail connections

Paris Grand Total: 400 units+ Future parks to be determined

Village on the

Grand – Willow St.

Total: 85 units (3 remaining) Cash-in-lieu of parkland

Highway 2 /

Cleaver Road

Southwest Paris

Future residential Future parks to be determined

St. George

Northwest St.

George - Empire

Total: ~1,400 to 1,500 units Future Neighbourhood Park (1.4 ha)

Play equipment

Multi-use court

Future Parkette (0.5 ha)

Play equipment

Trail along easement

St. George Rd. /

German School Rd.

and Beverley Street

West - Losani

Total: ~1,440 to 2,000 units Future Neighbourhood Park (0.57 ha)

Play equipment

Trails

Beverley Street

West - Riverview

Highlands

100 units Future parks and trails to be

determined.

Brant Terra 90 units Future parks and trails to be

determined.

Source: County of Brant Planning Department and Operations Department, 2016.



The Master Plan should establish more detailed direction for the acquisition of new

parkland and trails by land dedication to the Municipality where required and provide

strategies and guidelines for the development of new parks and trails in developing areas,

and for alternative considerations involving cash-in-lieu of parkland to fund park

development and improvements.

Continued population growth also generates demands for increased capacity of

recreational facilities and programs. The Master Plan should provide direction to guide and

support the planning and development of additional recreational facility and program

capacity to address the needs of future growth.



3. PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES PROFILE

3.1 Parks and Recreation Facilities Inventory

The County of Brant owns and manages 48 parks and over 230,000 square feet of indoor

recreation space on approximately 145 hectares of municipal parkland. Local schools

provide additional access to indoor and outdoor recreational spaces and facilities. Trails

and cycling routes are also important recreational assets in the community, and are

provided by the County as well as the Grand River Conservation Authority. The Grand

River and Nith River, Pinehurst Conservation Area and natural areas across the County are

also important recreational resources for a range of active and passive activities. In

addition, the agricultural fairgrounds in Paris and Burford are important indoor/outdoor

community and special event venues owned and operated by the Paris Agricultural Society

and the Burford Agricultural Society, respectively.

The following sections provide a review of the existing inventory and service levels, and a

complete inventory of the County’s parks, trails and recreation facilities is shown on Maps 1

and 2.

3.2 Parkland

The County parks system offers a wide variety of seasonal outdoor recreational facilities

and amenities, such as sports fields, playgrounds, an outdoor pool, splash/spray pads,

multi-use courts, skatepark, outdoor ice rinks, a leash-free dog park, disc golf course,

tennis courts, lawn bowling greens, beach volleyball, picnic areas and facilities, toboggan

hills, gardens, special event facilities, boat launches and access points to the rivers,

pathways and trails, and natural areas and open spaces.

In addition, the County’s parks encompass a number of related buildings and structures for

parks operations, storage, washrooms, concessions, civic monuments, public art, shelters

and other buildings and structures.

Table 3-1 summarizes the existing inventory of County parks by community and identifies

the recommended classification of each park based on the park area, type of facilities and

amenities provided, location and service area. A more detailed inventory identifying the

amenities and facilities available within each park is provided in Appendix A.



TABLE 3-1: County of Brant Parks (see also Appendix A)

Park Name Area (ha) Park Classification(s)

Paris

Axton Park 0.41 Neighbourhood Park

Bean Park 1.62 Neighbourhood Park

Bemrose Park 0.45 Neighbourhood Park

Cenotaph War Memorial (Paris Cenotaph) 0.09 Commons / Urban Green

Charlton Park 3.40 Community Park

Cobblestone Common 0.02 Commons / Urban Green

Forest Drive Park 1.60 Neighbourhood Park

Garden of Hope 0.07 Commons / Urban Green

Gilston Park 0.09 Neighbourhood Park

Grandville Park 3.17 Neighbourhood Park

Green Lane Sports Complex & Simply Grand Dog Park 25.11 Destination Park

Jury Street Park 0.13 Neighbourhood Park

Kings Ward Park 0.38 Commons / Urban Green

Lions Park / Paris Pool and Pete Lavoie Ball Park 10.80 Destination Park / Natural Area

Optimist Park 2.95 Community Park

Penman's Dam Park 0.87 Destination Park

Rest Acres Ridge Park 1.10 Neighbourhood Park

Two Rivers Stadium 1.53 Destination Park

Victoria Park 0.70 Community Park

Willow Street Park 0.07 Neighbourhood Park

Total – Paris 54.56

St. George

Arena Park (South Dumfries Community Centre) 2.76 Community Park

Cenotaph Park 0.09 Commons / Urban Green

Centennial Park 0.79 Community Park

Elliot Field 2.01 Community Park

Jacob's Woods 4.85 Natural Area

King William Park 2.85 Community Park

Snowball Park 0.51 Commons / Urban Green

Sunny Hill Park 2.22 Community Park

Total – St. George 16.08

Burford

Broadview Park 1.48 Neighbourhood Park

Burford Optimist and Lions Park (Burford Community Centre) 6.90 Community Park

Janice Hunt Memorial Park 0.75 Neighbourhood Park

John St. Park 0.28 Neighbourhood Park

Lions Centennial Park 22.13 Destination Park

Park Ave. Soccer Park 1.73 Community Park

Total – Burford 33.27



Park Name Area (ha) Park Classification(s)

Oakhill

Foxhill Heights Park 0.73 Neighbourhood Park

Oakhill Heights Park 0.33 Neighbourhood Park

Poplar Hills Park 0.60 Neighbourhood Park

Total – Oakhill 1.66

Mount Pleasant

Mount Pleasant Park 2.94 Community Park

Mount Pleasant Nature Park 10.20 Natural Area

Total – Mount Pleasant 13.14

Harrisburg

Harrisburg Ball Park 1.95 Community Park

Harrisburg Church Park 0.37 Neighbourhood Park

Total – Harrisburg 2.32

Glen Morris

Eric Thomlinson Access Point / Wray and Marilyn Cline Park 0.93 Natural Area

Glen Morris Ball Park (Rising Park) 1.06 Community Park

Total – Glen Morris 1.99

Oakland

Oakland Community Centre Park 1.70 Community Park

Scotland

Optimist Park 5.02 Community Park

New Durham

New Durham Ball Park 1.77 Community Park

Cainsville

Brant/Onondaga Park 6.20 Community Park / Natural Area

Onondaga

Onondaga Ball Park 0.59 Community Park

Grand Total – County of Brant 138.20

The County Official Plan establishes a standard of 3 hectares of parkland per 1,000 people

as a guide for land acquisition, which is consistent with the service level standard

recommended in the previous Recreation Master Plan (2000) and the existing parkland

provision level calculated at that time.

Based on the current parkland inventory and the 2016 census population, the provision

level has increased to 3.8 hectares per 1,000 people with the addition of over 50 hectares

of parkland since 2000. The County has significantly increased the level of parkland

provision over the past 16 years, and has met and exceeded the Official Plan provision

level target during this time period. Some of the additional parkland acquired included

Grandville Park, Rest Acres Ridge Park, Sunny Hill Park, and additional land at Lions

Centennial Park in Burford.



The County should continue to review and monitor per capita parkland provision levels as a

planning and performance indicator and to assess how that changes over time with the

growing population. However, it is not imperative to plan for the acquisition of parkland on

this basis, as future parkland acquisition should also be guided by the following:

Geographic distribution and proximity of access by the population, particularly local

access to neighbourhood-level parks and amenities within existing and future

residential neighbourhoods based on a reasonable walking distance. It is expected that

parkland dedication and cash-in-lieu of parkland requirements under the Ontario

Planning Act will continue to be the County’s primary means for acquisition of parkland

addressing local neighbourhood-level needs as new development occurs in the

settlement areas.

Providing a balance of active and passive parkland, with related facilities and supports

for a range of organized and unstructured or casual leisure activities for people of all

ages, as well as both user-fee based programs and amenities that are available for

public access and use at low or no cost;

Opportunity-based and strategic acquisition of:

- Parkland to facilitate the expansion of existing destination parks and community

parks, where possible, or to establish new or expanded and consolidated outdoor

recreation facility locations / sports complexes, which should be considered in

conjunction with new or expanded indoor recreation facility development;

- Land for urban greenspaces, public squares, parkettes, civic and event spaces in

the downtown core area of existing urban areas, to support revitalization and

intensification of these areas as focal points for community activity;

- Riverside lands, natural corridors and other natural areas and open spaces, and

establishment of related public access and recreational opportunities through

natural areas management planning and appropriate levels of facility development;

- Key linkages and connections to create and expand a linked parks, open space and

trails system and that resolve any gaps in the existing trails network; and,

- Land required for specialized facilities that support local or regional events, tourism,

specific recreational programs or activities and similar functions.

Beyond minimum parkland dedication requirements, other opportunities for future

acquisition of parkland may involve:



- Pedestrian and bicycle pathway dedication requirements in plan of subdivision

developments;

- Partnerships, co-location, land donations, trusts, easements, access agreements

and similar approaches to acquire land and/or provide for public access to lands

that are not owned by the County but are of public recreational value or

significance;

- Acquisition of undevelopable lands such as protected natural areas, floodplains

and natural corridors, where possible through the land development planning and

approvals process or by other means of land securement such as conservation

easements, agreements, and direct land purchase;

- Purchase of lands that may become available with changing land use and

ownership over time, such as lands adjacent to existing parks and recreation

facilities to facilitate their expansion, or as a result of school closures, or through

urban redevelopment and intensification;

- Acquisition of land for other County purposes where there may also be an

opportunity for parkland, trails or other recreational uses (e.g. road rights-of-way,

stormwater management facilities, administrative or works facilities, etc.).

A Parkland Classification System should be established to organize and provide more

detailed direction for determining future parkland requirements by type of parkland and

related to associated service level targets and objectives. The establishment of a Parkland

Classification System will also provide direction within each category of parks to guide

planning, acquisition, distribution, design, development, management, operation,

programming and use of various types of park assets based on the related service level

objectives for each. The Master Plan should establish a parkland classification system, with

target service areas, provision levels, and location and access parameters. In addition,

objectives for planning and managing the parkland resources and an outline of potential

types of facilities and activities should be provided.

From a review of the existing park inventory, the following types of parks have been

identified:

Destination Parks are significant outdoor recreation destinations in highly accessible

locations that have community-wide and/or regional service areas encompassing users

from surrounding municipalities and providing venues for tournament/event/tourism

functions. Multi-field sports parks, outdoor special event venues, parks with unique or

specialized facilities, major open spaces and parks having particular historical, cultural or

social importance and civic landmarks are typically considered in this category. Destination

Parks may also be co-located with indoor recreation/community facilities and/or secondary

schools. The Green Lane Sports Complex should be considered in this category, as the

County’s primary outdoor multi-use recreational sports complex and the largest park in the

County, with 4 softball diamonds, 2 soccer pitches, beach volleyball, playground, pavilion,

concession/washroom building, the Simply Grand leash-free dog park, disc golf course,



and parking. Other parks that could be considered in this category include Paris Lions Park

/ Pool and Pete Lavoie Ball Park, which also offers a wide range of facilities, amenities and

activities, Two Rivers Stadium (Syl Apps Community Centre) and Penman’s Dam Park in

Paris are also a significant destination with the river access, trail access and multi-use

facilities, and Lions Centennial Park in Burford based on its size and location.

Community Parks primarily serve a specific community within the County or multiple

neighbourhoods within that community and may also serve a limited County-wide or

regional destination function with specialized facilities and amenities. These parks provide

a range and mix of facilities or outdoor sports venues with supporting facilities and parking

areas, are larger in size than a neighbourhood park and may be coordinated with school

sites and/or indoor recreation facilities. Community Parks may also serve local area

Neighbourhood Park requirements and their scale and level of facility development at

individual park locations should balance broader community access with local compatibility

based on the surrounding land use context. Existing Community Parks in Brant County

include Charlton Park, Optimist Park and Victoria Park in Paris, Arena Park (South

Dumfries Community Centre, Centennial Park, Elliot Field, King William Park and Sunny

Hill Park in St. George, the Burford Optimist and Lions Park (Burford Community Centre)

and Park Avenue Soccer Park in Burford, Glen Morris Ball Park (Rising Park), Harrisburg

Ball Park, New Durham Ball Park, Onondaga Ball Park, Mount Pleasant Park,

Brant/Onondaga Park in Cainsville, Optimist Park in Scotland and Oakland Community

Centre Park.

Neighbourhood Parks serve local neighbourhood passive and active parkland needs

within a 5 to 10 minute walking distance of most users, and provide local-scale facilities

such as play structures, benches/seating areas, informal playing fields and passive open

space, paved multi-use courts/informal basketball courts, community gardens and

pathways. These parks should function as neighbourhood focal points supporting

recreational, social and cultural activities for a defined residential area, with convenient

access by walking and cycling, and contribute to enhanced neighbourhood design and

place-making as distinctive visual landmarks. Neighbourhood Parks in Paris include Axton

Park, Bean Park, Bemrose Park, Forest Drive Park, Gilston Park, Grandville Park, Jury

Street Park, Rest Acres Ridge Park and Willow Street Park. Other examples of

neighbourhood parks include Broadview Park, Janice Hunt Memorial Park and John Street

Park in Burford, and Foxhill Heights Park, Oakhill Heights Park and Poplar Hills Park in

Oakhill.

Sub-categories of parkland should also be considered such as “parkettes”, “commons” and

“urban greens” to reflect smaller active and passive greenspaces, urban plazas, public

squares and similar civic spaces. These spaces have an important role in place-making,

creating human-scale outdoor spaces and offering a respite in urbanized environments,

supporting visitors and tourism in the downtown, and in shaping the urban form and quality

of the community. As part of downtown Paris, the Paris Cenotaph, Cobblestone Common,



Garden of Hope and Kings Ward Park are good examples of this type of parkland. The

Cenotaph War Memorial and Snowball Park are similar examples in St. George.

Natural Areas are conservation lands which may have some level of public access for

compatible forms of passive recreation such as hiking trails, nature appreciation, outdoor

education and interpretation, river access such as canoe launches and docks, fishing, bird-

watching and similar uses. Floodplain lands, natural corridors, wetlands, watercourses,

wooded areas and other natural features and open spaces associated with a park site

and/or providing linkages between park sites and other destinations should be considered

within this category of parkland. Natural Areas support nature conservation, environmental

health and sustainability, ecosystem services such as clean air and water, trails, passive

recreation and eco-tourism, and have ongoing management requirements. Natural Areas

can also support tourism, such as river access for a range of on-water activities (canoeing,

kayaking, rowing, etc.), and the Grand River is a significant tourism attraction in Brant

County. Natural Areas may be separately defined areas or form part of parks in other

categories. Examples of County-owned parkland in this category include Jacob’s Wood in

St. George, Lion’s Centennial Park in Burford, Brant/Onondaga Park in Cainsville, Mount

Pleasant Nature Park, and Lions Park in Paris. In addition, the County owns approximately

43 hectares of land containing natural open space and woodlands, some of which is

located along the Nith River in the Nith Peninsula area of Paris and west of the River

including part of Barker’s Bush where, over time, trails have been created by various

groups both on the public and private lands.

Based on the above classifications and the inventory of existing parkland within each

category, the current parkland provision levels are summarized in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2: Current Parkland Provision Levels

Park Class Quantity

(# of Parks) Area

(ha of Parkland) Provision Level

(ha/1,000 population)

Destination Parks 5 37.6 1.0

Community Parks 18 43.4 1.2

Neighbourhood Parks* 22 14.3 0.4

Natural Areas** 5* 42.9 1.2

TOTAL 48 138.2 3.8

* Neighbourhood parks includes parkettes, commons, urban greenspaces, public squares.

**3 Natural Areas are also included in another park category, a portion of the total park area is reported for each class.

Tables 3-3, 3-4 and 3-5 summarize the current parkland provision levels for developed

parkland (excluding Natural Areas) in the three largest communities of Paris, St. George

and Burford.



Table 3-3: Current Parkland Provision Levels, Paris (2016 population: 12,310)

Park Class Quantity

(# of Parks) Area





Neighbourhood Parks 13 9.2 0.7

TOTAL 20 49.7 4.0

Table 3-4: Current Parkland Provision Levels, St. George (2016 population: 3,255)

Park Class Quantity

(# of Parks) Area





TOTAL 7 11.2 3.5

Table 3-5: Current Parkland Provision Levels, Burford (2016 population: 1,615)

Park Class Quantity

(# of Parks) Area






TOTAL 6 15.3 9.5

The existing inventory of County parks provides a good distribution of parkland among the

settlement areas. Paris, as the largest urban area, benefits from larger County-wide and

regional serving Destination Parks which also double as Community Parks and/or

Neighbourhood Parks. St. George, although having the least amount of parkland per 1,000

population currently, is still of a size where most residential neighbourhoods have relatively

close and convenient access to Community Parks which double as Neighbourhood Parks

for individual subdivisions. Burford, for a community of its size, has a significant supply of

parkland available to the local population, and is also a service centre and recreational hub

for the surrounding area in west Brant. Both St. George and Burford are within

approximately 15 minutes driving time to Paris.

In addition to the inventory of parkland and other open spaces, there are 10 schools in the

County including 1 public secondary school (Paris District High School) and 9 public

elementary schools (North Ward, Paris Central and Cobblestone in Paris, St. George



German, Burford District, Mount Pleasant, Glen Morris Central, Oakland-Scotland,

Onondaga-Brant in Cainsville) and 3 catholic elementary schools (Holy Family School and

Sacred Heart School in Paris, and Blessed Sacrament in Burford). These school sites

provide public access to additional outdoor recreation facilities and open spaces.

Map 4 illustrates the results of a Geographic Information System (GIS) based parkland

distribution analysis for Paris, St. George and Burford which is generated by pedestrian

route analysis to plot a 500m walking distance from the nearest point of entry to each park

and school property. Based on a review of the geographic distribution of parks in these

communities, existing residential neighbourhoods are generally well served and few gaps

are identified.

There is one gap identified in Paris. With the location of Optimist Park and Bean Park along

the Grand River to the east, and Rest Acres Ridge Park located to the west, the existing

homes in the residential area between Washington Street and Chapel Street south of

Dundas Street West do not have access to an existing park or school grounds within a

500m walking distance. There appear to be potential locations in this area for consideration

of a small Neighbourhood Park or Parkette to resolve this gap, if the land is or becomes

available.

Additional parks and planned with new residential subdivision developments as

summarized in Section 2.7.

Overall, the parkland distribution analysis and future parkland summary indicates that the

vast majority of existing residents in Paris, St. George and Burford have convenient access

to one or more existing parks or school sites, and that new residential areas are well-

served with local access to associated parkland and/or a new school site.

As summarized in Table 3-1, there are 14 County parks distributed among the smaller

settlement areas of Oakhill, Mount Pleasant, Harrisburg, Glen Morris, Oakland, Scotland,

New Durham, Cainsville and Onondaga. The number of parks and amount of parkland in

these communities has been established historically and in general is appropriate for the

size of each community and its population. With limited new residential or other

development, there have been fewer opportunities to acquire additional municipal parkland

particularly in these communities. Optimist Park in Scotland has been acquired by the

Scotland Optimist Club after the land became available as a result of a school closure. A

potential opportunity for the County to acquire additional parkland in Mount Pleasant was

identified through the consultation program. The Master Plan should provide a framework

for evaluating the potential need and opportunities for parkland acquisition in these

settlement areas in the future.

The Master Plan should provide direction for future parkland acquisition, and for continued

public acquisition of natural open spaces for conservation and/or public recreation



purposes on an opportunity and strategic basis as resources allow and through the land

development planning and approvals process.

3.3 Sports Fields

There are over 40 sports fields available in the

County’s parks, including ball diamonds and

soccer pitches / multi-use fields. Additional

sports fields are available at local schools. The

County’s sports fields vary in size and level of

facility development.

Table 3-6 summarizes the current sports field

inventory.

GRCA Parks and Nature Centre in Brant/Brantford Area

There are 2 Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) parks located in the Brant-Brantford

area including the Brant Park at the westerly edge of Brantford and Pinehurst Lake Park north

of Paris, as well as App’s Mill Nature Centre west of Highway 24 and south of Highway 403

between Burford and Oakhill.

These GRCA Parks and the Nature Centre are accessible to the public by paid admission and

include a wide range of educational, recreational and conservation activities, facilities, settings

and programs.

Brant Park includes an outdoor pool, camping, river access for fishing and canoeing, play

equipment, and hiking and cycling trails.

Pinehurst Lake offers beach and lake access for swimming, fishing and canoeing, camping

and picnic facilities, playing fields, nature trails, as well as winter activities including ice fishing,

snow-shoeing, and cross-country skiing.

Apps’ Mill Nature Centre provides outdoor educational and conservation programs and

activities for schools, families and youth and community groups as well as day camps.



Table 3-6: Sports Field Inventory – Brant County Parks

Location

Soccer Fields Ball Diamonds

Unlit Lit Unlit Lit

SR JR MINI SR SR JR OTHER SR JR

Paris

Charlton Park 1

Forest Drive Park 1 1

Green Lane Sports Complex 2 3 1

Lion’s / Pete Lavoie Ball Park 1 1

Paris Optimist Park 2 1

Two Rivers Stadium 1

Victoria Park 1

Totals – Paris 3 1 2 0 6 0 1 3 0

St. George

Arena Park 1 1

Elliot Field 1 3

King William Park 1

Sunny Hill Park 1 1

Totals – St. George 2 0 4 0 1 1 0 1 0

Burford

Burford Optimist & Lions Park 1 1 2 1 2

Janice Hunt Memorial Park 1

Park Ave. Soccer Park 1 1

Totals – Burford 2 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 0

Cainsville

Brant/Onondaga Park 1

Scotland

Optimist Park & Scotland CC 1 1 1

Oakland

Oakland Community Centre Park 2

Mount Pleasant

Mount Pleasant Park 1 1

Onondaga

Onondaga Ball Park 1

Harrisburg

Harrisburg Ball Park 1

New Durham

New Durham Ball Park 1

Grand Total 9 4 8 0 8 4 4 9 0

SR = Senior Soccer Pitches for players age 13 years+, max. dimensions 75m x 120m; Senior Ball Diamonds min. 60m depth JR = Junior Soccer Pitches for players age 10 to 13 years, max. dimensions 50m x 75m; Junior Ball Diamonds min. 40m depth MINI – Mini Soccer Pitches for players under 10 years of age, maximum dimensions 36m x 55m OTHER = informal and grass diamonds with backstop, limited or no fencing and/or t-ball diamonds

*Senior Pitches can be configured as junior and/or mini fields



Additional sports fields available at local schools in the County are summarized in Table 3-

7.

Table 3-7: Sports Field Inventory – Brant County Schools

Location

Soccer Fields Ball Diamonds

Unlit Lit Unlit Lit

SR JR MINI SR SR JR OTHER SR JR

Paris

North Ward PS* 1 1

Paris District HS 1 1

Cobblestone ES* 1 2

Sacred Heart School 1 2

Holy Family School* 2

Totals – Paris 3 0 7 0 0 0 2 0 0

St. George

St. George German PS 2 1

Burford

Burford District ES 1

Blessed Sacrament School 1 1

Totals – Burford 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cainsville

Onondaga Brant School* 1 1 1

Oakhill

St. Theresa School 1

Scotland

Oakland-Scotland PS 3 1

Totals – Scotland 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0

Glen Morris

Glen Morris PS* 1

Mount Pleasant

Mount Pleasant PS* 1 1

Grand Total 4 5 15 0 0 0 5 0 0

*School use only

With extensive usage, sports field quality begins to decline, and as such the total hours of

availability of sports fields for programming depends on the level of facility development,

and the level and frequency of maintenance. Where facilities such as lighting and irrigation

systems are provided, sports fields can accommodate greater use. For natural turf facilities,

actual daily and weekly availability also depends on weather conditions and maintenance

activities.



Existing soccer pitches in the County are natural turf, and there are no fields with lighting.

There is one existing indoor artificial turf field available at Syl Apps Community Centre in

Paris. Some of the existing outdoor fields are subject to booking/scheduling requirements

and user fees for organized programming for soccer and other field sports. Ball diamonds

in the County have natural turf outfields and stone dust or clay in field surface treatments.

Soccer fields generally operate from the beginning of May to the end of September, from 8

a.m. to 9 p.m. (or dark). As described earlier, actual availability should be based on the

level of usage that the fields can sustain in regards to the level of facility development and

maintenance, and the level of usage that can be sustained by natural turf soccer pitches

and multi-use sports fields is dependent on the infrastructure provided (irrigation, lighting,

drainage) and level/frequency of maintenance. Premium “A” fields can be expected to

accommodate approximately 25 hours of usage per week, Recreational “B” fields

approximately 20 hours per week and Other “C” fields 10 hours per week. School fields

typically experience high levels of daily usage by students which also affects the quality

and availability for community use of these fields, particularly in May and June when some

fields are used by both the schools and user groups on the same days. Based on a 17-

week season of May to August for soccer, the available soccer field capacity has been

calculated as follows:

“A” Fields: 425 total hours/season

“B” Fields: 340 total hours/season

“C” Fields: 170 total hours/season

In some cases the available hours for specific soccer fields varies from the standardized

hours per season above and is based on scheduling information from the County’s sports

field booking system.

Ball diamonds generally operate from the beginning of May to the end of September, from

8 a.m. to 9 p.m. (or dark) and as late as 11 p.m. where lighting is available. The maximum

weekly availability and seasonal hours should be established to define the available hours

based on the level of facility development and maintenance. At the highest quality, “A”

diamonds with lighting can typically sustain, on average, about 35 hours per week of

usage. Diamonds that do not have lighting can be expected to sustain approximately 25

hours per week of usage, and other lower quality diamonds such as practice diamonds can

be expected to sustain 20 hours or less of usage per week. Based on a 21-week playing

season for softball (May through September), the available capacity has been calculated as

follows:

“A” Diamonds: 735 hours/season

“B” Diamonds: 525 hours/season

“C” Diamonds: 420 hours/season



Tables 3-8 and 3-9 summarize the soccer field and ball diamond availability and usage

information for the years 2012 to 2016.

Table 3-8: Five-Year Usage Summary for Soccer Fields / Multi-Use Sports Fields

Location Avail. Hours

Hours Booked % Usage

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Paris

Green Lane - Soccer Field 1

425 144.5 228 161 138 237 34% 54% 38% 33% 56%

Green Lane - Soccer Field 2

425 93 188 143.5 139 154 22% 44% 34% 33% 36%

Charlton Field** 340 0 0 0 6 0 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%

Forest Drive Park (Jr.) 340 0 14 72 90.5 90 0% 4% 21% 27% 27%

Optimist Park Field 1 (mini)

340 - - 62.5 92 80 - - 18% 27% 24%

Optimist Park Field 2* (mini)

238 3 41.5 34 14.25 17.25 1% 17% 14% 6% 7%

Totals – Paris 2,108 240.5 471.5 473 479.75 578.25 11% 22% 22% 23% 27%

St. George

Elliot Mini Field 1 196 92 192 192 216 126 47% 98% 100% 110% 64%



Sunny Hill Park Field 425 20.25 314 333.5 274.75 264 5% 74% 79% 65% 62%

Total – St. George 1,013 296.25 890 917.5 922.75 642 29% 88% 91% 91% 63%

Burford

Burford Field A 238 30 24 24 24 24 13% 10% 10% 10% 10%

Burford Field B (Jr.) 238 43 58 71.5 77.5 88 18% 24% 30% 33% 37%

Burford Field C (mini) 238 37 48 64 66 72 16% 20% 27% 28% 30%

Burford Field D (mini) 238 43 58 60 60 64 18% 24% 25% 25% 27%

Park Ave Soccer Field 238 90 88 120 116 124 38% 37% 50% 49% 52%

Total – Burford 1,190 337 406 502.5 493.5 504 28% 34% 42% 41% 42%

Cainsville, Onondaga and Mt. Pleasant

Brant-Onondaga Field 262 30 200 150 111.5 111.5 11% 76% 57% 43% 43%

Mt. Pleasant Field 238 30 24 24 24 24 13% 10% 10% 10% 10%

Summary – Brant County

Brant County Total 4,811 934 1,992 2,067 2,032 1,860 19% 41% 43% 42% 39%

Senior Fields Total 2,591 532 1,196 1,119 983 1,071 21% 46% 43% 38% 41%

Junior Fields Total 578 43 72 144 168 178 7% 12% 25% 29% 31%

Mini Fields Total 1,642 359 724 805 880 611 22% 44% 49% 54% 37%

*Practice fields **Used for practices, but not booked



Table 3-9: Five-Year Usage Summary for Ball Diamonds

Location Avail. Hours


2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Paris

Green Lane – Ball Diamond 1

525 313.5 353 391 310.5 383 60% 67% 74% 59% 73%


735 295.5 439.5 520 410 435.5 40% 60% 71% 56% 59%


525 295.5 314 346 278 363 56% 60% 66% 53% 69%


525 168 219 157 190.5 170 32% 42% 30% 36% 32%

Optimist Park Ball Diamond

525 113 145.5 112 107.25 118.25 22% 28% 21% 20% 23%

Two Rivers Ball Diamond

735 114 113 123 112 115.5 16% 15% 17% 15% 16%

Victoria Park Ball Diamond

735 18 30 22 0 70 2% 4% 3% 0% 10%

Totals – Paris 4,305 1,318 1,614 1,671 1,408 1,655 31% 37% 39% 33% 38%

St. George

King William Ball Diamond (Jr.)

525 62 59 93 80 108.5 12% 11% 18% 15% 21%

SDCC Diamond A 525 227 156.5 214.5 216.5 193.5 43% 30% 41% 41% 37%

SDCC Diamond B 735 437 427.5 394.5 423.5 391 59% 58% 54% 58% 53%

Total – St. George 1,785 726 643 702 720 693 41% 36% 39% 40% 39%

Burford

Burford Diamond A 735 337 396 319 312 362 46% 54% 43% 42% 49%

Burford Diamond B 735 439.5 515 417 422 430 60% 70% 57% 57% 59%

Burford Diamond C (Jr.)

420 10 106.5 36 25 156 2% 25% 9% 6% 37%

Total – Burford 1,890 787 1,018 772 759 948 42% 54% 41% 40% 50%

Mt. Pleasant, Glen Morris and Harrisburg

Mt. Pleasant Diamond 735 22 24 60 36.5 24 3% 3% 8% 5% 3%

Glen Morris Ball Diamond*

525 0 4 0 0 0 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Harrisburg Ball Diamond

525 68.5 52 82 86.5 78 13% 10% 16% 16% 15%

Summary – Brant County

Brant County Total 9,765 2,921 3,355 3,287 3,010 3,398 30% 34% 34% 31% 35%

Senior Lit Diamonds Total

5,145 1,663 1,945 1,856 1,716 1,828 32% 38% 36% 33% 36%

Senior Unlit Diamonds Total

3,675 1,186 1,244 1,303 1,189 1,306 32% 34% 35% 32% 36%

Junior Diamonds Total

945 72 166 129 105 265 8% 18% 14% 11% 28%

*Glen Morris Ball Diamond out of service since 2014 (re-purposed/converted to basketball/multi-purpose playing court).



The following observations are made from the sports field inventory and usage data:

Soccer Pitches / Multi-use Sports Fields

There are 21 soccer pitches / multi-use sports fields in the County’s parks, and an

additional 24 soccer pitches located at local schools;

There are no lit soccer pitches available in the County;

Based on the County’s booking data for the 17 soccer pitches that are scheduled for

soccer and other field sports programs, usage of soccer pitches has been relatively

stable over the past 4 years, but has approximately doubled when comparing 2012

to 2016 total hours booked;

For the period of 2013 to 2016, total scheduled field bookings per season ranged

from 1,860 hours in 2016 to 2,067 hours in 2014 reflecting an average of

approximately 40% of available capacity of soccer pitches booked for active

programming;

Usage of senior and mini fields is highest, ranging from 37% to 44% over the past

four years, compared with junior fields which ranged from 12% usage in 2013 to

31% usage in 2016;

The soccer pitches in St. George had the highest level of usage, followed by Brant-

Onondaga Field in Cainsville, then Burford and Paris, and the field in Mt. Pleasant

was booked consistently for only 10% of available hours from 2013 to 2016;

In 2015, bookings of the Elliot mini fields exceeded field capacity based on the

County’s booking data and maintenance requirements;

Forest Drive Park does not have parking or washroom facilities available to support

more regularly scheduled use of the junior soccer pitch;

Charlton Field in Paris was booked for only 6 hours of programming over the past

five years, and the field is currently used (but not booked) for practices. Parking is

available at the school but washroom access would only be available if the school is

open;

The existing mini soccer pitches at Paris Optimist Park are located just beyond the

outfield fence for the adjacent ball diamond, which may limit a more frequent or

regular program schedule for soccer when the ball diamond is in use;

Limited parking is available within the park at Sunny Hill Park in St. George and the

pattern of field users parking along the roadside (County Road 13 / St. George

Road) has been raised as a safety concern;

The Elliot Fields are located on lands owned by the St. George Lions Club and

leased by the County for use of the soccer fields; this creates some uncertainty

about the future availability of these highly used soccer pitches particularly for

children’s soccer programs in the St. George area where participation and growth

pressures will continue to produce demands for increased field capacity;

Based on a review of the current inventory there appears to be opportunities to

create additional field capacity for soccer programs through improvements and

supporting facilities such as lighting at some existing field locations, and/or through



the future retrofitting of one or more natural turf fields to artificial turf, and/or building

a new artificial turf facility in an expanded and consolidated multi-field location such

as Green Lane Sports Complex.

Ball Diamonds

There are 25 existing ball diamonds located in County Parks, including 9 lit and 8

unlit senior ball diamonds, 4 junior ball diamonds and 4 other/practice or informal

ball diamonds and an additional 5 informal ball diamonds located at local schools;

The Green Lane Sports Complex is the primary multi-facility ball diamond complex,

with 4 ball diamonds available for league play and tournaments, and in addition

there are 2 ball diamonds located at the Arena Park at the South Dumfries

Community Centre, and 2 ball diamonds at the Burford Optimist & Lions Park;

Two expanded ball diamonds are planned at Paris Lion’s Park / Pete Lavoie Ball

Park, replacing two existing diamonds in that location;

The balance of the ball diamonds are in single-facility locations in other parks

across the County, except for 2 junior ball diamonds located together at the

Oakland Community Centre Park;

15 ball diamonds are scheduled/booked and actively programmed for softball,

hardball, slo-pitch and T-ball;

From 2012 to 2016 these 15 ball diamonds supported an average of 3,200 hours

per season of programs and other scheduled usage reflecting 35% of available

capacity;

The highest usage occurred at senior lit and senior unlit diamonds at 30% to 38% of

available capacity, and junior diamonds have been used less over the past 5 years

at 8% to 28% of available capacity;

The Green Lane, SDCC and Burford A and B diamonds are used the most, in the

range of 30% to 75% of available capacity from 2012 to 2016;

Two Rivers, Victoria Park, King William Park, Mt. Pleasant and Harrisburg ball

diamonds are used the least, in the range of 3% to 21% of available capacity over

the same period;

Glen Morris Ball Diamond is no longer available and has been converted to a

basketball / multi-use playing court;

There was no scheduled/program-based usage reported for Onondaga Ball Park

and New Durham Ball Park for the years 2012 to 2016, or for the ball diamond at

Scotland Optimist Park, as the use of these facilities is limited and not scheduled;

The Oakland Community Centre ball diamond was scheduled for 18 hours of use in

2015, but no other scheduled usage data is reported for this ball diamond;

The ball field at Janice Hunt Memorial Park in Burford is an informal grass field with

backstop and is not scheduled for ball programming.



In Paris, Twin Rivers Soccer utilizes the WIFO soccer fields located on a private property

on Woodslee Avenue in the industrial park. The WIFO soccer park includes 2 senior

pitches and 2 mini pitches, with additional field space available on the side of the property.

The County’s 2000 Parks and Recreation Master Plan recommended the addition of 5 new

full-size soccer pitches with consideration to lighting of the pitches at Green Lane Sports

Complex, in addition to maintaining the 5 full size pitches in the inventory at that time. The

potential conversion of certain ball diamonds to soccer pitches and re-configuring Forest

Drive Park junior pitch to one or more mini pitches were also recommended as options to

address the deficiency. As noted earlier, currently there are 9 senior pitches available in

County parks and an additional 4 senior pitches at local schools.

The 2000 Master Plan also recommended adding 7 additional mini pitches for a total of 15

in the County. Currently there are 8 mini pitches in County parks and an additional 15 mini

pitches at local schools.

The soccer pitch recommendations of the 2000 Master Plan were based on current and

projected participation growth in soccer at that time, and the 2000 Background Report

estimated that there would be 1,358 registered soccer participants in programs that require

senior soccer pitches by the year 2016, and 755 participants in soccer programs that

require mini pitches.

Soccer participant data for 2016 is based on consultation with soccer program providers

and available information from these groups, and is summarized in Table 3-10.

Table 3-10: Participation in Soccer Programs

League / Organization Number of

Participants

2016

Twin Rivers Soccer (approx. 750 players using senior fields)

Paris Soccer Club (age 2 to 21) 600 to 800

Burford Soccer Club 400 to 600

Paris FC (U4 to U18 and senior men’s and women’s) 500

St. George Soccer Club, ages 4 to 10, U12 and U14 boys and U12 girls

400

Brant/Brantford Over 35 Soccer (Outdoor) 160

Soccer Tots and Soccer Basics Programs* 140

TOTAL 2,200 to 2,600

*County operated programs – 140 participants is the average annual participation over the past 4 years (2013-2016)



With the current inventory of 8 senior pitches (excluding Charlton Park field), 2 junior

pitches (excluding 2 junior pitches that are not actively programmed/scheduled for formal

use) and 8 mini (half) pitches, the current provision level of County soccer pitches is 1 full-

size equivalent soccer pitch for each 163 to 193 registered participants. Including the

existing school soccer pitches that are available for community use (3 senior pitches, 2

junior pitches, 8 mini pitches), the current provision level is 1 full-size equivalent soccer

pitch per 100 to 118 registered participants. This is below average participant-based

provision level standards in Ontario municipalities, which are typically between 60 and 100

participants per full-size equivalent soccer pitch; however, field booking data indicates

some capacity exists for additional scheduled usage of available outdoor soccer pitches.

Facility booking data provided by the Grand Erie District School Board indicates that

outdoor sports fields at Brant County schools were booked for a total of 6,574 hours of

community use involving 75,120 participant visits from September 27, 2015 to September

27, 2016 (2 soccer seasons). This would indicate that, in addition to the 3,892 hours of

scheduled soccer programming at County parks in the 2016 season, an annual average of

3,300 hours of scheduled outdoor sports field use occurred at school fields in the County,

or approximately 470 hours per outdoor sports field available for community use. This data

indicates that school sports fields are fully booked for community use based on the

maximum expected hours that sports fields can sustain in one playing season.

For ball programs, the 2000 Master Plan indicated that there were 2,157 registered softball

participants in the County at that time. Current participant data, available from the 2016

season, is summarized in Table 3-11.

From this data there are 2,377 registered ball participants in the County, a 10% increase in

the overall participation rate since 2000. While the Paris Youth Softball Association has

reported a 30% increase in participation over the past two years, the overall participation

rate has decreased from 325 participants as indicated in the 2000 Master Plan to 290

participants in 2016.

Continued interest and participation in ball programs is stable in Paris, St. George and

Buford. During consultation with user groups who participated in the Master Plan process it

was noted that some groups have consolidated primarily as a result of insufficient

participant numbers in some of the smaller communities that were able to sustain

independent associations in the past.

On the basis of 2,377 registered ball participants, the current supply of 24.5 senior ball

diamond equivalents (counting lit facilities as 1.5 ball diamond equivalents) is 1 ball

diamond per 97 participants, which is in the lower end of the provision levels for Ontario

municipalities which generally range from 75 to 100 participants per ball diamond. Further,

the distribution of the ball diamonds encompasses a broad geographic area and as such



some of the existing inventory is not located where demand is growing. This is evident from

the usage data as summarized in Table 3-9, which shows that the usage of ball diamonds

located in the larger population centres has increased while the ball diamonds in smaller

communities has remained low or in some cases there is no scheduled program use of

certain ball diamonds reported. In addition, there is some ball diamond usage generated

from outside of the County such as t hrough programs based in the City of Brantford, while

some County residents also participate in ball programs and use facilities located in the

City.

Table 3-11: Participation in Ball Programs


Participants

2016

Paris Youth Softball Association 290

Paris T-Ball 103

Paris Ladies 3 Pitch League 56

Paris Co-ed Recreational Softball 200

Brant Christian Slo-Pitch League 270

St. George Co-ed Slo-Pitch League 160

St. George Ladies Rec Slo-Pitch League 102

St. George Men’s Slo-Pitch League 90

St. George Minor Ball 180

St. George Old Masters Slo-Pitch 75

St. George Old Times Fastball 17

Burford Youth Baseball 120

Burford Co-ed Slo-Pitch League 200

Burford Men’s League Baseball 150

Brant County Co-ed Slo-Pitch League 188

Mount Pleasant T-Ball 125

Oakland Baseball 51

TOTAL 2,377

In summary, from the sports field needs assessment there is a clear, immediate need for

additional soccer/multi-use sports field capacity particularly mini pitches (and/or senior

pitches with cross-field mini field configurations) in the St. George area. Planned

replacement and upgrading of the existing ball diamonds at Paris Lions Park will assist in

meeting growing participation in youth softball in Paris.



Strategies to address the needs for additional sports field capacity should continue to focus

on opportunities to improve existing facilities, lighting existing sports fields and a review of

scheduling should be undertaken prior to consideration of adding new sports fields in new

locations.

The Recreation Master Plan should also provide policies and strategies to guide periodic

reviews of scheduling and participation, and consultation with user groups to monitor facility

performance and capacity and to assist in identifying future needs.

3.4 Playgrounds

Currently there are 25 playground locations within the

County’s parks, including 9 playgrounds in Paris, 3 in

St. George, 3 in Burford, 3 in Oakhill, 2 in Harrisburg,

and 1 in each of Mount Pleasant, Glen Morris,

Oakland, Scotland, Harley and Onondaga. The local

elementary schools provide additional playground

locations with approximately 10 play structures

available primarily through the summer months and

with some community access during the school year

(typically limited to after-school hours). The existing playground locations in the County are

shown on Maps 1a to 1d.

Service levels for playgrounds are typically assessed on a geographic basis with the

objective of providing convenient access within residential neighbourhoods and individual

communities. These facilities should be within a “walkable” distance of the majority of

households in the community so children can access basic outdoor recreational amenities

without travelling long distances or encountering major barriers such as high-traffic

roadways.

Typical provision level targets/standards range from 400m to 800m walking distance (5-10

minutes walking) to playgrounds from all or the majority of residences within settlement

areas. A GIS-based walking route analysis of the existing playground locations has been

completed for Paris, St. George and Burford to determine gaps and overlaps in the

distribution of existing playground locations. The results of the analysis are illustrated on

Map 3.

Based on a review of the current playground locations including those located at schools

and the existing park playgrounds, the majority of households in Paris, St. George and

Burford are within 400m to 800m of one or more existing playgrounds, with some

overlapping service areas.



The following gap areas are identified:

The existing residential area between Washington Street and Chapel Street south

of Dundas Street West in Paris – as noted in section 3.2, there may be an

opportunity to establish a new neighbourhood park or parkette with a playground, if

it is determined that there is a demand within the neighbourhood based on

demographic characteristics and through community consultation;

Race Street / Gilston Parkway / Hillside Avenue / Mile Hill Road area in Paris where

the local neighbourhood park (Gilston Park) does not include a playground;

Cedar Street west of Rest Acres Road and Laurie Ann Lane area is beyond an

800m walking distance to Cobblestone Elementary School and Grandville Park –

this gap could potentially be resolved through a walkway connection or a small

neighbourhood park or parkette in the area closer to Rest Acres Road;

Minshall Drive / Meadow Lane / Broadview Drive / Cedar Lane / Weir Street

residential area in Burford does not have access to a playground at the local

neighbourhood park (Broadview Park); however, a playground may not be

warranted in this area due to the low density of development, large lot sizes and

limited number of homes.

Recommendations for additional playground development on dedicated parklands acquired

in new development areas should be identified in the Recreation Master Plan. As

summarized in section 2.7 of this report, there will be opportunities for new play equipment

on new parklands dedicated to the County through current, planned and potential future

development.

Addressing current standards for safety and accessibility of play structures are dominant

considerations in the design and development of new playgrounds and should also guide

ongoing renewal/replacement of existing structures. Section 7 of this report provides

additional trends and strategies for consideration in relation to playground design and

development. The need for playground equipment repair and replacements should be

monitored on an ongoing basis in consideration of the results of regular inspections,

condition, repair requirements, safety standards, level of usage, accessibility and other

factors. The County’s Asset Management Plan should be updated to include playgrounds

and other park facilities with identified age and replacement values to facilitate planning for

capital maintenance and lifecycle replacement.



3.5 Aquatic Facilities

The Paris Community Pool is an outdoor pool

located at Lions Park in Paris. The pool was

opened in 2012 following the closure of the old

Paris community pool in 2008. The new pool

includes four 25-metre swimming lanes, walk-

in entry, tots’ play area, diving board and slide,

has capacity for up to 240 swimmers, and also

has a new changeroom/washroom and

lifeguard/staff building.

Table 3-12 summarizes booking data

reflecting the hours of programmed usage of

the pool for each of the 2012 to 2016 summer

seasons. Based on this data, bookings of the

pool for programming ranged from 894 hours in the 2012 summer season to 1,430 hours in

the summer of 2014. As an outdoor facility, availability of the pool for scheduled programs

and activities varies each season and is dependent on weather conditions. The pool office

is open from 8am to 7pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 5pm on Saturday and Sunday. In

2016, the pre-season pool schedule ran from May 30th to July 3rd, and the regular season

pool schedule ran from July 4th to September 2nd.

Table 3-12: Five-Year Annual Usage Summary for Paris Community Pool

Location Hours Booked / No. of Participants

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Total hours booked for aquatic programs* 894 1367.5 1430 1179.5 1151

Total participants for aquatic programs - 15,297 16,215 17,591 19,282

*Hourly booking data includes swimming lessons, LLS, Red Cross, and pool rentals, but excludes other scheduled activities including public swim (17 hrs/week in pre-season and 24 hrs/ week in regular season), aquafit (4 hrs/week), aqua zumba (2 hrs/week), lane swims (10 hrs/week in pre-season and 12 hrs/week in regular season) and senior swims (1 hr/week in pre-season and 2 hrs/week in regular season)

The pool supports a range of aquatic programs provide directly by the County, including

swimming lessons (semi-private and private, individual and group lessons), Lifesaving

Society (LLS) programs, Red Cross Learn to Swim Programs, aquafit, lane swims as well

as family and public swim times and private rentals. For the 2013 to 2016 seasons, the total

number of registered participants in aquatic programs, excluding aquafit, lane swims, family

and public swims and private rentals, was 68,385 people.



In addition to the outdoor pool in Paris, there

are three splash pads in the County’s parks

including the Paris Splashpad (built in 2005)

adjacent to the pool, the Sunny Hill Park

Splashpad (new in 2016) in St. George, and

the Burford Optimist & Lions Park Splashpad

(added in 2007). The distribution of these

three splash pad locations among the three

largest settlement areas provides good

geographic access to residents.

Outdoor swimming during the summer is also available at local GRCA Parks, including

Brant Park (outdoor pool) and Pinehurst Park (beach / lake), as well as Woodman Park

(outdoor pool) in Brantford.

There are no public indoor pools in Brant County. In larger urban centres, provision levels

for indoor pools range from 1 facility per 25,000 residents to over 50,000 residents. Most

areas of the County including the largest population centres are within a 20-minute driving

time to the Wayne Gretzky Sports Centre indoor pools and/or the new YMCA pool (under

construction) in the City of Brantford, and some areas are within a similar driving time to

indoor pools in Cambridge, Hamilton and Woodstock. The City of Cambridge is planning for

a $63.5 million city-wide recreation multi-plex including an indoor pool with a 25m

competition pool, warm water therapy pool and leisure/learning pool for construction in

2020 (projected opening in 2021), and a separate recreational complex in south-east Galt

planned for 2017/2018 which may also include an indoor aquatics component.4

The County’s 2000 Parks and Recreation Master Plan recommended that a financial

feasibility study should be undertaken prior to initiating an indoor pool venture, and to

consider an indoor aquatics component as part of the planning for the Brant Sports

Complex. Through the planning for the Brant Sports Complex the County determined not to

include an indoor aquatics component to the arena facility.

In 2009, the County completed an Aquatic Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study, and

the findings of the study are summarized in section 5.18 of this report. While the study

recommended that the County should pursue an indoor aquatic facility within the next 5

years (to the year 2014), it acknowledged that the feasibility of building an indoor pool

facility in the short-term would depend on access to potential grant funding for up to two-

thirds of the capital cost. Ultimately, the construction of an indoor pool did not materialize

from the 2009 Aquatic Needs Assessment, and the replacement of the Paris Community

Pool with a new outdoor facility has since been completed.

4 Source: City of Cambridge website, www.cambridge.ca, 2016.

http://www.cambridge.ca/



As the County population is dispersed across a broad geographic area, the closest indoor

aquatic facilities for many County residents is and will continue to be at facilities located in

the City of Brantford and potentially in other adjoining municipalities, no matter where a

new indoor pool might be located in the County in the future. With new indoor aquatic

facilities under construction in Brantford and planned for construction in the next 5 years in

Cambridge, access to these facilities and programs by County residents will continue to

evolve and usage of facilities outside of the County will need to be well understood and

monitored in conjunction with future planning for aquatic facilities in the County. The

potential access to grants and opportunities for partnerships and joint ventures will be

important factors in determining future aquatic facility development.

With local interest in indoor aquatics particularly among seniors who may have more limited

mobility and during winter months, one strategy to consider could involve a regularly

scheduled transportation service to the Wayne Gretzky Centre to access aquatic

programming designed for this target market.

The Recreation Master Plan should provide a framework to guide decision-making

processes in the future related to aquatic and other significant recreation facility

investments and programming. This will assist the County with determining the need and

feasibility for such a facility in the future, within the context of an overall service delivery

strategy, potential alternative/interim solutions to access related programming, other park

and facility projects identified for implementation, a capital and operating plan, and the

financial capacity of the County and potential partners.

3.6 Arenas, Community Centres, Community Halls, and Indoor Turf

The County owns and operates four (4) community

centres including three (3) arenas with four (4) ice

pads: the Brant Sports Complex (2 ice pads) and Syl

Apps Community Centre (former ice pad converted to

indoor turf) in Paris, the South Dumfries Community

Centre (1 ice pad) in St. George and the Burford

Community Centre (1 ice pad).

In addition there are seven (7) community halls owned by the County including Airport

Community Centre (Brant West), Cainsville Community Centre, Mt. Pleasant Community

Centre, Pinegrove & Howell Community Hall, Oakland Community Centre and Onondaga

Community Hall (Brant/Oakland/Onondaga) and Glen Morris Centennial Hall (South

Dumfries).



Arenas

Tables 3-13 to 3-15 summarize the usage data for the inventory of existing arenas.

Table 3-13: Five-Year Annual Ice Usage Summary for Arenas

Location Avail.

Hours*


2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

BSC Davis Pad 4640 3024 2528 3168 2954 3407 62% 64% 64% 67% 69%

BSC Gurney Pad 4524 2712 3297 2962 3310 3062 66% 68% 68% 67% 70%

BCC Arena 3244 1698 1668 1796 1888 1994 33% 75% 78% 59% 60%

SDCC Arena 2760 2318 2202 2116 2203 2214 56% 94% 85% 91% 92%

Totals 15168 9752 9695 10042 10354 10677 53% 72% 71% 69% 71%

*Average available hours for 2012 to 2016; annual % usage is calculated based on actual available hours in each year.

Table 3-14: Fall/Winter Prime Time Ice Usage Summary for Arenas

Location Avail.

Hours*


2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015

BSC – Davis Pad 1772 1406 1709 1499 86% 87% 88%

BSC – Gurney Pad 1642 1435 1752 1507 95% 94% 97%

BCC Arena 1651 1332 1475 1368 85% 83% 85%

SDCC Arena 1709 1481 1661 1480 92% 87% 92%

Totals 6773 5653 6597 5853 89% 88% 91%

*Average available hours for 2012/2013 to 2014/2015 Fall/Winter seasons; annual % usage is calculated based on actual available prime hours in each Fall/Winter season.

Table 3-15: Spring/Summer Prime Time Ice and Floor Usage Summary for Arenas

Location Avail.

Hours*


2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015

BSC – Davis Pad 695 434.5 583 480 72% 69% 76%

BSC – Gurney Pad 854 741.5 488 693 75% 69% 81%

BCC Arena – Floor 530 167.5 235.5 193 19% 72% 49%

SDCC Arena – Floor 821 91.5 16 78 10% 7% 6%

Totals – Ice 1549 1176 1071 1173 74% 69% 79%

Totals – Floor 1351 259 252 271 14% 44% 16%

*Average available hours for 2013 to 2015 Spring/Summer seasons; annual % usage is calculated based on actual available prime hours in each Spring/Summer season.

The following observations are made from the five-year arena usage data:



Total ice usage at the 4 ice pads has increased by 9% from 2012 to 2016 with some

annual fluctuations at specific ice pads;

The highest percent usage of available ice hours occurred at the South Dumfries

Community Centre arena in St. George, recognizing that the Brant Sports Complex

usage is based on greater total hours of availability with the provision of summer ice

at that facility;

The total annual hours of ice usage at Burford Community Centre Arena has

increased by nearly 300 hours from 2012 to 2016, but available ice hours have also

increased as reported in the booking data, resulting in a lower percent utilization of

total ice hours for the years 2015 and 2016 as compared with previous years;

Overall, ice usage has remained stable as a percent of available hours at all four ice

pads;

During the peak ice season (Fall/Winter), prime time ice usage reflects over 80% of

available prime time hours consistently at all ice pads over the 2012/2013,

2013/2014 and 2014/2015 seasons, and virtually all of the available prime time ice

hours (94% to 97%) were fully booked at the Brant Sports Complex – Gurney Ice

Pad;

During the off-season (Spring/Summer), prime time ice usage remained relatively

high, ranging from 69% to 79% of available prime time hours for the total ice

availability at both of the BSC ice pads (note: these are the only two ice surfaces

available through spring and summer);

Off-season bookings of the arena floor for indoor lacrosse, ball hockey, roller

skating and special events were in the 250 to 275 hours range total for the off-

season, with the most floor usage occurring at the Burford Community Centre and

less use of the arena floor at South Dumfries Community Centre.

A review of the weekly scheduled ice time for the 2016-2017 Fall/Winter season indicates

the following:

Prime time hours at both ice pads at the Brant Sports Complex and the South

Dumfries Community Centre Arena are fully booked with no hours available, and

only 6 hours per week (or 4%) or prime time ice hours remain available;

Some non-prime ice hours are available during the daytime hours on weekdays,

including up to 43 hours at the Brant Sports Complex, 24.5 hours at the South

Dumfries Arena and 34 hours at the Burford Arena;



On average, 10% to 15% of ice time is reserved for required maintenance, generally

in off-peak / non-prime hours;

Total weekly bookings for scheduled ice sports, programs and activities including

public skating is 73% of available ice time at the Brant Sports Complex (Davis Pad)

and 63% for the Gurney Pad, 69% at SDCC and 57% at Burford Arena.

Typical provision levels for arenas in Ontario municipalities range from 1 ice pad per 10,000

residents to 1 per 20,000 residents. The current supply of 4 ice pads is equivalent to 1 ice

pad per 9,177 people in the County for the year 2016. The County remains above the

higher end of the range for indoor ice provision levels among Ontario municipalities, and ice

usage has remained strong. Assuming all of the existing ice pads are maintained and no

new ice pads are added over the next 25 years, the future provision level would be 1 ice

pad per 14,250 people, which is still a strong provision level for arenas.

Current and future needs for ice time cannot be measured just by total population and is

driven by actual participation in related arena programs, and based on the above analysis

the current available ice time is well used during prime hours. Based on the current ice

usage, arena scheduling information and consultation with user groups, there is very little

capacity remaining currently to accommodate additional prime time ice usage during the

peak ice season, and there are some demands for more prime time hours.

The County’s 2000 Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified a total of 3,218 registered

participants in indoor ice sports and programs at that time, or 1 ice pad per 1,070

participants based on the 3 ice pads available in the County at that time, and projected that

participation would grow to over 3,500 ice users in 2016. The 2000 Master Plan

recommended a target provision level standard of 1 ice pad per 700 participants and

projected that total ice needs would reach 5 ice pads total in 2016.

From available information and consultation with user groups, the current number of

registered participants in indoor ice sports and programs is summarized in Table 3-16.

Table 3-16: Participation in Indoor Ice Sports and Programs


Participants

2016

Paris Minor Hockey 332

Paris Ringette Association 175

Paris Figure Skating Club 110

Paris Mounties 21




Participants

2016

Paris Industrial Hockey League 65

Paris Rec Ice Hockey 68

Burford Minor Hockey 240

Burford Bulldogs 25

Burford Figure Skating Club 40

Burford Old Rockers Hockey 25

St. George Minor Hockey Association 164

South Dumfries Figure Skating Club 137

St. George Ravens 24-30

Brant County Recreational Hockey 31

Brant County Learn To Skate 32

Other Arena Programs and Scheduled Ice Users 1,600*

TOTAL 3,095

*Estimated based on ice scheduling/booking data

Based on the above, the total estimated number of registered participants in ice sports and

programs is 3,095 participants, reflecting a current provision level of one ice pad per 774

participants. Ontario municipal participant-based provision level standards for arenas range

from 600 to 900 participants per ice pad, so the current supply is well within the expected

range, although it is slightly below the 2000 Master Plan recommended target of 1 per 700

participants.

Unless evidence emerges of a strong and sustained increase in participation in indoor ice

sports and programs over the next 5 to 10 years, it is not anticipated that additional ice

pads will be needed over this timeframe, provided that the existing arenas can continue to

sustain relatively high levels of usage particularly during prime time in consideration of the

age, condition and capital maintenance requirements at these facilities. Burford Minor

Hockey has indicated some recent growth with 240 participants registered in 2016, up from

210 to 220 in recent years, but down from the Association’s earlier peak of 350 participants.

The County should collect and monitor participant data from registered ice users and

should continue to monitor ice usage and seek opportunities to further optimize scheduling

in consultation with user groups. The consultation with ice users also identified some

functional issues with the Brant Sports Complex arena, specifically for Paris Mounties

hockey, as summarized section 6.2.2 of this report.



Community Centres

Table 3-17 on the following page summarizes the usage of available rooms and other

spaces at community centres and community halls for the years 2012 to 2016. The

following observations are made from a review of this data:

Overall, scheduled bookings of available rooms and other indoor spaces for

recreational use was relatively low in relation to available capacity, with the highest

usage recorded at Airport Community Hall at 36% of available hours in 2016;

Hourly bookings of the Airport Community Hall have more than doubled from 2013

to 2015, likely a function of this facility’s close proximity to the City of Brantford

population;

Usage of the conference room, meeting rooms, lower lobby and banquet hall at the

Brant Sports Complex has steadily increased over the past 5 years, from a total of

2,700 hours in 2012 to over 4,000 hours in 2016;

Usage of the Burford Community Centre and South Dumfries Community Centre

rooms and halls has also increased from 2012 to 2016, by over 50% at the BCC

and over 25% at the SDCC, although usage was still relatively low at the BCC;

Usage of the Syl Apps Commemorative Hall, lobby and lobby meeting room has

increased by nearly 500 additional hours over the past four years, reaching a total

of over 3,000 hours of use in each of 2015 and 2016;

There is very little usage data recorded or available for the Mt. Pleasant Community

Centre and Oakland Community Centre, and no usage data is reported for the

Cainsville Community Centre, Pinegrove & Howell Community Hall and Glen Morris

Centennial Hall;

The Onondaga on the Grand community hall was booked for 24 hours of use in

2015 and 149 hours in 2016 (this data is not reported in Table 3-12);

St. George Memorial hall is no longer owned by the County.



Table 3-17: Five-Year Annual Usage Summary for Community Rooms and Halls

Location Avail.

Hours*


2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Airport Community Hall

3805 - 499.5 624 1101.5 1414.5 - 13% 16% 29% 36%

BSC Banquet Hall 5734 1071 964.2 1270.5 1513 1877.5 19% 17% 22% 26% 33%

BSC Conference Room

5654 302 478 558 770.5 706.5 5% 8% 10% 14% 13%

BSC Dumfries Meeting Room

5664 615.5 348.5 675.5 792.5 811 11% 6% 12% 14% 15%

BSC Lower Lobby 6110 106 56 135.5 292.5 100.5 2% 1% 2% 5% 2%

BSC Punter Meeting Room

5416 607 394.5 512 726.5 511.5 11% 7% 10% 13% 10%

BCC Banquet Hall 5318 661.5 736 657 797.5 854 12% 13% 14% 17% 15%

BCC Community Room

5095 358.25 239 396 629.5 683.5 6% 4% 9% 14% 12%

BCC Lobby 5692 - - - 8 27.5 - - - 0% 0%

BCC Upper Meeting Room

3137 0 0 - 0 0 0% 0% - 0% 0%

Mt. Pleasant CC Community Room

4374 - 36 - - 1.5 - 1% - - 0%

Oakland CC Community Room

4380 30 35 21 4 14 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%

SDCC Community Room

3986 814.25 692.5 776.3 1054.5 1024.5 21% 17% 19% 30% 24%

SDCC Banquet Hall

5729 958.5 1064 1118.5 1178 1217.5 19% 18% 19% 21% 19%

St. George Memorial Hall

5709 275 263 - - - 5% 5% - - -

St. George Memorial Hall - Lower

5832 875.5 181.5 - - - 15% 3% - - -

St. George Memorial Hall - Upper

5852 1094 175.5 - - - 19% 3% - - -

Syl Apps Commemorative Hall

6017 1485 1401 1484.5 1751.5 1842.5 25% 25% 24% 29% 30%

Syl Apps Lobby Meeting Room

4724 2333 2268 450 469.5 370 41% 40% 14% 14% 6%

Syl Apps Lobby 5546 238 312.5 625 781 822 4% 6% 11% 14% 14%


The Pinegrove & Howell Community Centre is operated by a volunteer group and, in

addition to providing space for community events, is available to be rented for a range of

functions. According to the group’s Facebook page, the hall has capacity for up to 98

persons and includes a recently renovated kitchen as well as parking and washroom

facilities, tables and chairs are available, and there is a fenced yard with space for soccer,

softball and other outdoor activities. The building dates back to the mid to late 1800’s.



The Onondaga on the Grand community hall, built in 1847, is

located along the Grand River and is operated by a local

volunteer committee. The hall is used for a range of community

events and is also available for rent for private functions, with

capacity for 65 to 80 persons and a new kitchen as well as tables

and chairs available.

Harley Hall in Burford is used for a museum and is now known as

the Burford Township Museum and Archives, which is operated

by the Burford Township Historical Society. The hall/museum

also provides space for special events in the community.

In total, the community halls in the County comprise over 25,000 square feet of indoor floor

area for community use, and have an estimated total asset value of approximately $4.3

million.5 An overview of financial information regarding the community hall operations is

provided in section 4.3 of this report.

Indoor Turf

Located in downtown Paris, the Syl Apps Community Centre is a major community hub with

a range of multi-use indoor and outdoor facilities and programs available, and is a highly

successful example of an arena to indoor turf

conversion that is a centre of recreational,

community and tourism activity. With these

multiple functions, the centre supports high

levels of concurrent activities and programs

and high volumes of registered participants

and general public/visitors using both the

indoor and outdoor facilities.

In addition to indoor turf sports programming, the facility also supports a number of

children’s camps, family “gym” time on the turf, skateboard workshops, High Five children’s

program, dodgeball, yoga, seniors programs, fitness and wellness programs, recreational

walking, fly fishing lessons, golf/indoor driving range, RC flyers and private rentals. The

Brant Youth Centre is located in the upstairs hall and capacity and programming is

constrained by the available space. A need for additional space has been identified for the

Youth Centre.

Table 3-18 summarizes the usage of the indoor turf at Syl Apps Community Centre for the

years 2012 to 2016.

5 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., County of Brant Development Charge Background Study, 2014.



Table 3-18: Five-Year Annual Usage Summary for Indoor Turf

Location Avail.

Hours*


2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Syl Apps Indoor Turf

5846 1553 2239 2322 2114 2061 25% 40% 38% 36% 38%


The usage of the indoor turf has increased from 2012 to 2016 and has remained relatively

stable over the past three years at between 36% and 38% of available capacity. Through

the consultation program, indoor field users indicated that the primary constraints to

additional scheduled usage of the indoor turf relate to competing interests for prime time

hours (weekday evenings and weekends) and that the size of the field is smaller than

Ontario Soccer Association standards for older age groups. Soccer groups expressed an

overall need for more/larger indoor turf capacity in the Brant/Brantford area, as there are

currently no existing public/municipal facilities in the region that offer full size multi-use

indoor turf. There is one private indoor turf facility in Brantford - the Brantford Sports

Xcelarator Centre – which includes an indoor soccer/multi-use artificial turf field, indoor

beach volleyball and multi-purpose/basketball courts.

With the growth in soccer participation there are growing interests and participation in

indoor soccer, both in Brant and Brantford, and in addition there is a general growth trend

in a range of indoor sports field / turf activities observed in many Ontario municipalities.

Provision levels for indoor turf facilities vary widely across the province, from one indoor turf

field per 35,000 residents (such as Brant County with the current indoor turf facility) to 1 per

150,000+ residents. This wide variability is due to a range of factors, such as the location of

the municipality relative to other larger or smaller population centres and availability of

facilities in adjoining or nearby communities, demographics and local participation rates,

cultural influences and forecast future growth. In many Ontario communities, the municipal

provision of indoor turf facilities is a relatively new consideration in comparison with

historically established recreational facilities such as arenas and outdoor sports fields.

From this high level review undertaken in support of the Master Plan development, and

given the existing supply of one indoor turf field at Syl Apps, there is not sufficient evidence

of demand and viability to recommend a full-size seasonally covered artificial turf or year-

round indoor turf facility at this time. If the development of such a facility is entertained in

the future, it is recommended that this should be explored firstly on the basis of a regional

facility on a partnership basis, and the Master Plan should provide some overall direction in

this regard. Usage of the existing indoor turf at Syl Apps should continue to be monitored

and participant data should be collected and monitored specific to indoor turf sports

programs and other activities to support potential future feasibility analysis.



Through the Master Plan development and implementation, the County should develop and

consider potential strategies to maximize the usage and programming of the arenas,

community centres, community halls and indoor turf to maintain capacity for a diversified

and balanced array of activities, including the available ice time, off-season use of the

arena floor pads, and increased use of the community halls, meeting/multi-purpose rooms

and indoor turf.

3.7 Gymnasiums

Public access to gymnasium space is through the community use of schools and Joint Use

Facilities Agreements with the Grand Erie District School Board and the Brant Haldimand

Norfolk Catholic District School Board, as there

are currently no County-owned facilities that

provide this type of space.

Table 3-19 summarizes the usage of school

gymnasiums as booked by the County for

recreational programs delivered directly by the

County in the past five years (to November 2016).

Table 3-19: Five-Year Annual Gymnasium Usage Summary

School Gymnasium Hours Booked for County Programs

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Burford District Elementary1 558 567.33 546 528 552

Cobblestone Elementary1 91 30 185.33 482.5 623.33

Glen Morris School1 603.75 585 595 581.75 606.75

Mt. Pleasant Elementary1 601.5 603.17 578 563.5 589.33

North Ward Public School1 56 98.4 31.67 8 0

Paris Central School1 330 316 - 190 702

Paris District High School1 337 323 277.5 310.17 573.5

Sacred Heart School2 560.6 425.5 477.25 434.5 367.5

Totals 3138 2948 2691 3098 4014

1Grand Erie District School Board schools. 2Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board school.

Note: other schools in Brant County are not used/available for community use.

The data reflects high levels of usage of available school gym times for community

programs at 5 school gyms in Paris, and a school gym in each of Burford, Glen Morris and

Mt. Pleasant. There was a significant increase in community use of school gymnasiums in

2016, nearly a 25% increase in the usage recorded in the previous year.



Consultation with a representative of the Grand Erie District School Board confirmed that

the available community use hours at school gyms are heavily used through County

programming and other community use activities. The School Board also provided their

booking data for community use of schools in Brant County for the period of September

2015 to September 2016, which is summarized as follows:

Of 137 permits requested, 133 permits were issued by the Board for single and

double gymnasium use accommodating 10,624 hours of community use and close

to 120,000 participant visits (10,000 visits per month or approximately 2,500 per

week);

Other indoor school facilities that were permitted for community use include 89

permits issued for the use of classrooms (45 permits), school libraries (26 permits),

cafeteria (11 permits), and a small number of permits issued for multi-purpose

rooms, changerooms and hallways. Through these 89 permits, the schools

accommodated an additional 2,768 hours of community use generating nearly

70,000 participant visits;

By age group, the majority of the hours booked for community use of schools was

for children ages 0 to 6 years (34%) and ages 7 to 12 years (42%) and teens ages

13 to 18 years (11%), with the remaining hours booked for young adults ages 19 to

24 years (3%), adults ages 25-64 (5%) and seniors age 65+ years (1%).

The County utilizes the schools to deliver recreation-oriented after school programs and a

range of children’s camps, gymnastics, badminton, family gym time, fitness and wellness

programs, creative arts, ball hockey, dodgeball, music, and other activities. Based on

consultation with the program delivery staff, some of the challenges with using the school

gyms to deliver these programs include:

Capacity and availability are constrained to after school / evening hours and

weekends;

Advance scheduling and staffing requirements for access and to arrange for school

custodial services;

Multiple facility locations and lack of storage for the wide range of equipment used

requires constant relocation/transit of the equipment and limits the size and type of

equipment that can be used, thereby limiting the programs;

Lack of available daytime space for seniors programs.



The County completed a recreation programs survey which provides some additional

insights into community needs and preferences for access to various types of recreational

programs both at community centres and local schools. The results of the survey are

summarized in Appendix B.

To continue to increase the capacity, variety and quality of recreational programs to better

serve the community, from a programming perspective there is interest in developing a

municipal gymnasium.

Municipal provision standards for public gymnasium space vary across the province. Many

communities with populations in the range of 50,000 to 100,000 already have one or more

municipal gymnasium facilities, and some smaller communities such as Strathroy-Caradoc

(2016 population 20,867) constructed a municipal gymnasium within the past 10 years.

With the County’s population projected to reach 57,000 in the year 2041, provision of a

municipal gymnasium or other community gymnasium space should be considered in

addition to the continued community use of school gyms. At over 4,000 hours in the first 10

months of 2016, the current volume of community use of school gymnasiums for County

recreation programs would support full utilization of the total hours of availability that could

be provided on an annual basis at a dedicated community gymnasium space. The more

than 10,000 hours of community use of single and double gymnasiums at local schools in

the County is further evidence of the strong demands that could fully occupy the annual

hours that could be made available at a double gymnasium space, in conjunction with the

continued community use of schools.

It is recognized that a significant component of the current school gymnasium use for

County programs reflects after-school programs that require a location within or near the

schools. Further, continued use of school gyms will be needed to provide geographic

access in each of the settlement areas and throughout the County. A community gym

would not replace the community use of school gyms, but rather would provide more

capacity with expanded availability, particularly during school hours, to add to the range of

programs that could be offered to the community, accommodating additional segments of

the population and in particular the growing population of older adults and seniors.

Consideration of community gymnasium space should also be considered on the basis of

potential future partnership opportunities with other service and program providers. The

Master Plan should provide direction for further review and future consideration of a

community-based gymnasium space as part of the future indoor recreation facility and

program offering.



3.8 Other Recreation Facilities

Additional active and passive recreation facilities that are available in the County at local

parks and school sites include the following:

Tennis courts at Paris District High School, Burford Optimists and Lions Park, South

Dumfries Community Centre and Mount Pleasant Park;

Paris and St. George lawn bowling greens and clubhouses;

Skateboard parks at Two Rivers Park in Paris, Arena Park in St. George, Burford

Optimist and Lions Park, and Mount Pleasant Park;

Basketball / multi-use playing courts at Axton Park, Forest Drive Park, Optimist Park

and Rest Acres Ridge Park in Paris, Sunny Hill Park in St. George, Burford Optimist

and Lions Park and Poplar Hills Park in Burford, Rising Park in Glen Morris, and

Onondaga Ball Park;

Outdoor ice rinks at Paris Optimist Park, Sunny Hill Park in St. George and Mt.

Pleasant Park;

Beach volleyball courts, disc golf course and leash-free dog park at Green Lane

Sports Complex;

Picnic/park shelters including Art Cadman Shelter and 3 other picnic shelters as

well as a bandshell at Paris Lions Park, Green Lane Picnic Shelter, Burford Optimist

Shelter, Mt. Pleasant Picnic Shelter, and Sunny Hill Park Picnic Shelter.

The Paris Tennis Club, recently established in 2014, offers a variety of programs, lessons

and organized play at the four lit tennis courts available at the Paris District High School.

The group reports that it membership and interest have increased rapidly and that

continued growth and programming will be constrained by the available facilities. The group

has interest in pursuing a larger facility in the future and in both indoor and outdoor tennis

facilities. Recent growth in interest and participation in pickleball is another indicator of

increasing demands for racquet sport facilities. Currently, pickleball programming is

provided by the County using available school gymnasiums, and 2 new outdoor courts are

available at Poplar Hills Park in Oakhill.

There are two lawn bowling clubs in Brant County: the Paris Lawn Bowling Club and the

St. George Lawn Bowling Club. Both the Paris and St. George facilities include lit lawn

bowling greens and a clubhouse. The Paris club has reported strong growth in interest and

participation in the past year. The St. George club has capacity for up to 65 members. The

lawn bowling clubs and facilities have a long history in their communities; the Paris club

was founded in 1884 and St. George club also has a 100+ year history.



The current provision of skateboard parks in the County provides good geographic access

for youth within each of the three largest settlement areas, in centralized locations within

multi-use park and facility settings, and with a location in Mount Pleasant. Consideration

should be given to opportunities to further develop unorganized and extreme sport

recreation opportunities (e.g. BMX, mountain biking) at Destination or Community Park

locations, and/or as part of the trail system. Some neighbourhood park locations may be

appropriate for smaller scale skate features such as rails and ramps that can be

incorporated into park designs to provide some basic amenities and casual opportunities in

more locations without the cost of developing a full-scale skatepark as a fourth venue.

Multi-use pads support a range of outdoor sports and activities including outdoor rinks in

the winter months. Currently, there is a fairly good distribution of outdoor basketball / multi-

use courts in Paris and among several other settlement areas in the County, as noted

previously. Additional basketball nets and hard surface play areas are available at local

schools.

There are currently no outdoor basketball courts

/ multi-use pads at the parks that are in or near

the downtown area of Paris, and a potential

future location should be considered. To

maintain geographic distribution and access in

new development areas, additional multi-use

pads are recommended for consideration in

future neighbourhood parks where sufficient land is available and if there are no existing

facilities to service the area. Future locations to consider for multi-use pads include south-

west Paris (west of Rest Acres Road and south of King Edward Street) and south-east

Paris (area east of Rest Acres Road and north of Powerline Road) North Paris Area (west

of Grand River Street North). Additional multi-use pads should also be considered in future

parks in St. George with the anticipated growth and development in that community. Foxhill

Park / Airport area is another location to consider for a multi-use pad.

Outdoor ice rinks are provided three locations as noted above, and are flooded and

maintained by community volunteers, when winter weather conditions are suitable. The



future of outdoor ice rinks in municipal parks in this part of Ontario is becoming increasingly

uncertain with more unpredictable temperature and weather patterns through the winter

months and from year to year. Many larger urban centres have established outdoor ice

rinks in downtown parks and public squares which also serve as outdoor gathering and

event venues throughout the area and a core area attraction to support the downtown. If an

appropriate site can be identified and becomes available, the County should consider this

type of facility in downtown Paris. If a multi-use pad is developed in the future at Two

Rivers Park, this is a location that could also be considered for an outdoor community ice

rink.

In the summer of 2015, 3 beach volleyball courts were added at Green Lane Sports

Complex as a result of a partnership initiative with the Brant Youth Volleyball Club, the

Ontario Trillium Foundation and the County. Green Lane Sports Complex also features an

18-hole disc golf course which was initiated in 2013-2014 by a local community member

who prepared the design and coordinated the installation and funding of the course. The

Simply Grand Leash-Free Dog Park was added in 2012 as a result of a community

fundraising and partnership initiative and is a membership-based facility. The Master Plan

should provide direction to guide future decision-making with respect to additional

specialized facilities such as these or other interests identified in the future as a result of

both County-led and community-led initiatives.

Outdoor picnic facilities are available in five park locations and are available for community

use and can also be booked hourly for private functions. Bookings of the picnic shelters

and the Paris Lions Park Amphitheatre have increased significantly in the past 3 to 4 years

but still represent a relatively small fraction of available capacity. Use of the picnic shelters

and amphitheater should continue to be monitored to assist in determining future needs.

These and other specialized park facilities and structures should be included in the

County’s asset management planning to identify and address future capital maintenance

and lifecycle costs.

Special events in Brant County play an important role in generating tourism, economic

development and community social activity. A wide range of events are held in various

locations in the County throughout the year, from traditional annual events such as Canada

Day celebrations, annual community Fairs and Santa Claus Parades, to outdoor movies in

the park, farmers markets, bike rallies, trade shows, concerts, special swim days and a

host of other events. The fairgrounds in Paris and Burford are fully booked for several

community events and the County is receiving increasing requests to close parks, roads

and facilities for event functions. A need for flexible indoor and outdoor spaces and

supporting facilities with capacity for a range of special events has been identified.



3.9 River Access and Trails

The Grand River is a significant destination

and tourism attraction in the County for a range

of on-water and riverside trail activities.

County-owned and operated river access

points include Bean Park Landing River

Access, Lions Park River Access, and

Penmans Dam River Access in Paris, and Eric Tomlinson Landing River Access in Glen

Morris. Under the County’s Park Use By-law No. 225-04, the Penman’s Dam and Eric

Tomlinson River Access points are designated commercial river access points, Bean Park

is a designated non-commercial river access point, and Lions Park is a designated special

event river access point. The By-law directs commercial outfitters to the commercial river

access points.

Outfitters provide canoes, kayaks, rafting and related safety gear and offer instruction,

courses, trip planning and guided tours on the Grand River and the Nith River, as well as

summer camps for children. Local community groups such as the Brant Pedalers and

Paddlers also organize and provide opportunities for safe river access and training for

canoeing and kayaking, as well as organized cycling, running, hiking, snow-shoeing and

other activities on trails and on-road routes. Fishing is another popular activity on the rivers.

River access permit data provided by the County for the 4 County-owned river access

points for 2015 and 2016 indicates the following:

In 2015, 479 groups were involved in on-river activities in these locations, including

canoeing, kayaking, rafting, tubing and/or combinations thereof;

In 2016, the number of groups permitted increased to 529;

The groups are categorized as: friends and family groups; business/corporate;

schools; international; camps; tours; special requests; outdoor; sports and other;

Through these groups, 14,245 individuals participated in on-water activities in 2015,

which increased by 37% to 19,489 participants in 2016;

The majority of the groups and participants (over 60% of the total) used Penmans

Dam access point, followed by Eric Tomlinson access point (30-40%) with the

balance using Lions Park access point and to a lesser degree Bean Park access

point;

Use of Bean Park access points was limited given the location and characteristics of

this park and to minimize impacts to the surrounding residential neighbourhood.

With the increasing numbers of participants and visitors in river-based activities there are

greater needs for related facilities with available capacity to support the volumes of people

and vehicle traffic, such as parking, signage, washrooms, change facilities, storage, and



launch points. The recent higher levels of usage of the river access points also increase

operational requirements such as maintenance and by-law enforcement to support the safe

use of the available facilities and ensure compliance with applicable by-laws and

regulations.

The rivers are also a significant recreational resource in the County as corridors that

support the trails system. The County of Brant completed a Trails Master Plan in 2010,

which is summarized in section 5.10 of this report.

The mapping inventory of existing trails has been reviewed as part of the Recreation

Master Plan development. The inventory of existing trails and cycling routes in the County

is illustrated on Map 2 and summarized in Tables 3-20 and Table 3-21.

The Recreation Master Plan should establish a framework for organization of the trails

system to guide the planning, design and development of additional trails and management

of existing and new trails to achieve a more integrated trails and cycling network, both for

recreational and active transportation purposes. The Master Plan should also provide

direction to guide future, more detailed trails planning and implementation and to facilitate

the identification of future trail routes and potential dedication of land for pedestrian and

cycling pathways in new development areas.



Table 3-20: Inventory of Existing Trails

Trail Name/Location Segment # (see Map 2)

Surface Length (km) within Brant

Apps Mill Trail 1 Dirt / cleared path

4.1

Cambridge to Paris Rail Trail (Grand Valley Trail/ Trans Canada Trail)

2 Fine crushed gravel

13.1

Paris to Brantford 3 Watercourse 13.0

Foxhill Heights Park Trail 4 Paved 0.2

Grand Valley Trail 5 Mainly compacted soil

26.3

Green Lane Sports Trail 6 Fine crushed gravel

1.4

Brantford to Hamilton Rail Trail (Trans Canada Trail)

7 Stone dust 7.2

Lake Erie & Northern (LE&N) Rail Trail 8 Stone dust 3.5

Undeveloped L.E. and N. Trail (Mt. Pleasant to Oakland)

9 Dirt / cleared path

6

Lions Park Trail 10 Stone dust 1.8

Lions Way N/A Paved 1.0

Mount Pleasant Nature Park Trail & Fitness Loop

12 Dirt / cleared path

4.1

Nith Trail 13 Paved 0.7

Glen Morris to Paris 14 Watercourse 12.0

Penmans Pass Link 15 Fine crushed gravel

0.4

S.C. Johnson Rail Trail 16

Stone dust, some sections on municipal roadway

4.3

Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Rail (TH&B) Trail (Trans Canada Trail)

17 Fine granular 11.6

Total 110.7



Table 3-21: Inventory of Existing Cycling Routes

Bike Loop Segment # (see Map 2)

Length (km) within Brant

Apps Mill 1 20

Alexander's Retreat 2 22.8

Brantford to Dundurn 3 22.1

Brantford/Six Nations Tour 4 24.5

Four Winds 5 39.3

Paris - Ayr Loop 6 27.3

Paris - St. George Loop 7 22.3

Paris Environs Tour 8 20.8

Paris/Scotland Loop 9 40.5

Pleasant Ridge Tour 10 15.4

River Country 11 132.2

St. George 12 20.1

Stage Road Crossing 13 28.8

The Upper Grand 14 37.7

Top Of The World 15 24.3

Tour Of Brant 16 107.3

Urban Trails 17 33.5

Western Reaches 18 60



4. FINANCIAL & SERVICE DELIVERY REVIEW

4.1 Parks and Recreation Facilities Operating Financial Profile

Table 4-1 and 4-2 provide a profile of the operating financials involving selected service

activities within the Parks and Recreation division of the Operations Department based on

2013 to 2016 actuals. The information has been aggregated around the three functional

areas of Community Relations, Parks and Trails, and Recreation Facilities, along with a

total summary.

Total Parks and Recreation revenues as per Table 4-1 have grown from $2.045 million in

2013 to $2.266 million in 2016. Revenues have grown progressively each year by between

$70,000 from 2013 to 2015. Some of the key revenue perspectives are as follows:

Recreation facilities are the dominant revenue source, generating between 72.5 %

and 75.6 % of total revenues. The largest single source of revenues is from the Brant

Sports Complex that has now reached $815,000 in 2016.

Recreation Facilities is driven primarily in terms of revenue by ice rentals in Burford,

St. George, and for the Brant Sports Complex. Arena and Community Centre

revenues represent over 70% of total revenues for Recreation Facilities.

In the Community Relations area, the dominant revenue source is the After School

program. Over 80% of the revenues come from government grants that support that

program.

Outside of the After School program, the Aquatic and Camp programs reflect revenue

components in the $60,000 range in 2013, moving towards $92,000 for Aquatics in

2016, and almost $115,000 for Camps. The other Community Relations areas have

relatively smaller amounts of revenue, often less than $10,000.

For Parks and Trails, revenues are limited. Paris, South Dumfries and Brant West

Parks are the dominating revenue sources in the $17,000 to $25,000 range.

From a revenue perspective, arena revenues typically in communities under 50,000

population, represent the largest source of revenues which is operating in Brant County.

There is evidence of some increasing revenue from the Parks and the various other park

operations where fees are being assigned. Another important revenue source is from

provincial government ministries for the After School Program. Aquatics and Camps also

reflect a significant amount of the revenues for Community Relations.



Table 4-1: County of Brant Parks and Recreation Financial Operating Profile: Revenues

2013 to 2016 Financial Operating Profile

2013 2014 2015 2016

$ % $ % $ % $ %

Revenues

Co

mm

un

ity

Re

lati

on

s

Administration 1,854 0.4 145 0.0 76 0.0 8,093 1.4

Aquatics 62,859 14.7 61,147 14.3 84,447 18.0 90,956 16.1

Special Events 3,034 0.7 2,013 0.5 6,977 1.5 3,796 0.7

Camps 67,755 15.9 83,142 19.4 58,316 12.4 115,916 20.6

Dance 2,134 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Children's 6,635 1.6 4,149 1.0 4,730 1.0 7,324 1.3

Ice 44,960 10.5 33,916 7.9 46,685 9.9 30,811 5.5

Gymnastics 26,825 6.3 18,786 4.4 38,995 8.3 30,480 5.4

School 0 0.0 1,130 0.3 150 0.0 0 0.0

Pre-School 4,745 1.1 8,272 1.9 7,651 1.6 6,803 1.2

Youth Centre 5,636 1.3 5,678 1.3 4,241 0.9 11,913 2.1

After School 176,584 41.4 188,015 43.9 180,611 38.5 188,848 33.5

Drop-In 6,607 1.5 7,533 1.8 3,844 0.8 2,452 0.4

Seniors 1,518 0.4 1,064 0.2 581 0.1 2,820 0.5

Fitness 15,571 3.6 9,573 2.2 8,883 1.9 21,492 3.8

Financial Assistance Funding 0 0.0 4,096 1.0 17,415 3.7 36,684 6.5

Training 0 0.0 51 0.0 5,741 1.2 5,346 0.9

Total Community Relations 426,717 428,710 469,343 563,734

Pa

rks

& T

rail

s Paris Parks 39,543 51.9 66,112 63.0 48,938 52.3 22,943 34.5

South Dumfries Parks 17,441 22.9 17,444 16.6 20,215 21.6 16,889 25.4

Brant West Parks 15,529 20.4 16,241 15.5 19,917 21.3 25,257 38.0

Brant, Oakland, Onondaga 1,308 1.7 1,651 1.6 0 0.0 455 0.7

Trails 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Landscaping 2,415 3.2 3,420 3.3 4,539 4.8 975 1.5

Total Parks and Trails 75,236 104,868 93,609 66,519

Re

cre

ati

on

Fa

cil

itie

s

Administration 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Burford 273,117 17.7 315,668 19.2 331,095 19.0 325,281 19.9

St. George 297,286 19.3 287,464 17.5 297,274 17.0 294,112 18.0

Syl Apps 185,391 12.0 195,774 11.9 296,048 17.0 180,161 11.0

Brant Sports 773,737 50.2 826,588 50.2 795,397 45.6 815,250 49.8

Lawn Bowling 2,492 0.2 181 0.0 1,330 0.1 1,330 0.1

Community Halls 10,650 0.7 19,888 1.2 23,698 1.4 20,341 1.2

Total Recreation Facilities 1,542,673 1,645,563 1,744,842 1,636,475

2013 2014 2015 2016

Revenues Summary $ % $ % $ % $ %

Community Relations 426,717 20.9 428,710 19.7 469,343 20.3 563,734 24.9

Parks and Trails 76,236 3.7 104,868 4.8 93,609 4.1 66,519 2.9

Recreation Facilities 1,542,673 75.4 1,645,563 75.5 1,744,842 75.6 1,636,475 72.2

Total Revenues 2,045,626 2,179,141 2,307,794 2,367,883



In terms of expenses, Table 4-2 depicts expenses for the selected Parks and Recreation

Services. In 2013, total expenses were approximately $4 million, and have grown in 2016

to $5.131 million. Expenses vary across multiple object lines from year to year based on

weather, the movement of some camps to other program units within different accounting

frameworks, unanticipated capital repair costs, a ministry order of $109,000 for the Burford

Arena Community Centre in 2015,

and other variables. Therefore, it is

important to recognize that there

can be significant fluctuations from

year to year, as well as some

budget growth as standards

improve and requirements grow

Recreation facilities are the

dominant source of expenditures representing annually 60+% of total expenditures. They

have grown from $2.6 million to $3.1 million over the four years. Some other expense

perspectives are as follows:

Community Relations expenses have grown from $823,000 to $1.269 million. The

dominant cost in this category is for administration which now represents 44.4% of

that category’s costs.

Camp costs have increased due to the increased scale associated with that program,

as have aquatic costs which are now in excess of $218,000.

The After School Programs have significant costs based on the scale of the ministry

grant and operating framework that now reaches $164,000.

For Parks and Trails, there are significant costs associated with Paris Parks at

$304,000 in 2016, South Dumfries Parks, being at $218,000 in 2016, and Brant West

Parks at $125,000.

For Recreation Facilities, the Brant Sports Complex is the largest cost centre, growing from

$1.16 million in 2013 to $1.26 million in 2016. It represents the largest single cost centre of

all the cost centres for Parks and Recreations Services.

Community Relations typically represents around 20% to 25% of total costs, Parks and

Trails have remain at 14.8% of the cost structure over the year. Recreation Facilities

typically represent between 60% to 65% of total costs, with their proportionality decreasing

in recent years. Costs have increased proportionately for both the Community Relations

and Parks and Trails areas.

The most significant costs are associated with the largest fixed assets, such as community

centres and arenas, as well as the breadth of costs associated with maintaining a large

array of neighbourhood, district, county-wide and specialty parks.



Table 4-2: County of Brant Parks and Recreation Financial Operating Profile: Expenses

2013 to 2016 Financial Operating Profile

2013 2014 2015 2016

$ % $ % $ % $ %

Expenses

Co

mm

un

ity

Re

lati

on

s

Administration 401,382 48.8 410,595 45.2 541,504 51.6 563,342 44.4

Aquatics 144,630 17.6 157,059 17.3 185,672 17.7 218,478 17.2

Special Events 2,636 0.3 3,010 0.3 7,339 0.7 10,947 0.9

High Five 1,130 0.1 0 0 0

Camps 64,188 7.8 77,485 8.5 47,224 4.5 164,529 13.0

Dance 1,399 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Children's 6,146 0.7 3,515 0.4 5,730 0.5 3,119 0.2

Ice 18,188 2.2 27,235 3.0 18,691 1.8 3,528 0.3

Gymnastics 14,220 1.7 15,718 1.7 19,209 1.8 18,673 1.5

School 0 0.0 358 0.0 0 0.0 883 0.1

Pre-School 3,190 0.4 2,921 0.3 1,642 0.2 3,303 0.3

Youth 5,636 0.7 2,844 0.3 1,482 0.1 14,981 1.2

After School 135,685 16.5 180,241 19.8 178,621 17.0 188,847 14.9

Drop-In 2,834 0.3 6,101 0.7 1,056 0.1 2,261 0.2

Seniors 1,088 0.1 1,459 0.2 729 0.1 18,986 1.5

Fitness 18,448 2.2 13,556 1.5 9,627 0.9 18,161 1.4

Assistance / Overhead 2,423 0.3 5,655 0.6 25,604 2.4 35,045 2.8

Training 0 0.0 566 0.1 5,046 0.5 4,593 0.4

Total Community Relations 823,223 908,318 1,049,176 1,269,676

Pa

rks

& T

rail

s Paris Parks 202,638 33.7 193,317 31.9 228,506 35.2 302,705 39.9

South Dumfries Parks 150,117 25.0 154,982 25.5 185,451 26.8 218,779 28.8

Brant West Parks 92,960 15.5 99,010 16.3 108,337 16.7 125,825 16.6

Brant, Oakland, Onondaga 60,317 10.0 52,934 8.7 59,836 9.2 48,126 6.3

Trails 31,923 5.3 32,247 5.3 37,774 5.8 27,589 3.6

Landscaping 63,139 10.5 74,463 12.3 28,380 4.4 35,672 4.7

Total Parks and Trails 601,094 606,953 648,284 758,696

Recre

ati

on

Fa

cil

itie

s

Administration 227,422 8.6 179,500 6.5 195,200 6.1 345,526 11.1

Burford 573,587 21.7 663,457 24.0 789,819 24.7 798,478 25.7

St. George 542,795 20.5 565,850 20.5 633,466 19.8 634,541 20.4

Syl Apps 261,123 9.9 284,219 10.3 377,490 11.8 291,457 9.4

Brant Sports 1,162,219 44.0 1,144,777 41.5 1,278,857 40.0 1,266,933 40.8

Lawn Bowling 12,821 0.5 13,908 0.5 17,586 0.5 22,614 0.7

Community Halls 88,905 3.4 88,099 3.2 103,553 3.2 89,009 2.9

Total Recreation Facilities 2,641,450 2,760,310 3,200,771 3,103,032

2013 2014 2015 2016

Expenses Summary $ % $ % $ % $ %

Community Relations 823,223 20.2 908,318 21.2 1,049,176 21.4 1,269,676 24.7

Parks and Trails 601,094 14.8 606,953 14.2 648,284 13.2 758,696 14.8

Recreation Facilities 2,641,450 65.0 2,760,310 64.6 3,200,771 65.3 3,103,032 60.5

Total Expenses 4,065,767 4,275,581 4,898,231 5,131,404



4.2 Financial Operating Perspectives

Table 4-3 summarizes the financial operating profile for Parks and Recreation Services.

The following points are identified:

Revenues from the three categories have increased 11.4% between 2013 and 2016.

Community Relations revenues are up 0.6% and Parks and Trails revenues are up by

0.6%. Recreation Facility revenue growth has been 6.1%. Revenue growth is being

driven by increased participation user fees, and other revenue sources in Community

Relations and Parks and Trails.

Total expenses are up 26.2%, almost 15.0% greater than revenue growth, resulting in

increased property tax support. Parks and Trails expenses are up 21.2% while

Community Relations expenses are up 54.2%. Both these categories have increased

significantly. Recreation Facilities expenses are up only 17.5%.

The net financial operating result/deficit over the four year period has property taxes

providing almost $2.03 million in 2013, increasing to a high of $2.864 million in 2016.

Overall, the operating deficit has seen growth of 4.1% over the four years. The

Community Relations deficit was up 78.0%, while the Parks and Trails deficit was up

29.4%. The Recreation Facilities deficit growth was 33.5%.

The summary data by service category indicates significant growing investment in

Community Relations, Parks and Trails and Recreation Facilities.

Table 4-3 also identifies the revenue coverage ratio, which is the percent that revenues

cover expenses by category and in total. The coverage ratio is fairly consistent year to year

except for in 2015. The ratio is just slightly over 50%, which means 50% of total expenses

are covered by revenue income. Therefore, the deficit percentage is typically in the 50%

range, growing in one year 2015, to about 53%.



Table 4-3: County of Brant Parks and Recreation Financial Operating Profile: Summary

2013 2014 2015 2016 (Budget) Growth

$ % $ % $ % $ % %

Revenues

Revenues Community Relations 426,717 20.9 428,710 19.7 469,343 20.3 563,734 24.9 32.1

Parks and Trails 76,236 3.7 104,868 4.8 93,609 4.1 66,519 2.9 -12.7

Recreation Facilities 1,542,673 75.4 1,645,563 75.5 1,744,842 75.6 1,636,475 72.2 6.1

Total Revenues 2,045,626 2,179,141 2,307,794 2,266,728 10.8

Expenses

Exp

en

ses Community Relations 823,223 20.2 908,318 21.2 1,049,176 21.4 1,269,676 24.7 54.2

Parks and Trails 601,094 14.8 606,953 14.2 648,284 13.2 758,696 14.8 26.2

Recreation Facilities 2,641,450 65.0 2,760,310 64.6 3,200,771 65.3 3,103,032 60.5 17.5

Total Expenses 4,065,767 4,275,581 4,898,231 5,131,404 26.2

Net

Ne

t

Community Relations -396,506 19.6 -479,608 22.9 -579,833 22.4 -705,942 24.6 78.0

Parks and Trails -525,358 26.0 -558,162 23.9 -598,623 21.4 -692,177 24.2 31.9

Recreation Facilities -1,098,777 54.4 -1,114,747 53.2 -1,455,929 56.2 -1,466,557 51.2 33.5

Total Net -2,020,141 39.2 -2,096,440 39.8 -2,950,437 43.8 -2,864,676 39.5 41.8

Revenue Coverage Ratio % 50.3 50.3 46.7 49.1

Net Per Capita Expenditures 53.88 57.40 66.69 62.09

(2013 to 2014 = 37,500 pop.)

(2015 to 2016 = 39,500 pop.)

It is typical in most communities to have coverage ratios in the 45-55% range. In some

cases, they can reach as high as 75% depending on the mix of facilities. Considering the

scale of facilities for a 40,000 population base, and the size of the geographical service

area, Brant County is performing reasonably well by sustaining a 50% revenue coverage

costs.

On a net per capita expenditure basis, assuming a 37,500 population in years 2013/2014,

and a 39,500 population in years 2015 and 2016, the per capita investment on a net basis

was $53.88 in 2013, rising to $57.40 in 2014, growing to $66.69 per person in 2015, and

following back to $62.09 per person in the 2016 budget. These per capita rates are average

compared to what is seen in many communities. In smaller communities that are operating

multiple arenas and other larger facilities, per capita net investments are often in the $60 to

$75 range.

The financial data indicates that the financial operations for the identified Parks and

Recreations Services are well within comparative ranges, and are well managed. Based on

the revenue coverage of expenses, and the net per capita expenditures, there is no

identification of any particular anomalies.



4.3 Community Hall Operations

One specific area of the overall operations that was examined in

more detail were the community halls since there is a significant

array of them within Brant County. This is an area of particular

focus in many Master Plans where there has been a large

municipal amalgamation and many community halls have been

brought forward into the new community. Community halls have

traditionally had long histories of being developed by the smaller

communities over the years, often via service clubs and resident

engagement. For many communities, they represent the heart of

the community, especially as schools, post offices and some

commercial establishments move out of their communities. Table

4-4 profiles their financial operating results.

Table 4-4 County of Brant Community Halls 2013 to 2016 Financial Operating Profile

Community Halls 2013 2014 2015 2016

$ % $ % $ % $ %

Revenue

Re

ve

nu

es

Airport* 6,348 59.6 8,003 40.2 12,882 55.1 1,207 5.2

Harley 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Bethel 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Onondaga 186 1.7 156 0.8 329 1.4 0 0.0

Oakland 119 1.1 7,757 39.0 6,269 26.8 5,222 22.4

Glen Morris 2,870 26.9 3,972 20.0 3,879 16.6 3,012 12.9

Memorial 1,127 10.6 0 0.0 N/A N/A

Mount Pleasant 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Cainsville 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Langford 0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A

Pinegrove & Howell 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Total Revenues 10,650 19,888 23,359 9,441

Expenses

Ex

pe

ns

es

Airport* 13,156 13.2 17,974 20.4 25,957 25.2 27,131 26.3

Harley 10,878 10.9 8,611 9.8 6,863 6.7 5,353 5.2

Bethel 2,842 2.8 3,157 3.6 1,062 1.0 16 0.0

Onondaga 9,721 9.7 10,898 12.4 14,701 14.3 11,669 11.3

Oakland 10,997 11.0 14,072 16.0 12,829 12.5 10,600 10.3

Glen Morris 17,570 17.6 12,813 14.5 20,109 19.5 11,428 11.1

Memorial 12,695 12.7 764 0.9 0 0.0 250 0.2

Mount Pleasant 11,434 11.5 11,790 13.4 8,084 7.8 8,751 8.5

Cainsville 3,558 3.6 3,354 3.8 4,180 4.1 5,555 5.4

Langford 177 0.2 N/A N/A N/A

Pinegrove & Howell 6,749 6.8 4,666 5.3 9,229 9.0 8,377 8.1

Total Expenses 99,777 88,099 103,014 89,130

*Airport Hall operated by County, all other halls are volunteer-operated.



Community hall expenditures tend to fluctuate widely based on repairs and maintenance

that occur on an unscheduled basis. Total County expenses range from a low of $89,000 in

2016 to a high of $103,000 in 2015.

In 2013 in Brant County, there were eleven (11) Community Halls not associated with major

recreation facilities. One Hall was operated by the County: Airport Community Hall. The

rest were operated by community groups, clubs or other arrangements. Since 2013, Bethel

Hall has been sold and demolished, Memorial and Langford have been sold to local groups

who operate their own facilities, and Harley is primarily a local museum open by visitor

requirement. This venue is also utilized for an annual Strawberry Festival event.

The revenues from all but Airport are retained by the local operators while the County has

expenses for each Hall annually.

Table 4-5 examines the rental levels for 2014 and 2015 for paid and no fee rental events.

Table 4-5 2014 to 2016 Community Hall Use Profile

2014 2015 2016

Paid Unpaid Total Paid Unpaid Total Paid Unpaid

Airport 5 1 6 7 0 7 13 0

Cainsville 78 75 153 90 45 135

Glen Morris 43 376 419 50 376 426

Onondaga 4 0 4 7 2 9

Oakland 185 13 198 126 109 235

Mount Pleasant 238 13 251 211 20 231

Pine Grove & Howell 109 11 120 108 9 117

Bethel

Harley

The rental data demonstrates a wide variety of use levels. Glen Morris has the highest

rental level, over 400 per year, followed by Mount Pleasant, Oakland, Cainsville and Pine

Grove / Howell. These facilities show significant rental activity, with multiple rentals on

some days.

Airport and Onondaga indicated more limited usage. Just under 42% to 48% of all rentals

are unpaid uses over 2014 and 2015 period.

The community halls represent important resources to local residents. Some of them have

a strong local tradition. The overall strategy moving forward will need to be based on

financial and utilization data and consultation perspectives.



4.4 Capital Investments and Sources

4.4.1 Capital Investments

Table 4-6 identifies the intended capital expenditures for Parks and Recreation Services in

Brant County based on 2016 approved projects and forecasted for 2017 through to 2020.

The categories involve Community Relations; Parks, Recreation and Trails; and Recreation

Facilities.

Table 4-6 County of Brant Parks and Recreation Capital Plan

Approved Forecasted

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

Community Relations 20,000 20,000 282,000 262,000 262,000 846,000

Parks, Recreation & Trails 346,000 1,350,500 819,000 1,047,000 927,000 4,489,500

Facilities 566,000 909,500 417,500 385,000 330,000 2,608,000

Total Capital 932,000 2,280,000 1,518,500 1,694,000 1,519,000 7,943,500

For Community Relations, some capital is identified for computer and supporting software

for administration. The major capital works identified is the development of a gymnasium

facility, with allocations of $262,000 a year for each of 2018 through to 2020. This would

represent a significant facility investment that would provide opportunities from gymnasium-

oriented activities, both in terms of floorboard and high ceiling activities. A total of $846,000

is identified for investment over the five years.

For Parks, Recreation and Trails, a wide arrange of rehabilitation and new investment

initiatives are identified. In total, over the five years, they constitute almost $4.5 million

dollars.

These investments are distributed across the County and involve upgrades to existing park

facilities, new storage and washroom buildings, trail development, river accesses, and

enhanced playground facilities, both new and upgraded to existing structures.

Recreation facilities have an identified investment of $2.19 million. The largest expenditure

is $630,000 for an expansion to the Brant Sports Complex. Almost all the remaining

projects involve retrofitting of arena condensers and dehumidifiers, ice resurfacers,

bleachers, HVAC systems, parking lots, scoreboards, and other infrastructure elements.

The Sunny Hill Splash Pad and washroom (completed in 2016) represent the most

significant investment for 2016.

In total, nearly $8 million is identified for capital works over the five years. For the 2017 to

2020 period, not all the identified projects may proceed as Council will make deliberations

on available funds across a multitude of municipal investment points.



The data indicates the importance the County places on sustaining its facility at a high

level, as over 50% of the nearly $8 million is identified for the upgrading of existing park

and recreation facility infrastructure. New buildings are identified with expansion of the

Brant Sports Complex, plus a gymnasium, an additional splash pad, and park clubhouses.

The overall plan identifies an effective balance between rehabilitation and new initiatives.

What is important for Brant County is that with the extensive parks and recreation

infrastructure they have, that they continue to invest in its rehabilitation and ongoing

upgrading as participant needs and expectations change and new activities emerge into the

service area. Much of the rehabilitation investment is linked to the 2013 Brant County Asset

Management Plan and Strategy that identified the need for an annual investment of $19

million in all County infrastructure, an increase of $1.5 million per year. The Asset

Management Plan recommended a more robust tracking, evaluation criteria and planning

approach for short and long term asset management.

Table 4-7 examines the capital works in total by the three categories undertaken for 2014

and 2015. In 2014, $848,000 was expended with approximately 36% on Parks, Recreation

and Trails and 67% on Recreation Facilities. In 2015, some $372,000 was invested in

Parks and Recreation Services, again predominantly for Recreation Facilities.

Table 4-7 County of Brant Parks and Recreation 2014-2015 Capital Expenditures

2014 and 2015 Parks and Recreation Capital Plan ($)

2014 2015

Community Relations 0 9,400

Park, Recreation, and Trails 308,000 88,000

Recreation Facilities 540,000 275,000

TOTAL: 848,000 372,400

4.5 Capital Sources

In terms of capital funding sources, the County uses a mix of resources involving capital

grants from senior governments, Development Charges, reserves, community capital

donations, and property tax funding. As one travels through the various major recreation

facilities in the County, in terms of both buildings and parks, there is a wide array of donor

boards/walls that identify the significant investment made by community corporations,

service clubs, organized groups, individuals and others. This community support is a

significant resource in the development of the array of parks and recreation facilities and

services that are available to Brant residents and visitors.



The July 7th, 2014 Development Charges Bylaw and Background Study identified three

envelopes of possible funding within the timeframe of the current bylaw for parks and

recreation services:

The Municipal Gym, scheduled for 2020 at a cost of $3.5 million, of which $787,000

worth of Development Charges may be realized.

Additional Splash Pad, scheduled for 2018, for which $81,000 in Development

Charges could be available.

Parks and Trail development initiatives across 2015 to 2023, involving twenty-four

(24) projects, for which $2.288 million could be available.

The document also identifies opportunities for some contributory funding for the Recreation

Master Plan and the Trail Master Plan.

In terms of current reserves that could have application to future parks and recreation

services as of August 2016, the following resources are identified:

Community Services Capital Reserves $225,556

5% Parkland Dedication $703,379

Parks and Recreation Development Charges Reserves $674,488

Other funding possibilities are Canada 150 grants, Ontario Trillium Grants for community

organizations, infrastructure grants from senior level governments and specialized grants

for culture, health and wellness, environmental and related initiatives. All of these larger

and/or specialized grants would need to be project specific in terms of eligibility,

sponsorship, scale and application.

4.6 Service Delivery Model

Parks and Recreation Services in Brant County are delivered through a wide range of

strategies. These include:

Parks and Recreation Facilities owned, managed, and maintained by the County of

Brant;

County of Brant directly delivered recreation and aligned programs, some funded by

the County, some by provincial government sources, and via user fees;

Programs delivered by community associations, such as minor hockey, softball and

soccer, as well as adult activities;

Private sector initiatives, such as river boating, fitness and related classes, wellness

and other programs and services;

Programs accessed by Brant residents in the city of Brantford, such as the YM-

YWCA, City of Brantford and other programs and facilities;



Self-directed programs, whereby individuals and groups operate within their own

facilities and in public spaces, parks and open spaces, e.g.: trails, boot camps, etc.,

and at their own pace and intensity.

The mix of service delivery models is extensive and has evolved over time to reflect the

interests, needs and capacities of the community and the County. The County is the most

significant facility provider with its arenas, community centres, parks and sport fields,

natural areas, trails, community halls, and a host of other venues. It is also a major

recreation programs provider in terms of summer and seasonal camps, outdoor aquatics,

after school programs, fitness and gymnastics programs, and many others.

Many of the County programs utilize part-time paid staff or full-time seasonal staff. For

many of the community-based programs, they are delivered by volunteers such as minor

sports and aligned programs. Volunteers are a significant part of the service delivery model

for parks and recreations services. Volunteers have been instrumental in the long term

development of facilities through service clubs, community fundraising and other initiatives.

They have also provided significant leadership within various sports and community

associations, as well as take on direct programs delivery ranging from instructors, to

coaches, to officials, to league organizers and coordinators, and a host of other roles.

The overall delivery model is very balanced. The volunteer capacity is significant. Service

clubs continue to play a very important role, particularly in Burford and St. George.

The private sector is also an important player, especially in terms of river/rafting and

tourism products, as well as for some selected fitness and specialized program class type

services.

Sustaining the balance of the service delivery model, facilitating and supporting volunteer

development and growth, and ensuring that the County plays the appropriate role where

other organizations cannot sustain themselves and need is apparent, is a vital part of the

future Brant County Parks and Recreation Services delivery model. The County will always

have a very significant role in infrastructure in terms of parks, buildings and facilities. It will

also have to determine, over the longer term, what its preferred role is in recreation

programs delivery as programming grows, demographic changes and new activities

continue to emerge. It is challenging for a municipality to be a comprehensive programs

provider in an always changing and evolving service environment.

The model in Brant County is comparable to what occurs in most other urban and near-

urban communities in Ontario. Moving from a volunteer tradition, to professional services

delivery model, has been a long term evolution. However, sustaining the balance between

volunteer and staff-based delivery is always an important principle and strategic

endeavor/decision.



4.7 Organizational Structure

Parks and Recreation Services lie within the Operations Department of the County, led by

General Manager of Operations/Deputy Chief Administrative Officer. Figure 4-1 details the

organizational structure for Parks and Recreation Services in Brant County.

Three interacting roles provide managerial and leadership for Parks and Recreation

Services of Brant:

The Director of Community Relations is responsible for recreation systems

administration; programs that include aquatics, camps, after school and others;

community services, volunteers and community development; and overall

accessibility. This person is supported by a Recreation Supervisor with a Recreation

Coordinator, program specific staff, as well as a Community Engagement

Coordinator, Systems Administrator and an Accessibility Coordinator.

The Director of Facilities and Parks is responsible for the significant range of parks

and recreation infrastructure owned and operated by the County. The scope of work

is divided geographically with a Supervisor for South Dumfries, one for Burford, one

for Syl Apps, and a Parks and Facilities Manager for the Brant Sports Complex and

Paris Parks. There is also a Cemetery Operations Supervisor, as well as Facility

Booking Administrator and Customer Service Representatives. Each of the facility-

based areas has a lead hand facility operator and facility operators, both full and

part time to operate and maintain the indoor and outdoor facilities and venues.

A Supervisor of Tourism and Community Development, who is responsible for

providing support and development direction to the municipality’s built and natural

assets in an effort to increase the economic impact of visitor activity within the

municipality. This division also includes a fulltime Special Event Coordinator

(reporting to the Supervisor of Tourism and Community Development) who provides

all necessary administrative support to event organizers while serving as the liaison

between the County and the event. Both positions work closely with community

organizations, service clubs and interdepartmentally across the municipal

corporation as well as with many third party private organizations and municipalities.

The organizational structure reflects the context of the operating environment with the

significant staffing emphasis on Parks and Facilities which require significant maintenance

on a year-round basis to support weekday, weekend and evening use. Also, with the

geographical scope involved in Brant, a geographic based operating model provides

efficiency, local knowledge and focused capacity.

The organizational structure also reflects the service needs and priorities that exist, and

has evolved over time. It is also similar to what is seen in many other similar communities,

such as Norfolk County (Simcoe) and other communities of a comparable size and

geographic base that have evolved from municipal amalgamations, and have both a

significant array of facilities and a large geographic service area to respond to.



Figure 4-1: County of Brant Parks and Recreation Services Organizational Structure

Tourism and Community

Development Supervisor

SPECIAL EVENTS COORDINATOR

Director

Community Relations

RECREATION SUPERVISOR

• Recreation Coordinator (2)

• Active Grand Coordinator

• Program Coordinator

RECREATION SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR

ACCESSIBILITY COORDINATOR

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COORDINATOR

SOCIAL SERVICES LIBRARY SERVICES

Director

Parks and Facilities

PARKS AND FACILITIES MANAGER BSC

• LH Facility Operator BSC

• LH Facility Operator Parks

• Facility Operators (4)

PARKS AND FACILITIES SUPERVISOR SDCC

• LH Facility Operator

• Facility Opertors (3)

PARKS AND FACILITIES SUPERVISOR BCC

• LH Facility Operator

• Facility Operators (3)

FACILITY SUPERVISOR SACC

• Facility Attendants (2) / Maintenance

FACILITY BOOKING ADMINISTRATOR

• Customer Service Clerk

• Customer Service Reps. PT

CEMETERY OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR

• LH Cemetery Operator

• Cemetery Operators (3)

• Cemetery Clerk PT

• Data Cemetery Clerk PT

GM of Operations (Deputy CAO)

Administrative Assistant



5. AGREEMENT, POLICY & DOCUMENT REVIEW

5.1 Introduction

The County of Brant has a number of County Policies and agreements that both influence

and direct the quality and delivery of parks and recreation services within the community.

The following material provides an overview of the selected policies and one agreement

relevant to the master planning process.

5.2 Joint Use of Facilities Agreements

The County has entered into Joint Use Agreements with the Grand Erie District School

Board and the Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board.

These are comprehensive agreements that are precise as to expectations, applications and

responsibilities. The agreements effectively define the expectations and responsibilities of

each of the parties and community user groups relative to priority, uses, maintenance and

related considerations.

Based on experience, these agreement are among the more comprehensive documents

and are a sound strategy for maximizing the utilization levels and recreational opportunities

for County residents via using existing facilities and reducing the need for facility

duplication.

One of the key provisions is that each party is responsible for all bookings within their own

facilities. Up until approximately ten years ago, many municipalities undertook all the

bookings for both parties in order to have an integrated and coordinated approach.

However, liability, operational challenges, provincial government budgetary requirements

and related perspectives have generally resulted in a move to the model being experienced

between the School Boards and the County.

There are a series of fees associated with the Joint Use of Facilities Agreements with the

Grand Erie District School Board and Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School

Board. These reflect lower level charges compared to the regular user fees for these types

of uses and facilitates the Joint Use of Facilities Agreements that benefits both the County

and the School Boards.

5.3 Sport Facility Allocation Policy

This County’s Sport Facility Allocation Policy became effective February 1st, 2016,

replacing a previous Ice Allocation Policy, thus moving the Allocation Policy to a more

comprehensive platform.



The intent of this policy is to promote and encourage participation in sports for the overall

benefit of the communities within the County. It is designed to address the current sports

facilities portfolio, new facility users and the changing market supply of indoor, year-round

sports facilities. It is also intended to clarify the County’s responsibilities for indoor and

outdoor sports facilities allocation, facility administration and its commitment to the effective

management of these resources.

The policy also has an extensive array of conditions in terms of paying for damage to a

facility, the use of 50 minute hours for ice, the use of electronic devices with cameras,

curfews, participant behaviours, cancellations due to storms / other events and related

perspectives that clearly articulate expectations, outcomes and procedures.

The Allocation Policy is very comprehensive, complete and is written in a generic context. It

provides for an equality of male and female and diversity considerations. There is also

provisions for new / emerging sports. Based on experience and reviewing many Allocation

Policies, this is a well prepared policy that is comprehensive and has tried to address some

of the emerging cultural, behavioural, need and other considerations that evolve within

venue allocation considerations. On balance, the policy appears to be effectives,

contemporary and reasonable.

5.4 County of Brant Fees and Charges By-Law, April 26, 2016

The main Fees and Changes By-law and a recent amendment involving miscellaneous

advertising, toddler / preschool programs, camps, youth programs and swimming lessons

were reviewed. The review has been completed based on aligned By-Law sections.

5.4.1 Advertising

The user fee schedule has an extensive array of advertising opportunities for external /

third party advertising, ranging from the Services Guide with one and two ads, affiliates

ads, County discounts, miscellaneous advertising, sponsorships, partnerships, special

event applications with or without fundraising components, speaker series fees,

promotional items, the sport and recreation map, advertising programs for the Syl Apps

Community Centre and the Brant Sports Complex and other applications.

Based on experience, it is one of the more comprehensive advertising user fee schedules

reviewed relative to a community of this size. The policy also recognizes flexibility with such

techniques as the use of partner packages at the Brant Sports Complex and Syl Apps

Community Centre, plus a variety of packages and volume discount rates. There is also

advertising for rink boards, arena banners and hallways, dressing rooms, coaches’ boards,

on-ice and a host of other advertising locations. These are also developed for individual

facilities.



The advertising fee structure demonstrates clarity, a business orientation, has reasonable

fee values, provides for seasonality and has considerable flexibility in terms of locations,

packages, volumes and applications.

The framework provides a variety-based set of opportunities for potential advertisers. It

recognizes the uniqueness of each placement opportunity and is easy to utilize. The key

challenge for any municipality in the selling of advertising, is always its ability to generate

sales on a proactive basis, versus gravity basis, where people simply come in when

interested in advertising rather going out and selling inventory.

5.4.2 Ice User Fees

The Fees and Charges By-Law has arena fees that cover ice, recreational skating, roller

skating and summer floor rentals. The regular ice rentals are contemporary, and there are

multiple price points. Many municipalities have struggled to achieve the reality that ice can

be sold at different price points based on time of day and for differentiated markets. The ice

rates also have a last minute ice rental which is a more recent phenomena and is an

excellent demonstration of a comprehensive user fee policy for the size of community of

Brant County.

The ice rates are differentiated by youth, junior / regional and adult, as well as prime time

and non-prime times for adults. There is also early morning, day time casual for up to three

people, day time casual for over three people and last minute. Discounts for last minute ice

rates are at 35% which creates an incentive for selling ice that is turned back by other

groups or simply has not been rented in both prime and non-prime hours. Since arena

operating costs are generally fixed, any revenue generated above marginal discretionary

costs results in a net contribution to the facility’s bottom line.

The ice time rates are within market range. Most prime time ice in urban communities is

operating between $145 to $200 per hour for adults. In Brant, it is at $189.38 for adults and

$137.16 for youth which is approximately a 25% discount. Regional hockey rates rank

between local adult and youth fees.

Recreational skating is at $2.66 per person or a punch card of $22.12. Adult shinny is just

over $5 an hour which is a typical fee and family skates are less than $10 for up to five

people. The skating and shinny hockey rates are very reasonably priced within general

market ranges.

Roller skating is basically $6.20 for an adult, and $2.66 per person for a family. Again, this

is a reasonable rate. Roller skating is not a widely undertaken activity in municipal arenas.

The summer floor rental rates for athletic uses range from $55.75 to $68.14 per hour for

County youth and adults uses respectively. There is also daily rates for banquets, dances

for full and half floors and set-up and teardown rates. These rates again are market-based



and are comparable to other urban areas. The tear down and set up rate is not always

seen in such policies, but is as an important consideration in that large events often use

multiple days.

Overall, the arena rentals are within typical market ranges, have a good price point driven

framework beyond other communities, and reflect how the market segmentation occurs for

ice rentals in Brant County.

5.4.3 Athletic Fields (Softball and Soccer)

Sport field user fees have been developed within a typical model, with premium and

recreational fields, light charges being additional, youth and tournament play, weekday

tournaments, practice use and special events. Also in this fee category, are tennis courts

and beach volleyball at Green Lane.

The fees are more market-based than many comparable sized communities. Many

communities under 50,000 residents are still working with free field use or field use at $5 to

$10 per use. In the County of Brant, field use on a premium level is $34.50 and $24 for

recreational use by adults. Light charges are $34.50 per use for up two hours which

effectively doubles the rate. Tournaments use is for $43.15 per use for adults and youth

tournaments are at $24.

There is a substantial discount provided for youth and adult practices, $7.96 and $11.50

respectively. Overall the sport field use fee is oriented to what is occurring in larger urban

environments, and where the trends are aligning for a more market-based rate for field use.

Many municipalities have not been able to establish market-based rates for fields, some

who remain in a position of not charging for such fields though this is changing in almost

every municipality.

5.4.4 Community Centres

For the County’s community centres, there is individualized pricing for each venue, and the

various room configurations within them. There are hourly and day rates, as well as half

day event rates, special occasion permit rates and other configurations.

The rate structure is market-based involving different use perspectives, and moves far

beyond a single rate-price point structure for venues in the same category that is often

found for community centres in other communities.

The overall assessment is that the rate structure is sophisticated, reflects market use of the

facilities and is competitive. What is also unique, are the rates are individualized for each

facility to reflect various use types, needs, and individual venue features and

considerations. This is a generally beyond the average of what is found in similar sized or

smaller communities, and reflects the strong overall market-based approach to the

County’s user fee structure.



5.4.5 Other Rates

The policy also has user fee rates for public picnic reservations, miscellaneous fees, Syl

Apps turf rentals, and the smaller community halls, along with river access.

The picnic shelter rates are for all five venues identified, ranging from $60.18 for

reservation of a picnic area and $101.79 for a picnic shelter. There is also daily and hourly

rate fees for the bandshell.

In terms of miscellaneous fees, rates are identified for skate sharpening; an annual dog

park membership, including a second dog; guest passes / lost keys; picnic table rentals;

and community group fundraising events, which involves a 25% discount.

The Syl Apps turf rental is similar to ice rentals in that there is prime time for youth and

adults, non-prime time youth and adult, summertime, last minute, birthday parties, schools,

casual and small and larger group rentals. For Syl Apps, this is a sophisticated rental fee

program that reflects different market type uses, as well as key policy considerations

around prime time and non-prime time, youth and adult, summertime versus seasonal and

other considerations. There is also per visit rates that supports toddler / children, students /

seniors, adults, the walking program with and without membership, and related uses.

There are seven Community Halls identified. They have differentiated rates with the Airport

Hall, which receives the highest use, at $225 per rental for Friday and Saturday compared

to $100 at Glen Morris / Pine Grove and Howell. Some Community Halls have lower rates

while others have higher fees.

The rates reflect differentiated use levels and quality the Community Halls offer. Again, this

is a more sophisticated approach that individualizes each of the venues as to their cost and

revenue considerations.

In terms of river access, there is a differentiated fee structure involving a Brant and non-

resident operators, with non-residents paying about 100% more. There is also a

commercial river access fee. The fees cover both a per boat charge, as well as a group

based charge for commercial river access, with zero to four people having no charge but a

$10 charge per permit for five to twenty-five people and a $20 permit charge for twenty-six

to 100 people. The river access fees are built on both boats and size of group basis and

reflect demand levels.

5.4.6 Administrative Fees

There are a series of administrative fees, such as a $10 charge for every booking for a river

access, a $20 per vendor fee for lobby rental fees for tournaments, and a $15 for

cancellation fee for ice rentals. The latter fee is an excellent strategy to clarify and ensure

people understand the administrative costs for cancellations. Cancellation fees are a newer



perspective and have to be applied in order to reduce late cancellations and loss of

revenues, thus making renters more accountable for how they rent and use space.

5.4.7 Toddler and Children’s Programs

There is a detailed set of fees associated with toddler / preschool programs, children’s

programs, after school programs, camps and youth programs.

For toddlers / preschool, there are soccer programs across two timeframe, i.e. four and six

weeks; parent and tot gymnastics, as well as Tiny Tumbler Gymnastics; Kinder Sports and

Kinder Play, and soccer and softball programs. The fees are generally in the $70 plus

range for six and eight week sessions and $25 to $40 range for four week sessions. There

is also a Kinder Play program at $27.

Based on other experiences for similar programs for these durations, these are competitive

prices that work out to just over $10 per week for extended sessions.

For the children’s programs, the fees are slightly higher for eight week sessions for indoor

soccer and softball, gymnastics, dodgeball, fencing, tennis and Home Alone. Other than

Home Alone, the programs are generally eight weeks except for tennis. There are

increased fees if the programs are more specialized, such as tennis and gymnastics where

specialized instructors would be part of the cost structure. These fees are generally seen

as comparable to what is paid in other communities and is consistent with the tot /

preschool framework.

The afterschool program and camps have a significant childcare components to them. The

after school program is $30 per week, camps for 4 to 12 year olds are $160 per week or

$36 per day, the Summer Fun Camp is $159 per week and there are other miscellaneous

fees related to food service. The Ultimate Camp Adventure is a high fee profile and is

targeted at 9 to 13 year olds. Based on a review of literature for YMCA and other camps,

these fees are market-based and are also well differentiated.

For the youth programs, their fees are specific to program content, such as babysitting, day

trips, the leadership program, sports programs, etc. Again the fees are consistent with what

is offered in other program units by the County and with general market rates for similar

programs, with increased costs if they are led by specialized staff.

5.4.8 Fitness, Adult and Seniors Programs

Fitness fees are developed around adult, student, senior and specialized programs. They

are offered on a per-visit and a punch card basis. The fees are generally around $6 to $7

per visit with discounted values for purchasing punch cards. There is also a seniors’

discount. The fees are reasonable compared to what per visit costs would be at

comparable fitness program and provide day only and packaged access providing flexibility

and volume-based discounts.



The active programs developed for badminton, volleyball, dodgeball and basketball have

both drop-in for youth and adults as well as other specialized programs with associated

small fees per visit. The four and eight week session programs for general or specialized

programs are in the $75 range. Again, the fees are very consistent with the overall user fee

framework, and reasonable in light of market considerations.

5.4.9 Seniors Programs

There is a wide range of seniors programs that have individual fee structures. The arts,

culture and education programs are offered over eight weeks as are the sports and

physical activity, specialized workout and cognitive programs. The programs are in the

$30 to $70 range, with higher cost programs being more specialized. The fees reflect some

discounting for seniors from other similar programs for adults. Overall, the fees for seniors

programs are reasonable in terms of being less than $10 per week.

5.4.10 Family Programs

These programs involve movie nights and geocaching. The programs are offered on a per-

class or per-visit cost. The fees are reasonable for the scale of the events.

5.4.11 Community Pool Admissions – Paris

For the outdoor pool in Paris, there is an admission fee for swimming, as well as fees for

aqua-fit / lane swimming and lessons, along with in-school, training and certifications.

Pool admission fees are differentiated by under 2 years of age, youth, seniors, adult and

family and for the three to eighteen year olds. They are per visit and punch card packages,

along with seasonal passes.

The per visit fee is approximately $3.50 or less with discounts for youth, seniors and under

2 years of age. The punch cards are in the $31 range for adults, down to $22 for youth, 3 to

18 years of age with approximately $70 package for families. All these rates are

reasonable, and may be a little less than in some other communities of a similar size where

$3 to $5 per visits often reflects the cost of admission.

Pool rentals for 1 to 30 patrons are available at $66.30 per hour plus a $10 surcharge for

the pool project. A group of 31 to 75 patrons is $80.50, and for more than 76 patrons,

$110.62. These rates are generally set at just over $2 per person for a one hour visit which

is a very reasonable charge.

School rental fees are $13.27 per hour for 30 patrons, up to almost $40 for 76 patrons or

less than $0.50 per student, again demonstrating support for the Joint Use of Facilities

Agreement.



For fitness swimming and special drop-in programs, the charge is $1.77 per visit for moms

and tots. This elevates to $5.31 for youth / seniors per visit with punch card rates higher.

There are two product offerings in terms of per visit and punch card fees that are

reasonably priced at $1.77 per visit for drop-in for mom and tots, as well as seniors, and up

to $6.20 per adult drop-in.

Swimming lessons are offered by age group with preschool swims at $50 for ten lessons or

$5 per lesson, plus a $5 surcharge and up to $115.04 for eight weeks session for Bronze

Cross plus a $5 surcharge. These are reasonably priced swim lesson packages.

5.4.12 In-school Programs, Training and Certifications, First Aid, CPR and Hunting

Course for Youth and Adult

These are specialized programs. For the in-school program, there is Lego Club, crafts,

Home Alone, Getting Active After School and Boys / Girls Only. These are all eight week

session programs ranging from $10 for Lego Club to $30 for Home Alone. These clubs are

operating at $0.80 per week, with Home Alone operating at just under $4.00 per week.

These programs are economical for the participants.

The training certification / High Five programs operate differently. The Principles of Healthy

Child Development course is $50 per class, Quest One is $95.58 per class and High Five

Sport is $50.44 per class. All are specialized offerings.

First Aid / CPR courses are priced at $110.62 per two day course for the full course, and

$66.37 for the one day recertification which are market aligned pricing.

For the hunting courses, the youth component is $106.20 per day with a specialized

training at $194.69 for two days. The adult component is $141.59 with $230.09 for a two

day course. This is a highly specialized program which has paid instructors and significant

course content due to the safety and related considerations. Prices are reasonable.

The Coaching Certification course is based on Hockey Canada’s multi-level program.

Level 1 for hockey is $78.32 per day, and the Level 2 is $212.24 per two days. These are

reasonably priced for the extent of the program, the materials that are received and the

requirements for such coaching certifications across hockey and other sports.

The Safe Food Handling course costs $44.25 per two day session and $13.05 for one day

recertification. Again, this is reasonably priced for the scale of content and costs to deliver.

In the ice programming area, Learn to Skate costs $78 per eight week session or less than

$10 a week. Recreational hockey is $3,318.58 for twenty-eight, week session per team

which is $8.50 a week per player based on fifteen players per team which is very

comparable, with some other communities that are at $10 or more per week. The spring /



summer program hockey program has a lower cost at $2,433 per week, but for only sixteen

weeks.

5.4.13 Summary

In reviewing the extensive user fee structure that Brant County utilizes, the following

observations are offered:

The fees are very market-oriented and reasonable in comparison to the cost for

delivery in the broader market.

The fees are consistently balanced amongst the various delivery methods in terms

of tots, youth, adults, seniors and family. They are structurally consistent across

venues and programs.

There are per visit and punch card packages to meet different needs, as well as

seasonal passes, with some volume-based discounting.

Indoor spaces, in terms community centres and halls, are charged for differently

based on the quality and accessibility of each facility.

The agreement with the Grand Erie District School Board is well integrated and the

fees reflect consistency with that agreement.

There is some limited use of a surcharges, primarily for the outdoor pool in Paris.

The rate charts are easy to read and understand and clearly articulate exemptions

from HST for under fourteen year old children.

Brant’s sport field fees are at a market rate which is ahead of many other similar

sized communities that have not introduced or have introduced as a starting

initiative very limited field rates.

Overall, the user fee structure is sophisticated, market-based, fair, consistent and

balanced, and effective as to application. Some rates are a little above market, some are

possibly less but there is relatively consistency across them.

In some instances, the County has incorporated surcharges in the user fees to support new

facility development (i.e. for the outdoor pool). The broader use of surcharges for ice,

artificial turf playing fields and other venues could be a longer term consideration for the

County. In the Trends Section of the Situational Analysis Report for the Recreation Master

Plan, there are some examples provided in other communities that use surcharges to

support new facility development, as well as ongoing capital upgrading of existing facilities.

5.5 Affiliation Package, September 2, 2008

This policy, though currently not utilized, recognizes the many community recreational and

cultural non-profit groups that offer a variety of services across the County. The intent of

the policy is to assist these groups with their organizational growth and development

through the provision of resources, services and supports. Its only application is that such

affiliation is required for community groups to access School Board facilities.



A number of the key dimensions of this policy are as follows:

Groups must be recreational in nature with goals and objectives compatible with

those of the Department.

The affiliation groups must be non-profit organizations and operate with a volunteer

Board of Directors or Executive Committee, and show they are capable of meeting

all of their financial objectives and commitments.

The affiliation groups must support shared responsibility between the group and the

County, and support effective decision-making, and be constituted of County

residents.

Affiliation groups must provide financial assistance to participants who would not be

able to participate because of financial limitations.

The Department provides the following supports to approved affiliate groups:

o Three publication opportunities per year within the Recreation Guide at the

internal advertising rate.

o The opportunity to include their contact information on the County of Brant

website.

o Through the Joint Use of the Facilities Agreement with the Grand Erie District

School Board, they can make use of designated schools for programs.

o Availability at no charge for meeting rooms for monthly meetings of these

groups based on spaces operated by Community Services staff.

There is a series of nine obligations to be an affiliate, ranging from having regular meetings

open to the public and related considerations in order to sustain the affiliate status. The

groups who wish to have an affiliated status must complete the application forms and

provide the associated materials that are required.

As of July 14, 2014, there were fifteen affiliated groups, involving youth softball, minor

hockey, minor baseball, ringette, a retirees curling club, the Old Rockets Hockey Team, a

nursery school, a lawn bowling club, volleyball clubs, the Women’s Institute and the

Brantford City Soccer Club.

This policy is well developed as many municipalities struggle with how to work with

community groups in terms of supporting them, and bringing value to them to ensure they

are effective, well governed and operated, and open to the public. The policy clearly

articulates the requirements and the benefits, while identifying their importance. But equally

important, the policy identifies the vital nature of these groups in supporting the delivery

and availability of recreational opportunities within the County, and the partnership

perspectives that are so important in delivering a significantly wide range of recreation

services that the County could never deliver on its own.



5.6 Concussion Policy, June 24, 2014

This is a policy that recognizes that concussions and aligned head injuries can result from

contact sports, recreation programs, camps and aquatic programs. Concussions can have

serious consequences on individuals and there is a need to educate on and respond to

concussions in a meaningful and methodical way. This policy is designed to support County

of Brant employees and program volunteers relative to individuals under the age of 18

years who suffer or are suspected of suffering a concussion within a County program or

venue.

This is a new era policy that is becoming increasingly important as society’s understanding

of concussions and the harm and impact that it can have is growing. Not all communities

have a Concussion Policy or have one at this level of detail of Brant County.

5.7 Respect and Responsibilities Policy, February 17, 2015

This policy focuses on respect and responsibility considerations while involved in any

recreation program or facility operated by the County. The strategic priorities identified are

as follows:

To ensure that everyone involved acts respectfully and in a sportsman like manner.

To eliminate violence and negative social behaviour from recreation properties and

facilities.

To ensure a safe and encouraging recreation environment and experiences.

To give facility staff and volunteers / organizations the authority to deal with unruly

and violent behaviour with appropriate actions.

This is a policy that is derived from some of the increasing challenges being experienced

within recreational programs and venues, especially within minor and adult sports, where

competitiveness reaches unacceptable levels amongst parents, possibly some volunteers

and spectators.

The policy identifies inappropriate behaviours and / or violence, with examples; such as

refusal to follow the rules within the recreational properties or facilities; verbal assaults

involving racial, ethnic, or cultural perspectives; threats; attempts to intimidate; and similar

unaccepted behaviours.

The policy also has another section involving the inappropriate use of technology, involving

technology devises to photograph images of participants, spectators, staff or volunteers

without written consent; invading or attempting to invade personal privacy; hacking of

unauthorized materials or illegal downloading; and other considerations.

Another dimension of the policy involves vandalism around graffiti, glass breakage, theft,

arson and property damage.



The policy goes on to identify a series of enforcement steps, focusing on people onsite to

ask Brant County facility staff to provide assistance and / or to contact the Ontario

Provincial Police. There are a set of nine procedures on how to respond and undertake

support when such behaviours become demonstrated in a Brant County facility or program.

In support of this perspective, there is a section on consequences by behaviour / action

designed around four categories; non-violent behaviour, potential insight to violence, in

appropriate behaviour with physical violence and vandalism. Each of these categories have

a description and then consequences for first, second, third or fourth occurrences.

This is a very detailed policy, one of the most detailed policies ever reviewed by the

consultants. It clearly articulates behavioural expectations and consequences within four

categories. It is well written, definitive and clear as to what is expected and what will

happen if an individuals does not comply. The elimination of grey around behaviour issues

in recreation facilities is an excellent strategy that has been experienced by many

municipalities over the years.

5.8 County of Brant Official Plan (2012 Consolidation)

The Official Plan establishes the policy framework and land use plan by which growth in the

County will be managed and directed to the year 2031 and guides the physical, social and

economic development of the community and the protection of the natural environment.

Section 1.11.2 of the Official Plan sets out the planning objectives for the County including

the following recreation-related directions:

To encourage tourism and recreation opportunities by promoting and investing in

the Grand and Nith Rivers and their shorelines, walking trails, cycling trails, natural

heritage, built heritage, resources, cultural heritage landscapes, restaurants,

accommodations, businesses and special events (s. 1.11.2.3.2 (j));

To promote walkability and pedestrian-orientation in development and

transportation systems and through urban design, increase the availability of a

range of transportation modes, including walking and cycling, improve and promote

a connected trails and pathways system through land acquisition strategies and

improve connectivity within the County and with the City of Brantford and

surrounding municipalities (s. 1.11.2.5.2 (a), (c), (f), (j), s. 1.11.2.7.2(i));

To provide a full range and equitable distribution of accessible opportunities for

recreation (including parks, playgrounds, open space areas, trails, water-based

activities, golf courses, campgrounds, sports facilities, amusement parks, and

facilities such as restaurants, snack bars, parking areas, and auxiliary buildings) (s.

1.11.2.7.2 (a));

To ensure that there are adequate opportunities for recreation land uses and

facilities in order to meet the anticipated demand based on the population and

housing projections (s. 1.11.2.7.2 (b));

Exis

ting

Buil

ding



To ensure adequate opportunities for public access to the Grand and Nith River

shorelines (s. 1.11.2.7.2 (c));

To enhance the financial sustainability of the County by promoting recreational and

related tourism opportunities (s. 1.11.2.7.2 (d));

To ensure that the location and design of recreational land uses and facilities

minimizes negative impacts to the environment, protects adjacent land uses from

adverse impacts, and supports public health and safety (s. 1.11.2.7.2 (e));

To support passive recreational opportunities where appropriate (s. 1.11.2.7.2 (f));

To ensure that the impacts of planning decisions are considered with respect to

open space, parks, and conservation areas (s. 1.11.2.7.2 (g)); and,

To incorporate natural heritage features into the County’s recreational and social

programs (s. 1.11.2.7.2 (h)).

The following policies of the Official Plan provide direction related to parks and recreation:

Woodlands, Significant Woodlands and Vegetation

When evaluating woodlands and vegetation, the opportunity for linkages with

adjacent natural heritage functions, features and areas (including hedgerows, parks,

and open spaces) shall be considered (s. 2.3.2.3.2 (g));

Significant woodlands shall not be accepted as part of the required 5% parkland

dedication, but may be accepted in addition to it (s. 2.3.2.3.2 (l));

Watercourses

The County shall promote the use of watercourses and adjacent land for pedestrian

movement and passive recreation areas, where feasible, but this shall not be

construed to mean that such lands are publicly owned, or proposed to be publicly

owned, nor that public access is permitted to privately-owned land (s. 2.3.3.3 (j));

Economic Development and Tourism

The County shall encourage the creation of cultural facilities and other opportunities

that will promote and support activities that benefit the economic base (s. 2.5.2 (h));

The County may promote the maintenance and improvement of existing tourism

and tourist destination-oriented uses in the County and encourage the

establishment of additional tourism opportunities in the form of accommodation

facilities, and appropriate entertainment and recreational attractions (s. 2.5.3 (b));

The County recognizes and supports the development of tourism uses within the

Urban Settlement Areas and the Grand River that will encourage visitor stops,

provided such uses do not detract from the principal functions and uses of these

areas, including, but not limited to, support for:

- tourist-recreational activities associated with the Grand River and initiatives

to enhance the Primary and Secondary Urban Settlement Areas;



- multi-purpose trail systems connecting the County’s Urban Settlement Areas

and other population centres, natural amenities, the Grand River, and other

significant natural features;

- new and existing tourism related attractions particularly if such uses are

located to encourage interaction within the Urban Settlement Areas or the

Grand River and other significant natural features (s. 2.5.3 (c));

The County shall support the development and promotion of functional, scenic,

recreational and educational pathways, trails, and parkways with well signed and

interesting attractions along the Grand River and other significant natural features,

and throughout the County (s. 2.5.3 (d));

The County encourages undertaking joint tourism projects with neighbouring

municipalities and local Conservation Authorities (s. 2.5.3 (g));

Public Parks and Open Space

It is the County’s intent to achieve a parkland provision rate of approximately 3

hectares per 1,000 people (s. 2.7.4.1 (a)) – this policy direction and the current

parkland provision levels are reviewed further in section 3.2 of this report;

The primary locations for public parkland shall occur within the Primary and

Secondary Urban Settlement Areas, and Hamlets and Villages (s. 2.7.4.1 (b));

The County shall secure the maximum benefit provided by the Planning Act with

respect to land dedication for public parkland development from residential

development;

Where development, redevelopment, or intensification of land is proposed for

residential purposes, the County shall, as a condition of approval, require the

conveyance of land for park purposes (or the equivalent cash- in-lieu) in accordance

with the maximum of the following criteria or combination thereof, five percent (5%)

dedication of the gross area of the land proposed for development and/or dedication

at a rate of one hectare per 300 dwelling units (s. 2.7.4.2 (a));

Where development, redevelopment, or intensification of land is proposed for

commercial and industrial purposes, the County may, as a condition of approval,

require that up to two percent (2%) of such land (or the equivalent cash-in-lieu) be

conveyed to the County for parkland (s. 2.7.4.2 (b));

Where land in a draft plan of subdivision is to be used for any use other than

residential, industrial or commercial purposes, the County may require conveyance

of land for parkland purposes or equivalent cash-in- lieu at a rate of five percent

(5%) of the gross area of the land proposed for development (s. 2.7.4.2 (c));

Parkland dedication shall be calculated based on the gross area of the land within

the plan of subdivision and/or site plan (s. 2.7.4.2 (d));

Where new development is proposed on a site, part of which has physical

limitations or hazards, or consists of small, fragmented, or isolated parcels, then

such land shall not necessarily be acceptable as part of the land dedication under

the Planning Act (s. 2.7.4.2 (e));



The County may consider or require the developer to convey cash-in-lieu of

parkland, and the value of such land shall be determined by an appraisal authorized

by the County, and in accordance with the Planning Act, to be paid into a special

account and used as specified in the Planning Act. The County shall consider cash-

in-lieu of parkland dedication under the following circumstances:

- the required land dedication fails to provide an area of suitable shape, size

or location for development as public parkland to meet the intended parkland

requirements in accordance with Section 2.7.4.2;

- the required dedication of parkland would render the remainder of the site

unsuitable or impractical for development; and/or

- the area is well served with park and open space land and no additional

parkland is required. (s. 2.7.4.2 (f));

Funds collected under the policies for cash-in-lieu shall be used by the County for

parkland acquisition, parkland development, parkland amenities, and acquisition of

natural habitat areas and for the protection of natural habitat areas (s. 2.7.4.2 (g));

All land dedicated to the County shall be conveyed in a physical condition

satisfactory to the County, and shall meet minimum standards in terms of drainage,

access grading and general condition, and the land shall also be in full compliance

in regards to any natural or human-made hazards, potential or real contamination,

or related requirements (s. 2.7.4.2 (h));

As a condition of development approval, a proponent may be required to provide a

park facilities design satisfactory to the County for any park within the development

including the provision of appropriate fencing, landscaping and playground

equipment (s. 2.7.4.2 (i));

Land deemed by the County to be significant to or contribute to the Linkage

Strategy shall be retained in public ownership for the purpose of implementing a

linked system (s. 2.7.4.3 (a));

In addition to those options for the acquisition of land outlined in Section 6.11, the

County may create linked open spaces through the integration of:

- natural heritage features, areas, and systems;

- abandoned rail lines in public ownership;

- existing rights-of-way;

- established and proposed service and utility corridors;

- existing parkland and open space;

- sidewalks and pathways;

- linkages provided through the draft plan of subdivision approval process;

- agreements with private land owners;

- retention or acquisition of access easements; and

- land acquisition (s. 2.7.4.3 (b));

The County shall support the provision of recreational trail opportunities and access

along the Grand River and other watercourses in order to contribute to the Linkage

Strategy (s. 2.7.4.3 (c));



The County shall promote the integration and accessibility of community uses

including schools, County facilities, institutional uses, parks and open spaces and

recreational uses through the Linkage Strategy (s. 2.7.4.3 (d));

The County shall require the provision of certain pedestrian, cycling and trail

linkages through the development approvals process, in accordance with the

policies of this Plan and associated Area Studies as approved by the County (s.

2.7.4.3 (e));

Design principles should be established to accommodate parking at strategic

locations along the linkage system (s. 2.7.4.3 (f));

When dealing with Planning Act applications, the County shall actively encourage

residential, commercial and industrial developers to connect with and provide

opportunities to extend the community trail system (s. 2.7.4.3 (g));

Community Design

To achieve excellence in community design through the review of development

applications, including plans of subdivision, infill development proposals, site plans

and other development proposals, the County shall:

- promote the improvement of the physical character, appearance and safety

of streetscapes, civic spaces, and parks;

- encourage community and development design patterns that promote

pedestrian movement through pedestrian friendly design, such as

pedestrian-scaled streets, sidewalks, trails and a well- connected street

network;

- encourage cycling through the provision of bicycle lanes and cycling trails,

where appropriate;

- encourage the provision of facilities that promote cycling and walkability,

specifically within the County’s Urban Settlement Areas;

- encourage tree retention or tree replacement (s. 2.7.5.2 (b)(iii) to (vii);

A high quality of park and open space design shall be strongly encouraged. The

land for parkland dedication shall be carefully selected to facilitate its use as a

central focal point for new or existing neighbourhoods (s. 2.7.5.2 (b)(i));

Barrier-free design shall be applied to:

- sidewalks, walkways, and trails;

- public buildings/facilities;

- outdoor parks and public spaces;

- new recreational structures (s. 2.7.5.2 (a)(vi)(vii)(xi));

The County shall remove barriers from existing public facilities and outdoor public

spaces in order to eliminate barriers for people and visitors with disabilities (s.

2.7.5.2 (c));



Energy Conservation, Efficiency and Generation

The County shall encourage public/private partnerships to finance, acquire and

construct a linked open space system consisting of bikeways, trails, and walkways

which promote walking, cycling and non-motorized modes of transportation within

and between communities (s. 2.7.7 (e));

Core Area

The County shall encourage the provision of facilities that promote cycling and

walkability (s. 3.8.3 (j));

The County shall consider the assembling of land within the Core Area designation

in order to promote, encourage, and assist proposed redevelopment or

rehabilitation projects or for public open spaces to provide for a community focus (s.

3.8.3 (n));

Mixed Use

Neighbourhood community and cultural centres and institutional uses of similar

scale shall be permitted in the Mixed Use designation (subject to criteria) (s. 3.11.2

(h));

The County shall encourage the provision of facilities that promote cycling and

walkability (s. 3.11.2 (c));

Parks and Recreation

Permitted uses in this designation include major public parks, community parks,

public recreational facilities, community centres, conservation areas, fairs or

exhibition grounds, open spaces, commercial recreational facilities (such as golf

courses, fee fishing, campgrounds, and amusement parks) (s. 3.15.2);

New recreational uses shall be allowed to proceed subject to an amendment to the

County Zoning By-law and a Site Plan Control agreement stipulating the height and

siting of buildings, landscaping, parking, location of services, access, grading and

methods of protecting and enhancing the shoreline, and other matters as set out in

the Planning Act (s. 3.15.3 (d));

All existing recreational uses shall be allowed to expand provided they are able to

conform to the policies of the Parks and Recreation land use designation and to the

zoning requirements. Within areas designated as Agriculture, any such expansion

will require an Official Plan Amendment (s. 3.15.3 (e));

Within the Parks and Recreation designation, the County shall discourage the

application of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, and encourage the planting of

native species (s. 3.15.3. (f));

Stormwater Management

Prior to development approval, the proponent shall provide, where appropriate,

public access to and along the stormwater management system and the receiving



watercourse where such areas can be used to form part of a natural trail or open

space system. Roads and sidewalks within the development shall have access to

these natural areas. The use of dry ponds which can be located adjacent to

parkland for the purpose of maximizing the space available for public use is

encouraged. Wet ponds are encouraged to be incorporated into subdivision designs

as aesthetic features of the community. (s. 5.2.4 (i));

In order to ensure that the size, configuration and grade of the land surrounding the

facility can be efficiently programmed as a component of a trail or open space

system, it may be necessary to prepare a landscape design as a condition of

development approval (s. 5.2.4 (j));

Areas required for stormwater management shall not be considered part of the

parkland dedication required under the provisions of the Planning Act, and this Plan.

However, the development of these areas into parkland facilities, such as the

provision of paths, may be considered as an alternative to a portion of cash-in-lieu

of parkland contribution. The provision of additional land to facilitate the use of

these areas as parkland may also be considered. (s. 5.2.4 (k));

Transportation Systems

The County shall maintain and encourage the protection of rail corridors for other

linear uses should they become abandoned (s. 5.3.1 (d)) and the County supports

the reuse of abandoned rail corridors for potential trail systems or pedestrian and

cycling links (s. 5.3.5 (g));

Dedicated bikeways or separate cycling facilities may be provided where required

on Urban Arterial Roads (s. 5.3.2.1.2 (d));

Sidewalks are typically not required and shoulder bike lanes may be considered on

Rural Arterial Roads, particularly where the Rural Arterial Road is a connecting link

to a Primary or Secondary Settlement Area or is identified as a bicycle route (s.

5.3.2.1.3 (b));

Dedicated bikeways, separate cycling facilities or wider curb lanes are permitted are

permitted on Urban Residential Collector Roads (s. 5.3.2.1.4 (e));

Dedicated bikeways or separate cycling facilities are generally not required on

Urban Employment Collector Roads (s. 5.3.2.1.5 (e));


Rural Collector Roads, particularly where the Rural Collector Road is a connecting

link to a Primary or Secondary Settlement Area or is identified as a bicycle route (s.

5.3.2.1.6 (b));

Dedicated bikeways or separate cycling facilities are typically not required on Urban

Residential Local Roads (s. 5.3.2.1.7 (e));

Dedicated bikeways or separate cycling facilities are typically not required on Urban

Employment Local Roads but may be required where the roads serve as linkages to

other parks or recreational facilities (s. 5.3.2.1.8 (e));




Rural Local Roads, particularly where the Rural Local Road is a connecting link to a

Primary or Secondary Urban Settlement Area, park or recreational use or is

identified as a bicycle route (s. 5.3.2.1.9 (b));

Sidewalks, bicycle lanes and transit facilities are not intended on Public Lanes (s.

5.3.2.1.10);

Walking, Cycling and Trail Systems

The County provides numerous major off-road trails which include: the Hamilton to

Brantford Rail Trail; SC Johnson Trail; Mount Pleasant Trail; and the Cambridge to

Paris Rail Trail. The Grand Valley Trails Association also provides off-road trails

throughout the County. The County encourages the development and enhancement

of pedestrian and shared use of non-motorized trails and bicycle routes. (s. 5.3.4);

The County shall support the preparation of a Trails Master Plan for the County’s

trail system to identify a preferred on-road and off-road trail and cycling network to

accommodate a variety of non-motorized activities including cycling, walking, and

running, provide for the delineation of existing and proposed trail systems, linkages

to natural heritage features, destinations, the County sidewalk system, specific trail

standards and design criteria, among other matters (s. 5.3.4 (a));

The County shall encourage community partnerships for acquisition,

improvement(s) and maintenance of the trail system (s. 5.3.4 (b));

The County may work towards providing safe bicycle and pedestrian paths, both

separated from the roadway, on existing and proposed roads, on abandoned rail

corridors, on utility corridors, and within parks and open spaces, as appropriate (s.

5.3.4. (c));

The County may consider adapting roads to provide safer travel for bicycles and

pedestrians on road pathways, where feasible and appropriate (s. 5.3.4 (d));

The County shall undertake to interconnect existing walking trails and bicycle paths,

where feasible and appropriate to provide continuous trail system linkages. Routes

should provide continuous access between neighbourhoods, parks, schools,

recreation facilities, along the Grand River, commercial and employment areas and

other public buildings and services (s. 5.3.4 (e));

The County shall promote accessible and convenient trail systems within a

reasonable distance from neighbourhoods and major destinations (s. 5.3.4 (f));

The County shall promote aesthetically pleasing trail systems, particularly for

recreational purposes, with attention to trail systems associated with natural assets

such as waterfronts, parks, and natural heritage features. Where possible, the

planting of locally native species along these trail systems shall be promoted. (s.

5.3.4 (g));

The implementation of trail systems should be feasible given the consideration of

the costs and benefits associated with the route selection, taking into consideration



the costs of healthy living, environmental sustainability, and the quality of

neighbourhood character (s. 5.3.4 (h));

The County shall encourage the integration of bicycle path and walkway systems

into the design of transportation facilities by including facilities such as sufficient and

protected bicycle storage areas at places of employment and major community,

institutional, educational, cultural and shopping locations, where appropriate (s.

5.3.4 (i));

The County shall implement and operate an effective trail system maintenance

program (s. 5.3.4 (j));

In partnership with surrounding municipalities, the County shall promote

opportunities for public access to the Grand River waterfront areas and the

development of a river trail system and open space linkages throughout the County

(s. 5.3.4 (k));

The County may explore opportunities for the reuse of abandoned rail corridors for

potential trail systems (s. 5.3.4 (l));

The County shall evaluate and promote walking systems in new development

proposals and consider the overall connectivity of the system (s. 5.3.4 (m));

Any public or private trail crossing a Provincial Highway is subject to approval and

the restrictions imposed by the Province. Trails running along a Provincial Highway

will not be permitted. (s. 5.3.4 (n));

In developing the trail system, consideration shall be given to impacts on hazardous

lands, watercourses and natural heritage features such that any such impacts are

eliminated or reduced to the greatest extent possible (s. 5.3.4 (o));

The County shall support the use of utility corridors for trail uses (s. 5.5 (i));

Community Services and Facilities

The County of Brant shall endeavour to provide adequate community services and

facilities to meet the needs of the County’s existing and future residents, businesses

and visitors through the provision of adequate opportunities for education, health

care, parks, open space and recreation, libraries, cultural and heritage facilities,

health and safety (s. 5.4);

Where closure and sale of a school is proposed, the open space component of the

school site may be retained or incorporated in a redevelopment proposal (s. 5.4

(a));

Museums, theatres, cultural facilities, places of worship, health care facilities and

recreation facilities in the County shall be supported (s. 5.4 (f));

The County shall encourage the provision of libraries as an important cultural and

community resource for learning, research and community activities and may

include joint use agreements with local school boards (s. 5.4 (g));



Public Land Acquisition

The County shall consider all options for land acquisition, including dedication;

donations; assistance from other levels of government, agencies and charitable

foundations; the bonusing provisions of the Planning Act; density transfers; land

exchange; long-term lease; easement agreements; purchase agreements;

partnerships; land trusts, conditions of development approval, and expropriation;

Where park and open space dedicated land is insufficient in size or shape for the

intended uses and needs, the County shall consider acquisition of additional land

for park and open space purposes (s. 6.11).

The County Official Plan direction and policies regarding parks, recreation and trails are

comprehensive and generally well-connected to the various related land use,

transportation, infrastructure and other policy matters. Based on an initial review of the

policies, the following should be considered through future review and amendment of the

Plan:

Update parkland provision level targets based on the direction of the new

Recreation Master Plan including the parkland classification system and walkability

criteria for neighourhood-level parks and facilities;

The parkland dedication policies should be updated based on recent changes to the

Planning Act which require specific policies dealing with the use of the alternative

dedication requirement of 1 hectare per 300 units, and which limit cash-in-lieu of

parkland to the value of the land otherwise required at the rate of 1 hectare per 500

housing units, where the alternative dedication rate is applied;

Policies should be considered that provide direction for reduction of the cash-in-lieu

of parkland required for redevelopment projects that meet sustainability criteria,

pursuant to the Planning Act (s. 42(6.2));

Policies should be considered to address the conveyance of rights-of-way for

pedestrian and bicycle pathways through plans of subdivision, pursuant to the

Planning Act (s. 51(25(b)), and to support application of these policies consideration

should be given to including mapping of existing and planned on- and off-road trail

routes;

The barrier-free design policies in section 2.7.5.2 state that this shall be applied to

trails – this policy should clarify that barrier-free design will be applied to trails where

applicable in accordance with the Integrated Accessibility Standards for trails under

the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), which provide

exemptions for certain types of trails including trails solely intended for cross-

country skiing, mountain biking or the use of motorized snow vehicles or off-road

vehicles, wilderness trails, backcountry trails, portage routes, and to recognize that

certain exceptions are permitted under the legislation;



The transportation and walking, cycling and trail system policies of the plan should

be updated with current terms and concepts including “active transportation” and

“complete streets”;

The Official Plan, when reviewed and amended, should be updated with reference

to the new Recreation Master Plan and should incorporate additional policy

amendments based on the recommendations of the final Master Plan.

5.9 County of Brant Asset Management Plan 2013

Asset Management Plan provides an inventory of physical assets owned by the County and

their current condition, levels of service, and identifies replacement values on those assets

with the objective of defining future capital needs and financial strategies to manage the

County’s assets including projected short- and long-term capital investment needs.

The Asset Management Plan identifies existing levels of services and suggested

performance metrics for parks and recreation facilities as summarized in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1: Asset Management Plan Levels of Service and Performance Metrics,

Parks and Recreation Facilities

Levels of Service Suggested Performance Metric

All Facilities, including Recreation

1. All areas of the County are within 25 km

of museums, theatres, cultural/health

care/recreation facilities and libraries;

1. Number of locations that do not have

some types of facilities within the

25km goal radius;

2. All infrastructure should comply with the

Accessibility for Ontarians with

Disabilities Act (AODA);

2. Number of facilities in the County that

do not comply with the AODA

3. Minimize the number of accidents and

legal actions that occur that are directly

attributed to improper maintenance of a

facility.

3. Number of accidents and legal

actions directly related to improper

maintenance of a facility.

Parks

1. Provide a variety of different sized parks

to residents (tot-lots, neighbourhood

parks, community parks, regional parks);

1. Number of parks of each size/type

2. Provide 3 hectares of parks per 1,000

people as a parkland provision rate goal

as per the Recreation Master Plan (OP

Section 2.7.4);

2. Percentage of County with a parkland

provision rate that meets the goal



Levels of Service Suggested Performance Metric

3. Provide a trail network that includes both

local and regional linkages to land and

water;

3. Length of trails and number of access

points to land/water trails per 1,000

residents

4. Provide sufficient parks, trails and open

spaces to new subdivisions/service

areas (5% of land dedicated to

development or equivalent cash-in-lieu).

4. Number of new developments where

land dedication rate goal is achieved

The Asset Management Plan should be reviewed and updated as needed to ensure that it

includes a comprehensive inventory of parks and recreation assets, including built assets

such as buildings, structures, parking areas, services, lighting/utilities, artificial and hard

surface outdoor recreation facilities, as well as natural and soft landscape components

such as natural turf, playground safety surfaces, trails, horticulture and trees.

5.10 Trails Master Plan (2010) and Transportation Master Plan (2008, 2016)

The County completed a Trails Master Plan in August 2010. The Trails Master Plan

provides direction to Council, staff and the community on the priorities and guidelines for

the development of trails in the County. The Trails Master Plan builds upon the previous

Trails Use Report (2007) and adopted Transportation Master Plan (December 2008). The

Transportation Master Plan was updated in 2016 and is also summarized in this section as

it provides related recommendations pertaining to trails and active transportation.

The Trails Master Plan highlights the following key findings identified through the public

consultation:

Trails should take advantage of natural and wildlife destinations;

Trails should link employment areas with residential and neighbourhood destinations

providing an active mode of transportation for everyday use;

The addition of trail signage, washrooms and parking should be implemented and

located along trails, where appropriate, and/or at existing and future trailheads;

Marketing to new residents and young families should be pursued in order to diversify

the user base of the trail system;

A maintenance plan should be implemented in order to keep trails from falling into

disrepair and to ensure user satisfaction and safety;

Additional funding should be sought from other levels of government for the future

development of trails;



All new development in the County should be required, or at least encouraged, to

include trail development as part of their open space system, linking with existing or

planned trails in the community;

Attention should be paid to linking the County of Brant trail system to those in the

County of Norfolk and other surrounding communities / municipalities; and

It is recommended that a trail survey be conducted at regular intervals (i.e. every five

years) to ensure that the trail needs of the community are taken into account.

The Trails Master Plan recommended the following trails hierarchy in order to organize the

trails into categories based on use, types of users and frequency of use:

Primary trails most often are those with regional significant or connecting the County

with adjacent jurisdictions. In general, Primary trails are anticipated to have the highest

volume of and most diverse users.

Secondary trails feed into the larger trail network and provide connections between the

Primary trails and the Tertiary trails. These trails will generally have a lower level of use

than Primary trails and therefore are often built and maintained to a different standard.

Many of the trails are located adjacent to roadways and connect to urban areas and/or

points of interest.

Tertiary trails are the next step down in the trail hierarchy. They are meant to connect

with the Secondary trails, which lead to the Primary trails, provide a more local system

for County residents and integrate with settlement areas. They provide opportunities

for nature viewing and hiking, where there is less potential conflict with motorized

vehicles.

The Trails Master Plan includes trail guidelines for the three categories of trails (width,

gradient, surface material and horizontal clearance), along with guidelines for trail

alignment along sensitive features, water edge treatments, drainage, edge protection,

accessibility, sight distances, signage requirements and maintenance. The Trails Master

Plan also addressed the use of motorized vehicles and Off Highway Vehicles on trails.

The Trails Master Plan recommends an incremental approach to the development of the

trail system in the County, as illustrated on the Potential Trail Network Map and the

Individual Community Maps for Paris, Burford, St. George and Mount Pleasant. These

maps are included in Appendix C to this report. The Potential Trail Network Map identifies

both existing and proposed Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Trails.

Based on the Potential Trail Network Map, the Trails Master Plan includes an

implementation strategy that organizes trail development based on high (short term),



medium (mid-term) and low priority (long term). Priorities for the development of trails as

identified in the Trails Master Plan are summarized in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2: Trails Master Plan Implementation Priorities

Trail Route Length

(km)

Cost

Implication

Short-Term Priorities

Extension of Trailhead to Portage Area (at Cambridge to

Paris Trail)

1.2 $132,000

Linkage between T.H. & B and L.E. & N Trails 0.04 $29,700

Mid-Term Priorities

St. George to Brantford Bicycle Lane (St. George Road to

Park Road / Powerline Road)

7.8 $864,850

L.E. & N. Rail Trail to Scotland (Wetmore’s Road

Connection)

8.7 $916,000

Rest Acres Road Trail 3 $450,450

Paris to Brantford Bicycle Lane (Paris Road to Powerline

Road)

6 $660,000

Long-Term Priorities

St. George to Lockie Road 6.4 $704,000

Mount Pleasant to Newport/Dike Trail 7.2 $792,000

Brant Conservation Area to Maple Ave. N Trail 11.6 $1,296,550

Robinson Road to Paris Trail 4.6 $506,000

St. George to Cambridge to Paris Rail Trail 8.6 $946,000

TOTAL 65.14 $7,297,550

The following is a summary of the Trails Master Plan recommendations:

1. Provide a network of trails for alternative modes of transportation, for residents,

visitors and tourists to the County.

2. Support the establishment of a Trails Advisory Committee comprised of County staff,

representation from all trail user organizations and agency partners.

3. Continue to foster relations with neighbouring communities and service delivery

agencies regarding development of new trails, maintenance of trails and special trail

projects.

4. Collaborate with Economic and Tourism Development to promote trails through the

County of Brant public relations. E.g. Trails Maps, Things to Do, etc.

5. Continue to plan for trails development in growth areas. Ensure that new

development areas are provided with sidewalks and / or trails for walking / cycling



only. Develop cycling lanes on selected collector / rural roads as road improvements

are undertaken.

6. Work with trail providers to develop / support a network of trails in the County that

offer a range of trail uses appropriate to the location (hiking / walking, cycling,

mountain-biking, ATV, snowmobiling, equestrian) in Conservation Areas, crown

lands, private lands, etc.

7. Ensure risk management measures are implemented such as building and

maintaining trails to defined standards, undertaking regular inspections, undertaking

trail repairs promptly when identified, providing training for trail workers.

8. Investigate all opportunities for cost-sharing and funding sources for trails

development, as opportunities arise including; partnerships / collaborative ventures,

planning applications / parkland dedication, sponsorship programs such as Adopt-a-

trail, eligible grant programs.

9. Include Trails as a standing item at Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee

Meetings.

10. Require developers of new residential subdivisions to provide lands appropriate for

the integration of a system of neighbourhood trails into subdivision development and

to provide connections between neighbourhood trails and the regional trail systems.

11. Develop marketing and promotion materials to encourage and support trail use.

12. It shall be the policy of the County to maintain a system of multi-use trails for non-

motorized traffic throughout the County. Council shall regard the trail system as a

component of the County’s transportation infrastructure and shall encourage and

promote the use of the trails by residents as a healthy transportation choice.

13. Connections to the trail system with other recreation facilities, the downtown and

other commercial areas, educational institutions and residential neighbourhoods

should be included whenever possible in new developments and areas of

revitalization.

14. Install bicycle racks for short-term use at major destinations and start installing

drainage grate covers that are bicycle friendly, placing priority on the recommended

cycling routes.

Transportation Master Plan (2008, 2016)

The Transportation Master Plan (2008) and Transportation Master Plan Update (2016)

provide direction for transportation system improvements and management to address

future needs based on forecast travel demands. Active transportation (walking and cycling)

contributes to reducing vehicle travel demands and traffic volumes and related

environmental impacts, providing transportation choice and options, and fostering healthy

and active lifestyles.



The documents describe existing active transportation opportunities and influences in the

County as follows:

Existing active transportation facilities include recreational trails and on-road routes

primarily in response to leisure and recreation activities, group activities such as

bicycle tours, routes to schools and general short distance transportation for all

residents and visitors;

There are no formal bikeways in the County except along multi-use off-road trails,

and no marked bike lanes on County Roads;

Most on-road cycling is by sharing lower volume roads in and around the

settlement areas, and along the gravel shoulders of County roads;

Existing multi-use trails built on abandoned railway corridors include:

- Hamilton to Brantford Rail Trail linking Hamilton and Brantford;

- SC Johnson Trail linking Branford and Paris;

- Cambridge to Paris Rail Trail linking Paris and Cambridge;

- Total: 77km, form a major part of the Trans Canada Trail System and link

with the Gordon Graves Memorial Pathway along the Grand River in

Brantford;

Most walking trips take place over short distances of less than 2km, beyond 2km

the number of walking trips significantly decreases;

Most cycling trip are under 4km with the number of trips decreasing beyond 4km

depending on availability of cycling routes, trip lengths and seasonal conditions;

The Trails Master Plan includes eight (8) recommended cycling trails, mainly as

paved road shoulders, but it does not provide guidelines or plans for provision of

other cycling routes in urban communities such as marked exclusive bike lanes,

segregated lanes or “sharrow” lanes;

The 2010 Trails Master Plan includes nine (9) recognized existing off-road trails in

the County, but the study scope did not include the larger issue of pedestrianization

in urban areas with sidewalks and rail crossings;

To date the Trails Master Plan has not been reviewed or endorsed by County

Council, but the County plans to finalize the plan as part of the Community

Services Master Plan;

It is recommended that the Off-Road Cycling Strategy and Trail Planning

Guidelines prepared for the 2008 Transportation Master Plan be reviewed and

incorporated where appropriate into the Community Services Master Plan;

The Transportation Master Plan provides the following recommendations for future active

transportation planning and infrastructure development:

On-road bike lanes along Rest Acres Road with future widening to 2 lanes in both

directions;



Mixed land use as Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy to

encourage and support active transportation opportunities;

The following trail planning guidelines:

- County Council should determine overall budgetary priorities and allocations for

an annual County of Brant Trail Development and Lifecycle Maintenance

Program, including annual allocations for new trail development;

- the County should complete and review a minimum of every five years, and

possibly over a shorter time period in the case of new phased trail develop, a

Trails Master Plan that will provide:

specific trail standards, design criteria, material applications, etc.

a map of all trails in the County delineating priority use, locations, access

points, services, lengths, links to natural heritage and natural habitat areas,

and proposed/possible future on-road/off-road trails;

marketing and promotion plans and materials;

identified linkages with the County’s Transportation Master Plan, tourism

newsletters and brochures, Parks and Recreation plans and the Official

Plan;

- The County should strongly encourage community partnerships for acquisition,

improvement(s) and maintenance of the trail system. However, the absence of

a third-party agreement for acquisition, improvement or maintenance should not

be cause for the County to reject acceptance of a proposed trail which is in

compliance with these guidelines. The acceptance of a trail does not guarantee

County-funded construction or maintenance; and,

- Trails proposed for incorporation into the County’s Trail System will initially be

reviewed by a County Trails Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, and appropriate

action taken by County Council as part of the annual budget process.

- Standards for the development and maintenance of off-road trails for walking

and cycling should encourage accessible, logical, safe and comfortable usage,

serve a wide variety of recreation and transportation modes and impact the

environment as little as possible;

- A mix of trails suitable for use by hikers, bicyclists, equestrians and wheelchairs

should be encouraged;

- Trail widths should be based on intended use(s);

- Trail grades should generally not exceed two metres per thirty metres (15%

slope), but may be built steeper for short distances;

- Drainage dips/swales/ditches and erosion control components should be

engineered and scheduled to provide maximum endurance and to minimize

impact on soil and vegetative resources;

- Turning radii for curves other than switchbacks should generally be greater than

3 m;

- All trails should have signage at trail heads and distance markers at either one

or five kilometre distances where possible; and



- All trails should be reviewed for support opportunities relative to services for

rentals, food services, parking and related enhancement opportunities where

feasible;

- Walking/hiking trails provide passive recreational opportunities and connections

between points of interest, the trail designs vary depending on the volume of

activity, and will be located predominately in areas of natural heritage including

woodlots, along watercourses, around stormwater management areas and as

connection linkages between larger parks;

Clearing Width: 1.2 metres to 3.0 metres varying by volume of activity

Tread Width: 0.75 metres to 1.25 metres;

Clearing Height: 2.5 metres with sensitivity to maintain existing vegetation

where possible;

Surface: compacted limestone fines or woodchips; or other suitable

material;

Grades: The trail is intended to match the natural terrain wherever possible.

Normally the desirable grade is less than 5% with a maximum of 15% to

25% for short distances;

The construction practices and type of material used for surface treatment

should be sensitive to the surrounding natural vegetation and existing

materials; and

Water Crossing: Wherever possible the need to cross watercourses will be

accommodated through existing bridge systems. Where necessary small

bridges will be provided to accommodate walking traffic only. The bridges

will be designed to minimize disruption to the waterway and provide

sufficient clearance for continued canoe and kayak use.

- Multi-use trails provide opportunities for a wide range of passive non-motorized

activities such as walking, cycling, wheelchair access, rollerblades, strollers and

walkers for seniors, are intended to be located in proximity to residential areas

and newly developing subdivisions, provide access to open space areas and

link schools, and commercial and institutional activities within the community,

and will be located adjacent to stormwater management ponds, environmental

areas and natural areas;

Clearing Width: 5 metres to 8 metres with some impact on adjacent

vegetation;

Tread Width: 2 metres to 2.7 metres; 3 metres to 4.5 metres where the

tread width anticipates significant cycling activity;

Clearing Height: 2.5 metres to 3.0 metres with some impact on surrounding

vegetation;

Surface: compacted limestone fines, minimum; recommended asphalt

where significant user activity is anticipated; and

Grades: 0 to 5% with maximum sustained grades less than 10%;



The design shall minimize blind corners, sudden grade changes or steep

slopes terminating at a path or road intersections to provide high levels of

safety for cycling and in-line skating where higher speeds may occur;

- The following criteria are recommended to determine the suitability of a

proposed trail to be included in the County of Brant trail system:

Trails will be considered for inclusion upon submission of an official request

to the County of Brant;

Anyone or group may submit a request;

Documented concurrence of the involved landowner(s) and/or managing

agency(s) must be provided with each request;

All requests will be reviewed by the County for general public safety,

completeness and appropriateness;

Based upon the recommendation of County staff, final approval of the

requested trail for inclusion in the County’s trail system will be by the

County of Brant Council;

Submitted existing trails requests should show recent use as well as

verified history of the route having been used by the public as a trail;

Trails that connect with one of the following will be given strong

consideration: existing or proposed trails as already delineated on the

County’s trail maps, the preferred basic geometry of a trail should reflect

the guidelines provided, the terrain and/or topography for a trail should be

suitable for trail purposes, either multiuse or specific, and may be of various

degrees of difficulty, trails that provide an alternate means of transportation

should be given strong consideration, as should trails located in floodplains,

old railroad rights of way, and utility easements and on watercourses;

- Trail Maps:

should be adopted by County Council as the official documents outlining

the County’s Trail System;

should be maintained by the County and revised as directed by Council;

should also be reflected on the Transportation Schedule of the County’s

Official Plan, and maps and brochures produced by the Community

Services Department, Parks & Recreation, economic development and

tourism agencies and private organizations (i.e. GRCA, Brant Waterways

Foundation);

- The decision to amend the trail system and Trails maps should be based on

one or more of the following criteria:

Whether the subject trail or trail access serves as a link to a major nature

preserve or waterway;

Whether the subject trail or trail access is selected so as to minimize the

impact on the environment; and/or whether the subject trail access is

positioned in a way to minimize impacts upon adjacent structures and

property owners;



Whether the subject trail or trail access crosses roadways at grade

separations or away from blind curves or stretches of road where visibility

is obscured;

Whether the subject trail or trail access is a significant scenic or historical

route which serves as a link in the overall trail system;

Whether the subject trail or trail access will require significant alteration or

removal of existing vegetation; and/or,

Whether the subject trail or trail access will pose significant design or safety

problems or has experienced water level or related constraints;

- For trails funding,

County Council may set up a separate account to accept donations, grants

or any funds to be used exclusively for the acquisition, development,

preservation and maintenance of the County’s trail system,

Council may also consider the use of Ecological Land Donations, Job

Creation Programs and other funding sources;

Trails that serve new development may also be funded by development

charges;

As new subdivisions are developed, additional charges/revenues may

apply;

The On-Road Cycling Strategy is based on four functional classifications of on-road

cycling facilities:

- Shared Roadway or Wide Curb Lane:

cyclists share the roadway with other vehicles, usually on the right side of

the travel lane;

signed as a shared route;

suitable for utilitarian or recreational uses;

most appropriate only on local urban or suburban roads with low traffic

volumes and speeds;

as volumes and speeds increase, the travel lane should be widened to a

desired 4.5 m width to accommodate the safe passage of motor vehicles

and bicycles without changing lanes;

- Shoulder Bikeway:

a smooth paved shoulder on which cyclists are separated from the travel

lane for motor vehicles;

typically present on roadways with fast moving motor vehicles traffic,

making them more suitable for rural applications;

in rural areas they can also include a rumble strip between the travel lane

and paved shoulder as a warning to motorists to not encroach on the

shoulder space;

five (5) priority routes:

1. Governors Road from Paris towards Copetown;

2. Powerline Road from King George Road to Bethel Church Road;



3. East River Road between Green Lane and Brant Road Highway 24;

4. Paris Road between Brantford and Paris up to Highway 5; and

5. Old Highway 24 south from Mount Pleasant Road towards Waterford;

should be designed to Transportation Association of Canada (TAC)

standards to provide satisfactory clearances between the bicycle envelope,

which is 1.0 metres (3.3 feet) to 1.5 metres (4.9 feet) wide and the

motorized vehicle;

a 1.0 m -1.5 m envelope is recommended because the posted speed on

most County Roads where paved shoulders may be considered is 80

km/hr;

this results in a pavement width of 2.0 - 2.5 metres (6.5 - 8.2 feet) on each

side of the road for a paved shoulder;

the cost to retrofit a two lane County Road with 2.5 metre wide paved

shoulder bike lanes is estimated at approximately $25,000/kilometer;

- Bike Lane:

situated within roadways serving other vehicular traffic;

separated from adjacent travel lanes for motor vehicles, and intended for

the exclusive use of bicycles;

designated by either a painted line or raised delineator (e.g. posts,

bollards), however the latter is not recommended due to safety concerns;

due to their exclusive use for cyclists, bike lanes are a safer alternative

than a shared roadway and are often used on collectors and arterials

the minimum bike lane width is 1.2 m from the face of curb, with 1.5 m

preferred;

- Bike Path:

physically separated from the roadway,

intended for exclusive use of cyclists, although they may be shared with

pedestrians;

may be located within a road right of way or may follow a route not served

by roads;

non-road corridors present an attractive opportunity for recreational cycling

and sometimes provide a more direct route for commuters;

typical locations for bike paths are along rivers and creeks, waterfronts,

utility rights of way, parks, within the right of way of major subdivision roads

or along abandoned railway rights of way;

crossing of roadways is kept to a minimum;

due to safety and operational problems, the use of boulevards as bike

paths should only be considered when no other routes are available;

there should be no more than three crossings (driveways/intersections) per

kilometer;

side paths should not be used as a substitute for viable on-road facilities.



- Cycling itself, and therefore the cycling infrastructure and supporting services

must be a quality experience that attracts a wide variety of user types, skills and

comfort levels;

- Designate and maintain cycling routes where appropriate as on-road urban bike

lanes and paths, off-road multi-use trails and rural road paved shoulders;

Walking and cycling facilities should be an integral part of subdivision planning to

provide continuous and convenient walking and cycling network to encourage non-

motorized modes of transportation;

Site layout that encourages pedestrian and cyclist travel should consider the

following:

- a system of pedestrian walkways should provide direct connectivity to all

developed parts of a subdivision;

- in addition to sidewalks along streets, pedestrian networks may include facilities

between buildings, particularly those of complementary uses;

- on neighbourhood streets, bicyclists can be accommodated within the roadway;

- on higher volume streets, additional facilities such as widened curb lanes or

dedicated bike lanes should be considered;

- bicycle parking facilities should also be provided at all high activity destinations;

The main recommendation regarding active transportation planning in the County of

Brant is that it be addressed by the Community Services Master Plan, including

consideration of active transportation strategies developed for the 2008

Transportation Master Plan, as well as the 2010 Trails Master Plan.

5.11 Ontario Cycling Strategy, 2014

The Ministry of Transportation released the Ontario Cycling Strategy in 2014. The Strategy

is the first in a series of ongoing, multi-year action plans to help make Ontario a more

cycling-friendly province. The following is a scoped summary of the five strategic directions

that have been identified in the document, identifying only those directions which are

relevant to the Brant County Recreation Master Plan:

#1: Design healthy, active and prosperous communities by:

1.4. Working with municipalities to strengthen local implementation of provincial active

transportation policies that facilitate cycling by:

Supporting municipalities as they develop and implement municipal official plans

and transportation-related plans that support cycling

Developing an education program for provincial and municipal staff on cycling

planning

Undertaking research to identify planning, engineering and operational barriers to

cycling and active transportation, and related tools

Developing an implementation plan to help overcome these barriers



#2: Improve cycling infrastructure by:

2.1. Launching a three-year Ontario Cycling Infrastructure Program to build municipal and

provincial cycling infrastructure

2.4. Working with municipalities to identify and address any provincial practices or

infrastructure that are barriers for local cycling networks

2.5. Releasing Ontario Traffic Manual Book 18 to provide guidance to municipalities on the

planning, design and operation of cycling facilities

#3. Make highways and streets safer by:

3.1. Introducing proposed legislative and regulatory amendments to promote cyclist safety,

including amendments that address dooring, one-metre passing, contraflow bike lanes,

bicycle-specific traffic signals and riding on paved shoulders

3.2. Consulting municipalities, road user groups and others on additional safety-related

issues such as cycling on sidewalks and default speed limits

3.3. Providing stakeholder partners with new funding to develop or enhance cycling skills

training programs (2015)

#4: Promote cycling awareness and behavioural shifts by:

4.1. Establishing and supporting a community of interest forum for municipal staff who work

on cycling, to encourage innovation by sharing best practices and knowledge

4.2. Promoting cycling to school and to work through the Active and Sustainable School

Transportation program and the Smart Commute workplace program

4.3. Supporting cycling-related programs and development of community cycling policies

through the Healthy Communities Fund

4.4. Encouraging more people to cycle more often by supporting a variety of cycling

programs and initiatives through the Ontario Trillium Foundation

4.5. Delivering cycling-related education programs and collaborating on local cycling

initiatives through local public health units

4.6. Supporting student learning about cycling through the existing elementary and

secondary curriculum

#5: Increase cycling tourism opportunities by:

5.1. Identifying a province-wide network of cycling routes to promote recreational cycling

and cycling tourism, connect municipal cycling routes and places of interest and help

prioritize future infrastructure investments on provincial highways

5.3. Supporting cycling through the Ontario Trails Strategy, a long-term plan that provides

direction for planning, managing, promoting and using trails in Ontario

5.4. Supporting cycling tourism projects through the Celebrate Ontario program, which

supports festivals and events, and the Tourism Development Fund

5.5. Providing product development and marketing support of cycling tourism through

regional tourism organizations.



5.12 Pathways to Wellbeing: A Framework for Recreation in Canada 2015

This document summarizes a co-led initiative by the provincial and territorial governments

and parks and recreation associations, and the Canadian Parks and Recreation

Association to “re-vision” recreation’s capacity to foster wellbeing. The purpose of the paper

is to promote coordinated recreation policies and practices with aim of improving the

wellbeing of individuals, communities and the built and natural environments. The many

benefits and importance of recreation are highlighted, involving enhanced mental and

physical health, social engagement, community and family cohesion, re-connecting with

nature and economic benefits. Key challenges are described related to demographic

changes, health and risk behaviours, economic inequities, social issues, technologies,

infrastructure deficits and threats to the natural environment. A framework consisting of a

vision, values, principles of operation, goals and related priorities is put forward and a

summary provided in the document is captioned below:



5.13 Pathways to Recreation: Learning about Ontario’s Accessibility Standard for the Design of Public Spaces

The Government of Ontario has established the Design of Public Spaces (Built

Environment) Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA),

and this standard applies when developing new public spaces and redeveloping existing

public spaces involving (among others) recreational trails, outdoor public use eating areas,

outdoor play spaces, exterior paths of travel (e.g. sidewalks, walkways), accessible parking

and maintenance. For this standard, the compliance date for municipalities is January 1,

2016.

Parks and Recreation Ontario has released a Guidebook titled “Pathways to Recreation –

Learning about Ontario’s Accessibility Standard for the Design of Public Spaces” to provide

owners, managers and operators of municipal and not-for-profit parks, outdoor recreation

facilities and amenities with an understanding of the accessibility requirements, and is

available as a reference guide.

5.14 Youth Services Strategy

The County of Brant and the City of Brantford prepared the Youth Services Strategy in

2017 to provide a framework for the two municipalities to continue to collaborate across

municipal boundaries to support youth and youth agencies. The Strategy includes seven

(7) themes and 20 outcomes that are critical for positive youth development, including that

Ontario youth are physically healthy and Ontario youth make choices that support healthy

and safe development. In support of these outcomes, the Strategy summarizes the

following milestones:

Active Grand is developing an access to recreation policy that will increase youth

opportunities to participate in local recreation activities. Active Grand is a

partnership between the City of Brantford, the County of Brant, Six Nations of the

Grand River, and various health, recreation, and social service organizations to

promote increased physical activity among residents.

Both the County of Brant and City of Brantford offer youth programs promoting

physical health – such as swimming, skating, and fitness – and mental health –

such as social activities and drop-in programming.

80 youth members have joined the County of Brant’s Youth Centre, since the

beginning of November 2016.

Goals moving forward to support the above-noted outcomes include continuing and

enhancing the evaluation of youth health and wellness programming.



5.15 A Master Aging Plan for Brantford and the County of Brant

The County of Brant and the City of Brantford prepared the Master Aging Plan in 2008 to

develop a “roadmap” for the delivery of a comprehensive and coordinated set of community

services to older adults. The Master Aging Plan notes that the third most frequently

mentioned issue from seniors, after transportation and housing, is access to social and

recreational opportunities. As stated in the Plan, the lack of recreation activities can lead

to declining physical health and a lack of social interaction which can lead to declining

mental health. Social and recreational needs identified in the Aging Master Plan include:

Greater variety in social activities;

Increased intergenerational programming, linked to existing programming where

possible;

Improve accessibility to facilities and event for people with physical disabilities;

Financial support to offset user fees and tuitions;

More information and referral re: the range of services available to seniors and how

to access;

Outreach to isolated seniors in order to engage them in social and recreational

activities;

Expand programming beyond 9 to 5 to accommodate seniors still working; and,

Develop an inventory of current programs, facilities and services and identify gaps.

5.16 All in, All Active, The Development of Access to Recreation Policy

Active Grand prepared a recreation policy document in order to increase access to

recreation opportunities in the County of Brant, the City of Brantford and the Six Nations of

the Grand River. The intent is to ensure that there is a way for all residents to have

“ongoing, equitable access to many physical and recreational options, in and around where

they live.”

The Policy summarizes recent statistics from the Brant Health Atlas, including:

42.1% of County of Brant residents and 45.3% of City of Brantford residents were

physically inactive during leisure time;

50.9% of County residents and 60.4% of City residents were overweight or obese

as measured by the Body Mass Index (BMI, appropriate for their age group);

27.4% of County residents and 33.8% of city residents suffered from a chronic

disease (such as asthma, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease or stroke);

24.4% of SK’s within the City of Brantford and 19.7% in the County of Brant were

vulnerable in the domain of physical health and wellbeing; and,

12.8% in the City of Brantford and in the County of Brant 10.3 percent of SK’s were

vulnerable in the domain of Social Competence.

Policy objectives include:



Ensure a variety of core programs and/or facilities for children, youth, adults,

seniors and families at low or no cost.

Deliver, facilitate and evaluate a broad range of affordable programs, services and

facilities to address local needs and issues.

Ensure physical access and provide adaptive aides/equipment for recreational

opportunities where feasible, beyond legislated requirements (e.g. AODA).

Identify the training needs of staff to assist in their administration of the Access to

Recreation Policy and related procedures/standards

Ensure financial assistance information is available

Partner with community organizations to provide support in reducing additional

limitations, such as mental health, emotional health, etc.

Foster community mobilization (development, engagement) to encourage/empower

individuals and groups to be community champions and create their own

recreational activities in their neighbourhoods and communities (i.e. neighbourhood

associations and volunteer/affiliated groups).

5.17 Outdoor Winter Activity Policy

Effective January 6, 2014, the County of Brant Outdoor Winter Activities Policy establishes

municipal properties permitting tobogganing or outdoor rinks, the use of stormwater

management pongs and the associated required informational signage. The intent is to

facilitate the safe use of parks and municipal properties in the winter and minimize risk.

Criteria for the establishment of tobogganing locations is as follows:

Access for emergency vehicles;

Accessibility for community users;

Hills with a gentle slope of 40 degrees or less;

Ground surface is even and the hill is free of obstructions along the sled paths;

Hills should have run-off long enough for a natural stop;

Hills should not end near roads, parking lots, fences, treelines, or other

obstructions; and,

The primary use of the property shall be for recreational activities.

Criteria for community outdoor rink locations is as follows:

Within an existing park;

Reasonably flat surface, free from mounds, heaves or other irregularities;

Surface must be free of stones and other debris;

Suitable water source and storage;

Access for emergency vehicles;

Accessibility for community users; and,

Formation of a volunteer team.



5.18 County of Brant Aquatic Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study

The County of Brant prepared the Aquatic Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study in 2009

to help determine what future aquatic services should be provided to residents and visitors

and more specifically the feasibility of replacing the Paris Community Pool with a new

indoor or outdoor swimming pool.

An indoor swimming pool was proposed for the Green Lane Park multi-use sports facility;

however, the lack of municipal services has resulted in the park being mainly developed as

a sports field park.

The Study considered two options: replacement of the outdoor Lions Park Pool or the

addition of an indoor pool at the Twin Pad Complex. The Study recommended that the

County pursue the development of a new indoor pool at the Twin Pad Complex site within

the next five years and extend the subsidy to County residents for use of Brantford pools

beyond 2009 as an interim measure. This location was determined to be the most suitable

location as it offers operating efficiencies and provides a range of activities at one location.

The report also reviews the financial impact the options considered, and concludes that:

The estimated construction cost of $10.3 million for an indoor pool and fitness

centre, as identified in the Aquatic Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study report,

is only likely to be feasible in the short term by securing an infrastructure grant that

would cover up to two thirds of the cost;

In the public survey completed for the study, a majority of residents opposed any

tax increase to help pay for a new pool, while 41% supported an increase of at least

$50 per year;

The annual operating cost increase of the indoor pool as compared with the 2008

cost of operating the outdoor pool would be approximately 7 times more than the

annual operating cost increase of replacing the outdoor pool ($85,000 annual

operating cost increase compared with $12,000 annual operating cost increase);

The average subsidy per pool visit was estimated at $2.56 per use for an indoor

pool based on an anticipated 70,000 uses per year, versus the outdoor pool

estimated subsidy of $4.65 per use based on an anticipated 20,000 uses per year.



6. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

6.1 Overview

The research undertaken in support of the development of the Recreation Master Plan

included a multi-dimensional community consultation program. This included focus groups

and interviews with various community organizations involving recreation program

providers, service clubs, public agencies and partners, County Council and staff. It also

included a community workshop and an online survey to facilitate input from the broader

community. This chapter summarizes input received through the various components of the

consultation program.

6.2 Stakeholder Focus Groups & Interviews

Fifteen stakeholder focus group sessions and interviews with over 50 participants were

conducted by GSP Group and F.J. Galloway Associates involving presentations to the

Community Services Committee and Senior Management Team, interviews with Council

members, focus group meetings with public agencies, facility user groups, program

providers, service clubs and County staff, and facility tours with staff.

An advertised public workshop was also held at the Brant Sports Complex on October 6,

2016. The purpose of the workshop was to present information about the project and

gather input from members of the community. Fourteen (14) residents as well as the Mayor

and several County staff attended the workshop.

Each session began with introductions and a brief overview provided by the facilitators

followed by a discussion guided by the following questions:

What are the key strengths, attributes and assets of the parks and recreation

services currently available in Brant County?

What concerns, gaps or areas for improvement would you identify with respect to

parks and recreation services currently available in Brant County?

What priorities would you identify for new or redeveloped parks and recreation

facilities and services in Brant County over the next 5 years and 6 to 10 years?

At the end of each session, a brief summary was provided by the facilitators including an

outline of next steps in the process and timing for the project.

The consultation program included representatives from:

Community Groups / Associations, Parks and Recreation Advisory Committees,

Service Clubs, Arts / Culture / Heritage / Tourism;



Indoor and Outdoor Facility Users / Sports and Activity Groups;

Public Agencies and Partners – Grand Erie District School Board;

River / Trails / Cycling Groups;

Parks and Recreation Facility Managers, Operations and Program Staff, and Master

Plan Project Team;

County of Brant Senior Management Team;

County of Brant Council; and,

Public participants who attended the community workshop and/or completed the

online survey.

Following is a summary of the input received from the various stakeholder groups and the

public during the consultation process. The input summary has been organized by

functional area. The results of the online community survey follow the consultation

summaries. A more detailed summary of the results of the community consultation are

attached to this document as Appendix B.

6.2.1 Parks and Playgrounds

Summary

There is consensus among the individuals and groups consulted that the County

parks and playgrounds are well-regarded and well-used. Community and service

club support for the parks is strong but there is concern for the continuing ability of

service groups to recruit new members and fundraise to support community parks.

Some parks will need to be restored, repurposed and developed as facilities age and

to address the needs of the growing population and demographic changes.

Key Strengths, Attributes and Assets

There is consensus among the groups interviewed that the parks and trails in

Brant are generally good and well-used

There continues to be good community support for parks from groups and

individuals

Paris and Burford Lions Parks and trails are well-used

Concerns, Gaps and Areas for Improvement

There is concern for the continued ability of community groups to attract new

members and fundraising

Lack of play equipment for older children at Oakland Park

Losing Farringdon Park (Tutela Heights) in annexation to City of Brantford

Limited use of park in Onondaga

Jacob’s Woods Park (St. George) – could be naturalized

King William Park in St. George, picnic shelter

North driveway at South Dufferin Community Centre



Community gardens / gardening club – connect people with program, marketing

Priorities for the Future

Additional play equipment in Oakland for older kids

Maintain creativity in parks – variety of amenities, themes, stewardship

Re-purposing older parks based on current and future local needs /

demographics

Equalize greenspace across new development areas, maintain parkland

provision levels with population growth

Tune into future community needs for programs and facilities and plan

proactively for meeting those needs, small communities need grassroots

approach

6.2.2 Sports Fields

Summary

Sports fields are well used in the community. Concern was expressed that children

and youth activities within the County should be prioritized and booking policy

should reflect this. Communication and support for community groups was viewed

as a priority. Reorganization/redevelopment of sports fields to allow smaller fields in

local areas to serve younger participants while concentrating larger fields for older

youth at major parks (e.g. Green Lane and BSC) is desired.


Soccer and baseball fields are well-used

Growing participation in lawn bowling and tennis in Paris

Disc golf course draws players from both within the County and visitors


General:

Lack of communication / contact with facility users or opportunities for

groups to provide input to facility needs / improvements

Complex rules and requirements for volunteer groups and fundraising /

sponsorships

Some noise complaints from new development areas / residents moving into

areas near sports fields

Lack of available lands to provide additional sports fields

Some issues with consistency in quality and maintenance of sports fields –

consider building in-house capacity for all turf maintenance to improve

quality and capacity of sports fields

Capacity / Booking / Fees:

No policy on registrants, wait lists, who gets in



Adult soccer team from Brantford renting field in Brant – need to prioritize

local kids/youth programs first

House league soccer has to find its own fields, no capacity on County fields

Need for more ball diamonds, losing some school diamonds – Princeton,

Old Sacred Heart

Need more capacity for baseball and soccer; sometimes have to go to

Brantford for fields, sometimes cutting teams

Potential school closures and need to take over and maintain open space

Facilities:

Cost of planned improvements to Paris Lions Park ball diamonds, drainage

problems at diamond, not enough parking

Potential County acquisition of South Brant Lions Park

Fields at Green Lane Sports Complex not big enough for all age groups

No soccer fields with lighting in County

Need for more soccer pitches in St. George (see above)

Need to keep smaller fields local

A larger field at Sunny Hill would allow cross-field configuration

Field not level at Oakland Park, works for t-ball and baseball but not soccer


General:

Communication between County and user groups – e.g. organize annual

meetings.

Prioritize activities for children, availability, scheduling, fees and booking

policies and practices should reflect this priority

Resources and support for volunteer sports and recreation program

providers, fundraising initiatives


Reserve prime time hours for kids programs only, adult programs only if kids

programs fully accommodated;

Maintain local access to smaller sports fields in communities for younger

age groups

Address program / capacity constraints with additional sports fields / lighting,

new facilities – soccer, baseball and potentially lawn bowling

Facilities:

Consider new soccer complex / tournament hub – artificial turf, lighting,

indoor fieldhouse or seasonal dome

There is room at Green Lane to add lights, artificial turf

Long term potential for new soccer complex / facility – potentially at BSC

Consider separation / consolidation of baseball and soccer in two locations –

e.g. baseball at Green Lane, soccer at BSC



Total need: 4 to 5 full size soccer fields, 1 indoor or dome, 1 artificial turf, 1

with lights, 2 or 3 other outdoor fields

Ball diamond in St. George could be converted to soccer / mini fields?


Renewal of Onondaga Park

Complete ball diamond upgrades at Paris Lions Park for younger age

groups, this may leave more room behind the diamonds for other uses /

facilities

Could acquire more land to expand Green Lane Sports Complex

6.2.3 Aquatic Facilities

Summary

Outdoor pool time is limited and there is a desire for access to aquatic programs.

Some concern was expressed about the facilities and location of the Paris Lions

Park splash pad.


Outdoor pool is well-used during summer season and is considered to be a

high quality facility


Waiting lists for swimming lessons at Wayne Gretzky Sports Centre indoor pool

in Brantford; outdoor pool time limited for programming

Need bike racks at outdoor pool

Some day camps use City of Brantford pools since there is no indoor pool

facility in Brant

Splash pad in Paris Lions Park is older (2005)

Lack of indoor pool and potential future needs and costs for indoor aquatics


Consider expansion / redevelopment of splash pad at Paris Lions Park

Consider potential trailhead and splash pad in Mount Pleasant

6.2.4 Arenas, Community Centres, Community Halls, Indoor Turf and Gymnasiums

Summary

The arenas and fitness facilities are well-used and well-regarded. There are joint

use agreements with the Grand Erie District School Board and the Brant Haldimand

Norfolk Catholic District School Board, and the school gymnasium space is heavily

used. Access to school facilities is restricted during school hours and secondary to

school needs. There is a desire for policy regarding booking criteria and



prioritization for youth and County residents. Concern was expressed for the

design/amenities at some facilities (e.g. BSC).


Joint use agreements and community use of school facilities

Arenas are well-used: BSC, St. George, Burford

Syl Apps indoor turf well used and fitness class well-attended


General:

Lack of communication / contact with facility users or opportunities for

groups to provide input to facility needs / improvements

Complex rules and requirements for volunteer groups and fundraising /

sponsorships

Some noise complaints from new development areas / residents moving into

areas near sports fields. Some neighbour issues / complaints with multi-

purpose pad in Foxhill Park – could it be located elsewhere in the park?

People moving to County are looking for specific resources and amenities

that may be missing



Lack of ice time availability, issues booking ice at BSC (e.g. for hockey

tryouts), no priority to groups that use the most ice time / revenue

generators

Concern that ice time being rented to out-of-County users, County groups

should be accommodated first; concerns about Brantford teams / programs

booking ice at BSC

Need for additional ice time in St. George – arena could be twinned in future

Many ringette players going to Brantford – lack of program/capacity in

Brant?

Fees for ice time are higher than some adjoining counties

Need to revisit affiliate program – some discount but not for ice

Not enough capacity at Syl Apps, fully booked - would like to use indoor field

for community programs

No municipal gymnasium space – heavy reliance on school facilities

High use of school gymnasiums for indoor soccer and other sports –

indicator of need for municipal gym and new/additional indoor turf facilities

School use is after 6pm only during school year; custodial fee on weekends

for staffing

Funding and staffing limits programming / capacity (e.g. after school

programs)

Lack of storage space in schools to run community programs



School closures reduces access to gym facilities unless facility acquired by

municipality or other organization

Burford tennis courts dilapidated, no longer used or maintained by school

but could be restored by County if demand warrants

Lack of capacity to keep up with growth in lawn bowling club, also interest in

year-round lawn bowling (indoor) – could it be programmed from Syl Apps?

Additional staffing capacity needs at major facilities particularly during peak

usage times

Facilities:

Burford arena – aging facility, needs team room and storage space, not well

used, could potentially be used for fitness programming

BSC not functional for Paris Mounties: sight line issues for spectators /

camera coverage, too many entrances – can’t sell tickets / control

admission, small dressing room, insufficient seating, no first aid venue –

losing tournaments

Too much noise in BSC meeting rooms while ice is in use

Accessibility and structural issues at Paris lawn bowling clubhouse, need to

resolve by 2025

Lighting issues at Paris tennis courts, need storage facility, school

bathrooms closed / not available for club use

Tennis courts (3 courts) in Burford not well used, no tennis club – could be

repurposed / used for shuffleboard or other activities

Not enough tennis courts / availability (in Paris)

No transit, need to ensure recreation is accessible to those without cars

New residents from larger cities have high expectations of range and quality

of facilities in Brant

Lack of opportunities for seniors – e.g. indoor walking track

Some feelings of isolation / exclusion in parts of the County – e.g. south east

and south west corners of Brant, those in south east tend to travel to

Caledonia or Hamilton for certain facilities and services, going to Brantford

for minor hockey




General:

Communication between County and user groups – e.g. organize annual

meetings.

Prioritize activities for children, availability, scheduling, fees and booking

policies and practices should reflect this priority

Resources and support for volunteer sports and recreation program

providers, fundraising initiatives


Reserve prime time hours for kids programs only, adult programs only if kids

programs fully accommodated

Increase capacity of after-school programs

Review cost recovery at arenas and sports fields

Facilities:

Resolve changeroom issues at BSC, e.g. gender-neutral washroom, co-ed

programs, small size of rooms and need dedicated room and team meeting

space for Paris Mounties

No municipal gymnasium / health / wellness hub / indoor walking track;

Consider municipal gymnasium at BSC or other location – review usage of

school facilities

Make Brant Sports Complex more multi-use – demands for indoor walking

track, gymnasium space, social/programming spaces, there are no kitchen

facilities in the building – undertake a feasibility review for future expansion

Gymnasium for daytime programming – e.g. seniors, parent / tot

Storage space in schools – inventory and secure equipment

Barrier-free programming, gender equity and universal change/washrooms

Youth centre at Syl Apps

Co-location and multi-use facilities – e.g. indoor pool and/or fieldhouse

and/or gymnasium and/or indoor walking track to make BSC true “complex”

with something for everyone, all ages and broad interests

May be future potential for gym/complex on School Board property in St.

George

Energy efficiency and green facilities – e.g. tennis court and sports field

lighting

Consider potential dog park location in St. George; only one dog park, May

need dog park in Burford

Consider potential indoor playground / kindergym (e.g. space available at

SDCC)

Expansion of multi-use outdoor sports fields/capacity at Green Lane Sports

Complex and for the St. George area (property at west end)

Consider pickleball at Poplar Hills Park – storage available



Consider acquisition of additional land (2 to 3 acres) for soccer fields in

Oakland, across from community centre

St. Anthony Daniels School – need to bring the building up to code and

establish programming and activities

Potential new school in south Paris and could expand Cobblestone school in

future – opportunity for additional community gymnasium space

Opportunities for County / School Board partnerships – e.g. shared library

space, artificial turf sports fields, gymnasiums, daycare spaces, multi-

purpose rooms, tennis courts, etc. and funding (e.g. municipalities can get

Trillium grants but school boards cannot)

Opportunities to make facilities more multi-use, incorporate other facilities /

services, create community hubs

Aging community halls – need upgrades or replacement, address

accessibility and capacity for range and size of programs and usage, e.g.

consider new community hall in Cainsville, add 100 more to capacity (also

replace fire hall)

Missing facilities that may be needed in the future – indoor walking track,

indoor pool, indoor playground, gymnasium, fieldhouse, indoor racquet

sports

6.2.5 Special Events and Other Recreation Facilities


Paris Museum is thriving

Many features and local events draw significant visitor numbers

Brant County is a growing tourism destination


Most of the recreational facilities and opportunities are in Paris, other parts of

the County not as well served but do have large population numbers too – e.g.

no splash pad in Mount Pleasant

Paris Museum needs identification and wayfinding support

Concern about discussion of re-locating Paris library

Onondaga Community Hall, designated heritage building, County owned,

programmed by community group – seniors group using the hall, some issues

with the building

Lack of funding for arts and culture


Identify and market unique places and activities that Brant has to offer, leverage

regional tourism opportunities, take regional perspective and approach to

tourism planning



Tourism / sports tourism opportunities – define and market – e.g. tournaments,

cycling, arts and culture, outdoor adventure, rivers; related supports (e.g.

accommodations)

Create a local hub for arts and culture and resources / support to assist groups

with obtaining grant funding – could establish an arts / culture / tourism / event

start up fund to assist groups in leveraging other available funding

opportunities, assist groups to navigate fundraising opportunities

Work with revitalization committee – tourism planning for Burford

Restore old Paris town hall

Showcase local history and culture, develop arts and cultural programming,

tourism, heritage, potential opportunities with Paris old town hall and theatre –

review accessibility, fundraising and programming / recreational opportunities

6.2.6 River Access and Trails

Summary

Trails in the County are well-regarded and an important natural asset for both

residents and tourists. There is a desire for policy and enforcement of trail access

and use guidelines. Some river access points are of concern due to facilities and

location. A desire for trail signage/wayfinding and amenities (e.g. benches, garbage

cans, washrooms) was expressed. Trail linkages, both within the County and to

neighbouring areas was viewed as a priority.


Trails in the County are well-regarded. Good for walking / hiking / running and

mountain biking as well as great natural assets, habitats

They represent a valuable tourist resource for attracting people from outside the

County

Paris Wiki page – has info on existing trails / routes

Paris Lions Park trail access


River access is a concern as some access points are on private property

Trails need:

Signage/wayfinding

Facilities (washrooms, parking, garbage cans, benches, etc.)

Policies for appropriate use and behavior

Currently lacking in policy for trails with regards to new development and

dedication requirements

Emergency access to trails – need to review standards and best practices

Accessibility standards and applicability to trails of different standards of

development (e.g. paved multi-use vs. nature trails)



Reliant on GRCA / conservation areas for trails and outdoor passive recreation,

outdoor education, etc.

No capacity/resources to manage County-owned natural areas after acquisition

of the land

Extend / connect County trails to City of Brantford trails

River access points / canoe launches need supporting facilities (washrooms,

signage, storage, parking, etc. – some are privately owned;

Safety of river take-out area at the dam

Lack of signage / wayfinding and other facilities (washrooms, parking, maps,

emergency and problem reporting contact information, benches, garbage cans,

regulation of use – i.e. not motorized, dogs on leashes) for trails and cycling

routes

Some trails on private lands – concerns about future access / availability

Lack of winter activities – e.g. cross-county skiing

Wildlife concerns – unleashed dogs on trails

Steep stairs at dam take-out on river, consider hand winch for boat raising

Some County roads are not suitable for cycling but are identified as routes –

liability concern

Some concerns about potential trail user conflicts with increased usage and

lack of posted rules and by-laws, particularly with motorized and non-motorized

trail uses (e.g. ATV’s)

Lack of implementation of Trails Master Plan, needs to be updated

East Oakland pond – underdeveloped recreational resource for fishing, boating

Community trail and sidewalk connections – address gaps and connections to

destinations


River access points and supporting amenities

Need signage, washrooms and other supports for trails and cycling routes

Trail supports, marketing, mapping, linkages, facilities, community engagement

in volunteer trail patrols / monitoring of trail conditions, regulatory signage and

enforcement

Public safety – e.g. trail standards, emergency access, signage of dams, safety

plans for trails

Trail linkages between existing trails and connections to neighbouring

municipalities, counties, regions and Six Nations

Update Transportation Master Plan to plan for walking and cycling routes

Consider County acquisition / easements for existing private trails

Review of trails and sites that are priorities for acquisition, such as opportunities

for passive recreation in natural areas and walking/hiking/mountain biking trails:

Watt’s Pond in North Paris

Barker’s Bush (Nith Peninsula) in Paris



Jacob’s Woods in St. George

Mt. Pleasant

Oakland woodlot

Oakhill Drive natural area

Waterfront lands acquisition – need strategy and integration with downtown

Paris – the County may have surplus lands that could help to fund acquisition of

land along river for public access

Review of trails and sites that are priorities for acquisition, create a trails

hierarchy, diversity of trail experiences

Naturalization of passive areas, native prairie species, floriculture and

acquisition and management of natural areas

Educational opportunities in parks and natural areas

Development in downtown and County owned lands can lead to further

trail/park development

Cycling tourism – bike-friendly facilities, marketing of routes and destinations


Capacity of supporting facilities for high traffic volumes for river access and

tourism, need multi-lingual signage

Support for establishing walking / cycling and other trails program / club

On-road and off-road cycling routes

Need boat launch / take-out improvements, consider usage fee for outfitters to

help fund improvements

Consider County rental of equipment – bikes, cross-country ski equipment,

dragon boats

Seniors outreach e.g. Cycling Without Age program

Identify and prioritize trail projects and allocate available funding – some

funding available through Development Charges funds for recreational trails

and active transportation infrastructure (e.g. bike lanes, etc.)

Priorities for active transportation include Rest Acres Road and Burford

connection, other potential future opportunities include Watt’s Pond Road,

Brant-Oxford Road (2018 project by Oxford County), Governor’s Road (cyclists

from Hamilton area to Grand River and back), Paris to Ancaster on-road route,

East River Road (narrow), Brant-Waterloo Road, St. George Road, Powerline

Road (partially developed in Brantford)

Trail connections, passive recreation opportunities, passive / nature parks

Work with developers to create new trails and connect the network, traffic

calming and pedestrian friendly design, bike lanes and cycling opportunities

Syl Apps new boat launch / river access, could expand skatepark

Education and community engagement regarding active transportation

Mountain biking trails (e.g. Barker’s Bush, Jacobs Woods, Watts Pond Area) –

approximately 50 participants in Paris and many visitors from elsewhere –

opportunities on County owned lands



Address staffing and other resource needs for trails system maintenance with

expansion of trail network, promote community stewardship

Natural resources management and recreational use opportunities, supports for

trails along Grand River – linkages, maps, washrooms, etc.

Trails, optimize use of available lands and corridors (e.g. former rail lines)

6.2.7 Programs and Service Delivery

Summary

Existing financial assistance programs are regarded as an important asset. While

community and service group support is strong there is concern for these groups’

continuing ability to recruit new members and fundraise for community service. A

desire was expressed for additional County support to encourage and support

community group formation and operation. Communication from County about

programs and support was viewed as a priority.


Financial assistance programs – County program, Arnold Anderson Sport Fund,

Canadian Tire Jumpstart

Community and group support is strong


Concern that community and service groups may have trouble recruiting new

members and fundraising for community service

Services, activities and programs for seniors – what are retirement homes

already providing?

Is the County competing with or duplicating potential private or other service

providers in program delivery?

Some challenges with part time staff recruitment to staff programs, aquatics,

etc.

Challenges of operating and sustaining service clubs, attracting new members

and volunteers, onerous requirements / red tape (e.g. insurance requirements,

liability, limitations on how funds used if fundraising under lottery license, etc.),

aging volunteer base

Seniors are organizing in Burford but need assistance / support

Need resources / support to start club(s)

Resource requirements for 7 advisory committees

Capacity of staffing for year-round operations – only one parks lead hand,

increased staffing needs for outdoor recreation facilities

Concern about neighbourhoods that are deficient/experience gaps

Certain program areas might be lacking, parks may be lacking in general

Higher service and quality expectations with continued growth



Strong non-profit support and community sponsorship of parks and facilities,

need to maintain support, provides significant benefits to community

No therapeutic recreation

Meeting growth needs, lack of outdoor fitness programming / activities

Transportation to facilities and services, size of County and people don’t want

to travel far for children’s programs, affordability, more information about

accessibility of programs in all areas


Marketing and program registrations through social media and mobile

technology

Communications plan, marketing and awareness of available facilities and

programs, how to get there, how to encourage and recruit new volunteers, use

of social media / technology; digital electronic signs

Investigate alternatives for advisory committees, review what other

communities are doing

County support and resources to assist, sustain and grow community volunteer

groups and service clubs, streamline processes for project involvement,

partnership and fundraising initiatives, etc.

Define needs and engage community and service groups and partners in

projects and initiatives that will address current and future needs

Update old and formalize informal policies, guidelines and approaches

regarding partnerships, community/volunteer agreements, contributions, etc.

(e.g. outdated affiliate program)

Need well-defined projects to create opportunities for community volunteer

support and fundraising, groups are looking for projects to support

Explore / expand potential partnership opportunities to support program

availability to residents and greater participation – e.g. Six Nations lacrosse

program

Need to take regional view of services, how to maximize benefits to residents in

partnership with adjoining municipalities and other service providers

Free and low-cost recreation opportunities

Need visioning of what each community wants to be

Address the needs of growing and changing communities, resident, labour

force and business retention and attraction

Transportation to access recreation

Careful consideration of future park and facility locations, with resident input

Increase budget allocations to parks and recreation with continued growth

Opportunities for all ages, accessibility, seniors programs, year-round

opportunities



6.3 Community Survey

An online Community Survey was posted on the County of Brant website in October 2016.

The survey was facilitated by Survey Monkey and resulted in a total of 151 completed

surveys. The survey included 15 questions related to identify indoor and outdoor

recreational activities that respondent households participate in, use of County facilities,

satisfaction levels with facilities, and perspectives on key issues, gaps and priorities, as

well as to determine the location and age of survey respondents and provide opportunity for

general comments/feedback.

The following is a summary of the responses to the questions and key observations from

the survey input.

Question 1: Do you agree to complete the survey? (151 “Yes” responses).

Question 2: In the past year did you or anyone in your household use County of Brant park(s) or trail(s) for any of the following outdoor activities? Please check all that apply.

Table 6-1: Activities Participated in by Respondents

Activity % Participated # Responses

Walking, hiking, running or jogging 82% 124

Playing at a playground 70% 106

Having a picnic / eating 52% 79

Ice skating or ice hockey 50% 75

Playing at a spray/splash pad 49% 74

Swimming 48% 73

Attending a community/ social event / festival 46% 70

Dog walking 46% 69

Nature appreciation or wildlife viewing 41% 62

Cycling 40% 61

Canoeing / kayaking or other non-motorized water sport 32% 48

Soccer 31% 47

Baseball 30% 45

Fitness 27% 41

Fishing 25% 37

Outdoor theatre / movie / concert / show 25% 37

Attending a private/social event / gathering 21% 32

Golf 19% 28

Gardening 14% 21

Attending a day camp or similar program 13% 20

Mountain biking 13% 19

Skateboarding 9% 14

Tennis 9% 13




Rollerblading / in-line skating 7% 11

Ball hockey 5% 8

Disc golf 4% 6

Football 3% 5

Other (please specify) 3% 5

BMX riding 3% 4

Basketball 2% 3

Lawn bowling or bocce 2% 3

Playing horseshoes/shuffleboard 2% 3

Beach volleyball 1% 2

Pickleball 1% 1

More than 4 out of 5 respondents listed walking, hiking, running or jogging as an

activity that they or others in their household participated in.

Playing at the playground, a picnic, skating and hockey were listed as popular

activities of at least half the respondents.

Splash pads, swimming, community events, dog walking, cycling and wildlife

viewing were also popular among survey respondents.

Question 3: For the County of Brant park(s) or trail(s) that you use for outdoor

activities, how satisfied are you with the following? (5 = very satisfied,

1 = not at all satisfied)

See Figures 6-1 and 6-2. Responses of “Not sure” were not included in the charts.

In most cases, average satisfaction rating increased with the number of responses.

Paths/trails, playgrounds and parks and trails maintenance were among the highest

rated in terms of satisfaction, with 80% or more respondents indicating “satisfied” or

“very satisfied” ratings.

Washrooms and splash pads had lower average satisfaction ratings with a high

(>60%) response rate.

All facilities were rated in between 3.2 to 4.43 out of a possible 5 indicating general

satisfaction with all facilities listed.



3.20

3.50

3.62

4.00

3.75

3.72

3.63

3.80

3.58

4.06

4.31

4.41

3.94

3.82

3.85

3.87

4.26

4.07

3.69

4.15

4.30

3.53

4.26

4.11

4.24

4.43

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Horseshoe pits / shuffleboard courts

Beach volleyball courts

Lawn bowling green / bocce

Disc golf course

Tennis / pickleball courts

Skateboard / BMX parks

Multi-purpose courts (basketball, ball hockey, etc)

Outdoor ice rinks

Dog park

Community gardens

Facilities for private events

Amphitheatre

Soccer / football / lacrosse fields

Baseball diamonds

River access points / canoe launch

Seating areas

Cycling routes

Outdoor pool

Spray / splash pads

Picnic areas / shelters

Natural areas

Public washrooms

Overall trails maintenance

Playgrounds

Overall parks maintenance

Paths and trails

Number of Responses

One = not at all satisfied Two Three Four Five = very satisfied

Average satisfaction response rating

Figure 6-1: Satisfaction Levels with Facilities, by Number of Respondents



5

8

13

13

24

29

30

40

43

47

54

58

63

66

75

79

82

84

94

96

105

108

116

121

134

138

- 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Horseshoe pits / shuffleboard courts

Beach volleyball courts

Lawn bowling green / bocce

Disc golf course

Tennis / pickleball courts

Skateboard / BMX parks

Multi-purpose courts (basketball, ball hockey, etc)

Outdoor ice rinks

Dog park

Community gardens

Facilities for private events

Amphitheatre

Soccer / football / lacrosse fields

Baseball diamonds

River access points / canoe launch

Seating areas

Cycling routes

Outdoor pool

Spray / splash pads

Picnic areas / shelters

Natural areas

Public washrooms

Overall trails maintenance

Playgrounds

Overall parks maintenance

Paths and trails



Figure 6-2: Satisfaction Levels with Outdoor Facilities, by Satisfaction Rating

Question 4: If you noted a 1 or 2 in the previous question, can you tell us what

specific improvements are needed?

The need for additional washrooms and improvements, additional splash pads and

an indoor pool were among the most commonly mentioned items in the comments.

Addressing litter, improvements to the existing baseball diamonds, barrier free

access to the Grand River were also mentioned.

Lions Park ball diamonds were identified as being in disrepair

Some concerns with state of repair and cleanliness of washrooms at the outdoor

swimming pool



Question 5: For County of Brant parks and trails, in your opinion what should be

the top three priorities for new outdoor recreation facilities or

improvements to existing outdoor recreation facilities?

The most frequently mentioned priorities were maintaining washroom facilities,

barrier free access, trails and park maintenance, additional seating at all sports

facilities, site security, splash pads/water parks, and upgrading the existing

playground equipment.

Other priorities were an indoor pool, increasing hours of operation, soccer field

improvements, wayfinding/signage improvements, updates to the skate park and

additional parking, and provision of washroom facilities (even portable) at sports

fields and at strategic locations along the trail network.

Question 6: In the past year did you or anyone in your household use County of

Brant recreation facilities for any of the following indoor activities?

Please check all that apply?

Table 6-2: Participation in Indoor Recreation Activities at Brant County

Recreation Facilities, by % Participated


Walking/hiking running jogging 37% 46

Ice skating/figure skating 36% 45

Fitness 30% 37

Attending a community/social event/festival 30% 37

Ice hockey/ringette 28% 35

Soccer 21% 26

Attending a day camp or recreation program 21% 26

Attending a private/social event/gathering 19% 23

Other 9% 11

Dance 7% 9

Indoor theatre/movie/concert/show 6% 8

Visiting a museum/gallery 6% 8

Tennis 3% 4

Ball hockey 3% 4

Basketball 2% 3

Volleyball 2% 3

Rollerskating/in-line skating 2% 3

Skateboarding 2% 2

Pickleball 1% 1

The most popular activities generally match the distribution of Question 2, after

removing any exclusively outdoor activities (i.e. playgrounds, picnic, etc.)



Question 7: In the past year did you or anyone in your household use any of the following indoor recreation facilities? Please check all that apply.

Table 6-3: Indoor Recreation Facilities Used by Participants, by % Participated

Facility % Participated # Responses

Wayne Gretzky Sports Centre (Brantford) 61% 88

Brant Sports Complex 56% 80

Syl Apps Community Centre (Paris) 55% 79

Fairgrounds (Paris, Burford) 55% 79

School Gymnasium (for non-school activity) 20% 29

Private gym / fitness facilities 19% 28

Burford Community Centre (Burford) 19% 27 Lions Park Arena Steve Brown Sports Complex (Brantford) 19% 27

South Dumfries Community Centre (St. George) 17% 24

Church 17% 24

Dance Studio 13% 18 City of Brantford Community Centre (TB Costain, Woodman, Doug Snooks, Branlyn) 11% 16

Brantford District Civic Centre (Brantford) 10% 15

Private Hall (Legion, Masons) 10% 15

Theatre (Performing Arts / Movie) 9% 13

Airport Community Centre 6% 9

Mt. Pleasant Community Centre 6% 9

Curling Club 6% 8

Pinegrove & Howell Community Hall 3% 5

Other (please specify) 3% 4

Paris Lawn Bowling Clubhouse 2% 3

None 2% 3

Onondaga Community Hall 1% 2

Glen Morris Centennial Hall 1% 2

Cainsville Community Centre 1% 1

Oakland Community Centre 1% 1

St. George Lawn Bowling Club 1% 1

The Wayne Gretzky Sports facility was included in this survey to gauge interest and

usage of facilities in Brantford and usage of indoor pool facilities.

The Wayne Gretzky Sports facility was the most frequently mentioned indoor facility

in the survey, and the Brant Sports Complex was the most frequently used facility in

Brant, followed closely by Syl Apps Community Centre and the Fairgrounds in Paris

and Burford, for those who responded to the survey.



4

4

5

5

5

6

6

10

11

12

26

34

85

91

- 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Onondaga Community Hall

Glen Morris Centennial Hall

Oakland Community Centre

Cainsville Community Centre

Paris Lawn Bowling Clubhouse

Pinegrove & Howell Community Hall

St. George Lawn Bowling Club

Other – please specify:

Airport Community Centre

Mt. Pleasant Community Centre

South Dumfries Community Centre

Burford Community Centre

Syl Apps Community Centre

Brant Sports Complex


One = not at all satisfied

4.00

4.25

3.00

3.80

4.00

4.17

4.33

4.00

3.91

4.25

4.35

4.15

4.05

4.22

0 20 40 60 80 100

Onondaga Community Hall

Glen Morris Centennial Hall

Oakland Community Centre

Cainsville Community Centre

Paris Lawn Bowling Clubhouse

Pinegrove & Howell Community Hall

St. George Lawn Bowling Club

Other – please specify:

Airport Community Centre

Mt. Pleasant Community Centre

South Dumfries Community Centre

Burford Community Centre

Syl Apps Community Centre



Question 8: For the County of Brant recreation facilities that you use for indoor

activities, how satisfied are you with the following facilities?

Figure 6-3: Satisfaction Levels with Indoor Facilities, by Number of

Respondents

Figure 6-4: Satisfaction Levels with Indoor Facilities, by Satisfaction Rating

Average satisfaction

response rating



The Brant Sports Complex and the Syl Apps Community Centre received the

overwhelming majority of ratings and were both well rated at 4.22 and 4.05

respectively.

The Burford, South Dumfries and Mt. Pleasant Community Centre only received

25%, 19% and 9% of the total possible responses, respectively.

The top five indoor facilities by number of responses received average satisfaction

rating of 4.00 or higher, indicating general satisfaction with the most used indoor

facilities.

The remaining facilities received ratings above four. The only exceptions were

Cainsville and Airport Community Halls receiving an average rating of 3.8 and 3.9

and the Oakland Community Centre which only received 5 responses and an

average rating of 3.00.

Question 9: If you noted a 1 or 2 in the previous question, can you tell us what

specific improvements are needed?

Only 12% of respondents answered, which is generally in line with the amount of

responses in Question 8 indicating a 1 or a 2.

The most common improvements requested were to add an indoor pool, the Brant

Sports Complex and the Langford Schoolhouse.

Question 10: For County of Brant indoor recreation facilities, in your opinion what

should be the top three priorities for new indoor recreation facilities

or improvements to existing indoor recreation facilities?

The most common request was for an indoor pool.

Additional running tracks, indoor sports facilities and a fitness centre were also

frequently requested.

Barrier free access, more programs for youth and the limited hours of operation of

the facilities were a less common request among the survey respondents.



Question 11: In your opinion, are recreation and sport programs insufficient or

lacking in Brant County for any of the following age groups? Please

check all that apply?

Table 6-4: Perspectives on Insufficient Programs by Age Group.

Answer Options % Responded # Response

Adults ages 30 to 59 years 25% 34

Not sure 24% 33 None – recreation and sport programs are sufficient for all age groups 20% 27

Pre-school children ages 5 years and under 19% 26

Youth ages 13 to 17 years 18% 24

Children ages 6 to 12 years 17% 23

Older adults ages 60 to 74 years 15% 20

Young adults ages 18 to 29 years 13% 17

Older adults ages 75+ years 5% 7

1 in 5 respondents felt that programs were sufficient for a variety of age groups.

1 in 4 were unsure of how sufficient the recreation and sports programs were.

The remaining responses were somewhat evenly distributed, but the ranking is

closely related to the age distribution of the respondents in question 14.

Question 12: If you noted in the previous question that recreation and sport

programs are insufficient or lacking in Brant County for one or more

age groups, can you tell us what specific programs are needed?

Fitness programs, swimming programs and programs for children were requested

frequently.

Other items brought up were the need for an increased variety of programs,

improving the schedule and hours and lowering the cost of programs or offering

assistance to those with financial need so they may participate in community

programs.

Question 13: What part of Brant County do you live in / nearest to?

Two thirds of the respondents live in Paris.

Mt. Pleasant and St. George and Burford each had more than 5% of the responses.

The remaining townships had less than 15% of the combined responses.



Paris

Mount Pleasant/Tutela

Heights

St. George

Other

Burford

Cainsville/Brant East

Scotland

Oakhill/Airport

Brant Mills

Glen MorrisOnondaga Rural area

Burtch

Falkland

Harley

30 to 59 years

20 to 29 years

60 to 74 years 75 years or …

Oakland, Brant Mills, Cathcart, Fairfield, Gobles, Harrisburg, Kelvin, Middleport,

Muir, New Durham and Princeton had no respondents in the survey.

Figure 6-5: Location of Survey Respondents

Question 14: Which age group do you belong to?

More than 80% of the survey respondents were in the 30-59 age group.

Figure 6-6: Age of Survey Respondents



Question 15: Do you have any final comments or suggestions about parks and

recreation in Brant County?

The comments generally indicated that people were happy with the maintenance of

the existing trails and the County of Brant in general.

An indoor pool was the most commonly noted item, while many also noted that the

lack of facilities outside of Paris creates transportation barriers for people in the

more rural areas.

Upgrades to some of the existing facilities, high costs and more variety in the types

of programs offered were also a popular request.



7. TRENDS & STRATEGIES

7.1 Overview

In developing the Brant County Recreation Master Plan, a number of key strategic trends

and considerations are relevant in setting directions and courses of action for the ongoing

development, delivery and evaluation of parks and recreation facilities and services in Brant

County. The following material is contributory to developing the specific services strategies

and recommendations to be incorporated within the Master Plan based on three categories:

Societal and Leisure Participation, Specific Activity Trends and Parks/Facilities Design and

Development Trends.

7.2 Societal and Leisure Participation

7.2.1 Aging and Youth Populations

One of the most significant and well documented trends within Canadian society is that of

the aging population. By 2016 to 2020, over 30% of most urban centres and a larger

proportion of rural residents in Ontario will be over the age of sixty. Known as the "baby

boom generation," this will have a profound impact in both the types of leisure services /

activities that will be undertaken and resident servicing expectations.

Today, many of the "boomers" are or are quickly moving towards an "empty nest" lifestyle.

That is, their children have either left home to go to university or college or into the work

world, or will be shortly. As a result, many of these adults are not raising families, have

different priorities and are starting to, as they age, undertake different forms of leisure

activities. Affordability, access, time available to participate, pursuing deferred interests and

other impacts are occurring.

Currently, the "baby boomers" are 55 to 70 years of age, of which one half are 60 to 70

years of age and one half are 55 to 59 years of age. They represent a significant proportion

of the population, and from a public policy perspective, have typically been the centre point

to most major government public policy initiatives over the last five decades.

As this generation ages, there has been clear identification, politically and service delivery

wise, towards health oriented issues. As a result, the following trends are being identified:

Increasing political importance being placed on health care and wellness services.

As boomers age, they become increasingly concerned about health care. This is

also augmented by the fact that over 60% of a person's health care costs on

average are incurred in the last five years of life;

This generation tends to pursue interests and activities based on convenience,

quality and price; compared to previous generations who tended to be significantly

more price sensitive with convenience as a lower priority;



This population group can also be somewhat nostalgic, often having a "60s

phenomena" and have high expectations as to what their fees will provide, the

quality of service received, the instantaneousness of response to information and

other customer service perspectives.

Major assessments of this generation, as per the books Boom, Bust and Echo, or Sex in

the Snow, have identified profiles of this population as being more inwardly looking to their

own needs, having higher expectations and being uniquely different from the previous

generations, which are primarily those who are associated with the depression and the war

eras.

An aging population will have the following participation impacts in leisure and related

services:

A rising interest in bird watching, genealogy, walking and related health / fitness /

wellness oriented activities;

Declining interest in joining clubs, membership-based activities. This is evident in

some changing profiles for senior centres, as well as golf course memberships

where there is a trend to offering multiple courses in the same membership

package;

An increasing trend towards private fitness centres, personal trainers and related

activities;

A general willingness to pay for activities, but often asking what one gets for the

increased costs on a year to year basis. More like a private sector purchase

interaction;

Broader travel interests

Increasing interests in art, culture and heritage

Other related demographic shifts, also involve the following points:

The percentage of people retiring under the age of 60 has generally increased over

the last two decades, resulting in younger and healthier retirees, even though

legislation now bans forced retirement at an age threshold and economic impacts

could, at least, in the short term, impact pensions and cause people to work longer;

Improved pensions, as well as more females retiring from the workforce with

pensions, which is uniquely different than when senior’s discounts were established

thirty years ago for a different type of seniors’ demographic and financial situation;

Many early retirees and other seniors are undertaking consulting, part time

contracts and on-going work activities, or pursuing hobbies or deferred interests on

a vocational basis;

Seniors populations are showing interest in increased physical fitness and other

related activity-based programming which is different from the more traditional



socialization oriented leisure programming for older adults. Pickle Ball is an

emergent example of new, senior’s oriented physical activities.

In conjunction with the aging trends and impacts, is the fact that the birth rate as per the

2011 Census indicates 1.7 children per family, which has stabilized at a low level after a

period of decline from over three children per family in to 1950s and 1960s. Many couples

are not having children or only having one child. The projections for most urban

environments in Ontario is that, over the next twenty years, the 0-19 population will either

remain stable in terms of their current absolute numbers of individuals in these age

categories or may actually see some declines in the number of youth. The question in

regards to youth services is not that youth are going to disappear or that there is going to

be less of them, rather, it is more the fact that there will not be significantly more of them

which has been the traditional planning profile for leisure services for the last forty to fifty

years. Therefore, proportionately, they will represent a reduced segment of the total

population which is a uniquely different planning framework.

As a result of the demographic shifts over the next fifteen years, there will be absolutely

more mature adults in terms of numbers who are looking for different types of leisure

program relationships and activities while there will not be a growing but rather a likely

stable or declining youth population. This trend uniquely changes some of the perspectives

as to the planning and delivery of leisure services from what has historically been the

benchmark of the last decades. The Echo Boom generation, now 30 to 40 years of age,

has left secondary school and post-secondary institutions. They were the last identifiable

growth-oriented youth age cohort, however they are now having children and there has

been a slight rise in 0 to 4 year olds in the 2011 census compared to the 2006 census. The

future of youth services will likely focus on existing or declining youth population volumes.

These trends are occurring in Brant County related to aging.

7.2.2 Changing Cultural Face of Canada

Due to birth rate declines, Canada needs approximately 300,000 net new immigrants per

year to sustain its current population. This is felt to be a significant goal for the country in

order to ensure a stable and growing economy. As a result, Canada has encouraged

immigration from around the world in order to meet these particular policy objectives and

strategic outcomes, probably more so than any other country. What has significantly

changed related to immigration has been the source of new immigrants and refugees.

Traditionally they have come from northern Europe, the Mediterranean area and related

regions in large numbers through the later part of the 19th century and the first half of the

20th century. In the last twenty years, they have increasingly been arriving from non-

traditional sources, such as the Middle East, Asia, Africa and South America. Many of

these individuals have also been refugees from war torn, impoverished countries, with no

fundamental experiences or traditions in regards to leisure activities, education, health

care, etc. Others have come with a different array of leisure experiences, involving soccer,



cricket and other leisure activities specific to their culture but of limited exposure historically

in Canada.

From a leisure services perspective, an ethnically diverse population creates

communication requirements to inform and educate new Canadians about leisure services,

ranging from everything from how to source information to encouraging participation in new

experiences. This trend also can impact the types of services that people are interested in,

ranging from increased soccer participation, to reduced interest in activities that they may

have no history in, such as ice-based sports, baseball, fitness and related considerations.

An interesting example is South London, which twenty years ago had the largest minor

hockey registration in that city at 1,200 participants. The area became a significant

settlement area for new Canadians, particularly from the Middle East. Within a very short

period of time, registration fell from 1,200 children to 600 children, which was due to the

impacts of both stabilizing youth populations and the higher presence of immigrant children

with no ice related experiences.

However, today that Minor Hockey Association is seeing some increased participants from

cultural communities as second and third generation families begin to acclimatize to and

participate in more traditional Canadian activities. Hockey Canada and local Minor Hockey

Associations have active marketing programs to engage new Canadians.

For Brant County, there is less of an immediate impact related to cultural transitions. Paris

will likely experience such changes over the next ten years or so, while other areas of Brant

will likely experience less change.

7.2.3 Facility Quality

One of the fundamental transitions of the last twenty year has been the qualitative leaps

that recreation / leisure facilities have experienced in municipal, YMCA and other related

venues. The large multi-use complex, the twin pad and quad ice facility and the tournament

/ competitive level quality of many recreation facilities and community centres has been

widely evidenced. One community builds a state of the art facility and other communities

start to look at that facility as the new standard.

The Waterloo Memorial Recreation Complex and RIM Park in Waterloo, the Western Fair

Fourplex in London; the YMCAs in Toronto, Mississauga, St. Catharines, Niagara Falls and

Goderich; and many other venues are being visited and seen as the new standard. The

recreation complex currently under construction in North Perth reflects this trend.

One of the consistent considerations with the "boomer generation" is their high

expectations around quality. Therefore, arenas with large dressing rooms, showers, warm

viewing areas and many ancillary supports are commonplace. Larger arena, multi-use



complexes are incorporating food courts, rather than simple canteens such as the Brant

Sports Complex. Older recreation facilities are being repositioned to contemporary

standards at significant capital investment costs.

One of the long-term planning considerations is the need to determine what level of quality

new facilities should be developed at and how do existing facilities compete and not be

cannibalized in terms of current uses/users moving to newer facilities. Sometimes this trend

also needs to be assessed on a regional market basis where neighbouring municipalities

are building significant new leisure facilities that could be used by other municipalities'

residents.

With increased facility quality comes increased initial capital costs, as well as increased on-

going maintenance and operational costs. Therefore, these investments become more

significant in terms of their total cost implications.

As marketing and user preferences becomes a more critical part of the choices people

make in terms of investing their leisure dollars, facility quality becomes important and the

rates and fees structure around these facilities tends to increase. Sometimes, as rates and

fees for users increase, quality expectations also increase. It is not uncommon now when

arena fees go up in some municipalities that adult leagues, who typically played after 10

p.m., to midnight, now want more preferential times at 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. due to the level of

fees that they are paying and the aging of their participants. A wide array of impacts can

emanate from these trends and the associated costs that track with enhanced facilities.

Another consideration in terms of facility quality and increased fees is that the private

sector can become more involved in the service delivery model if a profit potential exists.

This was a powerful argument undertaken in the mid-1990s involving arenas. However, the

latest round of private sector investment in public arenas has had challenges with many

being either for sale, having gone bankrupt or operating under trusteeship, such as in

London, Cambridge, Oakville, Kitchener and other centres.

7.2.4 Tourism and Sport Tourism

One of the interesting trends within the leisure services sector has been the merging of

tourism strategies with parks, recreation, culture and related services development and

delivery. Increasingly, particularly as facility quality increases, the opportunity to attract day

visitors and overnight tourists increases via tournaments, shows, meets and special events.

One dimension of this has been the development of a market segment within tourism called

sport tourism. Sport tourism involves tournaments, meets and other similar events that

bring individuals and teams from out of town into the community for one or more days.

There has been a long history of local soccer, softball and hockey tournaments; swim and

track and field meets; and related activities. What is increasingly occurring beyond this



level is municipalities interested in pursuing larger provincial, national and international

events, such as the World Under 17 Hockey Tournament, the Ontario Games, the Ontario

Senior Games and many other such events. Cities like London, Kitchener, Ottawa, Halifax,

Brandon, Red Deer, Saskatoon and Kamloops represent cities that have become very

aggressive in the sport tourism sector and Brantford / Brant has been a major venue for

these markets.

The drive to sport tourism, as an increasingly marketed and municipally supported

enterprise, results from the potential economic and related employment impacts that this

type of activity can bring to the community in terms of room, food, retail, gas and other

sales. They also are, at the minor sports level, popular amongst non-profit organizations

due to their potential fundraising capacity for the host organizations. Increasingly, major

municipal park and recreation facility development is being rationalized based on their sport

tourism capacity in conjunction with the regular activity use supported by the facility or

service.

7.2.5 Environment

Over the last ten to twenty years, and in particular the last several years, the world’s

concern in regard to the environment, particularly global warming, has substantially

increased. Significant growth in political priority has been placed on environmental issues

and needs. For municipalities generally, and leisure services specifically, this trend has

considerable connectivity.

One of the considerations which has occurred over several decades is the Municipality’s

role in the preservation of identified environmental land areas. Recently, the City of London

passed a by-law that all woodlots would now become open space. The Town of Fort Erie

has identified numerous parcels of land outside of the Official Plan that have potential

environmental / open space priority. Other communities are increasingly reconsidering

ravine lines, water courses, forested areas, wetlands, shorelines and related areas for

public acquisition and conservation, either directly by the Municipality or through partners,

such as local Conservation Authorities or the Nature Conservancy of Canada.

Conservation Authorities typically now do not have the budgets to pursue the acquisition

and management of all the parcels of land that municipalities are becoming engaged with.

This engagement often is not derived from the Municipality itself, but from community

advocates who form various coalitions in order to create community awareness and

political support for the preservation of specific sites.

It is anticipated, that municipalities over the next twenty plus years, will have an increasing

stewardship role in the protection, conservation and day-to-day management of a variety of

environmental areas. Some of these areas will be able to sustain little if any human

activity, while others will become significant open space and park activity venues.



Another dimension of the environmental consideration, relates to facility design. There are

increased expectations that municipalities will use the latest environmental technology in

facilities in order to both set an example, as well as to save operating costs. Many

municipalities have been active in energy reduction programs that require significant up

front capital investments. Other municipalities have taken leadership roles, such as Activa

in Kitchener and Burlington, to undertake pilot and development programs in their buildings

to test environmentally friendly technology or to be demonstration sites. One initiative

involves establishing Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) standards for

all recreation and cultural facility development.

Increasing consideration is also being given to public transit and community trails as ways

to reduce carbon emissions and to enhance fitness. The development of trails is gaining

increasing attention as not only a recreation resource, but also as an alternate form of

active transportation. Therefore, the development of trail master plans and investment in

trails has been a growing priority for many municipalities which links to health,

transportation and environmental benefits. With walking being one of the most popular

recreational activities, and its direct linkage to health, fitness and other benefits, trails take

on a multi-benefit perspective that is closely linked to sustaining healthy, living

environments focusing both on ecological and personal well-being.

Beyond these specific considerations, is the notion of the healthy and sustainable

community living environment. These principles, concepts and strategic directions are

increasingly important in the making of community services decisions.

Considerations due to climate change include the use of irrigation for sport fields, shade

cover for dugouts and field use restrictions/limits to sustain natural turf.

Therefore, the conservation of more natural areas, the expansion and increased promotion

of trails and trail usage, increasing expectations on facilities being environmentally friendly

and the reducing of environmental impacts from day-to-day parks and recreation operations

is a significant growing trend and community expectation. This trend has definable capital

and operating cost implications that are generally seen as important investments in

enhancing the health, environment, liveability and sustainability of a community.

Another environmentally aligned trend is the “grow local” movement which focuses on

growing and/or purchasing significant portions of one’s food close to home. One dimension

of this trend has been the establishment of community garden plots on public or private

lands supported by water sources, plot allocation layouts, etc. Users reflect various

priorities, such as gardening as a hobby/interest, grow local beliefs/food security and food

affordability. A number of churches and other non-profits have also engaged by providing

surplus/unused lands. Key challenges are water sources, theft/vandalism and accessibility.



Also connected to this trend is the growing emergence of community kitchens that are often

part of settlement programs as well as for young mothers and parents. Loblaw stores have

developed many such facilities.

Brant, with its larger rural area and Grand River valley lands has a significant open space

and environmental lands perspective.

7.2.6 Community, Health, Educational, Social, and Policing Services Integration

Another trend that is occurring in the leisure services operating environment is the

integration of education, social, health and leisure services, sometimes in conjunction with

policing services. Increasingly, more holistic servicing strategies are emerging that look at

all the needs of a family or an individual in their totality, not just in individual slices. As a

result, many social services organizations, such as Children's Aid, Children's Mental

Health, etc., look to the Municipality and other leisure services providers to deliver leisure

services that their clients can participate in, often expecting reduced access costs due to

affordability concerns and the clinical treatment benefits of leisure participation.

Also, what emerges from this integration strategy on a broader front is the movement

towards wellness on physical, emotional and social levels. However, this is increasingly

evolving into the youth and teen services areas. Many of the teen initiatives in various

municipalities have leisure components but connect with broader services in terms of

employment, mental health, youth justice and other linked service areas.

Therefore, the ability to work within a broader context than pure leisure philosophy and

perspectives is increasingly important to deliver the right services at the right time to

various target audiences. Halton Social Services now operates two neighbourhood

programs in Burlington that have on-site recreation components and similar integration

occurs in Kitchener’s Victoria Community Centre and the Mill-Courtland Resource Centre

which also represent servicing examples of a more integrated, multi-service strategy.

7.2.7 User Fees and Charges and Affordability

A number of municipalities are increasingly looking to user fees and charges for leisure

services to fund a higher proportion of the costs of services delivery operations. On the cost

side, municipalities are also looking more at the total cost of services delivery, involving

department and corporate overheads, long-term repair and rehabilitation costs, etc. On the

revenue side, some rates and fees policies identify a specific coverage revenue target for

children's / youth services, with usually a higher one for adult services, as does Brant.

However, many municipalities still do not have a defined cost structure as a baseline to

develop their user fees. Brant has a well-defined rate and segmented structure.

Today, more sophisticated discussions are occurring on what is the role of the users in

funding higher proportion of facility access/use costs, especially specialized facilities with



high costs and more limited participation profiles, e.g.: municipal golf courses, fitness

centres, etc. This is a key strategic question that has profound political considerations,

influences the grants and subsidies provided by a Municipality to various user groups and

represents a significant challenge in terms of key principles around affordability,

accessibility, enhanced resident health, a balanced set of participation opportunities and

investing community tax dollars wisely and fairly.

Some communities have undertaken efforts to develop a sound cost understanding of

services delivery and are recognizing the challenges of implementing a new base for

services delivery. Some of the fees charged may have no real foundation, or have evolved

on an ad hoc basis and are not connected to each other by a set of principles or an unifying

strategy or policy framework. The preferred strategy is to establish a strong policy basis

and framework to ensure equity and fairness in fees.

As fees and charges increase in value and complexity, affordability concerns have risen as

a barrier to participation and equitable access. Many communities are developing policies

on facilitating affordable access by ensuring discounted fees for youth and targeted

populations, or providing a fund, alone or together with community groups, that subsidize

individuals and families who have affordability challenges and who would benefit from

recreation participation. The Low Income Cut Offs (LICO) are often used as a threshold for

providing financial support as the basis. In the County of Brant, the Can We Help Program

is utilized.

7.2.8 Market Segmentation / Services Differentiation

One of the business components that is emerging into the leisure services operating

environment is the recognition that the population is not generic or homogeneous as to

what activities they wish to undertake and at what participation / quality levels. Increased

target audiences or market segmentation strategies are emerging. As an example,

participation can often now be tracked on the following levels of interest:

Experimental, general interest, etc;

Hobby / specialized interest;

Competitive / elite interest and skills development.

Each of these levels has various degrees of intensity, cost and user preparedness to pay

user fees and participation. They also have different levels of facility quality and capacity

requirements. These range from the amount of seating for competitive and tournament

oriented activities to the fact that unorganized recreational softball can occur on school

board or other properties which are constructed at a lower standard and receive less

maintenance.



The tendency in many municipalities has been to deliver services on a more generic basis.

However, changing facility quality expectations results in a question as to whether all

facilities need to be developed at a high end or whether different levels of facility

development should occur in terms of quality and capacity supported by different levels of

user fees. This is a changing consideration, in that historically municipalities have charged

a common level of user fees for ice, fields, etc. An increasing trend is to consider charging

different fees and rates based on the quality of the facility, with potential premiums being

charged for the time slots that are most in demand. This approach is more of a business

model and also focuses on different levels of intensity, interest and ability to pay.

The repositioning of the market to a more targeted approach may also result in changes to

two of the other trends identified in this report related to user rates and fees as well as

facility quality.

7.2.9 Leisure Services Development and Delivery Strategy

Input received from community members, municipal staff and Councils, and the trends and

analysis within the leisure services sector at the municipal level, indicate potentially

substantive change in terms of how leisure services will be developed and delivered in the

future. The expectation that a Municipality is the centre point for leisure services delivery,

involving programs, facilities, coordination, special events, etc. is changing, as municipal

operating environment changes relative to overall service responsibilities (e.g. aging

infrastructure) fiscal constraints and other factors emerge relative to the use priorities of

available resources. In concert with these changes, are market-based changes in terms of

the types and numbers of leisure interests that people wish to pursue; the level of interest

they wish to pursue them at; their preparedness to pay user fees of a higher order; and

trends towards increased participation by the private, non-profit and other service

providers. Rock climbing; private arenas; sports and fitness centres; specialized programs

delivery, such as hockey schools, private sector adult leagues, etc. represent examples.

The operating environment for leisure services at the municipal level is also changing with

increased connectivity between sport, recreation, arts, culture, heritage, tourism and

economic development; movement towards facilitated access and information resources for

all leisure services; and consumer demands for more one window / coordinated

accessibility to services.

Of increasing concern to a community is the ability of the public to reasonably access

leisure services related to costs, varying interests, locations, ability / skill levels, etc. As the

leisure services delivery system gets more complex and user fees become more

prominent, access issues become more significant. Therefore, efforts to reduce costs by

gaining cost economies through partnerships, mergers and conjoint / joint venture activity

are more evident. As an example, YMCA Canada reports that local YMCAs now have over

one hundred municipal servicing partnership and / or direct delivery agreements. The



County partners with the Mount Pleasant and Scotland Optimist Clubs as examples, to

provide recreation opportunities.

What these changes lead to is a vision of an integrated leisure services delivery strategy

that builds on the strengths of all services providers in a community and which uses all the

community's resources to achieve positive outcomes in terms of each participant's personal

development and the quality of life in the community. This is a holistic strategy that also

needs to connect with education, health, social services, tourism, economic development,

policing and other initiatives, as leisure services do not exist in isolation within a single

community or within broader regional markets.

The trend towards a more integrated community-based leisure services strategy, that can

achieve trust between service providers; establish strong leadership; and uses cooperative

and collective efforts that focus on consumer interests and needs, practical financial

realities, reasonably universal accessibility and ongoing services evaluation, is the service

delivery model that will support future success.

7.2.10 Volunteers and Leisure Services Delivery

Another emerging strategic theme and challenge for municipalities is the sustainability of

volunteer service organizations as important service providers and partners. Volunteer

organizations have a long and valued history in the delivery of an array of leisure services.

However, increasing concerns are being raised about the sustainability of these

organizations, particularly from a financial perspective, as operating and capital costs rise

to significant levels, and their ongoing ability to recruit committed and / or skilled volunteers

becomes increasingly challenging. A loss of capacity and service from this sector would

greatly impact the availability of leisure services. Therefore, municipalities will need to

examine various options, inputs and roles that it may be in a position to undertake in order

to maximize the supports available to voluntary organizations in order to sustain, and if

possible, enhance their present capacities. Governance and technical training, marketing

and analytical supports, advocacy initiatives, volunteer recognition, grants acquisition, and

other activities and services could be considered based on individual group needs.

There has been a trend in recent years for volunteers to become more project-focused

rather than engage in longer-term involvement. However, reports from non-profit

organizations who deliver continuous service speak to the challenges of attracting

volunteer Board of Directors and operational support volunteers where the need is more for

continuing, longer-term commitments.

A second consideration is that many of the leisure services and community supports that

exist have evolved on the basis of a few key volunteer players, some who have provided

twenty to thirty or more years of leadership. Volunteer succession is becoming an

increasing challenge for some non-profit organizations and community groups. This



generational transition in volunteer leadership and commitment is a challenge in sustaining

the range of community services that are offered in communities across Canada.

Third, is the increasing challenge around accountability and “red tape” involved with

volunteering. Organizations, especially those involved with youth, often now often require

police checks, costing anywhere from $25.00 to $50.00 per check. Other volunteers are

concerned about accountability of working with youth and the negative public exposure that

can occur. More and more not-for-profit community organizations need to undertake

complex evaluation and reporting programs to government which creates more paperwork

and less time associated with program and organizational development and delivery. The

changing nature of the volunteer environment is becoming a potential constraint.

The fourth, and final, consideration is that many volunteers are highly educated, have been

involved in supervisory or managerial leadership and have a host of experiences.

Therefore, how they are treated, valued, recognized, trained and supported becomes

important as the sophistication of volunteer increases. Many not-for-profit organizations

and community groups do not have a tradition or a capacity to adapt to some of the

changing profile considerations of volunteers.

Volunteers continue to be critical to the development and delivery of leisure

services. However, their availability, development, use, recognition, recruitment,

succession and related considerations, as well as changing preferences around their

commitment and interests, needs to be effectively addressed and responded to in

order to sustain a strong and vibrant volunteer pool in support of a broad array of

accessible and affordable leisure services.

7.2.11 Community Trails

For over thirty years, communities have been developing trail systems throughout their

community. These trails have utilized hydro rights-of-way, waterfront public lands, linear

ravine systems, direct purchases of land and linkage and acquisition of land through the

Planning Act in new development areas. Community trails have become one of the most

popular and sought after development initiatives within communities. Initially, walking and

jogging-type activities were the prominent use. In more recent years, cycling, rollerblading

and other uses have emerged in force. Brant has significantly invested in expanding its trail

system.

The design of trails has advanced significantly, in terms of hard surfaces to support

wheelchairs and bicycle use, rest areas to support older aged users and the concept of

connecting destinations so that a linked network evolves. These destinations often involve

schools, large parks, attractions, commercial areas, waterfronts, special environmental

features and a host of other community resources.



In the last ten years, trail master plans have become common amongst municipalities and

are often linked to bicycle master plans and other transportation systems plans.

One of the most significant trends of the last five to ten years has been the linking of

community trails to broader linear transportation network planning as a component in these

networks. As a result, community trails are increasingly taking on a role as an alternate

transportation resource in combination with the fitness, recreational and related activities

that have traditionally been the value basis for these resources.

With the development of the broader network system, and also with the integration of trails

between municipalities, particularly in regional government areas, has come the notion of a

three tiered trail system:

The spinal corridors that are the primary transportation routes;

The local trails that connect neighbourhood and other destinations within

communities;

The specialty trails that are theme-based, such as the Chrysler Greenway, Essex

County TransCanada Trail, many waterfront trails and those associated key

geographic features, such as the Bruce Trail along the Niagara Escarpment.

Community trail development is evolving, and needs to be considered in all new and

renewal development occurring within communities as both a recreational experience that

sustains leisure interests, fitness and related activities, as well as providing alternate

transportation opportunities.

In addition, as trails become more multi-use, involving everything from cyclists training for

marathons to older adults walking for health, comes the need to better manage trail

utilization to reduce conflicts and to provide trails on a year-round basis. Trail conflicts have

existed where bicyclists have collided with trail users, often seniors. As a result, strategies

have evolved, such as yellow lines to separate use or to have two track trail systems in

heavy use areas. Also evolving, are the development of trail heads, the use of tea rooms

and other services along the trails and the maintenance of trails in the wintertime to

facilitate year-round utilization. Many cities have been approached by groups who have

asked Councils to maintain the trails on a year-round basis so that users can sustain their

fitness regimes and facilitate ongoing alternate transportation access. Any such strategy

will required additional resources.

As the role of trails evolves and utilization grows, trails will become an increasingly

important resource that will need continuing investment, maintenance and management to

sustain their value and effective use and benefits.



7.2.12 Collaboration, Partnership and Joint Ventures

The use of partnerships and joint ventures has come to dominate many of the discussions

around future leisure services delivery. They are seen as a service delivery strategy that

uses all the resources in the community, allows organizations and individuals with expertise

and capacity to more effectively deliver service, expands service opportunities within the

community and potentially achieves greater cost efficiencies through economies of scale

and more coordinated / integrated delivery efforts.

Brant County has developed some partnerships as a leisure services delivery strategy with

service clubs. This notion of partnerships and joint ventures, involving the public, private

and non-profit sectors, as well as community-based groups, is widely seen from the

research and input as a vital leisure service delivery strategy now and in the future.

In terms of strategies, the use of partnerships, joint ventures and 3 Ps, and the expansion

of their role and application in delivering major leisure facilities, is a strategy that will need

to be examined in all services initiatives. This should be a check list question for each

project as to potential partner’s identification, feasibility and desirability. However, the

challenges with partnerships, in terms of risk, sustainability, mutual benefit and value for

investment, needs to be continually assessed.

Partnerships are also evolving in different contexts. As one example, YMCAs now have

over one hundred municipal partnerships and joint ventures in the delivery of leisure

services in Canada. The Town of Goderich in 2005 / 2006 entered into a partnership with

the Sarnia / Lambton YMCA to build and operate the new South Coast Recreation Complex

involving an indoor pool, arena, walking track, gymnasium and fitness centre, along with

operating all the Town sports fields, a second arena and leisure programming. YMCAs are

also moving into significant partnerships with the City of London on Northeast Recreation

and Aquatics Centre and have undertaken similar initiatives in the City of Sarnia, along with

the City of Waterloo on a new multi-use complex. In the City of Niagara Falls, a new

recreation complex was built by the City and the YMCA in partnership, which houses a

YMCA, Branch Library and the City’s Parks and Recreation Offices.

Many different types of partnership models are evolving, both in terms of leisure programs

and facilities. There are ongoing efforts to consider different ways of delivering services

than traditional municipal only approaches. Financial constraints and the increasing

spectrum of leisure services interests results in collaboration, partnerships and joint

ventures representing important strategies in responding to an ever changing operating

environment.

7.2.13 Role of the Parks and Recreation Department

Municipalities have traditionally held significant responsibility for the development and

delivery of leisure services within their communities. This has been generally undertaken



for leisure services through a Department of Parks and Recreation and local Library,

Museum, Art Centre and related Boards who are funded in whole or in part by the local

Municipality.

The municipal role over many years has been as direct funder, developer and operator of

leisure facilities and programs. In more recent years, there has been some contraction of

the role in leisure services delivery for some municipalities. Some municipalities, such as

Niagara Falls, have opted to allow non-profit, community-based, private enterprises and

others to undertake more of a role in leisure programs delivery in order to expand services,

reduce competition and to use all the resources available within the community. Other

municipalities, due to the growth in leisure services and changes in the market and fiscal

realities associated with those services, have tended to focus their role on community

development, facility capital development and operations and coordination / facilitation

activity related to marketing, information provision / referrals and related supports to the

overall leisure services network in the community.

Roles of municipalities can sometimes be prioritized around the following:

To identify the leisure needs and interests of the community, along with the

provision of information / education on and facilitating access to leisure services;

To act as a facilitator and broker in bringing together partners, including the

Municipality, to develop and operate facilities, programs and events in the best and

most flexible manner possible in meeting the leisure needs of residents, which are

consistent with the strategic directions and priorities of the department and the

Municipality;

To assist in the preparation of leisure facility proposals, business plans, event

programs, grant applications and related tasks within potential partnerships by

supporting organizational and technical development and other capacity building

initiatives;

To be directly involved in leisure services delivery when a partnership or third party

provider is not viable, is too risk intensive or no other service provider(s) exist to

deliver a leisure service that has demonstrated need in the community and meets

the service delivery criteria established.

Brant County operates its parks and recreation services primarily within this framework.

7.2.14 Capital and Operating Finances

For the last decade, considerable change has occurred within the context of capital and

operating finances for major parks and recreation facilities. For the last ten years or more,

targeted senior government recreation and culture grants for leisure facilities have not been

as available though some opportunities have opened up in recent years via infrastructure,

rural development, culture and other granting programs. For decades, these grants



contributed up to one third of capital costs. In more recent years, fundraising, direct

financing, Development Charges, municipal grants, corporate sponsorships and other

strategies have become significantly more important in funding major parks and recreation

facilities and development.

Beyond the loss or limiting of capital grants, the capital funding environment has continued

to change significantly. Amendments to the Development Charges Act in 1999 and

subsequent rulings have reduced the application of this capital funding source for new

resources. The definition of eligible facilities has been reduced, e.g.: no cultural facilities, a

redefinition of the service level has lowered the thresholds for the funding of future facilities

needed to support population growth in the community, and there is a 10% arbitrary capital

cost reduction, along with a penalty for overcapacity. As a result, Development Charges,

which have been a primary source for parks and recreation facilities capital funding,

especially in faster growing communities, can have a reduced role under the current

legislation.

Another capital financing strategy that has begun to emerge has been the use of capital

surcharges. The City of Burlington was one of the first to utilize this for the development of

the Appleby Ice Centre. In this case, there is a $45 plus surcharge on each hour of adult ice

and a $16 plus surcharge on each hour of youth ice. The surcharges are used to pay off

the City debenture used to build the facility.

Other municipalities, e.g.: Stratford, have looked at surcharge applications for both new

capital development and long-term renewal / rehabilitation. Burlington has subsequently

used this model for a new soccer field and has developed a 7% surcharge on all rental

revenues for the Tansley Woods Recreation Centre. Strathroy-Caradoc applies a 5%

capital surcharge. Broadening the use of surcharges is being discussed though it has

moved slowly over the last ten years. It does represent another form of capital funding that

is user-pay focused. However, it does have some implications in terms of:

High cost capital facilities, such as indoor pools, require sensitivity in terms of any

surcharges as user fees could become too high and user volume is needed in order

to reduce operating deficits due to the high fixed operating cost nature of these

facilities;

Surcharges can create affordability concerns, impact volunteer groups, etc.;

Fairness and equity considerations emerge if surcharges are used on some

facilities and not others.

Fundraising and corporate sponsorships, including naming rights have become an

increasing source of capital funding for larger recreation and leisure facilities. The

opportunities to name facilities, to fund specific rooms or equipment, along with traditional

cash donations have become increasingly important. However, the overall fundraising



environment is increasingly competitive as not only the leisure services sector, but many

sectors are competing for funds on a daily basis, such as health, education and others.

Within the context of fundraising, corporate sponsorships have grown significantly which

results in a changing relationship with corporate funders who take a stronger marketing and

visibility-based approach to their contributions towards a particular project or program.

Also, sometimes they wish to contribute value-in-kind as a displacement for direct funding.

Fundraising may not always work as a strategy and securing and retaining volunteers to

drive a fundraising campaign is a concern due to community volunteer fatigue. Fundraising

can be a goal but does not come with a guarantee. It has enhanced application for joint

venture initiatives where there may be significant shared outcomes.

There is now a wider mix of capital funding sources applied to leisure facility initiatives than

in the past. Where major facility initiatives were once funded from two or three sources, it

is likely in the future, that they will require four, five and six sources. This direction will

create stronger partnership needs and a greater risk orientation related to creative

financing approaches.

From an operating perspective, increases in user fees have become a growing strategy

over the last decade for all municipalities. Most municipalities have increasing expectations

that user fees will continue to move between 60% and 80% coverage of a department's

total budget and even higher over time.

Increasing onus is being put on users to fund facility operations. As these funding formulas

become more sophisticated, they begin to include not only direct costs, but also allocated

corporate and indirect administrative costs, capital maintenance reserves and capital

upgrading charges.

7.2.15 Evaluation

Municipalities are moving into the area of services evaluation that are more

comprehensive, data and input-based and which will become a key component in

establishing servicing priorities/core services and resource allocations. Some

municipalities have instituted a regular three year resident survey on twenty-five or more

service themes, which gauges the value residents place on services through a gap analysis

approach involving the level of satisfaction versus level of importance. This process

identifies outcomes related to utilization levels, value held for the service and overall

importance to residents.

The notion of evaluation has become increasingly apparent in all public and other service

sectors as expectations grow for outcomes and restraint exists on the availability of public

resources. Best practices and evaluation programs are supportive to continuous

improvement approaches in ensuring that resource decisions and operations are consistent

with the real, demonstrated needs and interests of residents.



Evaluation of leisure services has become increasingly apparent now and for the years

ahead. Both existing and new parks and recreation facilities and services will be influenced

more and more by these evaluation strategies and their outcomes. As a result, leisure

services will increasingly need to be targeted on specific needs that are demonstrated by

community members, support specific outcomes that benefit those that have the needs and

will need to be flexible and adaptable to the changing uses and applications that will occur

within the population.

7.2.16 Multi-Use Facilities

The multi-use concept for major parks and recreation facilities has been available and used

for many years both as a concept and in practice. Multi-use leisure facilities have more

critical mass, potentially better operating and capital economies of scale, higher visibility

and greater customer service potential by creating a single access venue. However, they

also tend to result in larger facilities that move to a district and municipal-wide servicing

perspective, potentially reducing neighbourhood / local area level presence and roles.

There can be some significant trade-offs.

Multi-use facilities have been identified from the research as a strategy in developing major

leisure facilities in many municipalities, such as with joint venture operators and public

libraries. It is a strategy that is the basis for a partnership oriented facility development

model. Therefore, multi-use, which means bringing together the most number of uses and

users that have demonstrated need and the right compatibilities, should be a valued

facilities development strategy within this Master Plan.

7.2.17 Use of Schools and Their Availability

Currently, some community-based leisure programs and activities occur within schools

owned and operated by local school boards. Bill 160 reshaped school management and

operations, including the cost of maintaining schools, how surplus schools are disposed of

and other key considerations. In June 2004, the new provincial government of the day

announced $20 million provincially to facilitate increased affordability access to school-

based facilities. This program was renewed in late 2006 and continues.

The community use of schools user fees were recast between 1995 and 2004 to reflect a

true cost accounting approach compared to the previous more free / low cost access

model. This resulted in reduced use of schools and pressure for more municipal facilities

due to affordability issues by community service providers. If school use were to be

eliminated, it creates a need to develop new community centres and related facilities often

with gymnasiums.

Another community use of schools relationship issue is the development of campuses or

the attachment of community facilities to schools. Future campus strategies will need to be



assessed for balance, vulnerability and risk before being entered into due to increasing

school closures and anticipated schools or undeveloped school sites that are not needed

are being sold off. School boards also benefit from joint school and park development and

have relied on adjacent parkland to fulfil school green space, play space and sport and

physical education curriculum.

Due to school closure policies and directions of school boards, the building of additions to

schools for community facilities is potentially a less supportable strategy then it was fifteen

to twenty years ago. A preferred strategy in this regard may be to develop multi-use

facilities with other partners if longer-term sustainability is evident. If access to schools can

be reasonably achieved and sustained, it represents an affordable and preferable strategy

for providing selected indoor and outdoor activity spaces.

With respect to non-specialized facilities, school resources continue to represent one

approach as they are the most widely distributed resources for the provision of leisure

programs in the community. They are flexible, service many neighbourhoods and represent

a potentially more cost efficient approach. Both School Boards in Brant have a Joint Use of

Facilities Agreement with the County.

In terms of a strategic direction, access to schools should be a preferred delivery strategy

under the following conditions:

Local area / neighbourhood servicing strategies for leisure programs for both

programmed and non-programmed activities;

By improving relationships between the users and the onsite school staff to

enhance access and participant experiences;

Pursuing the development of specialized facilities with schools with caution,

particularly existing schools in areas with declining student enrolment;

Examining opportunities for campus relationships between the school boards and

park and recreation facility providers, ensuring that there is a reasonable

contingency plan, if school development does not proceed or if a school closure

occurs.

7.2.18 Geographic Service Levels

Community leisure facilities have different servicing scales and impacts, and thus serve

different geographic service zones. As an example, arenas and community centres often

serve larger geographic areas that represent clusters of neighbourhoods, i.e.: a district or a

whole municipality. At the local area / neighbourhood level, facilities can often involve an

elementary school, a clubhouse or small community room facility or related resource.

As leisure services move to larger and more multi-purpose facilities, and as user

expectations grow as to quality and intensity of the services offered, there has been a move



to larger facilities that results in more district and municipal-wide level servicing. The

likelihood of fewer neighbourhood / local area oriented facilities could result, due to their

smaller market areas, higher operating costs for standalone facilities and other factors.

What is important is not to lose the context of local area servicing related to both

programmed and non-programmed activity. Some input was received during the

consultation process about the move towards more intensively programmed facilities and

the possible loss of free form / non-programmed-based recreational and leisure activities

especially in local areas. Brant has a distributed model of parks and larger facilities across

the County to enhance accessibility and community affinity.

Operating local centres, is a higher operating cost strategy but can provide local area

servicing opportunities potentially augmented by the use of available elementary schools,

often using both Public and Catholic schools. Other local area services can also be offered

via churches, club facilities and related facilities. This continues to be the best strategy for

the delivery of local area leisure services. However, it does have important challenges

outlined previously. Such a strategy will require sustaining access to some centres and

school facilities, with potential municipal assistance to user organizations. As a recent

example, the Town of North Perth has acquired two (2) school venues to secure its future

land use development options.

7.2.19 Balancing Rehabilitation with New Development

Another strategy consideration is whether parks and recreation facility initiatives become

focused on new facility development or the redevelopment of existing facilities via

additions, renovations, venue renewal and related changes. The strategies around this

particular consideration will need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. It will also be

dependent on what partnerships are available and what resource transitions are occurring

at the time related to the types of uses, level of need and funding that is available. It may

be that rehabilitation with expansion is a less capital intensive strategy than new

construction if no land costs are incurred and if better economies can be achieved

operationally.

As a strategy, new leisure facility initiatives should be evaluated as to what options are

available to achieve the facility in the context of rehabilitating and readapting an existing

facility or venue. Balancing new facility and venue development with existing facility and

venue rehabilitation should be part of an evaluation framework related to parks and

recreation facilities development.

7.2.20 Capital Facility Maintenance

One of the often forgotten dimensions of leisure facility ownership is the ongoing capital

maintenance of facilities with respect to the replacement of major components, such as

chillers in arenas, filters and pumps in indoor pools, roofs in community centres, park



playground equipment and sports field infrastructure. Over a twenty year period,

considerable capital rehabilitation can be required. Portions of these costs are sometimes

paid for from reserves contributed from annual budgets. However, other supports are

usually required due to the magnitude of the project and limitation of reserves. Since these

projects often do not involve expansion or renovations, but rather capital replacement and

maintenance, they typically are not candidates for fundraising or partnership approaches.

Brant has a reasonably comprehensive forecasted capital maintenance plan for its major

facilities and venues.

One of the key recognized trends is that many public bodies have significant capital

maintenance and reserves deficits that will put increasing pressure on operating budgets in

order to sustain these facilities and venue resources. The utilization of pro-active reserve

funding approaches for capital renewal, self-sustaining debt coverage and other financing

strategies should be incorporated.

7.2.21 Summary

The following material summarizes the trends and strategies perspectives.

An aging population profile is evolving, but there will not necessarily be an absolute

decline in youth numbers. Therefore, a need to have a more balanced services

delivery focus that moves beyond a strong youth orientation focus since the 1960s;

The ability to address, both through the principle of inclusiveness and participation,

the needs and impacts of a changing ethno cultural mix within the population. A

mix that will have other types of interests based on their traditions and experiences,

as well as will want, in some areas, to adapt to Canadian leisure activities.

Education, communications, engagement and focused contact with these

communities represent important strategy considerations;

Ever increasing expectations amongst users relative to facility quality, driven both

by consumer and fee expectations, as well as what is being developed in other

communities. This has significant capital and operating cost implications;

The increasing merger of sport and cultural tourism with parks and recreation

services facilities and operations as one of the key rationales and points of

investment;

An increasing interest in the environment and the conservation of key

environmental features, such as water / wetlands, woodlots, ravines, etc., which

often brings additional lands and management responsibilities to a Municipality;

An increasing emphasis on energy efficient facility and venue designs, using LEED

Standards as a baseline;

The growing importance and value for arts, culture and heritage as part of a healthy

and creative city and in support of changing resident values and population

characteristics;



The increasing integration of community, health, education, social and policy

services relative to holistic servicing strategies, often led by health units and both

public and community-based social service providers;

The increasing sophistication, emphasis on and impact of user fees and rental rates

development relative to how they are prepared, their fairness and equity,

transparency; and the ability to develop them in a meaningful and consistent way;

The growth in market segmentation and services differentiation between

recreational use, higher skill interests and other types of uses that define different

market niches and varying types of expectations and levels of needs amongst

participants;

The increasing role of not-for-profit, private sector and community organizations in

the delivery of leisure services and the potentially changing role of municipalities

with a greater emphases on facilitation and community development;

The growing use of partnerships, joint ventures and community engagement as a

basis to facilitate services development and delivery;

The increasing use of a wider array of capital and operating financial sources to

support services delivery, including corporate sponsorships, community fundraising,

senior government grants, etc.;

The increasing emphasis on the evaluation of services delivery to ensure that the

right services are being delivered within the appropriate frameworks and with the

desired outcomes;

The increasing emphasis on multi-use facilities and the potential to use more of the

community’s facilities in terms of institutions, schools, clubs / associations, etc.;

The growing emphasis to balance the need for the rehabilitation of aging facilities in

conjunction with the development of new facilities, along with the importance of

ensuring adequate resourcing for ongoing capital facility maintenance, renewal and

serviceability.

7.3 Specific Activity Trends

7.3.1 Introduction

The following material provides some perspectives and insights on trends that are

influencing participation in selective recreation and leisure activities that will have influence

on the future development alternatives and priorities for the Brant County Recreation

Master Plan.

Participation in various recreational and sport activities is driven by two key perspectives:

Population Growth: as the population grows or declines, the absolute number of people

available to participate in any activity also changes. Brant County is

forecasted to have significant population growth, particularly within the

serviced urban areas of Paris and St. George, and will continue to



attract young families who commute to work in larger urban centres

such as Brantford, Cambridge, Kitchener, Hamilton and Woodstock.

Participation Rate: this participation growth or decline factor is based on resident’s interest

in participating in a specific recreational or sport activity. There are

many influences that drive the impacts on participation, such as an

aging population with proportionately fewer younger members within the

demographic profile; the growing number of new Canadians within the

population who have not experienced the same recreation and sport

activities, such as the people from the Middle East and ice-based

activities; contemporary/cultural popularity of certain activities; the cost

of participation, as well as the convenience of schedules and venue

availability; and the emergence of new activities or modified current

activities that increase the diversity of choices that people have for

participation; economic downturns that could reduce people’s

discretionary income to pay the fees for participation; and a host of

other influences. Because of the wide range of impacts and influences

on recreation and sports participation, the participation rates tend to be

dynamic over relatively short periods of time.

7.3.2 Individual Activity Trends

Softball:

Minor softball has experienced one of the most significant participation transitions, greater

than for most recreation activities. In the ten years after the Toronto Blue Jays last won the

World Series, registration in minor baseball in Ontario declined between 30% and 60%

across many municipalities, except in the Niagara Region and Windsor-Essex where there

is considerable affinity to the border areas with the United States and a strong culture for

baseball exists. Over the last ten years, Baseball Ontario has undertaken a significant

marketing and community development effort to renew baseball. This effort has resulted in

increased registrations of over 30% compared to the lows experienced in the early 2000s.

However, the registrations have not come back to the levels of 1992 and 1993 in some

areas of Ontario. Paris and Ingersoll are examples of higher growth experiences.

Registrations have been impacted by a number of factors:

Declining youth populations in many rural Ontario and smaller communities, as well

as in populations in communities up to 100,000 people outside of the Greater

Toronto Area;

Soccer’s significant increase in popularity has resulted in a number of youth moving

to soccer from baseball or not participating in baseball at all as they come of age to

participate;



A significant portion of the youth age cohorts involve new Canadians who have had

no baseball exposure or experience and do not know the sport;

Preference by some parents to have their children participate in higher aerobic-

based activities for health and fitness purposes.

The general perspective is that baseball registration could increase based on population

growth but will experience little or no participation rate increases within the population as

the key influencing factors of an aging population and declining youth cohorts, the

increasing number of new Canadians proportionality and other factors will influence the

choices made by families.

In terms of adult softball, the following is identified:

The once popular and very dynamic men’s and women’s fastball leagues have

declined significantly, especially in rural and smaller communities where these

leagues were once very popular. There are many small communities that have

lighted fast ball diamonds that are not used or are significantly underutilized. This

has been driven by the aging population and the continuing movement of younger

adults from the rural areas to urban centres for education and employment;

In terms of slow-pitch, there has been a decline in overall provincial participation.

This decline has been mitigated to some degree by the increasing segmentation of

the sport in terms of competitive and recreational leagues, competitive and

recreational mixed leagues, age-based leagues and other strategies that have

sustained the sport to a degree. However, growth is likely connected primarily to

population growth. The major boom in slow-pitch activity occurred over the last

twenty-five to thirty years and was highly influenced by the “boomer” generation that

constitutes 32% of Ontario’s population. This generation is now fifty to sixty-five

years of age. One half of this generation is fifty-five to sixty years of age.

Therefore, for the next five to ten years there will be a pool of players for slow-pitch

from this generation but it will likely continue to diminish as this large cohort ages.

Younger adults will continue to play slow-pitch, however there tends to be fewer of

them in the population proportionately and immigration drives population growth.

Those Brant residents wishing to play hardball participate in leagues based in Brantford.

Ice Activities

Boy’s Minor Hockey has been one of the strongest culturally-based activities in Canadian

society. Registrations through Hockey Canada at one time were in excess of 500,000

individuals. However, Boy’s Minor Hockey has experienced declines in recent years due to

three key factors:



The reduced number of children in the population, both proportionally in terms of

absolute numbers, especially in rural communities, smaller towns and related

geographic areas;

The fact that population growth is driven by the influx of new Canadians who

primarily come from the Middle East, the Far East, South America and Africa where

ice-based sports have little or no presence, and therefore, there is no cultural

affinity to participate in or an understanding of these activities;

Increasing costs to support a child in minor hockey due to equipment, ice,

registration and related costs, as well as injury concerns by some parents.

Hockey Canada has a program to grow registration, particularly within new Canadian

communities. Major work is being undertaken in this area as there is an evident

understanding of the implications to the sport and Canada. One example would be the

South London Minor Hockey Association which had the largest Minor Hockey Association

in London with 1,200 children. Over a five year period, some 20,000 new Canadians

moved into the White Oaks area, that along with an aging population in what was once

mostly a young family’s area of London, registration declined to less than 500 children.

Girl’s Minor Hockey continues to grow. It historically has grown by about 15% a year and

30% after Olympic years. Growth has been ongoing for over a decade and has been a

significant part of the driving force to expand arena capacity across Ontario. Growth has

settled to lower levels but is influenced significantly by:

Population growth;

Young females continuing to take an interest in the sport, especially as stereo-

typical expectations have changed around girl’s participation in hockey.

Girl’s hockey will continue to grow above population growth but likely not at the levels

experienced through the 2000’s. It will also be influenced by the ability of Hockey Canada

and others to engage with new Canadian communities.

Ringette has experienced significant declines as girl’s hockey has increased. At one time

there was speculation that Ringette would devolve completely but this is not the case.

Most Ringette programs in Ontario are now developed at a regional basis in terms of team

formation which has allowed the sport to continue and still be viable in some areas. The

amount of ice time utilized has declined significantly over the last ten years but still

represents an ongoing activity for young females. The influences on its participation levels

will be primarily marginally upward in terms of population growth and downward in terms of

the impact of growth in girl’s hockey and girl’s integration in boy’s hockey.

Adult hockey is moving in two directions. Men’s adult hockey continues to be strong-based

on the market segmentation strategies that now find under thirty-five and over thirty-five



teams, under fifty and over fifty teams and the emergence of the over seventy year old

teams. This type of segmentation keeps some players involved longer than would happen

if they had to play with younger players.

However, participation levels are declining as the aging population occurs. The strength of

the adult participation over the last twenty-five to thirty years has been the result of the

“boomer” generation as discussed in the section on baseball. With the “boomers” now

being fifty to sixty-five years of age, fewer will be participating and there are fewer younger

people in behind to offset those retiring from the sport. Also the emergence of an

increased proportion of new Canadians within the adult population who have had no

exposure to hockey, will also have an impact over the next ten to fifteen years.

Therefore, men’s hockey will likely see a diminished participation level due to:

Aging population and the “baby-boomer” demographic impacts;

The increasing number of new Canadians proportionately in the population;

Other choices that people have for participation;

A growing population will mitigate some of the potential declines on a limited basis.

For women’s hockey, growth is projected, both based on population growth and

participation growth. As with men’s hockey some twenty-five to thirty years ago, some

young females who play girl’s hockey will want to continue participating at adult levels. The

emergence of adult female hockey leagues is evident in many communities and is growing.

This will likely be a significant trend over the next twenty years as the participants will not

be from the boomer generation but will be from the X and Y generations. However, the

increasing number of adult new Canadians in the population will mitigate the overall level of

growth that will be experienced.

Figure skating in its various forms has relatively stable participation. It will be primarily

influenced by population growth as participation levels are influenced by the proportion of

youth in the population and the growing number of children who are new Canadian and

come from ethno-cultural communities.

The Learn to Skate and the developmental programs should remain relatively stable and

could experience some growth if new Canadian children participate at younger ages in

these types of programs. Culturally, figure skating has had some exposure to new

Canadians, especially from the Far East where it has a following but has limited exposure

in Africa, South America and the Middle East.

Population growth and some interest amongst new Canadians will likely result in stable or

marginally higher levels of participation.



Other ice sports, such as sledge hockey activities for specialized populations, will continue

to grow however, the proportionality of these populations in the overall population is small

and many new Canadians who have children or adults with disabilities would have little or

no exposure to ice-based sports to influence their choices.

Soccer

Soccer has and will continue to grow substantively over the next decades in regards to both

male and female participation and youth and adult engagement. The primary influences for

these outcomes are as follows:

Population growth;

Significant participation in soccer by new Canadians in their homelands;

Increasing T.V., media and other coverage of soccer on a world scale, as soccer

becomes a main stream sport activity;

At the recreational and competitive levels for youth and adults, the low cost to

participate;

The aerobic/fitness value of soccer participation;

The increasing organizational capacity at the local level for youth and adults,

enhanced soccer facilities being developed, and the emergence of indoor soccer to

create a twelve month a year playing opportunity.

Youth soccer for boys and girls is experiencing growth due to both population and new

Canadian influences. The participation of children and young adults has carry-over value

into adult leagues which are growing significantly, being similar to adult hockey over the

last twenty to thirty years.

Of all the sport oriented recreational activities, soccer will experience the greatest growth

across a spectrum of ages, gender, ethnicity, affordability and related perspectives.

With significant participation growth and market segmentation in the adult leagues, i.e.;

under thirty-five and over thirty-five, etc., similar to what occurred a number of years ago for

adult hockey, the result will be continued higher levels of play as the current youth players

age. Soccer will not be influenced by the aging population as the “boomer” generation was

not significantly engaged in soccer. Adult soccer is more based on the X and Y

generations and higher penetration rates amongst younger generations.

Growth rates of 5% to 15% could occur for at least another five to ten years and then move

towards more stabilization. Growth will be dependent on venue availability, time of play

and accessibility to play and population demographics. Also, the current movement to a

year round play and to being a mainstream activity etc. indicates strong growth

perspectives.



In terms of indoor play, this is comparable to hockey were summer ice and play became a

major activity approximately twenty years ago and has continued but to a lesser extent in

more recent years. Not all the outdoor soccer players will transition seasonally to indoor

play, however a number will, and there will be increasing demand for indoor facilities to

support year round play growth in this sport.

Other Field Sports

There is an array of field sports that also operate in municipal park facilities. These include

minor football, field hockey, cricket, field lacrosse, disk sports and others. Some are long

established activities and others are emerging ones.

Minor football is a long established activity. However, it did experience significant declines

through the 1990s as soccer participation grew significantly. There has been stabilization

and some growth through the 2000s. Its future growth will be primarily related to population

growth rather than participation increases. This is influenced by:

The soccer choice option that is increasingly popular, especially amongst the

growing number of new Canadians who would have no football experience or

exposure;

The proportion of children in the youth population;

The higher costs to play football due to the equipment requirements.

Field hockey has had a variable history. Some communities have made strong effort made

to stabilize and grow the sport. It is a sport that is primarily female-based at secondary

school age levels with some young adult play. Its future growth will be primarily influenced

by population growth and whether the sport can sustain a presence in light of soccer, golf

and other options. Its history with female high school students tends to be strong in some

areas of the province and non-existent in others, such as Brant County.

Field lacrosse is a relatively unknown sport though there is a small following. This sport

can utilize other outdoor playing fields. It appeals to people who have a specialized interest

in lacrosse. It tends to be less popular than box / arena lacrosse. It is not anticipated to

have any significant growth and may experience some declines. Indoor lacrosse, on the

other hand could grow due to both population growth and the emergence/profile of the

National Lacrosse League. Arena lacrosse uses arenas off season and no new venue

needs are seen.

Cricket is a sport that is currently organized on a broad regional basis, primarily played

Sunday afternoons by new Canadian populations. With the emergence of two world class

cricket pitches in Brampton, as well more modest pitches in the Waterloo Region,

Burlington and other areas, this sport does continue to show some growth. Its growth is not

population growth but based on new Canadians, primarily from the Indian sub-continent.



With the continuing migration from these areas to Canada, participation in the sport will

likely grow but modestly. It is not anticipated that there will be substantive growth like

soccer but there will be some growth. Where venues are not available, increasing requests

for specialized venues or placing a cricket pitch over two parallel soccer fields will likely

increase.

Currently, the organizational infrastructure for cricket is not at a level that will advance the

sport significantly in the short term, but like soccer and other sports, this could change over

the next decade.

Disc sports (e.g. disc golf, ultimate frisbee) are organized but have a niche market

presence. It appeals particularly to young adults. Some have identified it as an emerging

sport and ultimate frisbee has over 200 participants in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. It also

has outdoor and indoor components. It is a recreational activity that has both physical and

social dimensions. Its growth will be influenced by population growth amongst the X and Y

generations as it has little presence amongst the “boomer” generation. It is also a sport

that would have limited experience or exposure amongst new Canadians. However, its low

cost to participate, social dimensions and physical activity could result in some growth.

Growth would likely be both by population increases as well some limited participation

increases with a facility in Green Lane Park, so the need for additional capacity is not

anticipated.

Rugby is a long standing sport that is primarily a niche orientated activity in secondary

schools. However, the emergence of women’s rugby in the Ontario and the Canada

Games, and continuing male adult activity will result in some expansion in this sport. Its key

influences are:

Population growth, some of which comes from countries such as England,

Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and other areas where rugby has popularity;

The low cost of participation;

The high aerobic/fitness value;

The notable/historic social dimensions within the rugby culture.

Overall, it will likely remain a more niche-oriented sport with a limited following that could be

influenced by population growth to a marginal growth level. There is a rugby facility in

Brantford to support this sport.

Trails/Walking

With the increasing emphasis on healthy lifestyles, walking has grown amongst all

population generations as an important activity. The use of trails continues to grow

substantively, as do participants in mall/arena walking. Walking will continue to grow for

the following reasons:



The low cost to participate;

The multiple routes and alternatives available to create diversity and interest;

The ability to walk alone, with friends, in small groups or larger entities;

The availability of indoor and outdoor walking facilities that support year round

participation no matter what the weather;

The ability to undertake the activity anytime of the day or day of the week;

The noted health benefits of walking in terms of muscle development/tone, aerobic

support, etc.;

The ability to walk no matter what one’s ages if mobile, including indoors.

Track and Field

Track and field is a long standing activity within Canadian society. This is a sport that has

limited competitive activity relative to several meets a year but significant need for training

facilities. There are also outdoor and indoor dimensions to the sport.

Growth in this sport is primarily driven by population growth. Participation growth is

influenced by:

Low cost to participate;

The high value of the fitness and aerobic activity;

Periodic high exposure levels due to the Olympics, Pan Am, and other Games that

influences participation.

Impacts on track and field participation are:

The emphasis on the amount of training for the number of meets;

The need for good coaches and venues;

The overall low visibility of the sport.

There will be some growth due to population increases. Participation is not high due to the

participation alternatives available to participants and the fact that track and field tends to

be associated with high schools and universities, though there are community-based clubs

as well. Track improvements in Paris could also support walking activities.

Aquatics

Aquatics tend to involve a series of activities:

Recreational and family swimming;

Swim lessons and certificates;

Swim, diving clubs and other clubs;

Wide range of rentals.



From a use and user perspective, the following trends were identified:

Demand for lessons, classes, warm water use and cross training are increasing;

Socialized elements of the aquatic programs are popular;

Families are looking for “one stop” service opportunities;

Growing demand for safety training and lessons with over 200 drownings a year in

Ontario;

Increasing diversity in types of classes, similar to land-based fitness, e.g.: water

yoga;

As population ages, increasing interests in warm water activities.

Aquatics activities are dependent on the availability of pools, primarily indoor though

outdoor as well. Population growth will influence all types of aquatic activities in terms of

some growth. However the following growth trends are also identified:

Increasing participation by adults in fitness lanes swimming due to its high aerobic

value; and less impact on knees and ankles, i.e.: seniors; and related benefits,

including the growth in Master Swim Clubs;

Family orientation that can be experienced during family or opened swims;

The popularity of lessons, particularly for children and preschoolers as both a

learning experience and a safety factor.

Swim participation will be also influenced by population growth primarily and enhanced

accessibility to swim facilities will also increase participation. Seniors, those with

disabilities and other population groups could see increased interest if a therapeutic pool

was available.

In terms of aquatic clubs, swim clubs will grow in light of population growth, however they

tend to have limited growth in terms of participation rates within the population.

Participation rates can be influenced by exposure to Olympics and related activities

broadcast in the media. Overall, the sport tends to have less visibility in the community.

This is even more particularly true for diving, synchronized swimming, aquatic and water

polo which are less known and more niche-based activities. Diving in particular also

requires very specialized swimming facilities once you get to the five and ten metre towers.

Gymnastics

This is an activity that has transitioned to dedicated facilities, often within club

environments. With the declining number of youth and the emergence of new Canadians

proportionately in the population, gymnastics will not likely show much growth beyond

population growth. Also, the amount of equipment and specialized set ups generally



position this type of activity within club environments with the more “learn to” gymnastic

programs hosted in public gymnasiums or supported in private gymnasiums.

Gymnasium Sports and Fitness

Gymnasium sports for youth will continue to be evident but not likely grow substantially as

the portion of this population stabilizes in terms of volume and changes in terms of cultural

demographics. Basketball and volleyball are popular programs and have shown growth

over previous years but has been more stabilized. Population growth will likely drive most

of the increases for these particular activities.

On the adult side, there has been increasing activity in adult volleyball and basketball

leagues, as well as the emergence of the new adult recreation and social clubs that can

have higher registrations. Floor hockey, yoga, basketball, volleyball, all-sports, pickle ball

for seniors and related programs have attracted participants based on seasonal and year

round cycles.

It is anticipated that the X and Y generation will participate in these sports heavily as fitness

is a big part of their quality of life priorities.

Organized fitness activity has increased substantially over the last decade, with a particular

emphasis on boomer, X and Y generations. Going to a health club and/or participating in

specialized fitness classes, Pilates, etc. has increased significantly. There have been a

significant number of program variants that have emerged, as has the phenomena of “boot

camps” in public parks. There is likely going to be continuing interest in these types of

activities and fitness centres as population growth occurs. In terms of fitness programming,

this is very much driven by the latest fitness packages that emerge and often is more

targeted to female participants although many male participants are also involved. Some of

these fitness programs occur within health clubs, many occur within community recreation

facilities, as well as YMCAs, hotels/motels and other centres that have fitness equipment or

programming space.

Demand for fitness programs is likely to continue to grow as it is not dependent on the

“boomer” generation as it is on the X and Y generation and the emerging technology

generation.

Arts and Culture

Over the last fifteen plus years, there has been a notable increase in the development and

delivery of arts and culture services. Many communities have built performing arts centres,

such as Burlington, Guelph, Chatham, Sarnia, Windsor and all throughout the GTA.

Also, there has been significant expansion of choral and community level artistic and

performance opportunities. Additionally, there has been increasing visitation to



professional theatres in Toronto, Niagara on the Lake and Stratford, along with

considerable expansion of summer theatre in Cambridge, St. Jacobs, Petrolia, Grand

Bend, Port Stanley and numerous other locations.

The rise of arts and culture, along with crafts, emerges from several trends. With an aging

population and over 30% of the population being empty nesters and / or retired, there is a

considerable pool of individuals who can pursue or get involved with arts and cultural

activities. There is also a greater appreciation for arts and culture as people become older

and have had more life experiences.

Another factor involves a society maturing. As a society gets older, such as in Europe, arts

and culture become a more significant part of the quality of life. This perspective also

engages younger adults and youth. Also with education systems providing more

experiential and learning opportunities around arts and culture, younger generations are

being exposed to these opportunities and are engaging at higher levels.

A further dimension of arts and cultural services development has been the significant

economic impact analysis that has been completed by the Federal and Provincial

Governments that demonstrate arts and culture experiences are significant economic

drivers within any community, support tourism and broader economic development goals,

and an enhanced quality of life.

It is apparent that having a well-rounded and balanced set of diverse experiential

opportunities for arts and culture is important in building inclusive communities where there

is an array of community activities that touch the needs and interests of all residents, well

beyond the traditional focus on sports.

In terms of leisure as an important component of community life, ensuring that there is a

reasonable set of opportunities and experiences involving arts and culture is important to a

significant portions of the population.

Another dimension of arts and culture is public libraries. They have long served the

reading, child and youth programming needs of many generations. They are increasingly

moving into digital services and the notion of the virtual library. Public libraries, through

their collections and program, provide an important dimension of leisure services, whether

it is recreational reading, mom and tots programs, literacy supports, research or simply

reading the newspaper which are available in Brant. They form an integral part of the

overall leisure services network within in any community and are important and highly

valued services, by younger and older populations.

7.3.3 Summary

In summary, the following trends by activity could be experienced:



Soccer, across gender and ages, will grow both based on population and

participation rate growth. One could anticipate a minimum 5% to 10% annual

compounded growth rate, possibly, for at least five and likely ten or more years.

The growth in soccer will occur both in terms of outdoor and indoor activities with

the greatest growth potential on an outdoor seasonal basis;

Minor hockey may grow in Brant County but primarily based on population growth

with the one caveat being how Hockey Canada’s program positions the sport within

ethno-cultural communities and whether offsets for the increasing costs to

participate can be achieved;

Girls hockey will continue to grow, probably not at the 15% per year level, but likely

more in the 3% to 5% range for the next decade;

Adult hockey will likely diminish as “boomers” get older and there are fewer offsets

to take their places in the adult leagues, though there could be increased growth

amongst female adults for at least ten more years or longer. Adult male leagues

could decline in the 5% to 10% range in the next number of years while the female

adult leagues will likely grow at 3% or higher a year on average;

Figure skating and related activities will likely grow based on population growth at

potentially 1% or 2% per year unless something comes into the operating

environment that changes the participation levels;

Softball will likely grow more related to population growth in the youth categories.

Some recovery has been achieved since the low ebb in the middle 2000s and the

offset that soccer and other sports are causing. Adult baseball will likely continue

its decline, potentially 3% to 5% a year as the aging population transitions out of

physical activity and there are fewer adults who will have an interest in this sport

due to the proportionality of new Canadians driving population growth;

Minor football, lacrosse and similar sports will likely be relatively stable with some

impacts from population growth;

Rugby could achieve some growth beyond population growth as it has become

more pronounced in multi-sport events, such as the Canada and the Ontario

Games. It will not be significant in comparison to soccer;

Emerging sports like cricket that are significantly related to immigration, and disk

sports will grow above population growth. Cricket, because of its connection to

immigration trends related to the Indian sub-continent, and disk sports related to the



emergence of that sport and its popularity amongst X and Y generation could grow

but starting from a very small base number of active players;

Walking will continue to be a growth activity, especially as the “boomers” age out

and utilize this activity in retirement for all the reasons cited in terms of easy access

and participation, indoor and outdoor activities, etc.;

Track and field will experience growth primarily due to population growth and some

increased growth due to health and fitness and related perspective growth. It is not

anticipated to be substantial;

Aquatics will experience growth in terms of fitness swimming and Master Swims

related to the population aging. Development of new aquatic facilities will bring new

people from the immediate area into recreational swims and children’s lessons, as

well as preschool programs. Aquatic competition-based clubs will likely reflect

population growth and facility availability. At the highly competitive end of the

participant pyramid for aquatic sports, facilities will directly impact participation but

will not necessarily increase their growth proportionately compared to other sporting

activities. Training in other centres for the top athletes may likely have to continue.

The need for therapeutic pools could grow as the Brant populations age.

Gymnastics will grow primarily based on population growth. The emergence of

dedicated facilities delivered by clubs will support the higher end training and

development programs. Some recreational activity within public gymnasiums could

occur but is complex due to the need for equipment, equipment storage in the

building, and set up and tear downs which typically is best undertaken in the club

environments;

Gym sports will have varied experiences driven partly by population growth but also

by the declining number of young people for volleyball and basketball.

Basketball does have a stronger position amongst some ethno-cultural

populations, particularly from South America, the Mediterranean and Far East

populations. In terms of youth sports, basketball will likely grow above

population growth but volleyball will parallel population growth. For adults, one

would anticipate growth in adult gymnasium sports in terms of basketball and

volleyball, and also with the emergence of the newer adult social and recreation

clubs that have become popular and have significant registrations and are

playing sports such as floor hockey, all-sports, pickle ball, etc. The emergence

of young adult to middle adult age sport and recreation clubs that operate on a

multi-sport basis could show increased growth, well above population growth,

placing increasing demand on gymnasiums and outdoor play spaces;



Fitness in terms of both fitness centres and fitness programs (fitness classes, yoga,

Pilates, etc.) will continue to show growth, especially as new fitness program

elements come into the environment. These activities have gained significant

support amongst X and Y generations, particularly Y generation populations who

place a higher emphasis on quality of life and healthier outcomes. These types of

activities will grow by more than average population growth projections;

Demands for arts and culture activities, programs and spaces will grow with the

growing and aging population. Arts and culture venues are also an important part of

local and regional tourism strategies and attractions.

7.4 Parks/Facilities Design and Development Trends

7.4.1 Urban Design and Intensification

Parks and open space provisioning is, and will be more so in the future, influenced by key

population growth management and land use development trends and policies in Ontario.

The Ontario Government has approved an urban intensification or growth strategy for the

Greater Golden Horseshoe area that directs development to fully serviced urban areas and

targets 40% of new residential development to occur through intensification of existing built-

up urban areas, and the remaining 60% in greenfield areas at a targeted density of 50

people and jobs per hectare. New draft policies currently being considered by the Province

identify even higher intensification and density targets of 60% intensification and 80 people

and jobs per hectare with greater emphasis on achieving transit-friendly development and

land use patterns. This strategy has and will continue to result in a growing amount of

infilling and intensification of currently developed urban areas on full municipal services.

Unlike the historical lower density suburban development of the last five decades which

tended to involve subdividing large tracts of greenfield lands where parks, open spaces,

trails and facilities could be integrated into the overall subdivision design process and

through secondary plans, and parkland could be acquired at a rate of 5% dedication, the

shift to directing population to housing projects in existing urbanized areas will have other

implications for parkland acquisition and leisure services.

The first implication will be higher densities, resulting in more people living in the same land

space. As a result, leisure services provisioning standards may not be adequate. As the

number of residents goes up in a defined area, the current park and open space areas may

not be adequate to meet a denser and larger population with less private green space.

Second, many new housing developments will be occurring through redevelopment of

existing downtown areas and neighbourhoods, and it will be challenging to acquire

adequate land for a park or an open space or facility area or an effective trail connection.

The tendency will continue to be to accept cash in lieu of land, however, land costs may be



escalating in these areas and the ability to purchase land for parks and recreation may be

restrictive.

The third consideration is sourcing adequate land as intensification occurs. Pressure will

exist on municipalities to attempt to utilize lands at schools, especially if closures are

involved; to buy plots of land that maybe have been abandoned or are unused such as

former industrial sites; and to utilize hydro rights-of-ways, church properties or other semi-

public domain lands for leisure services.

Also what may need to be considered are new forms of venues within emerging

developments. This could include rooftop parks, on-site playgrounds, garden areas and

other developments within site development plans. This would potentially place more of an

onus on the developer to provide venue opportunities within the development, placing less

pressure on municipalities to provide global or generic areas. However, these types of

solutions will not likely resolve considerations related to sports fields whether for

competitive or recreational use, large open greens for non-programmed use, trail

connections and related resource requirements.

Another consideration within this trend is the evident move towards urban design and

place-making design standards. Most municipalities are in the process of developing or

have developed urban design standards and place-making criteria as a means to

significantly upgrade the urban design fabric of their communities. Place-making criteria

establish the desired set of conditions to be met in the design, development and

programming of public spaces, such as making them safe, convenient, comfortable,

accessible and welcoming, as well as multi-functional, interactive, connected, active and

memorable.

Current urban design trends and initiatives involve development of public transit nodes

surrounded by commercial and high density residential development; the bringing of

residential homes to the street line; the use of back lanes; and numerous other strategies.

These strategies involve land use, architecture, transportation and in many cases, parks

and recreation resources. In some cases, the concept of the self-contained neighbourhood

or community is emerging, where people work, play, shop and recreate within their local

community. Although the County’s urban areas have historically developed as traditional

low-rise and relatively low-density communities, the Provincial Growth Plan and related

policy directives require planning for greater densities and mixed land uses that are transit

supportive so that future transit services may become more viable in the future. In Brant

County these directives will primarily impact planning for future development in the fully

serviced urban areas of Paris and St. George.

In some communities, there has been an embracing of the “open green” concept where

within a subdivision, a one or two acre park is developed with roads on four sides and then



houses on the opposite sides of the road. These parks typically are neighbourhood parks

with no sports fields. They can provide playgrounds, sun shelters, pathways, garden areas

and open play spaces. Some concerns have been raised about the utility of these spaces,

the need to cross streets on all four sides to access them and the potentially more limited

use that they may be able to offer.

The urban design standards will not only have significant potential impacts on the exterior

design of the buildings, but will also shape parking, trail access, streetscape alignment and

other design perspectives. One of the major targets within the urban design strategy is

parking lots. The general intent is to bring buildings to the street line and have parking less

visible and intrusive.

Urban intensification and design trends will have important considerations related to parks,

open spaces and community trails, and also in terms of the design and positioning of major

recreation facilities. To respond to these trends, strategies such as redevelopment of

existing parks, enhanced public spaces and linear features within municipal rights-of-way

and rooftop greenspaces can assist in providing adequate venues and addressing design

perspectives associated with leisure facilities and services.

7.4.2 Sustainability

Parks and recreation facilities should promote sustainable design and environmental

education by introducing youth to the importance of a “green” mission. Designing parks

and facilities to take advantage of natural processes, such as bioswales and stormwater

management, is a way to achieve sustainability, while revealing how these processes work.

Sustainability can be achieved by providing recycling containers and LED/solar lighting.

Consideration of recycled content is recommended for products such as site furnishings, as

well as asphalt and concrete and other building materials. Native vegetation and shade

trees, native grasslands and plantings that reduce mowed areas and community gardens

promote green space, while multi-use trails encourage physical activity and enjoyment of

these open, natural spaces. The County is pursuing the establishment of Low Impact

Development (LID) standards and green infrastructure policies for future application.

7.4.3 Connectivity

Creating connection means enticing people into the community to take advantage of

recreation and leisure opportunities available not just by car, but via trails, walkways and

bike paths. Community planning refers to this as “connectivity”, and attention to this

dynamic is increasingly important for parks and recreation. Walking and biking are

emerging as some of the most popular fitness trends. Trail systems offer communities a

way to recreate and commute to work without having to start up the car. One example of

such strategies is a bike library in which agencies provide bikes for “checkout.”



7.4.4 Accessibility for Children and Caregivers

CSA and AODA designs provide playground standards for accessibility and must be

applied to provide play areas that will accommodate the needs of children with reduced

mobility. Product design and layout, and choice of ground surface treatments combine to

encourage inclusion and social interactions by accommodating various levels of mobility,

sight, speech and hearing. Accessibility strategies involve the effective configuration of

structures and elements, choice of accessible components, and the use of resilient

surfaces to design in travel routes to the play equipment. Through careful design, children

with limited mobility can be given access to almost the entire playground, even the elevated

play structures. Transfer stations are incorporated as platforms that allow wheelchair users

to move out of their chair and onto the structure. However, design of the play experience on

the structure is also not to be overlooked for kids to engage in active play or ramps can be

used on bigger structures. Sensory play features provide additional accessible play

opportunities. The goal is inclusion and eliminating barriers that would preclude all users

from enjoying and participating in all play opportunities.

7.4.5 Surface Type

Common choices for firm but resilient play area surfaces include rubber tiles and

engineered wood fibers. Performance, wearability and vandal resistance are also

important factors. All surfaces should be designed for wheelchair or walker accessibility. In

regard to safety surfaces, the County of Brant Accessibility Design Standard document is

followed.

A hard surface walkway to the play area, as well as a flush curb entry to the play area are

also required. Flush curbside access is needed if parking is not available. There are added

costs for surfacing and some design considerations when making a playground wheelchair

accessible, but there are many social benefits of making a space available to all users.

Anyone regardless of physical or mental ability should be able to play and enjoy the space.

Design of Public Spaces Standards (Accessibility Standards for the Built Environment), is

an Ontario Regulation effective as of January 1, 2013 and made under the Accessibility for

Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, and includes the following:

Outdoor Play Spaces, Consultation Requirements: Section 80.19 of the Regulation states:

“When developing new or redeveloping existing outdoor play spaces, obligated

organizations, other than small organizations, shall consult on the needs of children and

caregivers with disabilities and shall do so in the following manner … Municipalities must

consult with their municipal accessibility advisory committees, where one has been

established in accordance with subsection 29 (1) or (2) of the Act, the public and persons

with disabilities.”



7.4.6 Path Design and Multi-Use Trails

The ideal minimum width for wheelchair accessibility is 60” (1,525mm). This width will allow

two wheelchairs to pass each other at the same time. Multi-use trails to accommodate

pedestrians, cyclists, strollers and wheelchairs should be a minimum of 3 metres. Some

municipalities such as the City of Hamilton are increasing the width to 4 metres. Ground

level slopes are required to be at a maximum of 1:16, lesser slopes will be used depending

on playground size to enhance access for children who can’t negotiate the 1:16 slope.

Ramps that connect to elevated play components such as our hill slide have a maximum

rise of 1:12. When possible we will design ramps less the 1:12 maximum. Where a

combination of surfaces is used if there is greater than a half-inch change in surface level,

a sloped surface will be installed with a maximum slope of 1:16 as per the Ontario

Regulation made under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005

(Integrated Accessibility Standards).

7.4.7 Natural Playgrounds

Natural Playgrounds are designed with the intent to bring children back to nature using

designed elements found in nature. They are play environments that blend natural

materials, features, and indigenous vegetation with imaginative landforms to create

purposely complex interplays of natural, environmental objects. Children are challenged

and taught about the wonders and intricacies of the natural world while they play within it.

Play components may include earth shapes (sculptures), environmental art, indigenous

vegetation (trees, shrubs, grasses, flowers, lichens, mosses), boulders or other rock

structures, dirt and sand, natural fences (stone, willow, wooden), textured pathways, and

natural water features.

Natural Playgrounds offer a wide range of open-ended play options for children while

maintaining safety. A playful landscape is characterized by the enjoyment of those who

interact with it. Play spaces that look and feel like a natural environment encourage

interaction and enjoyment of all ages. The natural playground is defined as a space with as

little manmade components as possible. Parks designed with native plants, rolling hills and

lots of trees bring children and adults back to nature. Urban playscapes are similar to the

natural playgrounds as they break from the need for specific play equipment. They are

defined not by clear boundaries but through a shaping of the landscape to encourage play

and interaction. These playgrounds are designed to eliminate fall heights. With traditional

playground design, fall heights are the largest safety issue for most safety inspectors.

Changes in topography allow designers to be creative when placing components in the

playscape. Playscapes are not intimidating regardless of ability or fitness level, and they

have no central location or prescribed area of play. They are open-ended spaces that

entice children to use their imagination and creativity.



7.4.8 Appealing to Children and Youth

Public parks often also include separate playing facilities for children in their middle years

when they are very physically active. This may include spaces specifically designed for

skateboarding and rollerskating, challenging cycling paths or circuits.

Children have the freedom to choose a variety of ways to play, and places to play.

As children of various ages and skills use public playgrounds, it is necessary that

play possibilities be provided in several sizes and levels of challenge.

A quality area that is beautiful to the aesthetics of children will be welcoming to

them. Curving lines and waves and serpentine forms invites play.

There is enough space for a rich variety of play possibilities and still room for nature

and good quality landscaping. Natural landscapes should exist inside the public

playground, as well as the rest of the park.

Incorporating places that are comfortable and pleasant for adults creates

possibilities for adults and children to play together.

Variations in elevation in the ground and a wide variety of different textures and

materials in ground surfacing encourage place.

Good hiding places and secret spaces are the paths to surprise and mystery.

7.4.9 Safety from Crime and Traffic

The comfort and confidence of safety encourages children to freely use local outdoor

spaces and playgrounds. Finding ways to create quality public spaces that are well used by

people of all ages and interests promotes safety in numbers. Traffic controls and

introducing traffic calming measures in residential areas helps to slow down or reduce

traffic for the benefit of pedestrians and cyclists. Allowing enough space for a number of

different groups instead of one large multi-play area as the only element in a playground

will encourage use of outdoor space.

7.4.10 Water

Water features could provide an opportunity for community participation in playground

design, and good play design offers a wide variety of play possibilities. Fun and attractive

water play areas can be created with techniques to reduce maintenance, while the absence

of standing water makes unsupervised play possible. Water play in public parks must meet

requirements for safety and health. In response to budgetary and space limitations, spray

pools are more commonplace. But while spray pools are substantially more economical

than swimming pools and splash pads, to build, insure and maintain, they are not problem-

free. Users can be injured when running on wet surfaces, and pumping, filtration and

drainage systems must be sophisticated enough to minimize disease risks. Potable (flow-

through) systems and re-circulating systems (double loop or single loop) with UV treated

water are the basic design approaches to spray pools.



7.4.11 Parks Programming Trends

Parks and open spaces support a range of unstructured activities, and programs within

these areas provide opportunities for participation in organized and unorganized sports.

This includes passive social gatherings, hiking, tai chi, community gardening and casual

cycling. It can also involve extreme/non-traditional sports such as skateboarding and BMX

biking. A flexible facility design allows for multiple uses. Signage, public art, memorial

gardens and features, lighting, entry pillars and decorative fencing are among the elements

in place-making to inspire and capture the essence of a community (e.g. Paris Lions Park).

7.4.12 Special Events and Social Interaction

Parks should support neighbourhood gatherings and provide opportunities for events,

programs and interaction. Providing a variety of seating from park benches to landscape

stones to amphitheatres, designing interesting and flexible spaces, creative landscaping,

public art, shade and shelter are important considerations to foster an inviting and

comfortable environment for recreational and social activities and interaction.

7.4.13 Shade

Awareness about sun exposure is driving demand for shading over play areas and seating

areas. Installing shade trees and shade structures are important park elements.

7.4.14 Community Involvement

Parks provide opportunity to collaborate with schools and recreation groups, as well as the

art community and community youth. Explore opportunities to encourage incorporating

outdoor art in passive park areas.

7.4.15 Seniors

Parks can accommodate the physically active baby-boom population by providing

appropriate recreation facilities and social opportunities for older adults. Seniors also have

interest in public garden spaces and walking, so parks could include walking loops around

the perimeter with distance markers along the way. Encouraging seniors to visit parks

yields an added ‘stewardship’ benefit as they tend to observe and report problems to

authorities.

7.4.16 Fitness Equipment

There is a trend in many communities to design parks to appeal to older adults, although

there are risks to providing outdoor fitness equipment. The City of Cambridge has

successfully incorporated a fitness trail along the Grand River Trail system. A fitness trail

comprises a number of fixed exercise stations, consisting of simple static structures

supplemented by signs. Going further is the outdoor gym trend, including various

mechanical devices ranging from simple sit-up stations to rowing machines, elliptical



trainers and leg presses. Signs indicate that the devices are intended for people aged 12

and older. However, in public parks there is no control over the age or skill level of users,

and there is no supervision. The equipment has moving parks, and is subject to winter

conditions. Safety is a major factor to consider. The equipment is outside of the scope of

the CSA playground Standard Z614-07, however all elements in a park setting should be

inspected to this standard where there is potential use by children.

7.4.17 Vegetation

Consider tree species that are native to the area. Reduce maintenance and potential

damage to trees by using mulch or ground cover under trees. There can be creativity in

tree planting with memorial sites, theme planting and other features.

7.4.18 Seating and Site Furnishings

A variety of seating options encourages conversation, comfort, and accommodation for

people in a wheelchair and opportunities for creativity such as natural seating-boulders,

logs or picnic tables. Seating areas should be connected to a walkway which also extends

the use of the park when the ground is wet or thawing. Place picnic tables and certain

activities in the shade. The best style for bike racks encourages security and cycling.

7.4.19 Safety and Park Use (CPTED)

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is defined as the proper design

and effective use of the built environment to reduce crime and the fear associated with

crime, and improves the quality of life. The CPTED concept involves more than security

standards. It first acknowledges the desired use for a project. Next, it attempts to

anticipate misuse based on area crime problems, community experiences with similar

projects and unique aspects of the project, such as alcohol sales and hours of operation.

CPTED seeks to prevent undesired behaviour by the elimination or modification of design

features that contribute to crime and disorder, through natural surveillance. This is a design

concept directed primarily at keeping potential offenders and their targets under

observation. Park spaces should be visible from the street frontage/entrances or parking

areas.

7.4.20 Four-Season Use

Four-season park use could be improved through the extension of hard surfaces, such as

multi-use trails for cycling, running/walking, and colourful planting in the spring and fall.

Seating materials are designed for comfort, and optimizing sun such as choosing recycled

plastic instead of metal. In winter, there is a challenge of maintaining walkways and skating

rinks. Focus on clearing pathways in major parks for walking in winter months.



7.4.21 General Design Standards

Comply with CAN/CSA Standards Z614 – Children’s Playspaces and Equipment

(latest edition).

Incorporate accessibility features. Comply with Accessibility for Ontarians with

Disabilities Act, 2005 and Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001.

Consider US Guide to ADA Guidelines for Accessible Play Areas for clarification

and requirements of “accessible” play features.

Junior play - for children 18 months to 5 years old.

Senior play - for children 5 to 12 years old.

Acceptable to mix products from different manufacturers on a project site.

Specify steel post, not aluminum for lower costs.

Timber and wood components are not acceptable, except in natural playgrounds.

Require consultants and contractors to provide shop drawings of creative play

structures and play equipment for review and approval by the Supervisor of

Playground Maintenance or equivalent municipal representative.



8. EMERGING FINANCING AND SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS

8.1 Introduction

Over the course of the last twenty-five years, there has been the emergence of alternate

financing and service delivery models related to municipal leisure services. There has

been particular growth in some of these models in the last five to seven years, however,

they have not all evolved with consistency or necessarily broad acceptance. Some of the

challenges have emerged from the quality of the proponents of alternative delivery models

relative to their capacity and expertise to deliver, while in other areas, there can be

concerns and resistance from municipal staff and volunteers who believe the existing

models provide preferred quality, affordability, accessibility, certainty and fairness

outcomes.

8.2 Municipal Service Delivery

Far and away the most common financing and service delivery model involves the

municipality as the leading sponsor and deliverer of leisure services. This usually involves

the use of development charges, reserves, debentures and other municipal resources to

build facilities and venues, sometimes augmented by community fundraising, and

particularly augmented by senior government grants ranging from Wintario in the 1970s to

the Canada Infrastructure Program more recently and Canada 150 in 2017.

Services delivery, particularly in urban centres, often involves the municipality directly

operating facilities and delivering leisure programs, supported by in-house marketing and

specialist positions. In some cases, partnerships have evolved, such as the community

centres partnerships with neighbourhood associations and/or service clubs. However, in

these situations, the buildings are owned and maintained by the municipality, and there is a

sense that there in increasing centralization of scheduling, technology, risk management,

user fee development and other perspectives.

Municipalities typically have the service leadership and sponsoring roles as they tend to be

the “initiators and owners” of the Parks and Recreation Master Plans; have the capital

funding capacity, particularly for major leisure facilities development; and have marketing,

technology, facilitation, financing, risk assessment, insurance, printing and other supporting

capacities that are often not available at the levels of expertise or resourcing that a smaller

community, not-for- profit organization could muster or even larger community non-profit

might be able to provide.

For potential and existing private sector deliverers, the barriers to entry are typical property

taxes which are not paid by municipalities and some non-profits, subsidized municipal user



fees which changes the competitive profile, the need to repay capital investments, and to

generate a profit.

8.3 School Board Partnerships

There has been a long history since the 1960s of municipalities and school boards working

together on the development of leisure facilities. Historically, this was almost exclusively in

the area of park development. The 1960s and 1970s saw the emergence of the campus

complex that typically involved one and possibly two school boards and a park on a

conjoined site. The thinking at the time was that less land would be needed as the school

boards could use the park venue through the day and the residents would have access to

the park and the school yard facilities in the evening and or on weekends, at break periods

and over the summer. The result was that potentially less land would need to be acquired

and less overall site development costs incurred.

This model was used extensively by municipalities but has run into challenges in the last

ten or more years. Some of the key challenges are:

Some of the initial school sites were never developed after being purchased as part

of a campus. School boards sold off these sites as surplus and residential

crescents/courts were developed on these sites resulting in less land and more

residents/users;

Some schools involved in this model have been subsequently closed due to

declining enrollment. A few municipalities have moved to buy some of these sites

to preserve local neighbourhood parkland;

The school boards have changing curriculum, such as baseball being removed from

physical education, resulting in a lack of maintenance for baseball fields or their

removal from school yards with a dependence on neighbouring parks for baseball

activities at recess, etc.;

School boards, due to fiscal constraints and other issues, have substantively

reduced the maintenance of their school yards, particularly over the summer period

and related to the quality of their playing fields, which has resulted in the loss of

baseball, soccer and other fields for community use, or their repositioning to smaller

children or as practice fields due to the limited turf maintenance and/or safety

issues.

There have been initiatives between municipalities and school boards in regards to indoor

facility / spaces. One of the more evident indoor facility initiatives has been indoor pools

that have been attached to secondary schools, such as Cameron Heights in Kitchener,

three pools in Burlington, numerous indoor pools in Toronto and other centres. This

strategy was seen as a “win win” in that there was capital and operating cost efficiencies,

the school curriculum would support daytime use for Phys Ed and swim teams, and the

facility would be available through the other times for community users. There could be



savings on parking, operations, etc. and the creation of stronger destination points. Budget

pressures on school boards have resulted in some municipalities having to take on these

indoor pools, when school board owned, such as in Burlington, Toronto and other locations.

Many of these pools are now extensively aged and require major renewal and were built to

different standards in terms of the size of the swim tank and supporting facilities. School

boards no longer have funding to support renewal or operations and, therefore some

municipalities have to make decisions on these facilities which residents have become

dependent on. Cameron Heights in Kitchener is an example where access and facility

challenges exist and use preferences are moving away from using that particular pool.

Another area of integration has been the use of gymnasiums and other rooms within

schools, often through reciprocal agreements between a Parks and Recreation Department

and a school board. However, in the mid-1990s, when the provincial government

introduced changes to support fee/income generation from community use of schools,

there was a retraction of such activity, with some municipalities ceasing their facilitation and

scheduling of school facilities on behalf of community groups. Burlington, Kitchener,

London and others decided to withdraw from this role due to the challenges of cost and

access. In more recent years, municipalities have become more involved in the

development of gymnasiums. One of the core arguments in many municipalities for these

investments have been the limited accessibility to and / or cost to utilize school

gymnasiums. Also involved is the “bumping” of community groups for school use which

can impact schedules and continuity.

The arguments for greater use of school facilities are particularly related to the one

“taxpayer” perspective, and the fact that many school recreation oriented facilities are

available extensively in the evenings, on weekends, at break periods and through the

summer. The newer school facilities are also air conditioned and have significant year

round capacity.

Another related perspective that is emerging is that many new or renewed secondary

schools are moving to a standard of artificial outdoor tracks with artificial turf infields. The

Waterloo Region Catholic District School Board has developed such a facility at St. David’s

and has identified it as a long term goal for its other secondary schools. Similarly, the

Waterloo Region District School Board has developed such a facility at Jacob Hespeler

Secondary School. The City of Brantford and Grand Erie District School Board have jointly

developed two artificial turf fields with outdoor track facilities at local secondary schools.

The question emerges as to whether municipalities can work with school boards in

developing these facilities and not have to duplicate them with additional artificial fields and

tracks.

The relationship with school boards has been one that has oscillated significantly over time

from full embracement in the 1960s and 1970s to significant withdrawal in the 1990s, to a



more hit and miss perspective in the 2000s. This is a very challenging area as there are

significant interests by the various parties at play, but there is one taxpayer and these

facilities can be very costly to develop and operate if duplicated.

In 2006, the provincial government put aside $20 million a year for school boards to

enhance community use accessibility. This funding has been renewed several times and

many school boards now have a community facilitator staff person to support community

group access. This appears to have had mixed results in terms of how it’s been

undertaken and what community group experiences have been. Also, as the province now

moves to the neighbourhood hub model evolving around schools, this may be another

consideration in terms of integrating leisure capacities into school facilities in a more

partnered environment and allowing for an enhanced avoidance of facilities duplication.

Many people in leisure services leadership, education and policies spheres have

recognized that there may need to be a significant effort made by school boards and

municipalities to get together and resolve “turf” issues and to see if there is an effective way

to integrate municipal and school board facilities in order to enhance the quality of the

facilities and their accessibility, to reduce duplication and to significantly reduce capital and

operating costs.

8.4 Third Party Facility Services Delivery

One of the more emergent service delivery and capital funding strategies has involved

partnerships with community non-profit organizations. The most prolific of these have been

with YMCAs. In recent years, the YMCA has worked with the City of London to build the

Northeast London and Southwest London Recreation Complexes and to operate it in its

entirety. Waterloo has undertaken a similar initiative with the Kitchener-Waterloo YMCA in

regards to the Westmount facility that also has outdoor sports fields and a branch library.

In Goderich, the Town decommissioned its Parks and Recreation Department and retained

the YMCA to build and operate the new recreation complex, and to operate the arenas,

deliver recreation programs, undertake outdoor and indoor facilities scheduling and other

service planning and operating roles. This is a more dramatic initiative in transferring a

municipality responsibility and probably works within a small urban setting better than it

might in larger ones.

In other communities, such as Sarnia, Chatham, Cambridge, Guelph and possibly Stratford

in the future, YMCAs have or will build new indoor pools and own them. In most of these

cases, the municipalities have not built a public indoor pool but invested capital funding into

a YMCA owned and operated facility. In Sarnia’s case, a $6.0 million city capital

contribution was made, of which $1.0 million was an endowment to support public

accessibility. This reflects one of the ongoing challenges of this model which is the reality

and/or perception by some people that YMCAs are too expensive and unaffordable. What

is really meant is that the YMCA works within a fixed income/fixed cost business model



utilizing membership fees. Most municipalities utilize “pay as you play”. The challenge

with the latter model is that there is less revenue generated due to seasonal variations in

use, weather conditions and other factors that result in less of a use commitment and

reduced revenues to the municipality resulting in potentially high operating deficits,

especially for indoor pools which are high fixed cost operations.

The YMCA nationally has a report that identifies approximately 150 municipal agreements

across the country involving indoor pools, fitness services, employment services, arenas

and a host of other leisure and social services that are delivered within various municipal-

YMCA models.

In a number of the municipally-owned and YMCA operated models, the YMCA, have made

significant capital contributions by taking on a community capital campaigns in the $5.0 to

$7.0 million range. The YMCA typically has strengths in fund development and also it is

difficult for municipalities to undertake capital campaigns as the perception is that they have

taxes and people tend not to donate through a municipality but rather through a partner.

Also, particularly in regards to indoor pools and fitness activities, the YMCA is a national

leader, is recognized as one of the three acceptable aquatic certification and teaching

programs within the Ontario Public Health Act and is also recognized for its fitness

instructor and delivery programs.

A YMCA partnership with the municipality is not necessarily an easy approach. There are

differences in culture, business modeling and other perspectives. It takes negotiation to

work out some of the differences. In many cases, it requires a different way of thinking by

municipalities to move in this direction as there will be less control and influence as

historically may be in place which some municipalities find challenging.

8.5 Private Facilities

There has been a long history of private recreation and leisure facilities. Bowling alleys,

curling rinks and outdoor parks have a long history in certain areas, as have banquet and

conference facilities, driving ranges, golf courses and a host of other venues. In recent

years, some curling clubs have had challenges and needed municipal support. The Doon

Valley Golf Course owned by the City of Kitchener is an example of a private sector facility

that was acquired due to financial constraint similar to the North London Recreation Centre

which was a former multi-use/squash facility that went bankrupt and the City needed to

intervene to sustain a range of multi-use activities in that area of the City.

One of the more dramatic areas of recent private sector involvement has been in regards to

arenas. In the late 1990s, a London group bought a large curling club in London and

converted it into a twin pad arena. They subsequently developed twin pad arenas in

Cambridge, Windsor and other communities, plus single pad arenas at the Gretzky Centre

in Brantford and at Brock University. They operated for approximately ten years and



subsequently went into receivership and have relinquished all the facilities. A Florida group

has taken over some of these facilities.

In Oakville, the old Dominion Twin Pad Arena operated as a private venture. After three

years, it ran into financial difficulties and was purchased by the Town of Oakville because

of the ice commitments made and the immediate ice demand impacts of closure. This is

the same scenario that occurred with the Sports World Twin Pad in Kitchener with its 2,000

hours of minor hockey ice commitment after only approximately nine months of operation.

There is a twin pad facility in Burlington that has continued to operate for seven years with

a very extensive programming mix that has been expanding. However, the owners have

approached the City on several occasions to purchase the facility as they wish to get out of

ownership. The operation continues to be viable and is leased out to a third party private

sector operator by the owners.

In Hamilton, the quad arena facility is owned by the municipality but operated by Nustadia

which is a private sector operator. They also operate the Tim Hortons’ four pad facility in

Moncton New Brunswick the twin pad arena at Durham College and another ten plus

facilities across Canada. In these cases, they are retained as a management company to

operate the facility and do not have a capital investment. Any operating deficits are usually

covered by the municipality though bonus/loss performance clauses could be involved.

They are retained because of their sector knowledge, large arena operations expertise and

efficiencies, and other perspectives.

Canlan Sports Centres Inc. is another private operator in the arenas field. They operate

multi-pad facilities at Etobicoke, Oakville, Oshawa, Scarborough, Mississauga, North York

and the six pad complex at York University. They have facilities across the country, are a

public stock offered company and have had some challenges over the years financially.

They tend to operate in large urban areas like the GTA, Vancouver and other areas, and

have not ventured significantly outside of the larger metropolitan areas.

A lot of the private sector operators tend to be in the arena market, sometimes owned by

construction companies who want to build the building but don’t necessarily wish to operate

it. The history of these facilities has been erratic outside of the GTA, with many facilities

going bankrupt and being sold off or are being offered for sale. Canlan, as one of the

largest operators, has offered for sale some of its facilities from time to time, such as in

Oshawa.

There is limited private sector involvement in indoor pools, unless they are associated with

larger fitness centres. They are not at the 25 metre, six or eight lane dimensions. There

also has been some experience with the private sector developing slo-pitch facilities. Two

were developed in the 1990s in London in the south and north areas. Each of the facilities

had nine to twelve fields plus support facilities. Both closed after approximately three years



of operation due to financial issues. One has not found a reuse and the other was taken

over with municipal assistance by the Southwest Optimist Club who now operate that

facility for their youth and adult baseball leagues, but has since closed.

In the soccer domain, indoor soccer facilities have a significant private sector history. Multi-

field facilities have been built in Hamilton, (Stoney Creek), Vaughan, Toronto, Mississauga

and many other communities. A partnership between London Minor Soccer Club and the

Western Fair Association resulted in the BMO Centre in London in 2010 and it is about to

be expanded. The former racquet ball club in the New Dundee area that was purchased by

the Kitchener Minor Soccer Club and ran into financial troubles has now been taken over

by a private sector operator, expanded and delivers soccer-based and field sport training

and game opportunities.

As soccer has grown, many minor soccer programs who often also have adult leagues,

have been able to raise funds and / or develop directly indoor and outdoor facilities. In

other situations, municipalities have developed the indoor soccer facilities, such as at RIM

Park. Reuse of aged arena facilities is also being considered for indoor soccer use, such

as in Chatham-Kent and other locations.

Direct private sector involvement in terms of capital investment and operations is primarily

limited to arenas, fitness centres, golf courses and soccer. Private sector involvement in

indoor pools, baseball complexes, community centres and other areas are nominal or

nonexistent. The private arena experience has been spotty, except in the GTA due to its

population volume and growth.

8.6 Rental Capital Surcharges

A number of municipalities have moved towards assessing a capital surcharge on every

rental hour for selected facilities. One of the leaders in this initiative is the City of Burlington

which has a $54.00 an hour capital surcharge for adult ice activities and a $16.00 hour per

hour surcharge on youth ice activities. The intent of these capital surcharges originally was

to pay for the capital cost of a new twin pad arena. Now the funds are used to pay for the

operating deficits and capital expansion and renewal of arena facilities. This was

introduced in the City of Burlington approximately ten years ago with the consent of the Ice

User’s Council to bring forward ice facilities more quickly rather than waiting for

development charges or other capital financing. The program has been expanded to

additional arenas to incorporate the latest twin pad facilities and has the capacity to repay

any specialized debenturing costs the City may incur beyond development charges. The

program has gravitated to artificial turfed soccer fields.

The Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc has used the same program on a smaller scale, with

a $3.00 per hour capital surcharge. The City of Oshawa has an $8.00 per hour surcharge.



So far the dominant use has been for ice facility development with some movement into the

areas associated with artificial/higher level soccer field development. This is a newer

strategy and has not been widely embraced by a lot of municipalities due to affordability

and other challenges. There appears to be an increasing movement towards the use of the

strategy based on smaller capital surcharges being initiated and then growing them

possibly over time.

One of the challenging perspectives that has arisen around this technique, is that ice users

already pay one of the highest proportionate rates of user fees against operating costs for

municipal leisure facilities. They are the ones that are being impacted the most by capital

surcharges to date. Other sports/facility users may also have to be treated similarly on the

basis of fairness and equity.

8.7 Public Private Partnerships

This is an emerging model where the private sector designs, builds, finances, and in some

cases, operates (facility maintenance and custodial services usually) a leisure facility on

behalf of a municipality. This model is being used increasingly by the Ontario Government

for major infrastructure, such as the recently opened Woodstock, Ottawa and other

hospitals. A variant of this model would be design, construct and finance the facility that is

then turned over to the municipality or other owner to operate. The contractual period can

range anywhere from ten to forty years and in some cases, longer.

One of the rationales for the public sector utilizing this model is that it removes the debt

financing from the balance sheet and provides access to more capital, as well as having a

more integrated design, construction and operating process for a new facility. The model is

typically used on large projects, like major hospitals, new court houses and some larger

facilities at universities and other locations. For significant leisure facilities, this model

typically has not been used, as the key perspectives of this model are really organized

around scale and volume to create savings. One successful example of the 3 Ps in the

leisure services area, was the development of the Budweiser Gardens in London which is a

9,100 seat arena and entertainment complex, which also demonstrates changing naming

rights trends. A partnership between the City of London at 85%, 5% by Global Spectrum

which has the long term management contract and 10% by Ellis Don the contractor was

developed. Subsequently Ellis Don was bought out. Global Spectrum has continued to

operate the arena as a private sector player one of fifteen facilities that it operates across

North America and is a subsidiary of the company that owns the Philadelphia Flyers of the

NHL and the Philadelphia Arena. It also has a catering company for all its facilities and a

production company to bring entertainment/events/shows which have used the London

facility extensively. For the last five years, there has been an operating surplus plus funds

for reinvestment.



The City of Windsor looked at the same companies and model in regards to the Windsor

Family Credit Union Centre (WFCU) but did not go in this direction and operates it as a city

facility, with an adjoining seniors centre and other services. The Cities of Sarnia, Guelph

and Oshawa also looked at a variant of this model but opted to own the facilities but have

private sector managers operate the facilities separate from the municipal structure.

Nustadia operated both these facilities but moved out of that particular market. The owners

of the Sarnia Sting now operate the Sarnia arena facility with its 4,200 seats.

There are often significant questions to be asked in regards to the pursuit/use of the 3 P

approach. However, there have been limited examples of its use in the municipal parks

and recreation sector and in smaller communities. Part of this could be because of the

scale of facilities, as the larger proponents typically are looking at projects in the $50 million

plus categories as their capital funding comes from pension plans and other sources

looking for significant points of investment.

8.8 Corporate Naming Rights

This is a growing income generating area that involves the naming of a total facility/venue,

as well as individual, major facility or venue components. In some cases the naming rights

are corporate and for a defined time period. In other cases, it could involve recognition of a

key person, family or corporate donor in either perpetuity or for twenty plus years.

London, Windsor, Waterloo’s RIM Park and other cities, clearly indicate the emerging

importance of corporate naming rights. In London’s case, the first ten year naming period

for the new arena complex in the downtown area was $10 million for ten years for the John

Labatt Centre. The same corporate entity opted to use another one of its brands to re-name

the building and was successful in renewing a ten year contract for $15 million, to call the

facility Budweiser Gardens. In Brant, the County has established corporate naming rights

policies for the BSC.

8.9 Summary

There are emerging models that have different applications in the development, financing

and delivery of leisure facilities and services in municipal environments. Some have had

success, such as pool and community centre/fitness complexes engaging the YMCA within

municipal buildings or on behalf of municipalities, while others have had mixed results,

such a private arena development with municipal ice contracts. Others have had limited

scope and applications, such as the 3Ps. Arenas have typically been the most dominant

facility of the traditional mainstream facility offerings. There has been a long history of golf

courses, curling clubs and other facilities being within the private, not-for-profit and private

sectors.



Indoor aquatic complexes have been less or not engaged at all in these types of alternate

service delivery models, principally because of their high fixed costs of operation and the

inherent operating deficits that have been experienced by municipalities. The one

transition has been YMCA partnerships based on membership models with some pay as

play access.

Private sector arena involvement has typically occurred in larger settings like the GTA and

high growth areas such as the Regions of York, Halton and Durham. Private sector arenas

have been less evident and have had significant challenges outside of the high population

volumes/high growth areas of the province.

Other delivery models have involved the use of dedicate, non-profit corporations to run

municipal facilities and private sector or not-for-profit organizational contracts to operate

municipal facilities as third party managers.

Based on observations and comments from different municipalities and not-for-profit and

private sector operators, the challenges of implementing different financing and service

delivery models appear to be focused on the following:

The smallness of certain markets for private sector engagement, such as Brant

County;

The subsidized user fees for the use of ice, pools and other facilities that do not

create space for private sector or not-for-profit operators who have to incur the full

costs of delivery and do not have subsidized funding support;

Organizational cultural issues that sometimes restrain an openness to partnerships

and the use of other models unless there is significant municipal control and

influence;

Different standards of facility development that are affordable to municipalities but

not to other sectors which can differentiate quality perspectives and user

preferences;

Labour agreements;

Willingness for municipalities to take risks outside of the dimensions they are

comfortable or familiar with.



9. CONCLUSIONS & STRATEGIC THEMES

9.1 Strategic Themes

As described in the previous sections of this report, the research and community and

stakeholder engagement process completed in support of the Master Plan development

identified several overarching strategic themes summarized here.

9.1.1 Population Changes and Future Development

The population of Brant County is expected to grow more rapidly over the next 25 years

than it has in the past 10 years, with annual growth rates expected to double, on average.

Demographic forecasts and stakeholder consultation both identified the forthcoming impact

of an aging population. Seniors will be the fastest growing element of the County population

over the next 25 years and will require facilities and programs suitable for their needs.

Children and youth recreation program and facility needs will continue to grow with the

population, most significantly with the growing settlement areas of Paris and St. George,

but these age groups will continue to represent a decreasing percentage of the total

population.

Paris and St. George are positioned for significant residential growth in the coming years, in

terms of the land supply available for housing and planned/proposed developments.

Provincially mandated targets for the density of housing development will mean greater

reliance on public parks and open spaces as well as school grounds as the primary outdoor

recreational amenity spaces in new neighbourhoods, while requirements for an increasing

share of total residential growth to be located within established built-up areas through

intensification will require a focus on renewing and improving existing parks and recreation

facilities. Proposed developments in the County present opportunities to acquire and

develop additional parkland and trails and generate growth-related capital funding for

increasing the capacity of existing recreational facilities and programs and adding new

facilities and programs in the future.

9.1.2 Parks, Rivers and Trails

Parkland provision levels in the County have increased over the past 16 years with the

acquisition of new parkland. Based on the current inventory and future parkland

requirements, a new parkland classification system has been identified and should be

considered in the Master Plan to guide the planning, acquisition, target service levels and

geographic distribution, design, development, management and operation of the various

park types.

There is strong interest in establishing a linked public open space system along the Grand

River and Nith River supporting a variety of passive and active outdoor recreation activities

both along the riverside and on the water. Demands for access to and use of the rivers has



grown significantly in recent years and has become a major tourism attraction in the region.

With the acquisition of natural areas into County ownership, there are related management

and resource requirements that need to be addressed to establish safe and

environmentally-sensitive public access opportunities for recreational uses, where

appropriate, and for ongoing conservation and maintenance activities.

Stakeholder interest in enhancing the canoe trail system and improving its linkages with the

existing trail system was evidenced. It was indicated that partnership with the Grand River

Conservation Authority might be a means to develop this joint resource.

The Master Plan should provide direction for future parkland and trails acquisition, and for

continued public acquisition of natural open spaces for conservation and/or public

recreation purposes on an opportunity and strategic basis as resources allow and through

the land development planning and approvals process.

The Recreation Master Plan should also establish a framework for further organization and

development of the trails system, building upon the County’s Transportation Master Plan

and Trails Master Plan, to guide the planning, design and development of additional trails

and management of existing and new trails to achieve a more integrated trails and cycling

network, both for recreational and active transportation purposes.

9.1.3 Active Recreation Facilities

The County owns and operations a range of indoor and outdoor recreation facilities for

diverse active recreation and sport programs and activities. Schools in the County provide

community access to additional facilities, where available. A future needs assessment for

these types of facilities has been completed based on a review of the current inventory and

usage and participant data, which indicates the following:

Demands for additional sports fields capacity, particularly soccer / multi-use outdoor

fields in Paris and St. George, and strategies to address these needs should

continue to focus on opportunities to improve and increase the capacity of existing

facilities and maximize the use of County and school fields while recognizing that

some additional land acquisition for additional sports field development may also

become necessary;

There are some identified gaps in neighbourhood park and playground distribution,

and the acquisition and development of new park locations and playgrounds will be

required in new development areas, while the need for playground equipment repair

and replacements should continue to be monitored and addressed on an ongoing

basis;

Aquatic programming is provided by the County during the summer months at the

outdoor pool in Lions Park, which is well-used and an important part of the facility

and program offering. There are a range of perspectives in the community regarding



the potential development of an indoor pool in Brant County, given the proximity of

existing and new indoor aquatic facilities in neighbouring Brantford and in

surrounding municipalities. Given the significant capital and operating implications

of indoor aquatics facilities, such a project should only proceed under the guidance

of the Master Plan and on the basis of demonstrated need and feasibility and in the

context of an overall service delivery strategy, potential alternative/interim solutions

to access related programming, other park and facility projects identified for

implementation, a capital and operating plan, and the financial capacity of the

County and potential partners;

Brant County is well-served by its four (4) ice pads and both the usage of indoor ice

time and participation in hockey and other indoor ice activities remain strong. The

three (3) existing arenas will required continued upkeep and some functional

improvements have been identified for the Brant Sports Complex so that these

facilities can continue to sustain relatively high levels of usage, particularly during

prime time, and future investments should also be based on monitoring of the

condition, future capital maintenance requirements and usage of these facilities;

The Syl Apps Community Centre is a major community hub in the County

supporting a range of multi-use indoor and outdoor facilities and programs

available, indoor turf and tourism activity, and planning for further improvements

should be undertaken to maximize the functionality and capacity of the available

indoor and outdoor spaces;

There is interest in a full-size multi-use indoor (or seasonally covered) artificial turf

facility in the County, and there are no existing municipal facilities of this kind in the

Brant/Brantford region. Development of such a facility should only be considered

under the guidance of the Recreation Master Plan and should be explored firstly on

a regional-level facility partnership basis, and based on monitoring of the level of

usage of the existing indoor turf at Syl Apps, participant data and future feasibility

analysis;

The existing community halls vary in their current condition, usage, programming

and operations, and hold local significance within the settlements where they are

located, while some also serve County-wide and/or tourism and event functions.

The Master Plan should provide an overall framework for future investment

considerations and to guide the County in supporting and enhancing community-

based programming, operations and usage of the community halls;

There is interest in the establishment of dedicated community gymnasium space

and potentially other multi-use indoor physical activity spaces, and the high levels of

community use of school gymnasiums is evidence of demands for such a facility,

which would provide more capacity with expanded availability and range of

programs that can be accommodated. The Master Plan should provide direction for

further review and future consideration of a community-based gymnasium space as

part of the future indoor recreation facility and program offering;



As summarized in this report, there are a range of other active recreation facilities

available at County parks and also interest in additional or new types of indoor and

outdoor recreational facilities, which should be considered under the guidance and

direction of the Master Plan.

9.1.4 Service Delivery, Policies, Partnerships & Community Involvement

Partnerships with local service clubs were identified as an important component in

financing some of the capital improvements to the Brand County parks and recreation

infrastructure. Concerns were noted about the aging composition of these clubs as well as

their falling recruitment and how it might impact future support. A broader theme was

developed regarding improving civic engagement of all citizens. A particular focus on

reaching out to the commuting population was identified. Those latter needs would tend to

be concentrated in the after dinner and weekend times.

The agreement and the multiple policies reviewed for the Recreation Master Plan found a

very workable and sound agreement with the Grant Erie District School Board on Joint Use

of Facilities which reduces duplication by allowing mutually beneficial access to each

parties’ facilities. The facilities are all clearly identified as are the expectations and minimal

fee considerations. The recreation policies reviewed demonstrate a strong understanding of

the policy’s need, development, clarity and completeness. The policies respond to the

years of experience on selected historical perspectives, as well as new and evolving

perspectives around accessing facilities on a fair and balanced basis for all groups and

people within the community. The policies are also well developed in terms of behavioural

expectations, how facilities are allocated and rented, and related perspectives. The User

Fee Policy is particularly well developed in terms of multiple price points, facilities specific

price points and related perspectives that respond to community expectations; needs

aligned with preschool, youth, teens, adults, families; and resident and non-resident

perspectives. User fees assessed are aligned with market values, reflecting specialization,

delivery costs and other inputs.

No significant issues from a master planning perspective were identified within the

agreement or the policies that were reviewed as they establish a sound and workable

foundation for these particular considerations within the Parks and Recreation delivery

mandate and operations in the County of Brant.

The County Official Plan direction and policies regarding parks, recreation and trails are

comprehensive and generally well-connected to the various related land use,

transportation, infrastructure and other policy matters. Some changes and improvements to

the County’s parkland dedication policies should be undertaken based on recent legislative

changes and based on the findings and direction of the Master Plan.



9.1.4 Community Engagement

There is a strong history of community and volunteer involvement in the development and

delivery of parks and recreation facilities, programs and services in the County, and this

provides a strong foundation for the Master Plan development and its future development.

Public and stakeholder communications were identified as an important priority during the

Master Plan consultations, particularly in respect of generating community interest and

volunteer support for projects and programs, scheduling of booked facilities, and as a

resource for planning, organizing, developing and managing specific recreational resources

(e.g. trails, river access, natural areas) for community use.

From the consultation program there is continued strong public interest and participation in

recreation and general consensus that the diverse recreational resources and services

available and natural environment are distinctive features of Brant County quintessential to

the quality of life in the community. From an economic development and tourism

perspective, recreation is also a locally significant and important motivating factor for new

residents moving into the community and for visitors, generating related investment.

9.2 Conclusions

Brant County is well-served with an abundance of parkland and indoor and outdoor

recreation facilities. For the size of community the number and range of facility and

program offerings and amount of parkland and open space is significant, reflecting a high

level of service which in turn has yielded an overall high level of satisfaction among

residents and stakeholders. There are a number of opportunities and challenges identified

relating to maintaining and optimizing the existing inventory of parks and recreation assets

to maximize community benefits and use, changing demographic characteristics of the

growing population, sustaining and enhancing community engagement, building and

fostering partnerships, creating an expanded network of connected trails linking existing

and new residential neighbourhoods and community destinations, and fully realizing the

recreational potential of local natural resources. Several strategic themes have emerged

and are summarized, which will provide a focus for the Recreation Master Plan.

APPENDIX A: County of Brant Parks Inventory of Facilities & Amenities

Park Name Area (ha) Facilities & Amenities Paris Axton Park 0.41 Bean Park 1.62 Bemrose Park 0.45 Cenotaph War Memorial (Paris Cenotaph) 0.09 Charlton Park 3.40 Cobblestone Common 0.02 Forest Drive Park 1.60 Garden of Hope 0.07 Gilston Park 0.09 Grandville Park 3.17 Green Lane Sports Complex & Simply Grand Dog Park 25.11 Jury Street Park 0.13 Kings Ward Park 0.38 Lions Park / Paris Pool and Pete Lavoie Ball Park 10.80 Optimist Park 2.95 Penman's Dam Park 0.87 Rest Acres Ridge Park 1.10 Two Rivers Stadium 1.53 Victoria Park 0.70 Willow Street Park 0.07 Total – Paris 54.56 St. George Arena Park (South Dumfries Community Centre) 2.76 Cenotaph Park 0.09 Centennial Park 0.79 Elliot Field 2.01 Jacob's Woods 4.85 King William Park 2.85 Snowball Park 0.51 Sunny Hill Park 2.22 Total – St. George 16.08 Burford Broadview Park 1.48 Burford Optimist and Lions Park (Burford Community Centre) 6.90 Janice Hunt Memorial Park 0.75 John St. Park 0.28 Lions Centennial Park 22.13 Park Ave. Soccer Park 1.73 Total – Burford 33.27

1

Park Name Area (ha) Facilities & Amenities Oakhill Foxhill Heights Park 0.73 Oakhill Heights Park 0.33 Poplar Hills Park 0.60 Total – Oakhill 1.66 Mount Pleasant Mount Pleasant Park 2.94 Mount Pleasant Nature Park 10.20 Total – Mount Pleasant 13.14 Harrisburg Harrisburg Ball Park 1.95 Harrisburg Church Park 0.37 Total – Harrisburg 2.32 Glen Morris Eric Thomlinson Access Point / Wray and Marilyn Cline Park 0.93 Glen Morris Ball Park (Rising Park) 1.06 Total – Glen Morris 1.99 Oakland Oakland Community Centre Park 1.70 Scotland Optimist Park 5.02 New Durham New Durham Ball Park 1.77 Cainsville Brant/Onondaga Park 6.20 Onondaga Onondaga Ball Park 0.59

Grand Total – County of Brant 138.20

Baseball DiamondBasketball Court Canoe Launch Disc GolfMemorial StatueOpen SpacePicnic AreaPlaygroundSkate Park

Soccer PitchesSplashpadTennis CourtToboggan HillTrailsUrban Park Volleyball Court Washrooms

2

APPENDIX B Detailed Consultation Summary

1

A. Stakeholder Focus Groups & Interviews

Fifteen stakeholder focus group sessions and interviews with over 50 participants were

conducted by GSP Group and F.J. Galloway Associates involving presentations to the

Community Services Committee and Senior Management Team, interviews with Council

members, focus group meetings with public agencies, facility user groups, program providers,

service clubs and County staff, and facility tours with staff.

Each session began with introductions and a brief overview provided by the facilitators

followed by a discussion guided by the following questions:

What are the key strengths, attributes and assets of the parks and recreation

services currently available in Brant County?

What concerns, gaps or areas for improvement would you identify with respect to

parks and recreation services currently available in Brant County?

What priorities would you identify for new or redeveloped parks and recreation

facilities and services in Brant County over the next 5 years and 6 to 10 years?

At the end of each session, a brief summary was provided by the facilitators including an

outline of next steps in the process and timing for the project.

The following material provides the summary of input received.

1. Community Groups / Associations, Parks and Recreation Advisory Committees,

Service Clubs, Arts / Culture / Heritage / Tourism


Parks and facilities in Burford well used

Burford Community Centre as multi-use facility in one location

Burford Lions Park and trail (approximately 5km)

History of volunteer/service club contributions and fundraising

Tourism opportunities - culture and heritage – e.g. rail trail “Brock’s Route”, popular

walking / cycling route, river access, regional tourism association working with other

groups to improve or develop new opportunities, agri-tourism experience and

educational components, local marquee events and festivals well attended, Brant

Studio Tour, Bite of Brant, Taste of Glenhyrst, Burford Fair, Paris Fair, Christmas

events, etc. – recognized value/strength of the region, funds available through Hamilton

Halton Brant Tourism Association

Historical assets – Harley Museum, post office, armouries building, Onondaga town hall

Paris Museum is thriving


2


Tennis courts (3 courts) in Burford not well used, no tennis club – could be re-purposed

/ used for shuffleboard or other activities

Extend / connect County trails to City of Brantford trails

Challenges of operating and sustaining service clubs, attracting new members and

volunteers, onerous requirements / red tape (e.g. insurance requirements, liability,

limitations on how funds used if fundraising under lottery license, etc.)

Note: Burford Lions currently has approximately 24 to 28 members

River access – some are privately owned

Lack of funding for arts and culture

Seniors are organizing in Burford but need assistance / support


County support and resources to assist, sustain and grow community volunteer groups

and service clubs, streamline processes for project involvement, partnership and

fundraising initiatives, etc.

Need well-defined projects to create opportunities for community volunteer support and

fundraising, groups are looking for projects to support

Need signage, washrooms and other supports for trails and cycling routes

Identify and market unique places and activities that Brant has to offer, leverage

regional tourism opportunities, take regional perspective and approach to tourism

planning

Create a local hub for arts and culture and resources / support to assist groups with

obtaining grant funding – could establish an arts / culture / tourism / event start up fund

to assist groups in leveraging other available funding opportunities, assist groups to

navigate fundraising opportunities

Work with revitalization committee – tourism planning for Burford

St. Anthony Daniels School – need to bring the building up to code and establish

programming and activities

Explore / expand potential partnership opportunities to support program availability to

residents and greater participation – e.g. Six Nations lacrosse program

2. Indoor and Outdoor Facility Users / Sports and Activity Groups


Financial assistance programs – County program, Arnold Anderson Sport Fund,

Canadian Tire Jumpstart

Paris lawn bowling club – growing participation, fitness and socialization, community

engagement, nice green with lights, well-maintained, helpful County staff

Arenas are well used – BSC, St. George, Burford

Syl Apps indoor turf and fitness centre well used, not just sports also walking groups

Green Lane co-ed softball and church league – all ball diamonds well used


3

Increasing participation in curling – rink is located at Paris Fairgrounds, owned by

Agricultural Society

Quality sports programs, attracting high participation and interest from areas outside of

the County

Tennis club – started 3 years ago, participation has doubled each year, currently at

capacity for available courts, only OTA club in the region

Softball registrations increasing across all age groups, children, youth and adult,

expecting continued growth, partly due to consolidation of associations


Burford arena – aging facility but making it work, need team room and storage space

Lack of ice time availability, issues booking ice at BSC (e.g. for hockey try-outs), no

priority to groups that use the most ice time / revenue generators

Fees for ice time are higher than some adjoining counties

Lack of communication / contact with facility users or opportunities for groups to provide

input to facility needs / improvements

Complex rules and requirements for volunteer groups and fundraising / sponsorships

Concern that ice time being rented to out-of-County users, County groups should be

accommodated first

Accessibility and structural issues at Paris lawn bowling clubhouse, need to resolve by

2025

Need for more ball diamonds

Some noise complaints from new development areas / residents moving into areas near

sports fields

Lack of capacity to keep up with growth in lawn bowling club – used to have 20 greens

now only 8 greens, also interest in year-round lawn bowling (indoor) – could it be

programmed from Syl Apps – “short mat” bowling

Need for additional ice time in St. George – arena could be twinned in future

Many ringette players going to Brantford – lack of program/capacity in Brant?

Waiting list for swimming lessons in Brantford at Wayne Gretzky Centre pool, no indoor

pool facility in Brant (could be considered in Paris or St. George?) – many surrounding

areas would also come to Brant for swimming

No soccer fields with lighting in County, need for more soccer pitches in St. George –

senior soccer field and mini fields, need to keep smaller fields local – parents will drive

for older kids but programs for young children need to stay local to the community to

maintain and grow participation – a larger field at Sunny Hill would allow cross-field

configuration but current field is not large enough for cross-field play

Cost of planned improvements to Paris Lions Park ball diamonds – should have

consolidated ball diamonds to Green Lane Sports Complex

Demographic and labour force considerations – people moving to County are looking

for specific resources and amenities that may be missing – e.g. indoor pool, fieldhouse,

etc.

Fields at Green Lane Sports Complex not big enough for all age groups


4

Not enough capacity at Syl Apps, fully booked

House league soccer has to find its own fields, no capacity on County fields

Adult soccer team from Brantford renting field in Brant – need to prioritize local

kids/youth programs first

Growth in soccer is outpacing population growth, programs attracting kids from other

areas outside of County, quality programs

High use of school gymnasiums for indoor soccer and other sports – indicator of need

for municipal gym and new/additional indoor turf facilities

Concerns about Brantford teams / programs booking ice at BSC

BSC nice design but not functional for Paris Mounties

- Sight line issues for spectators / camera coverage

- Too many entrances – can’t sell tickets / control admission

- Small dressing room

- Insufficient seating

- No first aid

Lighting issues at Paris tennis courts, need storage facility, school bathrooms are

closed / not available for club use

Ball diamonds – drainage problems at Paris Lions Park diamond, not enough parking,

losing Syl Apps diamond, struggling to find available diamonds

Losing some school diamonds – Princeton, Old Sacred Heart


Communication between County and user groups – e.g. organize annual meetings to

review booking requests, planned facility scheduling and maintenance / repair needs

and activities, scheduling changes, policy changes, fees, etc.

Prioritize activities for children, availability, scheduling, fees and booking policies and

practices should reflect this priority to kids activities first

Resources and support for volunteer sports and recreation program providers,

fundraising initiatives

Address program / capacity constraints with additional sports fields / lighting, new

facilities – soccer, softball and potentially lawn bowling depending on continued growth

of program

Consider new soccer complex / tournament hub – artificial turf, lighting, indoor

fieldhouse or seasonal dome

- There is room at Green Lane to add lights, artificial turf

- Long term need to look at potential new soccer complex / facility – potentially at

BSC to make it a multi-use complex

- Consider separation / consolidation of ball diamonds and soccer pitches in two

locations – e.g. ball diamonds at Green Lane, soccer at BSC

- Total need: 4 to 5 full size soccer fields, 1 indoor or dome, 1 artificial turf, 1 with

lights, 2 or 3 other outdoor fields

Ball diamond in St. George could be converted to soccer / mini fields?


5

Reserve prime time hours for kids programs only, adult programs only if kids programs

fully accommodated

Maintaining local access to smaller sports fields in communities for younger age groups

/ programs

Consider municipal gymnasium at BSC or other location

Need to resolve changeroom issues at BSC – e.g. co-ed programs (see Ayr arena

example), small size of rooms (using 2 rooms per team currently) and need dedicated

room and team meeting space for Paris Mounties

3. Public Agencies and Partners – Grand Erie District School Board


Joint use agreement seems to be working well, many people are using the school gyms

for recreational activities, provides value for students

- Paris District High School (2 gyms)

- Cobblestone Elementary School (double gym)

- North Paris Elementary School (removed stage to enlarge gym)

Gymnastics clubs using school gymnasium, shared equipment provided by gymnastics

club

Basketball major user of school gyms

Tennis courts on school property, re-surfaced by County, used jointly by school and

tennis club

Not-for-profit youth programs subsidized through community use of schools program

High school uses BSC for hockey


School closures reduces access to gym facilities unless facility acquired by municipality

or other organization that will maintain community use

No municipal gymnasium space – heavy reliance on school facilities

Burford tennis courts dilapidated, former high school now elementary school, no longer

used or maintained by school but could be restored by County for community use if

demands


Potential new school in south Paris and could expand Cobblestone school in future –

opportunity for additional community gymnasium space

Opportunities for County / School Board partnerships – e.g. shared library space,

artificial turf sports fields, gymnasiums, daycare spaces, multi-purpose rooms, tennis

courts, etc. and funding (e.g. municipalities can get Trillium grants but school boards

cannot)

Programming opportunities at school facilities – e.g. seniors hall walkers, tennis club,

gymnasium sports and fitness programs, etc.


6

4. River / Trails / Cycling Groups


Good trails in County for walking / hiking / running and mountain biking

Tourism resource and attracting people from outside the County

Paris Wiki page – info on existing trails / routes

Paris Lions Park trail access

Great natural assets, habitats

Concerns, Gaps and Weaknesses

Lack of signage / wayfinding and other facilities (washrooms, parking, maps,

emergency and problem reporting contact information, benches, garbage cans,

regulation of use – i.e. not motorized) for trails and cycling routes

Some trails on private lands – concerns about future access / availability

Need resources / support to start club(s)

Lack of winter activities – e.g. cross-county skiing

Need bike racks at outdoor pool

Wildlife concerns – unleased dogs on trails

Steep stairs at dam take-out on river, consider hand winch for boat raising

Some County roads are not suitable for cycling but are identified as routes – liability

concern

Some concerns about potential trail user conflicts with increased usage and lack of

posted rules and by-laws, particularly with motorized and non-motorized trail uses (e.g.

ATV’s)


Trail supports, marketing, mapping, linkages, facilities, community engagement in

volunteer trail patrols / monitoring of trail conditions, regulatory signage and

enforcement

Consider County acquisition / easements for existing private trails

Support for establishing walking / cycling and other trails program / club

On-road and off-road cycling routes

Need boat launch / take-out improvements, consider usage fee for outfitters to help

fund improvements

Consider County rental of equipment – bikes, cross-country ski equipment, dragon

boats

Seniors outreach e.g. cycling without age program

Identify and prioritize trail projects and allocate available funding – some funding

available through Development Charges funds for recreational trails and active

transportation infrastructure (e.g. bike lanes, etc.)

Priorities for active transportation include Rest Acres Road and Burford connection,

other potential future opportunities include Watt’s Pond Road, Brant-Oxford Road (2018

project by Oxford County), Governor’s Road (cyclists from Hamilton area to Grand


7

River and back), Paris to Ancaster on-road route, East River Road (narrow), Brant-

Waterloo Road, St. George Road, Powerline Road (partially developed in Brantford)

North Paris trail linkages

Connections to Oxford County (updating Transportation Master Plan), Waterloo Region,

Six Nations

Education and community engagement regarding active transportation

Mountain biking trails (e.g. Barker’s Bush, Jacobs Woods, Watts Pond Area) –

approximately 50 participants in Paris and many visitors from elsewhere – opportunities

on County owned lands

Address staffing and other resource needs for trails system maintenance with

expansion of trail network, promote community stewardship

5. Parks and Recreation Facility Managers, Operations and Program Staff, and Master

Plan Project Team


Volunteer contributions – service clubs, program providers, historic capital

contributions, fundraising

Community use of schools, new joint use agreements with School Boards

Major facilities have been brought up to current standards (e.g. accessibility)

Outdoor pool – high quality facility, well used

Diverse programs provided by County directly, book school facilities and program

gymnasiums – well attended, popular, some have waiting lists; also programming in

libraries, after school programs (recreation oriented) – 5 school locations

Gymnastics program is always full; no private gymnastics facilities in County (one

private club in Brantford and in Woodstock)

Most evening programs are free, some fee-based programs and funding assistance is

available – “Can we help” program, “Every kid count” and “Jumpstart”; fees reviewed

annually

Online registration – updating system – Class system discontinued

Program coordinators to help groups run their own programs – e.g. hockey camp,

tennis; also partnerships – e.g. with river outfitters and Pedlars & Paddlers

Good use of available spaces in communities – e.g. some groups such as guides and

scouts use churches (and schools)

Youth feedback on programs indicates things are working well in schools

Most programs are co-ed / gender neutral

Strong transition in softball participation from youth to adult

Playgrounds are in good condition, independent inspections are completed every third

year, planned accessible play equipment in Burford, future playground in St. George

with some accessibility features


Signage / wayfinding


8

Lack of implementation of Trails Master Plan, needs to be updated

Additional staffing capacity needs at major facilities particularly during peak usage times

School use is after 6pm only during school year; custodial fee on weekends for staffing

Funding and staffing limits programming / capacity (e.g. after school programs)


Need to revisit affiliate program – some discount but not for ice

Some day camps use City of Brantford pools since there is no indoor pool facility in

Brant

Waiting lists for swimming lessons on Wayne Gretzky Centre in Brantford; outdoor pool

time limited for programming

Lack of storage space in schools to run community programs

Would like to use Syl Apps indoor field for community programs but booked for soccer

Some challenges with part time staff recruitment to staff programs, aquatics, etc.

Seating capacity / sight-line issues at Brant Sports Complex arena

Resource requirements for 7 advisory committees, meetings scheduled on a bi-monthly

or quarterly basis, mainly information updates, membership includes residents and 1 or

2 Council members on 4-year term

Lack of available lands to provide additional sports fields

No capacity/resources to manage County-owned natural areas after acquisition of the

land

Burford hall is not well used, could potentially be used for fitness programming

Splash pad in Paris Lions Park is older (converted from a wading pool in 2002-2003),

has had some problems and is not optimally located

Some issues with consistency in quality and maintenance of sports fields – some

maintenance completed by the community, some by contractors – consider building in-

house capacity for all turf maintenance to improve quality and capacity of sports fields

Capacity of staffing for year-round operations – only one parks lead hand, increased

staffing needs for outdoor recreation facilities


Define needs and engage community and service groups and partners in projects and

initiatives that will address current and future needs

Update old and formalize informal policies, guidelines and approaches regarding

partnerships, community/volunteer agreements, contributions, etc. (e.g. outdated

affiliate program)

Tourism / sports tourism opportunities – define and market – e.g. tournaments, cycling,

arts and culture, outdoor adventure, rivers; related supports (e.g. accommodations)

Youth centre at Syl Apps

Marketing and program registrations through social media and mobile technology

Gymnasium for daytime programming – e.g. seniors, parent / tot

Storage space in schools – inventory and secure equipment

Barrier-free programming, gender equity and universal change/washrooms

Increase capacity of after-school programs


9

Investigate alternatives for advisory committees, review what other communities are

doing

Make Brant Sports Complex more multi-use – demands for indoor walking track,

gymnasium space, social/programming spaces, there are no kitchen facilities in the

building – undertake a feasibility review for future expansion

Expansion of multi-use outdoor sports fields/capacity at Green Lane Sports Complex

and for the St. George area (property at west end)

Consider expansion/redevelopment of splash pad at Paris Lions Park

May be future potential for gym/complex on School Board property in St. George

Consider potential dog park location in St. George

Consider potential indoor playground / kindergym (e.g. space available at SDCC)

Potential expansion of Syl Apps skate park to accommodate BMX bikes

Opportunities to acquire and formalize passive recreation in natural areas and

walking/hiking/mountain biking trails

- Watt’s Pond in North Paris

- Barker’s Bush (Nith Peninsula) in Paris

- Jacob’s Woods in St. George

- Mt. Pleasant

- Oakland woodlot

- Oakhill Drive natural area

Need policies for use of cash-in-lieu of parkland funds


Consider pickleball at Poplar Hills Park – storage available

Capacity of supporting facilities for high traffic volumes for river access and tourism,

need multi-lingual signage

6. County of Brant Senior Management Team


Local events, fall fairs, fairgrounds in Paris and Burford

Three arenas are good

Radial Trail is a good network

Paris Lions Park is excellent

Good recreation spaces, resources may be too focused in youth activities and parks

and could be better balanced

Joint use agreement with School Boards and value to community


Currently lacking in policy for trails with regards to new development and dedication

requirements

Emergency access to trails – need to review standards and best practices

Accessibility standards and applicability to trails of different standards of development

(e.g. paved multi-use vs. nature trails)


10

Reliant on GRCA / conservation areas for trails and outdoor passive recreation, outdoor

education, etc.

Only one dog park

Services, activities and programs for seniors – what are retirement homes already

providing?

Concern about neighbourhoods that are deficient/experience gaps

Certain program areas might be lacking, parks may be lacking in genera

Higher service and quality expectations with continued growth


Is the County competing with or duplicating potential private or other service providers

in program delivery?

Strong non-profit support and community sponsorship of parks and facilities, need to

maintain support, provides significant benefits to community


Waterfront lands acquisition – need strategy and integration with downtown Paris – the

County may have surplus lands that could help to fund acquisition of land along river for

public access

Review of trails and sites that are priorities for acquisition, create a trails hierarchy,

diversity of trail experiences

Development in downtown and County owned lands can lead to further trail/park

development

Cycling tourism – bike-friendly facilities, marketing of routes and destinations

Land acquisition policies to guide and support decision-making

Naturalization of passive areas, native prairie species, floriculture

Natural areas acquisition and management

Educational opportunities in parks and natural areas

Public safety – e.g. trail standards, emergency access, signage of dams, safety plans

for trails

Consider future need for gymnasium – review usage of school facilities, maximize

Restore old Paris town hall

Need recommendations for where parks should go in the future and what type/size of

park

Opportunities to make facilities more multi-use, incorporate other facilities / services,

create community hubs

Need to take regional view of services, how to maximize benefits to residents in

partnership with adjoining municipalities and other service providers

7. County of Brant Council

Five members of Council were available and participated in one on one interviews; in

addition, others participated with some comments provided at the initial presentation to the

Community Services Committee. The following is a consolidated summary of the combined


11

input received across all Council member interviews and the Community Services

Committee meeting.


Larger parks and major facilities in Paris, Burford and St. George

Community volunteer and service club contributions – e.g. South Brant Lions Club owns

and maintains park on McKenzie Lane – large site, historical significance, monument

installed, rented for picnics / events; strong Optimist club in Paris

Trails well used (e.g. Oakland / Scotland), good rails to trails projects

Rivers and related recreation and tourism opportunities, outdoor adventure, canoe

launches (some not County owned)

Oakland Athletic Association – registers kids for t-ball, makes it affordable

County service office and community centre in Oakland – community centre well used

Adequate / abundant parks and facilities overall but may change with growth which will

require additional capacity

Accessible playground at Paris Lions Park, playgrounds in general are well used

Arenas / ice-time well used, winter sports are well captured

Well-supplied with sports fields, good quality

Good variety of parks, facilities and programs

Green Lane Sports Complex as hub for outdoor activities – softball, soccer, disc golf,

beach volleyball, dog park

Highway 403 and strong regional transportation connections / access - Brantford,

Hamilton, Cambridge, Caledonia

GRCA trails – SC Johnson Trail

Syl Apps re-purposed to indoor turf, well-used, hub of recreational activity in Paris

Outdoor aquatics – splash pads and outdoor pool well used

Paris Lions Park bandshell / amphitheatre – used every week during summer

Keeping up with local park needs in new neighbourhoods, meeting growth needs, but

mostly smaller parks in new areas

Outdoor rinks and volunteers who create and maintain them

Good community hall in Mount Pleasant

Mount Pleasant nature park, operated by Optimist Club

Scotland soccer field, operated by Optimist Club

Airport Community Hall is accessible, also used by Brantford residents for private

events (less expensive to rent than city facilities)


Most of the recreational facilities and opportunities are in Paris, other parts of the

County not as well served but do have large population numbers too – e.g. no splash

pad in Mount Pleasant

Challenges for volunteer groups and service clubs to get funding assistance and

sustain members / volunteers


12

Field not level at Oakland Park, works for t-ball and softball but not soccer

Lack of play equipment for older children at Oakland Park

Losing Farringdon Park (Tutela Heights) in annexation to City of Brantford

Onondaga Community Hall, designated heritage building, County owned, programmed

by community group – seniors group using the hall, some issues with the building

Limited use of park in Onondaga

Some neighbour issues / complaints with multi-purpose pad in Foxhill Park – could it be

located elsewhere in the park?

Will County have to take over South Brant Lions Park in future if the club cannot

maintain it?

East Oakland pond – underdeveloped recreational resource for fishing, boating, etc.

Need to address gender-neutral washroom / changeroom facilities

No transit, need to ensure recreation is accessible to those without cars

New residents from larger cities have high expectations of range and quality of facilities

in Brant

Lack of opportunities for seniors – e.g. indoor walking track

Some feelings of isolation / exclusion in parts of the County – e.g. south east and south

west corners of Brant, those in south east tend to travel to Caledonia or Hamilton for

certain facilities and services, going to Brantford for minor hockey

Lack of seating capacity at BSC as tournament venue – losing tournaments

Community trail and sidewalk connections – address gaps and connections to

destinations

Paris Museum needs identification and wayfinding support

Demands for indoor pool facility but concerns about operating costs, geographic access

and competing with pools in adjoining areas that are used by County residents and may

be closer

Concern about discussion of re-locating Paris library

Need for larger community parks in new neighbourhoods rather than many small parks,

parks system is too piecemeal

Too much noise in BSC meeting rooms while ice is in use


Consider splash pad in Mount Pleasant, added more land to park

River access points / canoe launches need supporting facilities (washrooms, signage,

storage, parking, etc.)

Consider acquisition of additional land (2 to 3 acres) for soccer fields in Oakland, across

from community centre

Communication and promotion of available activities, programs and facilities

Potential County acquisition of South Brant Lions Park

Additional play equipment in Oakland for older kids

Renewal of Onondaga Park

Providing safe, comfortable places for all

Resolve changeroom issues at BSC / gender neutral facilities


13

Free and low-cost recreation opportunities

Address the needs of growing and changing communities, resident, labour force and

business retention and attraction

Transportation to access recreation

Review cost recovery at arenas and sports fields

Trail connections, passive recreation opportunities, passive / nature parks

Co-location and multi-use facilities – e.g. indoor pool and/or fieldhouse and/or

gymnasium and/or indoor walking track to make BSC true “complex” with something for

everyone, all ages and broad interests

Complete ball diamond upgrades at Paris Lions Park for younger age groups, this may

leave more room behind the diamonds for other uses / facilities

Trail connections – e.g. Rest Acres Road connection to BSC, bike lanes, connections to

Cambridge, Brantford with Paris – tie it together, need signage, wayfinding and other

supports for trails, connect downtown Paris with trails, river access, parks, variety along

trails, regional connections, etc.

Syl Apps new boat launch / river access, could expand skatepark

Aging community halls – need upgrades or replacement, address accessibility and

capacity for range and size of programs and usage, e.g. consider new community hall

in Cainsville, add 100 more to capacity (also replace fire hall)

Work with developers to create new trails and connect the network, traffic calming and

pedestrian friendly design, bike lanes and cycling opportunities

Need visioning of what each community wants to be

Showcase local history and culture, develop arts and cultural programming, tourism,

heritage, potential opportunities with Paris old town hall and theatre – review

accessibility, fundraising and programming / recreational opportunities

Could acquire more land to expand Green Lane Sports Complex

Maintain creativity in parks – variety of amenities, themes, stewardship

May need dog parks in Burford, St. George

B. Community Workshop

An advertised public workshop was held at the Brant Sports Complex on October 6, 2016.

The purpose of the workshop was to present information about the project and gather input

from members of the community. Fourteen (14) residents as well as the Mayor and several

County staff attended the workshop and provided the following input:


Parks, recreation and natural resources – area is well serviced with many natural

features and attributes that provide unique and diverse recreational experiences

Good range of recreational programs

Paris Lions Park, amphitheatre, outdoor pools, Burford Lions Park

Community special events, Christmas parade, fall fairs

Green Lane Sports Complex and dog park


14

River access and activities, outfitters

Syl Apps re-purposing to indoor turf, hub of community activity, skateboard park

Contributions of community sponsors and service clubs / organizations

Burford Community Centre – multi-use, community hub


Facilities have been kept up-to-date, prepared to respond to growth

Trails

Pickleball – growing interest, played outdoor in airport area

Tennis – great for seniors, lessons for kids

County staff support and programs, responsive

Hockey and other ice sports / activities well served

Library programs

Concert series / local theatre (old town hall) / artist studios

Growth of soccer and opportunities to expand, quality of soccer turf

“Friday files” for school communication

Population growth – opportunities with new development to update / renew parks and

facilities

Sunny Hill park well used

Good connections between indoor and outdoor spaces / facilities at Burford

Community Centre


Energy efficiency and green facilities – e.g. tennis court and sports field lighting

Meeting growth needs, lack of outdoor fitness programming / activities

Lack of indoor pool and potential future needs and costs for indoor aquatics

Jacob’s Woods Park (St. George) – could be naturalized

King William Park in St. George, picnic shelter

North driveway at South Dumfries Community Centre

Transportation to facilities and services, size of County and people don’t want to

travel far for children’s programs, affordability, more information about

accessibility of programs in all areas

No therapeutic recreation

Need more capacity for softball and soccer; sometimes have to go to Brantford

for fields, sometimes cutting teams

Community use of school facilities constrained (e.g. daytime use)

Aging volunteer base

Community gardens / gardening club – connect people with program, marketing

Need trails and cycling supports – signage, mapping, washrooms, benches, bike

racks, bike lanes / cycling routes, waste and recycling containers, no trails on

west side of Grand River, connection to downtown Paris, regulatory signage and

enforcement (e.g. permitted uses of trails, dogs on leashes, etc.), year round

maintenance


15

Safety of river take-out area at the dam

No municipal gymnasium / health / wellness hub / indoor walking track

Not enough tennis courts / availability


Re-purposing older parks based on current and future local needs /

demographics

Communications plan, marketing and awareness of available facilities and

programs, how to get there, how to encourage and recruit new volunteers, use of

social media / technology; digital electronic signs

Natural resources management and recreational use opportunities, supports for

trails along Grand River – linkages, maps, washrooms, etc.

Missing facilities that may be needed in the future – indoor walking track, indoor

pool, indoor playground, gymnasium, fieldhouse, indoor racquet sports

Trails, optimize use of available lands and corridors (e.g. former rail lines)

Equalize greenspace across new development areas, maintain parkland

provision levels with population growth

Tune into future community needs for programs and facilities and plan proactively

for meeting those needs, small communities need grassroots approach

Opportunities for all ages, accessibility, seniors programs

Environmentally friendly, sustainable facilities

Transit / transportation to programs and facilities – future: self-driving cars

Year-round opportunities

Careful consideration of future park and facility locations, with resident input

Increase budget allocations to parks and recreation with continued growth

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

Trail Master Plan for the County of Brant

- 43 -

Crossing Improvements Portage Area with Nearby Parking

Pedestrian Bridges over Nith River

Conceptual Future Trail Links

Figure 18: Individual Community Map - Paris

APPENDIX C


- 44 -

Individual Community: Burford Within the community of Burford, located in the western portion of the County of Brant, proposed additions to the current trail network include:

• Trailhead to be located at Lions Park, providing a sending off point for Trail Route 14 – Apps Mill Nature Trail which terminates at the Apps Mill Conservation Area.

Recommendations:

1. Investigate the feasibility of the construction of a bridge across Whitemans Creek for greater pedestrian safety when entering the park.

Trailhead at Lions Park

NTS

To Apps Mill Conservation Area

Figure 19: Individual Community Map - Burford

APPENDIX C


- 45 -

Individual Community: St. George St. George, located in the north eastern portion of the County, has a number of proposed routes contained within and travelling through the community. Route 13, which follows Blue Lake Road connects St. George with the Cambridge to Paris Rail Trail and the Grand River. Route 8, located along St. George Road, connects the City of Brantford with the Region of Waterloo. This route passes Sunny Hill Park, a major recreation hub within the County. Also proposed in St. George is an on-road trail connecting Sunny Hill Park with Elliot Field Park on Blue Lake Road, as well as an off-road multi-use trail from Elliot Field Park to St. George Road, just north of German School Road. Recommendations:

1. Develop a trail from Elliot Field Park through the industrial area to link to future residential areas in the McLean Road vicinity.

2. Construct a paved on-road bicycle lane along Park Road between Powerline

Road and Govenor’s Road, east to St. George Road, then north through the village of St. George continuing through to the County of Brant border.

To Brantford

To Region of Waterloo

Figure 20: Individual Community Map – St. George

APPENDIX C


- 46 -

Individual Community: Mount Pleasant Mount Pleasant, located in the southern portion of the County, has a number of proposed enhancements to the current trail network. These include:

• Trailhead at Mount Pleasant Park with parking, trail kiosk with information and mapping and interpretive signage. This will allow for a staging area for those using either of the trails;

• An equestrian trailhead and staging area is proposed to be located at the Mount Pleasant Nature Park for easy access to the southern portion of the L.E. & N Trail, proposed to be an equestrian area along the current trail right-of-way;

• Linkages between the T.H. & B and the L.E. & N Rail Trails and the Mount Pleasant Nature Park are proposed to be both on-road and off-road linkages to accommodate all types of trail users.

Recommendations:

1. Improve access to the T.H. & B. from Mount Pleasant Road, Ellis Avenue and Burtch Road by providing a sidewalk or trail constructed in the road easement, providing improved pedestrian safety.

To Scotland

To Oakland

To Brantford

Figure 21: Individual Community Map – Mount Pleasant

APPENDIX C

recreation master plan...developing a new recreation master plan to establish a sustainable...

Documents